| Literature DB >> 29565305 |
Adeline Jacquet1, Cécile Cottet-Rousselle2, Josiane Arnaud3,4, Kevin Julien Saint Amand5, Raoua Ben Messaoud6, Marine Lénon7, Christine Demeilliers8, Jean-Marc Moulis9,10.
Abstract
The impact of chronic cadmium exposure and slow accumulation on the occurrence and development of diabetes is controversial for human populations. Islets of Langerhans play a prominent role in the etiology of the disease, including by their ability to secrete insulin. Conversion of glucose increase into insulin secretion involves mitochondria. A rat model of pancreatic β-cells was exposed to largely sub-lethal levels of cadmium cations applied for the longest possible time. Cadmium entered cells at concentrations far below those inducing cell death and accumulated by factors reaching several hundred folds the basal level. The mitochondria reorganized in response to the challenge by favoring fission as measured by increased circularity at cadmium levels already ten-fold below the median lethal dose. However, the energy charge and respiratory flux devoted to adenosine triphosphate synthesis were only affected at the onset of cellular death. The present data indicate that mitochondria participate in the adaptation of β-cells to even a moderate cadmium burden without losing functionality, but their impairment in the long run may contribute to cellular dysfunction, when viability and β-cells mass are affected as observed in diabetes.Entities:
Keywords: bioenergetics; cadmium; image analysis; mitochondrial morphology; mitochondrial network; sub-lethal exposure; toxicological mechanism
Year: 2018 PMID: 29565305 PMCID: PMC6027415 DOI: 10.3390/toxics6020020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Toxics ISSN: 2305-6304
Figure 1Viability of INS-1 cells in the presence of cadmium. The fractions of viable and death committed cells after 72 h of cadmium exposure were measured by flow cytometry after FluoProbe 488-Annexin V and PI labeling. Only above 2.5 μM was the fraction of viable cells significantly altered. * ANOVA test for live cells p < 0.05 vs. 0 μM Cd2+ (n = 4).
Figure 2Cadmium uptake by INS-1 cells. The amount of cadmium in washed cells was measured by inductively-coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) after 72 h of cadmium exposure and normalized to the protein concentration. * ANOVA test, p < 0.001 vs. 0 μM Cd2+ (n = 3).
Figure 3Selected images showing the effect of sub-lethal doses of cadmium on INS-1 cells mitochondria. Mitochondrial morphology was followed by staining a mitochondrial protein of the matrix, aconitase (green). The nucleus was stained by PI (red). INS-1 cells were treated for 96 h with (a) 0 and (b) 2 μM CdCl2. Scale bars 10 μm.
Figure 4Box Plots showing the distribution of circularity (a) and skeletal lengths (b) of the mitochondrial network after 96 h of exposure to cadmium. * Kruskal–Wallis test p < 0.05 for the indicated groups compared to the reference one (0). The boundaries are the 25th and 75th percentiles and the median and error bars are plotted.
Figure 5ATP/(ADP + AMP) ratios in INS-1 cells exposed to cadmium. (a) INS-1 cells were exposed to the indicated concentrations of cadmium for 72 h in the complete growth medium, and the cellular concentrations of nucleotides were measured as described in Section 2.4. A t-test was applied to compare each group to the non-exposed one. * p = 0.02, n = 9 for each group; (b) After the cadmium treatment, cells were pre-incubated for 1 h in KRBH buffer supplemented with 2.8 mM glucose, and then for another hour in the same medium (black bars) and with 16.7 mM glucose (grey bars); n = 7 for each group.
Figure 6Respiration of INS-1 cells after 72 h-exposure to CdCl2. (a) Respiration rates were measured as described in Section 2.5 and the slope ratios [(basal – oligomycin)/basal] were calculated for each cadmium treatment group (n = 3); (b) The same experiment was carried out in KRBH buffer supplemented with either 16.7 or 2.8 mM glucose (n = 3–5). The ratio of the values obtained for each series are plotted. * One-way Anova p values of 0.013 (1 μM) and 0.002 (2.5 μM) as compared to the control group.