Exposure to organophosphates reduces the expression of neurotrophic factors in neonatal rat brain regions: similarities and differences in the effects of chlorpyrifos and diazinon on the fibroblast growth factor superfamily.
OBJECTIVES: We administered two organophosphate pesticides, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, to neonatal rats on postnatal days 1-4, using doses below the threshold for systemic toxicity or growth impairment, and spanning the threshold for barely detectable cholinesterase inhibition: 1 mg/kg/day chlorpyrifos and 1 or 2 mg/kg/day diazinon.
METHODS: Using microarrays, we then examined the regional expression of mRNAs encoding the FGFs and their receptors (FGFRs) in the forebrain and brain stem.
RESULTS: Chlorpyrifos and diazinon both markedly suppressed fgf20 expression in the forebrain and fgf2 in the brain stem, while elevating brain stem fgfr4 and evoking a small deficit in brain stem fgf22. However, they differed in that the effects on fgf2 and fgfr4 were significantly larger for diazinon, and the two agents also showed dissimilar, smaller effects on fgf11, fgf14, and fgfr1.
CONCLUSIONS: The fact that there are similarities but also notable disparities in the responses to chlorpyrifos and diazinon, and that robust effects were seen even at doses that do not inhibit cholinesterase, supports the idea that organophosphates differ in their propensity to elicit developmental neurotoxicity, unrelated to their anticholinesterase activity. Effects on neurotrophic factors provide a mechanistic link between organophosphate injury to developing neurons and the eventual, adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.
KEY WORDS: brain development, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, fibroblast growth factor, fibroblast growth factor receptors, microarrays, neurotoxicity, organophosphate insecticides. Environ Health Perspect 115:909-916 (2007). doi:10.1289/ehp.9901 available via http://dx.doi.org/ [Online 27 February 2007]
The developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphate pesticides represents a biological conundrum that has important ramifications for human exposures (for review see Colborn 2006; Costa 2006; Landrigan 2001; Mileson et al. 1998; Slotkin 2005; Weiss et al. 2004). All of the organophosphates produce systemic toxicity by inhibiting acetylcholinesterase, resulting in overt symptoms of cholinergic hyperstimulation; these effects have therefore been assumed to be the common mechanism underlying adverse developmental consequences (Mileson et al. 1998). However, the fetus and neonate recover from cholinesterase inhibition much more quickly than adults (Chakraborti et al. 1993; Lassiter et al. 1998), yet display greater overall toxicity and damage to the central nervous system (for review see Pope 1999; Slotkin 2004, 2005). Indeed, evidence accumulating over the past decade implicates a host of other mechanisms in the developmental neurotoxicity of the organophosphates that depend instead upon the direct targeting of events specific to the developing brain (for review see Barone et al. 2000; Pope 1999; Rice and Barone 2000; Slotkin 2004). Importantly, many of these processes are vulnerable to organophosphates at doses below those necessary to elicit signs of systemic toxicity and even below the threshold for significant inhibition of cholinesterase (Pope 1999; Slotkin 2004, 2005).
Although a wide variety of intermediate events in brain development connect the initial effects of organophosphates on neural cell differentiation to the eventual synaptic and behavioral defects (Pope 1999; Slotkin 2004, 2005), little information is currently available about specific cellular mechanisms that render the developing brain so vulnerable to these agents. Indeed, many events in differentiation and assembly of neural circuits are affected, including the processes of neuronal and glial cell replication and differentiation, specification of neurotransmitter phenotypes, axonogenesis and synaptogenesis, and synaptic function (Barone et al. 2000; Casida and Quistad 2004; Gupta 2004; Jameson et al. 2006; Pope 1999; Slotkin 1999, 2004). In turn, the diversity of these targets suggests that the organophosphates disrupt some very basic processes in neural cell differentiation. For that reason, a number of investigations have turned to the neurotrophic factors known to play critical roles in neural development and damage/repair processes.
In adults, fully symptomatic organophosphate poisoning produces peripheral neuropathies and then a reactive increase in formation of neurotrophic factors mediating repair and neuritic outgrowth (Pope et al. 1995). Although we are dealing with events in the central nervous system rather than with peripheral neuropathies, it is not unreasonable to hypothesize that these factors are equally or even more important at the subtoxic exposures that damage the developing brain. Two sets of neurotrophic factors have been explored to date. First, acetylcholinesterase itself is thought to play a nonenzymatic role in neural development (Brimijoin and Koenigsberger 1999), and we recently demonstrated induction of the neurotoxic splice variant of acetylcholinesterase at organophosphate exposures below the threshold for detectable inhibition of enzymatic activity in neonatal rat brain after apparently subtoxic exposures to chlorpyrifos or diazinon (Jameson et al. 2007). In addition, two recent studies (Betancourt and Carr 2004; Betancourt et al. 2006) focused on nerve growth factor and brain-derived neurotrophic factor after exposure of newborn rats to chlorpyrifos or chlorpyrifos oxon, the active metabolite that inhibits cholinesterase. Although these researchers used exposures that were above the threshold for cholinesterase inhibition and somatic growth impairment, they found no significant decrease in either protein (Betancourt and Carr 2004) and only a small decrease (10-20%) in the mRNA encoding nerve growth factor (Betancourt et al. 2006).
Thus, if organophosphate effects on neurotrophic factors play an important role in the developmental neurotoxicity of these agents, then other factors are likely to be more highly affected. In the present study, we turned our attention to the large number of fibroblast growth factors (FGFs) and their receptors (FGFRs). The FGF superfamily plays a widespread and vital role in brain development and in the repair from neural injury (Dono 2003). Across the various stages of development, the FGFs promote and maintain neuronal cell replication and are required for differentiation into the terminal transmitter phenotype (Gage et al. 1995; Johe et al. 1996). The different FGFs play specific roles in neuronal cell differentiation, neurite outgrowth, and the recovery from damage in regions such as the striatum and hippocampus (Hart et al. 2000; Limke et al. 2003; Murase and McKay 2006; Ohmachi et al. 2000; Ray et al. 1993; Takagi et al. 2005). The same regions are known targets for the adverse neurodevelopmental effects of organophosphates (Barone et al. 2000; Slotkin 1999, 2004, 2005), which disrupt the very same cellular events for which the FGFs provide trophic signals (Axelrad et al. 2003; Das and Barone 1999; Howard et al. 2005; Song et al. 1998). Accordingly, we used a microarray approach to examine the family of FGFs and their receptors, comparing the effects of two different organophosphates, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, to emphasize points of similarity and difference: if the developmental neurotoxicity of the organophosphates involves neurotrophic mechanisms unrelated to the inhibition of cholinesterase, then there may be significant disparities in their impact on neurotrophic factors. We concentrated on doses that evoke barely detectable inhibition, too low to elicit any signs of cholinergic hyperstimulation (Slotkin et al. 2006b; Song et al. 1997); our assessments were conducted in two brain regions, the brain stem and forebrain, that differ both in anatomical attributes as well as in maturational timetables (Rodier 1988).
Materials and Methods
Animal treatments. All experiments were carried out in accordance with federal and state guidelines and with prior approval of the Duke University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee; all animals were treated humanely and with due care for alleviation of distress. Timed-pregnant Sprague-Dawley rats (Charles River, Raleigh, NC, USA) were housed in breeding cages, with a 12-hr light/dark cycle and free access to food and water. On the day of birth, all pups were randomized and redistributed to the dams with a litter size of 9-10 to maintain a standard nutritional status.
Chlorpyrifos and diazinon (both from Chem Service, West Chester, PA, USA) were dissolved in dimethylsulfoxide to provide consistent absorption (Whitney et al. 1995), and were injected subcutaneously in a volume of 1 mL/kg body weight once daily on postnatal days (PNDs) 1-4; control animals received equivalent injections of dimethylsulfoxide vehicle. For both agents, we used doses below the threshold for growth retardation and systemic toxicity (Campbell et al. 1997; Slotkin et al. 2006a; Whitney et al. 1995): 1 mg/kg for chlorpyrifos and either 1 or 2 mg/kg for diazinon. This chlorpyrifos treatment and the higher dose of diazinon produce neurotoxicity in developing rat brain while eliciting < 20% cholinesterase inhibition, whereas the lower dose of diazinon does not produce any detectable inhibition (Slotkin 1999, 2004; Slotkin et al. 2006b; Song et al. 1997; Whitney et al. 1995), or any of the symptoms of cholinergic hyperstimulation known to be characteristic of anticholinesterase activity (Clegg and van Gemert 1999). These treatments thus resemble the nonsymptomatic exposures reported in pregnant women (De Peyster et al. 1993) and are within the range of expected fetal and childhood exposures after routine home application or in agricultural communities (Gurunathan et al. 1998; Ostrea et al. 2002).
On PND5 (24 hr after the last dose), one male pup was selected from each of five litters in each treatment group. Animals were decapitated, the cerebellum was removed, and the brain stem and forebrain were separated by a cut made rostral to the thalamus. Tissues were weighed and flash-frozen in liquid nitrogen and maintained at -45[degrees]C until analyzed. Our study design involved the analysis of 40 separate tissues: one animal from each of five litters for each of the four treatment groups, with two tissues (brain stem, forebrain) from each animal.
Microarray determinations. Tissues were thawed and total RNA was isolated using the Aurum total RNA Fatty and Fibrous Tissue Kit (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA, USA). RNA quality was verified using the RNA 6000 LabChip Kit and the Agilent 2100 Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, CA, USA). An aliquot of each sample used in the study was withdrawn and combined to make a reference RNA preparation to be included on each array. RNA amplification was carried out using a commercial kit (Low RNA Input Fluorescent Linear Amplification Kit; Agilent).
Each RNA sample was annealed with a primer containing a polydT and a T7 polymerase promoter. Reverse transcriptase produced a first and second strand cDNA. T7 RNA polymerase then created cRNA from the double stranded cDNA by incorporating cyanine-3- (for the reference RNA) or cyanine-5- (for the sample RNA) labeled cytidine 5-triphosphate; the quality of the labeled cRNA was again verified and the absolute concentration was measured spectrophotometrically. For each pair of reference cRNA and experimental cRNA hybridized to an array, equal amounts of cRNA (0.75 [micro]g) were hybridized using a commercial kit (In situ Hybridization Kit-Plus; Agilent). Hybridization was performed at 60[degrees]C for 17 hr with Agilent Whole Rat Genome Arrays (G4131A). The arrays were washed with Agilent's SSPE Wash Protocol using a solution of 6x SSPE, 0.005% N-lauroylsarcosine, a solution of 0.06x SSPE, 0.005% N-lauroylsarcosine, and Agilent's Stabilization and Drying Solution. The arrays were scanned on an Agilent G2565BA Microarray Scanner, and data from the scans were compiled with Agilent Feature Extraction Software 8.1. The steps from RNA amplification through extraction of the scanner output data were performed by a private contractor (Cogenics, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA).
Array normalizations and error detection were carried out using Silicon Genetics' GeneSpring GX Version 7.2 (Agilent), via the Enhanced Agilent Feature Extraction Import Preprocessor. First, values of poor quality intensity and low dependability were removed using a "filter on flags" feature, where standardized software algorithms determined which spots were "present," "marginal," or "absent"; spots were considered "present" only where the output was uniform, not saturated and significant above background, whereas spots that satisfied the main requirements but were outliers relative to the typical values for the other genes were considered "marginal." Filters were set to retain only the values that were found to be present or marginal for further analysis; however, of the genes that passed the filter, none was marginal.
Data were normalized in three steps using the algorithms supplied with the Feature Extraction software. The first step divides the signal in the Cy5 channel (sample RNA) by that in the Cy3 channel (reference RNA), to give the measured ratio for each gene in the array. The second normalization adjusts the total signal of each chip to a standard value ("normalize to 50th percentile") determined by the median of all the reliable values on the chip; this renders the output of each chip comparable with that of every other chip in the study. The third normalization step is applied to each gene across all the arrays in the study ("normalize to median"): The median of all the values obtained for a given gene is calculated and used as the normalization standard for that gene, so that, regardless of absolute differences in the expression of the various genes, they are placed on the same scale for comparison.
After normalization, one final quality-control filter was applied in which genes showing excessive biologic variability were discarded; the criterion for retention was that more than half of the eight treatment x region groupings had to have coefficients of variation < 30%.
For some of the genes, the arrays contained multiple probes and/or replicates of the same probe in different locations on the chip, and these were used to verify the reliability of values and the validity of the measures on the chip. In these cases, to avoid artificially inflating the number of positive findings, we limited each gene to a single set of values, selecting those obtained for the probe showing the smallest intragroup (treatment, region) variance; the other values for that gene were used only to corroborate direction and magnitude of change. Through these procedures we identified five defective arrays with sequential production numbers, for which one corner of the array showed a nonuniform overall difference in brightness that affected the readings in that region of the chip. The affected samples were reevaluated on replacement arrays that did not repeat the problem. Our experimental design ensured that the replacement readings were distributed among all the treatment groups because our sample sequence was control, chlorpyrifos, diazinon 1 mg/kg, diazinon 2 mg/kg; thus we did not run the risk of generating a spurious apparent treatment effect from differences among arrays. The defective arrays did allow us to perform an additional quality-control evaluation because most of the spots on the defective arrays were in the portion that did not show the defect. Comparing the values on the replacement arrays to the valid portions of the defective arrays produced a close correspondence of values (correlation coefficient = 0.98).
Statistical procedures. Because of the requirement to normalize the data across arrays and within each gene, the absolute values for a given gene are meaningless; only the relative differences between regions and treatments can be compared. Accordingly, results for the regional differences in gene expression in control rats are presented as means [+ or -] SEs of the normalized ratios for each gene, but the effects of the treatments are given as the percentage change from control to allow for visual comparison of the relative changes evoked for each gene, regardless of its control ratio. However, statistical comparisons were based on the actual ratios (log-transformed because the data are in the form of ratios) rather than the percent change.
Our design involved planned comparisons of the organophosphate-exposed groups to the controls and between the two different organophosphates, so it was important to consider the false positive rate and to protect against type 1 errors from repeated testing of the same database. Accordingly, before looking at effects on individual genes, we performed a global analysis of variance (ANOVA) incorporating all treatments, both regions, and all genes in a single comparison. Lower-order ANOVAs were then carried out as permitted by the interactions of treatment with region and gene that justified subdivisions of the data set. Finally, differences for individual treatments for a specified gene in a single brain region were evaluated with Fisher's protected least significant difference test. However, where there was no treatment x region interaction for a given gene; only the main treatment effect was reported without subtesting of effects in individual regions. For ANOVA results, effects were considered significant at p < 0.05 (two-tailed, because we were interested in both increases and decreases in gene expression). In addition to these parametric tests of the direction and magnitude of changes in gene expression, we evaluated the incidence of significant differences as compared with the false positive rate using Fisher's exact test, applying a one-tailed criterion of p < 0.05 because only an increase above the false positive rate would be predicted. Finding a significant decrease in the incidence of detected differences relative to the false positive rate would be biologically implausible and statistically meaningless.
Of the FGF and FGFR genes present on the microarray, 19 genes passed the quality control filters, encoding 15 of the FGFs and all 4 FGFRs (Table 1). In control rats, we did not observe any overall pattern of regional preference for expression of these genes: Of the 19 genes evaluated, only 6 showed significant regional differences, with fgf9, fgf22, and fgfr2 more highly expressed in the brain stem, whereas fgf14, fgf20, and fgfr1 were higher in the forebrain. Organophosphate exposures elicited significant, regionally selective changes in gene expression for the FGFs and FGFRs. Multivariate ANOVA (all treatments, all genes, both regions) showed a significant treatment x region x gene interaction (p < 0.0001), enabling separate evaluations for each gene. Out of the 19 genes, 7 displayed significant main treatment effects or an interaction of treatment x region, as compared with an expected false positive rate of only 1 gene (p < 0.02).
For the genes encoding FGFs, chlorpyrifos exposure produced a significant overall decrement (main treatment effect, p < 0.05) and specific reductions in the expression of fgf2, fgf11, fgf20, and fgf22 (Figure 1). By far, the largest effect was on fgf20, which showed a 50% deficit in the forebrain; this region also displayed a significant deficit in fgf2 and fgf11. In contrast, the brain stem showed smaller decreases restricted to fgf2 and fgf22.
The effects of diazinon on the FGF genes displayed similarities to those of chlorpyrifos, but also some differences. The lower dose of diazinon caused a large reduction in forebrain fgf20 expression as did chlorpyrifos, but diazinon failed to decrease forebrain fgf2 or fgf11 significantly, and instead evoked a reduction in fgf14 (Figure 2A). In the brain stem, we again saw a small decrease in fgf2 and fgf22. Increasing the dose of diazinon to 2 mg/kg produced a further divergence from the effects seen with chlorpyrifos (Figure 2B). Although we still saw a significant reduction in fgf20 in the forebrain, no other gene was significantly affected for this region. In the brain stem, the higher dose of diazinon produced an even larger decrease in fgf2 expression than with either chlorpyrifos or the lower diazinon treatment. These regional differences between diazinon and chlorpyrifos were statistically significant (p < 0.02 for the interaction of treatment x region x gene).
Two of the four genes encoding the FGFRs, fgfr1 and fgfr4, showed statistically significant treatment-related changes in expression, but the magnitude of the effect on fgfr1 was quite small, < 10% (Figure 3). In contrast, fgfr4 showed significant increases in expression for all three organophosphate treatment groups, an effect that was restricted to the brain stem. Diazinon produced a larger increase than did chlorpyrifos. Again, the regional differences in the effects of the two organophosphates were statistically distinguishable (p < 0.05 for the interaction of treatment x region x gene).
Earlier work with higher doses of chlorpyrifos administered for longer periods of time--treatments that evoke significant and persistent cholinesterase inhibition and/or growth impairment--identified small (10-20%) decreases in the mRNA encoding nerve growth factor (Betancourt et al. 2006). We also examined expression of the two corresponding genes on our arrays, ngfb (GenBank accession no. XM_227525; GenBank 2007) and ngfg (Genbank NM_031523) but found only a small (6%) decrease in ngfb in the forebrain that did not achieve statistical significance (data not shown). Similarly, we found no significant effects on expression of the gene encoding brain-derived neurotrophic factor (bdnf; Genbank accession no. NM_012513; data not shown).
Our results show that neonatal exposure to doses of organophosphates that are below the threshold for any signs of systemic intoxication or growth deficits, and just at the threshold for any detectable inhibition of cholinesterase, nevertheless causes profound suppression of several members of the FGF superfamily of neurotrophic factors. Indeed, the effects for chlorpyrifos or diazinon in the present study are far larger than those reported previously for other neurotrophic factors, even when the earlier work involved chlorpyrifos treatments at higher doses for longer periods, producing much greater cholinesterase inhibition or frank growth impairment (Betancourt and Carr 2004; Jameson et al. 2007). Furthermore, we found a distinct regional hierarchy corresponding to the maturational and anatomical differences between the brain stem and the forebrain (Rodier 1988). The brain stem matures earlier than the forbrain and contains a high proportion of cell bodies for cholinergic, catecholaminergic, and serotonergic neurons; the forebrain develops later and contains the terminal projections of these neurotransmitter systems, all of which are prominent targets for the developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphates (Slotkin 1999, 2004, 2005). In keeping with this regional specificity, fgf20 was suppressed by chlorpyrifos or diazinon in the forebrain, whereas the two organophosphates differentially targeted fgf2 in the brain stem (diazinon > chlorpyrifos). There were also smaller effects on fgf11, fgf14, fgf22, fgfr1, and fgfr4, each of which also displayed either a regionally selective effect or a difference between the two organophosphates. In contrast, no such regional differences were reported for other neurotrophic factors such as nerve growth factor or acetylcholinesterase splice variants associated with neural damage/repair (Betancourt and Carr 2004; Jameson et al. 2007). Indeed, to obtain any effect on nerve growth factor gene expression, the dose and duration of chlorpyrifos exposure have to be increased to the point where cholinesterase is persistently inhibited and/or growth is impaired; even then, there is only a small (10-20%) decrement (Betancourt et al. 2006). In the present study, we used lower doses and shorter durations of exposure that caused barely detectable cholinesterase inhibition and no growth impairment, and found no significant deficits for either nerve growth factor or brain-derived neurotrophic factor, indicating that selective members of the FGF superfamily are indeed far more sensitive to disruption by the organophosphates.
The regional selectivity suggests that the effects of neonatal exposure to organophosphates on expression of FGFs reflects the targeting of specific processes in brain development rather than a global interference with neurotrophic responses. Below, we will consider each of the FGFs in turn, emphasizing their various roles in neural development and plasticity. However, first it is necessary to consider the important differences between chlorpyrifos and diazinon.
In the developing rat brain, treatment with 1 mg/kg chlorpyrifos produces approximately a 10-20% inhibition of cholinesterase (Song et al. 1997), roughly equivalent to that seen at 2 mg/kg diazinon (Slotkin et al. 2006b); the lower dose of diazinon (1 mg/kg) produces no significant inhibition whatsoever (Slotkin et al. 2006b). If the effects of these agents were the result of cholinesterase inhibition, then the chlorpyrifos treatment should produce the same pattern of effects as the higher dose of diazinon, whereas the lower diazinon dose should have no effect at all. In fact, though, all three treatments shared the same major suppression of fgf20 in the forebrain. Furthermore, the low dose of diazinon inhibited brain stem fgf2 and fgf22 expression, and increased fgfr4, just as did chlorpyrifos. It is therefore apparent that these effects are totally unrelated to cholinesterase inhibition, the mechanism that underlies the systemic toxicity of the organophosphates, thus reinforcing the concept that the developmental neurotoxicity of these agents represents a separable set of mechanisms that operate at lower exposures (Colborn 2006; Slotkin 1999, 2004, 2005; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2006).
It is also noteworthy that we saw several important differences in the effects of chlorpyrifos as compared with diazinon: chlorpyrifos decreased fgf2 and fgf11 in the forebrain, whereas diazinon did not; in the brain stem, diazinon reduced fgf2 and induced fgfr4 much more than did chlorpyrifos, and also had effects on forebrain fgf14 and fgfr1 that were not seen with chlorpyrifos. The similarities and disparities suggest that the two organophosphates are likely to produce many parallels in subsequent neurodevelopmental deficits but may also differ in important ways. Although much more information is available for chlorpyrifos than for diazinon, several findings already suggest differential targeting of neural cell replication, neuritic outgrowth, cytotoxic events, and cholinergic and monoaminergic neurotransmitter systems by these two agents (Jameson et al. 2007; Qiao et al. 2001; Slotkin et al. 2006a, 2007).
The two specific members of the FGF superfamily that were most highly affected by neonatal organophosphate exposure were fgf2 and fgf20, both of which have clearly established roles in neurodevelopment, plasticity, damage/repair, and neurodegenerative disorders. The expression of fgf2 shows spatial and temporal relationships to the maturational profile of each brain region (Gomez-Pinilla et al. 1994; Monfils et al. 2006) and up-regulation of this gene is required for the recovery from developmental brain injury (Monfils et al. 2005; Yoshimura et al. 2001). In addition, we recently found that fgf2 is intimately involved in the programming of neural plasticity associated with less injurious perturbations, such as prenatal stress (Fumagalli et al. 2005). Accordingly, the robust down-regulation of this gene caused by neonatal organophosphate treatment is likely to play an important role in the neurodevelopmental outcomes of such exposures; in particular, our finding of regional selectivity (brain stem > forebrain) is in keeping with the targeting of a specific maturational stage and/or anatomical location and similarly, the preferential sensitivity to diazinon predicts a potentially worsened outcome with this agent. For fgf2, our finding of gross suppression by organophosphates during the brain growth spurt (Dobbing and Sands 1979) is highly likely to have long-term, adverse consequences for neural development and behavioral function. Even a brief period of fgf2 down-regulation interferes directly with neurogenesis (Tao et al. 1997), and the period of exposure studied here (first few days after birth) corresponds to the peak proliferation period in a number of neuronal populations, including those of the hippocampal dentate gyrus (Kempermann et al. 1997; Rodier 1988). If similar effects occur with organophosphate exposures in earlier or later developmental periods, this could explain why shifting the exposure window often targets the neural cells and regions that are undergoing the most rapid development (Slotkin 1999, 2004, 2005).
In contrast to the organophosphate-evoked reduction in fgf2, which was more prominent in the brain stem, the suppression of fgf20 was selective for the forebrain. What is particularly notable about the regional difference is that fgf20 is preferentially expressed in a subregion of the forebrain, the striatum (Ohmachi et al. 2000), which contains the majority of dopamine projections, the loss of which results in Parkinson disease. There is growing suspicion that repeated developmental exposures to pesticides that target striatal dopamine projections play a significant role in the later emergence of this neurodegenerative disorder (for review, see Cory-Slechta et al. 2005; Landrigan et al. 2005). Indeed, the relationship of suppressed fgf20 expression to dopaminergic deficits and thence to Parkinson disease is directly supported by human genetic data (Murase and McKay 2006; Takagi et al. 2005; van der Walt et al. 2004) and by the specific role of this neurotrophic factor in promoting survival of the very neurons that are lost in Parkinson disease (Damier et al. 1999; Yamada et al. 1990).
The requirement for fgf20 is similarly found for development of these neurons and for preventing their death from apoptosis secondary to oxidative stress (Murase and McKay 2006); the striatum is especially sensitive to oxidative damage, in part because dopamine itself produces oxidative metabolites (Hirsch 1994; Olanow and Arendash 1994). Organophosphates target striatal dopamine systems by causing release of dopamine while simultaneously evoking oxidative stress through other cellular mechanisms (Bloomquist et al. 2002; Gupta 2004; Jett and Navoa 2000; Karen et al. 2001; Lazarini et al. 2004; Slotkin et al. 2002, 2005; Slotkin and Seidler 2007). Consequently, these neural pathways are among the most vulnerable to long-term damage after developmental exposure to chlorpyrifos (Aldridge et al. 2005b; Dam et al. 1999; Slotkin et al. 2002, 2007; Slotkin and Seidler 2007). Finally, it should be noted that fgf2 is also deficient in dopaminergic neurons in Parkinson disease (Tooyama et al. 1993) and fgf2 and fgf20 actually act in concert to protect dopaminergic neurons from oxidative injury and to promote their repair (Krieglstein et al. 1998; Ohmachi et al. 2000; Otto and Unsicker 1990; Shults et al. 2000), so that the combined deficit in both these neurotrophic factors, superimposed on organophosphateinduced oxidative stress, may render striatal dopamine pathways especially vulnerable. In particular, in Parkinson disease, degeneration begins in the brain stem (Braak et al. 2006), the region in which we found reduced fgf2 expression after neonatal organophosphate exposure. We therefore anticipate that later in life, exposed individuals may show a greater likelihood of neurodegenerative disorders such as Parkinson disease, which is already known to be associated with pesticide exposures in adulthood (Kamel and Hoppin 2004).
In addition to the major changes seen for fgf2 and fgf20 expression, we found significant but smaller effects on other members of the FGF superfamily, including fgf11, fgf14, and fgf22, and also on two of the receptor genes, fgfr1 and fgfr4. Although the roles for these are less well understood, there is substantial evidence for involvement of all of them in neurodevelopment and hence in the developmental neurotoxicity of the organophosphates. Developing neurons show particularly high expression of fgf11 and fgf14 (Luo et al. 2002; Wang et al. 2000), and the latter participates directly in neuronal signaling, axonal trafficking, and development of sodium channels required for neuronal excitability (Lou et al. 2005; Wang et al. 2002). Deficits in fgf14 are associated with the development of movement disorders (Wang et al. 2002) and it is well established that early exposure to organophosphates compromises the subsequent development of motor activity (Carr et al. 2001; Dam et al. 2000). Similarly, fgf22, a recently discovered member of the FGF family, is involved in neural differentiation of granule cells and acts as an organizer of presynaptic activity (Umemori et al. 2004). Again, hippocampal and cerebellar granule cells are known to be targeted by developmental exposure to organophosphates (Abdel-Rahman et al. 2003; Roy et al. 2005) in association with profound alterations in the patterns of presynaptic neuronal activity and associated behaviors (Aldridge et al. 2005b; Dam et al. 1999; Icenogle et al. 2004; Levin et al. 2001, 2002; Qiao et al. 2003, 2004; Richardson and Chambers 2004, 2005; Slotkin et al. 2001, 2002; Slotkin and Seidler 2007).
Of the two FGF receptor genes for which we found significant changes, fgfr1 is only weakly expressed in the developing brain but probably serves as an organization factor (Blak et al. 2005); we found only a small effect on this receptor, restricted to diazinon, so that this may ultimately contribute to some differences in outcome between the two organophosphates. We saw a far more robust effect on fgf4, again with a greater action of diazinon as compared to chlorpyrifos. In contrast to fgfr1, fgfr4 is highly expressed in developing brain, especially in the hippocampus (Cool et al. 2002; Limke et al. 2003; Wright et al. 2004) and in cholinergic neurons of the medial habenular nucleus (Miyake and Itoh 1996), and is involved specifically in neurite outgrowth (Hart et al. 2000). Furthermore, this receptor binds fgf2, one of the FGF members highly affected by organophosphate exposure, reinforcing the greater potential contribution of this particular signaling pathway; indeed, the fact that fgf4 was up-regulated suggests that this is a partial, adaptive response to the suppression of fgf2 expression, a conclusion reinforced by the fact that diazinon was more effective than chlorpyrifos for both the down-regulation of brain stem fgf2 and the up-regulation of fgfr4. In keeping with these relationships, developmental exposure to organophosphates especially targets each of the processes associated with fgfr4: neurons of the cholinergic phenotype (Slotkin 1999, 2004, 2005), the hippocampus (Abdel-Rahman et al. 2003; Pung et al. 2006; Roy et al. 2005; Terry et al. 2003), and neuritic outgrowth (Axelrad et al. 2003; Das and Barone 1999; Howard et al. 2005; Slotkin et al. 2006a; Song et al. 1998).
It is important to note a number of limitations of our approach, which relies on measurement of gene expression at the mRNA level assessed in two, broadly defined brain regions. First, the magnitude of changes was small when compared to the fold-change that can be obtained with in vitro studies of pesticide neurotoxicity, where typically one assesses the effects on a single cell type at a fixed stage of differentiation (Mense et al. 2006). That is hardly surprising, given the heterogeneity of the brain stem and the forebrain, so that even a large change in gene expression in a specific cell population would be "washed out" by mRNA from unaffected areas. In fact, treatment of animals with higher doses of organophosphates that produce outright toxicity or even lethality rarely produces changes in gene expression exceeding 10-30% in vivo (Betancourt et al. 2006; Damodaran et al. 2006a, 2006b).
The second limitation is inherent in any study of mRNA: this measure by itself does not provide a definitive answer about the actual rate of synthesis and degradation of the encoded protein, the factors that actually control the concentrations of the corresponding trophic factors or factors within the cell. Nevertheless, there are two important aspects designed into the current study that render the findings relevant and interpretable. First, we included chlorpyrifos as a test compound whose impact has already been confirmed for the relevant end points of neural cell differentiation, axonogenesis, and other developmental processes known to be regulated by FGFs. Second, our interpretations rely on patterns of changes across multiple regions and FGF/FGFR subtypes rather than on a single change in one region. Nevertheless, it is obvious that a direct mechanistic link needs to be established between the changes seen here at the mRNA level and the known outcomes for chlorpyrifos, or the suspected outcomes for diazinon.
Our results are also limited by the fact that we examined only males, whereas there are numerous studies showing significant sex differences in the outcomes of developmental exposure to organophosphates (Aldridge et al. 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Dam et al. 2000; Levin et al. 2001; Ricceri et al. 2006; Slotkin 2005; Slotkin et al. 2001, 2002; Slotkin and Seidler 2007). Here, we were limited primarily by practical considerations of technical capabilities and cost. We expect, however, that males and females will show important differences in transcriptional profiles in accordance with the sex-selective nature of organophosphateinduced neurodevelopmental anomalies. Despite these limitations, though, our results are likely to be relevant to environmental exposures of fetuses and children to organophosphates. Although our studies were modeled primarily on the upper limits of estimated or measured exposures after home or agricultural application (Gurunathan et al. 1998; Ostrea et al. 2002), recent studies indicate that much lower, long-term exposures of pregnant women result in adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes for their children (Eskenazi et al. 2007; Rauh et al. 2006; Young et al. 2005). Accordingly, modeling the potential mechanisms underlying the adverse effects of these agents at exposures below the threshold for cholinesterase inhibition may provide important insights into the etiology of these orders and thus to potential strategies for amelioration.
In conclusion, our results show that neonatal exposure to low doses of organophosphates, below the threshold for any signs of systemic toxicity and spanning the threshold for any detectable cholinesterase inhibition, evoke profound and regionally selective effects on expression of specific members of the FGF superfamily of neurotrophic factors, with the largest effects seen for fgf2 and fgf20. The fact that there are similarities but also notable disparities in the responses to chlorpyrifos and diazinon, and that robust effects were seen at a dose of diazinon that does not inhibit cholinesterase, supports the idea that organophosphates differ in their propensity to elicit developmental neurotoxicity, unrelated to their anticholinesterase activity. Further, the specific involvement of fgf2 and fgf20 in development of the hippocampus and striatum matches some of the most sensitive regional targets for neurodevelopmental disruption by the organophosphates, reinforcing the potential mechanistic role of suppression of these neurotrophic factors in organophosphate-induced developmental neurotoxicity.
The close relationship between deficiencies in these factors and loss of dopamine neurons in Parkinson disease further indicates the need for long-term studies of the effects of early organophosphate exposure, preferably occupying the entire life span so as to determine whether developmental exposures lead to later emergence of neurodegenerative disorders. Finally, the identification of specific neurotrophic factors targeted by organophosphates may enable the design of targeted, interventional strategies that might prevent or offset neurodevelopmental damage in cases of known exposure. For example, increasing the concentration of FGF2 protein appears to offset the functional outcome of neonatal damage to the motor cortex (Monfils et al. 2005), and the neuroprotective effect of nicotine in animal models of Parkinson disease (Quik and Di Monte 2001) is associated with its ability to up-regulate fgf2 expression (Belluardo et al. 2004). The characterization of neurotrophic factors involved in the developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphates thus establishes a mechanistic link between the initial events in neural cell damage and the eventual outcome, while at the same time providing valuable information to enable discrimination between the effects of different organophosphates as well as potential therapeutic interventions to prevent or offset neural damage.
Abdel-Rahman A, Dechkovskaia AM, Mehta-Simmons H, Guan S, Khan WA, Abou-Donia MB. 2003. Increased expression of glial fibrillary acidic protein in cerebellum and hippocampus: differential effects on neonatal brain regional acetylcholinesterase following maternal exposure to combined chlorpyrifos and nicotine. J Toxicol Environ Health A 66:2047-2066.
Aldridge JE, Levin ED, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 2005a. Developmental exposure of rats to chlorpyrifos leads to behavioral alterations in adulthood, involving serotonergic mechanisms and resembling animal models of depression. Environ Health Perspect 113:527-531.
Aldridge JE, Meyer A, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 2005b. Alterations in central nervous system serotonergic and dopaminergic synaptic activity in adulthood after prenatal or neonatal chlorpyrifos exposure. Environ Health Perspect 113:1027-1031.
Aldridge JE, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 2004. Developmental exposure to chlorpyrifos elicits sex-selective alterations of serotonergic synaptic function in adulthood: critical periods and regional selectivity for effects on the serotonin transporter, receptor subtypes, and cell signaling. Environ Health Perspect 112:148-155.
Axelrad JC, Howard CV, McLean WG. 2003. The effects of acute pesticide exposure on neuroblastoma cells chronically exposed to diazinon. Toxicology 185:67-78.
Barone S, Das KP, Lassiter TL, White LD. 2000. Vulnerable processes of nervous system development: a review of markers and methods. Neurotoxicology 21:15-36.
Belluardo N, Mudo G, Blum M, Itoh N, Agnati L, Fuxe K. 2004. Nicotine-induced FGF-2 mRNA in rat brain is preserved during aging. Neurobiol Aging 25:1333-1342.
Betancourt AM, Burgess SC, Carr RL. 2006. Effect of developmental exposure to chlorpyrifos on the expression of neurotrophin growth factors and cell-specific markers in neonatal rat brain. Toxicol Sci 92:500-506.
Betancourt AM, Carr RL. 2004. The effect of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-oxon on brain cholinesterase, muscarinic receptor binding, and neurotrophin levels in rats following early postnatal exposure. Toxicol Sci 77:63-71.
Blak AA, Naserke T, Weisenhorn DMV, Prakash N, Partanen J, Wurst W. 2005. Expression of Fgf receptors 1, 2, and 3 in the developing mid- and hindbrain of the mouse. Dev Dynamics 233:1023-1030.
Bloomquist JR, Barlow RL, Gillette JS, Li W, Kirby ML. 2002. Selective effects of insecticides on nigrostriatal dopaminergic nerve pathways. Neurotoxicology 23:537-544.
Braak H, Muller CM, Rub U, Ackermann H, Bratzke H, de Vos RA, et al. 2006. Pathology associated with sporadic Parkinson's disease--where does it end? J Neural Transmission Suppl 70:89-97.
Brimijoin S, Koenigsberger C. 1999. Cholinesterases in neural development: new findings and toxicologic implications. Environ Health Perspect 107(suppl 1):59-64.
Campbell CG, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 1997. Chlorpyrifos interferes with cell development in rat brain regions. Brain Res Bull 43:179-189.
Carr RL, Chambers HW, Guarisco JA, Richardson JR, Tang J, Chambers JE. 2001. Effects of repeated oral postnatal exposure to chlorpyrifos on open-field behavior in juvenile rats. Toxicol Sci 59:260-267.
Casida JE, Quistad GB. 2004. Organophosphate toxicology: safety aspects of nonacetylcholinesterase secondary targets. Chem Res Toxicol 17:983-998.
Chakraborti TK, Farrar JD, Pope CN. 1993. Comparative neurochemical and neurobehavioral effects of repeated chlorpyrifos exposures in young and adult rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 46:219-224.
Clegg DJ, van Gemert M. 1999. Determination of the reference dose for chlorpyrifos: proceedings of an expert panel. J Toxicol Environ Health 2:211-255.
Colborn T. 2006. A case for revisiting the safety of pesticides: a closer look at neurodevelopment. Environ Health Perspect 114:10-17.
Cool SM, Sayer RE, van Heumen WR, Pickles JO, Nurcombe V. 2002. Temporal and spatial expression of fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 isoforms in murine tissues. Histochem J 34:291-297.
Cory-Slechta DA, Thiruchelvam M, Barlow BK, Richfield EK. 2005. Developmental pesticide models of the Parkinson Disease phenotype. Environ Health Perspect 113:1263-1270.
Costa LG. 2006. Current issues in organophosphate toxicology. Clin Chim Acta 366:1-13.
Dam K, Garcia SJ, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 1999. Neonatal chlorpyrifos exposure alters synaptic development and neuronal activity in cholinergic and catecholaminergic pathways. Dev Brain Res 116:9-20.
Dam K, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 2000. Chlorpyrifos exposure during a critical neonatal period elicits gender-selective deficits in the development of coordination skills and locomotor activity. Dev Brain Res 121:179-187.
Damier P, Hirsch EC, Agid Y, Graybiel AM. 1999. The substantia nigra of the human brain. I. Nigrosomes and the nigral matrix, a compartmental organization based on calbindin D(28K) immunohistochemistry. Brain Dev 122:1421-1436.
Damodaran TV, Greenfield ST, Patel AG, Dressman HK, Lin SK, Abou-Donia MB. 2006a. Toxicogenomic studies of the rat brain at an early time point following acute sarin exposure. Neurochem Res 31:367-381.
Damodaran TV, Patel AG, Greenfield ST, Dressman HK, Lin SM, Abou-Donia MB. 2006b. Gene expression profiles of the rat brain both immediately and 3 months following acute sarin exposure. Biochem Pharmacol 71:497-520.
Das KP, Barone S. 1999. Neuronal differentiation in PC12 cells is inhibited by chlorpyrifos and its metabolites: is acetylcholinesterase inhibition the site of action? Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 160:217-230.
De Peyster A, Willis WO, Molgaard CA, MacKendrick TM, Walker C. 1993. Cholinesterase and self-reported pesticide exposure among pregnant women. Arch Environ Health 48:348-352.
Dobbing J, Sands J. 1979. Comparative aspects of the brain growth spurt. Early Human Dev 3:79-83.
Dono R. 2003. Fibroblast growth factors as regulators of central nervous system development and function. Am J Physiol 284:R867-R881.
Eskenazi B, Marks AR, Bradman A, Harley K, Barr DB, Johnson C, et al. 2007. Organophosphate pesticide exposure and neurodevelopment in young Mexican-American children. Environ Health Perspect 115:792-798; doi:10.1289/ehp.9828 [Online 4 January 2007].
Fumagalli F, Bedogni F, Slotkin TA, Racagni G, Riva MA. 2005. Prenatal stress elicits regionally-selective changes in basal FGF-2 gene expression in adulthood and alters the adult response to acute or chronic stress. Neurobiol Dis 20:731-737.
Gage FH, Ray J, Fisher L. 1995. Isolation, characterization, and use of stem cells from the CNS. Annu Rev Neurosci 18:159-192.
GenBank. 2007. GenBank Overview. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/index.html [accessed 25 April 2007].
Gomez-Pinilla, Lee JW, Cotman CW. 1994. Distribution of basic fibroblast growth factor in the developing rat brain. Neuroscience 61:911-923.
Gupta RC. 2004. Brain regional heterogeneity and toxicological mechanisms of organophosphates and carbamates. Toxicol Mech Meth 14:103-143.
Gurunathan S, Robson M, Freeman N, Buckley B, Roy A, Meyer R, et al. 1998. Accumulation of chlorpyrifos on residential surfaces and toys accessible to children. Environ Health Perspect 106:9-16.
Hart KC, Robertson SC, Kanemitsu MY, Meyer AN, Tynan JA, Donoghue DJ. 2000. Transformation and Stat activation by derivatives of FGFR1, FGFR3, and FGFR4. Oncogene 19:3309-3320.
Hirsch EC. 1994. Biochemistry of Parkinson's disease with special reference to the dopaminergic systems. Mol Neurobiol 9:135-142.
Howard AS, Bucelli R, Jett DA, Bruun D, Yang DR. 2005. Chlorpyrifos exerts opposing effects on axonal and dendritic growth in primary neuronal cultures. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 207:112-124.
Icenogle LM, Christopher C, Blackwelder WP, Caldwell DP, Qiao D, Seidler FJ, et al. 2004. Behavioral alterations in adolescent and adult rats caused by a brief subtoxic exposure to chlorpyrifos during neurulation. Neurotoxicol Teratol 26:95-101.
Jameson RR, Seidler FJ, Qiao D, Slotkin TA. 2006. Chlorpyrifos affects phenotypic outcomes in a model of mammalian neurodevelopment: critical stages targeting differentiation in PC12 cells. Environ Health Perspect 114:667-672.
Jameson RR, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 2007. Nonenzymatic functions of acetylcholinesterase splice variants in the developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphates: chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos oxon and diazinon. Environ Health Perspect 115:65-70.
Jett DA, Navoa RV. 2000. In vitro and in vivo effects of chlorpyrifos on glutathione peroxidase and catalase in developing rat brain. Neurotoxicology 21:141-145.
Johe KK, Hazel TG, Muller T, Dugich-Djordjevic MM, McKay RDG. 1996. Single factors direct the differentiation of stem cells from the fetal and adult central nervous system. Genes Dev 10:3129-3140.
Kamel F, Hoppin JA. 2004. Association of pesticide exposure with neurologic dysfunction and disease. Environ Health Perspect 112:950-958.
Karen DJ, Li W, Harp PR, Gillette JS, Bloomquist JR. 2001. Striatal dopaminergic pathways as a target for the insecticides permethrin and chlorpyrifos. Neurotoxicology 22:811-817.
Kempermann G, Kuhn HG, Gage FH. 1997. More hippocampal neurons in adult mice living in an enriched environment. Nat Biotechnol 386:493-495.
Krieglstein K, Reuss B, Maysinger D, Unsicker K. 1998. Transforming growth factor-beta mediates the neurotrophic effect of fibroblast growth factor-2 on midbrain dopaminergic neurons. Eur J Neurosci 10:2746-2750.
Landrigan PJ. 2001. Pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs): an analysis of the evidence that they impair children's neurobehavioral development. Mol Genet Metab 73:11-17.
Landrigan PJ, Sonawane B, Butler RN, Trasande L, Callan R, Droller D. 2005. Early environmental origins of neurodegenerative disease in later life. Environ Health Perspect 113:1230-1233.
Lassiter TL, Padilla S, Mortensen SR, Chanda SM, Moser VC, Barone S. 1998. Gestational exposure to chlorpyrifos: apparent protection of the fetus? Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 152:56-65.
Lazarini CA, Lima RY, Guedes AP, Bernardi MM. 2004. Prenatal exposure to dichlorvos: physical and behavioral effects on rat offspring. Neurotoxicol Teratol 26:607-614.
Levin ED, Addy N, Baruah A, Elias A, Christopher NC, Seidler FJ, et al. 2002. Prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure in rats causes persistent behavioral alterations. Neurotoxicol Teratol 24:733-741.
Levin ED, Addy N, Christopher NC, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 2001. Persistent behavioral consequences of neonatal chlorpyrifos exposure in rats. Dev Brain Res 130:83-89.
Limke TL, Cai J, Miura T, Rao MS, Mattson MP. 2003. Distinguishing features of progenitor cells in the late embryonic and adult hippocampus. Dev Neurosci 25:257-272.
Lou J-Y, Laezza F, Gerber BR, Xiao M, Yamada KA, Hartmann H, et al. 2005. Fibroblast growth factor 14 is an intracellular modulator of voltage-gated sodium channels. J Physiol 569:179-193.
Luo Y, Cai J, Liu Y, Xue H, Chrest FJ, Wersto RP, et al. 2002. Microarray analysis of selected genes in neural stem and progenitor cells. J Neurochem 83:1481-1497.
Mense SM, Sengupta A, Lan C, Zhou M, Bentsman G, Volsky DJ, et al. 2006. The common insecticides cyfluthrin and chlorpyrifos alter the expression of a subset of genes with diverse functions in primary human astrocytes. Toxicol Sci 93:125-135.
Mileson BE, Chambers JE, Chen WL, Dettbarn W, Ehrich M, Eldefrawi AT, et al. 1998. Common mechanism of toxicity: a case study of organophosphorus pesticides. Toxicol Sci 41:8-20.
Miyake A, Itoh N. 1996. Rat fibroblast growth factor receptor-4 mRNA in the brain is preferentially expressed in cholinergic neurons in the medial habenular nucleus. Neurosci Lett 203:101-104.
Monfils MH, Driscoll I, Melvin NR, Kolb B. 2006. Differential expression of basic fibroblast growth factor-2 in the developing rat brain. Neuroscience 141:213-221.
Monfils M-H, Driscoll I, Vandenberg PM, Thomas NJ, Danka D, Kleim JA, et al. 2005. Basic fibroblast growth factor stimulates functional recovery after neonatal lesions of motor cortex in rats. Neuroscience 134:1-8.
Murase S, McKay RD. 2006. A specific survival response in dopamine neurons at most risk in Parkinson's disease. J Neurosci 26:9750-9760.
Ohmachi S, Watanabe Y, Mikami T, Kusu N, Ibi T, Akaike A, et al. 2000. FGFR-20, a novel neurotrophic factor, preferentially expressed in the substantia nigra pars compacta of rat brain. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 277:355-360.
Olanow CW, Arendash GW. 1994. Metals and free radicals in neurodegeneration. Curr Opin Neurol 7:548-558.
Ostrea EM, Morales V, Ngoumgna E, Prescilla R, Tan E, Hernandez E, et al. 2002. Prevalence of fetal exposure to environmental toxins as determined by meconium analysis. Neurotoxicology 23:329-339.
Otto D, Unsicker K. 1990. Basic FGF reverses chemical and morphological deficits in the nigrostriatal system of MPTP-treated mice. J Neurosci 10:1912-1921.
Pope C, diLorenzo K, Ehrich M. 1995. Possible involvement of a neurotrophic factor during the early stages of organophosphate-induced delayed neurotoxicity. Toxicol Lett 75:111-117.
Pope CN. 1999. Organophosphorus pesticides: do they all have the same mechanism of toxicity? J Toxicol Environ Health 2:161-181.
Pung T, Klein B, Blodgett D, Jortner B, Ehrich M. 2006. Examination of concurrent exposure to repeated stress and chlorpyrifos on cholinergic, glutamatergic, and monoamine neurotransmitter systems in rat forebrain regions. Intl J Toxicol 25:65-80.
Qiao D, Seidler FJ, Abreu-Villa?a Y, Tate CA, Cousins MM, Slotkin TA. 2004. Chlorpyrifos exposure during neurulation: cholinergic synaptic dysfunction and cellular alterations in brain regions at adolescence and adulthood. Dev Brain Res 148:43-52.
Qiao D, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 2001. Developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos modeled in vitro: comparative effects of metabolites and other cholinesterase inhibitors on DNA synthesis in PC12 and C6 cells. Environ Health Perspect 109:909-913.
Qiao D, Seidler FJ, Tate CA, Cousins MM, Slotkin TA. 2003. Fetal chlorpyrifos exposure: adverse effects on brain cell development and cholinergic biomarkers emerge postnatally and continue into adolescence and adulthood. Environ Health Perspect 111:536-544.
Quik M, Di Monte DA. 2001. Nicotine administration reduces striatal MPP+ levels in mice. Brain Res 917:219-224.
Rauh VA, Garfinkel R, Perera R, Andrews H, Hoepner L, Barr D, et al. 2006. Impact of prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure on neurodevelopment in the first 3 years of life among inner-city children. Pediatrics 118:1845-1859.
Ray J, Peterson DA, Schinstine M, Gage FH. 1993. Proliferation, differentiation, and long-term culture of primary hippocampal neurons. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:3602-3606.
Ricceri L, Venerosi A, Capone F, Cometa MF, Lorenzini P, Fortuna S, et al. 2006. Developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphorous pesticides: fetal and neonatal exposure to chlorpyrifos alters sex-specific behaviors at adulthood in mice. Toxicol Sci 93:105-113.
Rice D, Barone S. 2000. Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models. Environ Health Perspect 108(suppl 3):511-533.
Richardson JR, Chambers JE. 2004. Neurochemical effects of repeated gestational exposure to chlorpyrifos in developing rats. Toxicol Sci 77:83-90.
Richardson JR, Chambers JE. 2005. Effects of repeated oral postnatal exposure to chlorpyrifos on cholinergic neurochemistry in developing rats. Toxicol Sci 84:352-359.
Rodier PM. 1988. Structural-functional relationships in experimentally induced brain damage. Prog Brain Res 73:335-348.
Roy TS, Sharma V, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 2005. Quantitative morphological assessment reveals neuronal and glial deficits in hippocampus after a brief subtoxic exposure to chlorpyrifos in neonatal rats. Dev Brain Res 155:71-80.
Shults CW, Ray J, Tsuboi K, Gage FH. 2000. Fibroblast growth factor-2-producing fibroblasts protect the nigrostriatal dopaminergic system from 6-hydroxydopamine. Brain Res 883:192-204.
Slotkin TA. 1999. Developmental cholinotoxicants: nicotine and chlorpyrifos. Environ Health Perspect 107(suppl 1):71-80.
Slotkin TA. 2004. Cholinergic systems in brain development and disruption by neurotoxicants: nicotine, environmental tobacco smoke, organophosphates. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 198:132-151.
Slotkin TA. 2005. Developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphates: a case study of chlorpyrifos. In: Toxicity of Organophosphate and Carbamate Pesticides (Gupta RC, ed). San Diego:Elsevier Academic Press, 293-314.
Slotkin TA, Cousins MM, Tate CA, Seidler FJ. 2001. Persistent cholinergic presynaptic deficits after neonatal chlorpyrifos exposure. Brain Res 902:229-243.
Slotkin TA, Levin ED, Seidler FJ. 2006a. Comparative developmental neurotoxicity of organophosphate insecticides: effects on brain development are separable from systemic toxicity. Environ Health Perspect 114:746-751.
Slotkin TA, MacKillop EA, Ryde IT, Tate CA, Seidler FJ. 2007. Screening for developmental neurotoxicity using PC12 cells: comparisons of organophosphates with a carbamate, an organochlorine, and divalent nickel. Environ Health Perspect 115:93-101.
Slotkin TA, Oliver CA, Seidler FJ. 2005. Critical periods for the role of oxidative stress in the developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos and terbutaline, alone or in combination. Dev Brain Res 157:172-180.
Slotkin TA, Seidler FJ. 2007. Prenatal chlorpyrifos exposure elicits presynaptic serotonergic and dopaminergic hyperactivity at adolescence: critical periods for regional and sex-selective effects. Reprod Toxicol 23:421-427.
Slotkin TA, Tate CA, Cousins MM, Seidler FJ. 2002. Functional alterations in CNS catecholamine systems in adolescence and adulthood after neonatal chlorpyrifos exposure. Dev Brain Res 133:163-173.
Slotkin TA, Tate CA, Ryde IT, Levin ED, Seidler FJ. 2006b. Organophosphate insecticides target the serotonergic system in developing rat brain regions: disparate effects of diazinon and parathion at doses spanning the threshold for cholinesterase inhibition. Environ Health Perspect 114:1542-1546.
Song X, Seidler FJ, Saleh JL, Zhang J, Padilla S, Slotkin TA. 1997. Cellular mechanisms for developmental toxicity of chlorpyrifos: targeting the adenylyl cyclase signaling cascade. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 145:158-174.
Song X, Violin JD, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 1998. Modeling the developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos in vitro: macromolecule synthesis in PC12 cells. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 151:182-191.
Takagi Y, Takahashi J, Saiki H, Morizane A, Hayashi T, Kishi Y, et al. 2005. Dopaminergic neurons generated from monkey embryonic stem cells function in a Parkinson primate model. J Clin Invest 115:102-109.
Tao Y, Black IB, DiCicco-Bloom E. 1997. In vivo neurogenesis is inhibited by neutralizing antibodies to basic fibroblast growth factor. J Neurobiol 33:289-296.
Terry AV, Stone JD, Buccafusco JJ, Sickles DW, Sood A, Prendergast MA. 2003. Repeated exposures to subthreshold doses of chlorpyrifos in rats: hippocampal damage, impaired axonal transport, and deficits in spatial learning. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 305:375-384.
Tooyama I, Kawamata T, Walker D, Yamada T, Hanai K, Kimura H, et al. 1993. Loss of basic fibroblast growth factor in substantia nigra neurons in Parkinson's disease. Neurology 43:372-376.
Umemori H, Linhoff MW, Ornitz DM, Sanes JR. 2004. FGF22 and its close relatives are presynaptic organizing molecules in the mammalian brain. Cell 118:257-270.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Opportunities to Improve Data Quality and Children's Health Through the Food Quality Protection Act. Report no. 2006-P-00009. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2006/20060110-2006-P-00009.pdf [accessed 7 July 2006].
van der Walt JM, Noureddine MA, Kittappa R, Hauser MA, Scott WK, McKay R, et al. 2004. Fibroblast growth factor 20 polymorphisms and haplotypes strongly influence risk of Parkinson disease. Am J Human Genet 74:1121-1127.
Wang Q, Bardgett ME, Wong M, Wozniak DF, Lou J, McNeil BD, et al. 2002. Ataxia and paroxysmal dyskinesia in mice lacking axonally transported FGF14. Neuron 35:25-38.
Wang Q, McEwen DG, Ornitz DM. 2000. Subcellular and developmental expression of alternatively spliced forms of fibroblast growth factor 14. Mech Dev 90:283-287.
Weiss B, Amler S, Amler RW. 2004. Pesticides. Pediatrics 113:1030-1036.
Whitney KD, Seidler FJ, Slotkin TA. 1995. Developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos: cellular mechanisms. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 134:53-62.
Wright TJ, Ladher R, McWhirter J, Murre C, Schoenwolf GC, Mansour SL. 2004. Mouse FGF15 is the ortholog of human and chick FGF19, but is not uniquely required for otic induction. Dev Biol 269:264-275.
Yamada T, McGeer PL, Baimbridge KG, McGeer EG. 1990. Relative sparing in Parkinson's disease of substantia nigra dopamine neurons containing calbindin-D28K. Brain Res 526:303-307.
Yoshimura S, Takagi Y, Harada J, Teramoto T, Thomas SS, Waeber C, et al. 2001. FGF-2 regulation of neurogenesis in adult hippocampus after brain injury. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98:5874-5879.
Young JG, Eskenazi B, Gladstone EA, Bradman A, Pedersen L, Johnson C, et al. 2005. Association between in utero organophosphate pesticide exposure and abnormal reflexes in neonates. Neurotoxicology 26:199-209.
Theodore A. Slotkin, (1) Frederic J. Seidler, (1) and Fabio Fumagalli (2)
(1) Department of Pharmacology & Cancer Biology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA; (2) Center of Neuropharmacology, Department of Pharmacological Sciences, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Address correspondence to T.A. Slotkin, Box 3813 DUMC, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC 27710 USA. Telephone: (919) 681-8015. Fax: (919) 684-8197. E-mail: email@example.com
This research was supported by grant ES10356 from the National Institutes of Health.
T.A.S. and F.J.S. have provided expert witness testimony on behalf of government agencies, corporations, and/or individuals. F.F. declares he has no competing financial interests.
Received 14 November 2006; accepted 27 February 2007.
Table 1. Control values. Name Gene Genbank accession no. Fibroblast growth factor 1 fgf1 NM_012846 Fibroblast growth factor 2 fgf2 NM_019305 Fibroblast growth factor 3 fgf3 NM_130817 Fibroblast growth factor 9 fgf9 NM_012952 Fibroblast growth factor 11 fgf11 NM_130816 Fibroblast growth factor 12 fgf12 NM_130814 Fibroblast growth factor 13 fgf13 NM_053428 Fibroblast growth factor 14 fgf14 NM_022223 Fibroblast growth factor 15 fgf15 NM_130753 Fibroblast growth factor 17 fgf17 NM_019198 Fibroblast growth factor 18 fgf18 NM_019199 Fibroblast growth factor 20 fgf20 NM_023961 Fibroblast growth factor 21 fgf21 NM_130752 Fibroblast growth factor 22 fgf22 NM_130751 Fibroblast growth factor 23 fgf23 NM_130754 Fibroblast growth factor fgfr1 NM_024146 receptor 1 Fibroblast growth factor fgfr2 BF 557.572 receptor 2 Fibroblast growth factor fgfr3 NM_053429 receptor 3 Fibroblast growth factor fgfr4 XM_344570 receptor 4 Name Brainstem Forebrain Fibroblast growth factor 1 0.98 [+ or -] 0.05 1.00 [+ or -] 0.04 Fibroblast growth factor 2 1.17 [+ or -] 0.09 1.02 [+ or -] 0.03 Fibroblast growth factor 3 1.13 [+ or -] 0.11 0.87 [+ or -] 0.04 Fibroblast growth factor 9 1.37 [+ or -] 0.08 0.81 [+ or -] 0.02* Fibroblast growth factor 11 1.03 [+ or -] 0.13 1.18 [+ or -] 0.10 Fibroblast growth factor 12 1.02 [+ or -] 0.07 1.01 [+ or -] 0.03 Fibroblast growth factor 13 0.97 [+ or -] 0.02 1.00 [+ or -] 0.02 Fibroblast growth factor 14 0.87 [+ or -] 0.06 1.20 [+ or -] 0.04* Fibroblast growth factor 15 1.04 [+ or -] 0.15 1.15 [+ or -] 0.20 Fibroblast growth factor 17 0.96 [+ or -] 0.06 1.00 [+ or -] 0.08 Fibroblast growth factor 18 0.96 [+ or -] 0.04 0.99 [+ or -] 0.04 Fibroblast growth factor 20 0.92 [+ or -] 0.23 1.63 [+ or -] 0.22* Fibroblast growth factor 21 0.99 [+ or -] 0.08 0.97 [+ or -] 0.07 Fibroblast growth factor 22 1.11 [+ or -] 0.02 0.93 [+ or -] 0.04* Fibroblast growth factor 23 1.10 [+ or -] 0.10 0.84 [+ or -] 0.10 Fibroblast growth factor 1.00 [+ or -] 0.02 1.08 [+ or -] 0.02* receptor 1 Fibroblast growth factor 1.10 [+ or -] 0.04 0.96 [+ or -] 0.02* receptor 2 Fibroblast growth factor 0.98 [+ or -] 0.02 1.00 [+ or -] 0.03 receptor 3 Fibroblast growth factor 0.89 [+ or -] 0.03 0.98 [+ or -] 0.03 receptor 4 GenBank accession numbers from GenBank (2007). *Significant difference between brain stem and forebrain.
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Environmental Health Perspectives|
|Date:||Jun 1, 2007|
|Previous Article:||Estradiol and bisphenol a stimulate androgen receptor and estrogen receptor gene expression in fetal mouse prostate mesenchyme cells.|
|Next Article:||Reduction in urinary arsenic levels in response to arsenic mitigation efforts in Araihazar, Bangladesh.|