2003
DOI: 10.1002/9780470999691
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Effects of Pollution on Fish

Abstract: For further information on Blackwell Publishing, visit our website: www.blackwellpublishing.com ContentsList of Contributors xiii Preface xv Acknowledgements xviii Contents xi 7.4 The evolution of tolerance 7.4.1 Intrapopulation diversity 7.4.2 Interpopulation differentiation 7.4.3 The speed of adaptation 7.4.4 The costs of adaptation 7.4.5 The identification of tolerance genes 7.5 References 8 From Population Ecology to Socio-Economic and Human Health Issues 8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 Aims and objectives 8.1.2 Th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 807 publications
(1,197 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While the pathologies described in the gills of the studied sharks are chronic alterations not specifically related to any particular agent, and could be induced by many different stressors (i.e., exposure to environmental pollutants, infectious processes, seasonal variation, etc. ), a great deal of the ROS, LPO and DNA damage occurring in the gills is likely derived from their functions in gas exchanges and the absorption/excretion of contaminants (Ellis, 2003). Since the histopathologic analysis indicates that contamination is positively correlated with a protective response in the gills of the sampled sharks, which can result in reduced gas exchanges and reduced absorption and excretion of substances (a notion reinforced by the weak negative correlation existing between ROS in the gills and epithelial proliferation in the same tissue (Spearman's test, rho = −0.317, pvalue = 1.369e −2 ), higher concentrations of contamination may lead to less ROS from both respiration and bioaccumulation processes which in turn reduce the oxidative damage to the lipids and DNA in this tissue.…”
Section: Contamination Versus Biological Responsesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While the pathologies described in the gills of the studied sharks are chronic alterations not specifically related to any particular agent, and could be induced by many different stressors (i.e., exposure to environmental pollutants, infectious processes, seasonal variation, etc. ), a great deal of the ROS, LPO and DNA damage occurring in the gills is likely derived from their functions in gas exchanges and the absorption/excretion of contaminants (Ellis, 2003). Since the histopathologic analysis indicates that contamination is positively correlated with a protective response in the gills of the sampled sharks, which can result in reduced gas exchanges and reduced absorption and excretion of substances (a notion reinforced by the weak negative correlation existing between ROS in the gills and epithelial proliferation in the same tissue (Spearman's test, rho = −0.317, pvalue = 1.369e −2 ), higher concentrations of contamination may lead to less ROS from both respiration and bioaccumulation processes which in turn reduce the oxidative damage to the lipids and DNA in this tissue.…”
Section: Contamination Versus Biological Responsesmentioning
confidence: 99%