Cited by 93Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchPesticide Exposure and ToxicityToxic Organic Pollutants Impact

Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS) Produces Dopaminergic Neuropathology in Caenorhabditis elegans

Open access
Sammi, Shreesh Raj, Foguth, Rachel M, Nieves, Claudia Sofía, De Perre, Chloe, Wipf, Peter, McMurray, Cynthia T, Lee, Linda S, Cannon, Jason R·2019·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) has been widely utilized in numerous industries. Due to long environmental and biological half-lives, PFOS is a major public health concern. Although the literature suggests that PFOS may induce neurotoxicity, neurotoxic mechanisms, and neuropathology are poorly understood. Thus, the primary goal of this study was to determine if PFOS is selectively neurotoxic and potentially relevant to specific neurological diseases. Nematodes (Caenorhabditis elegans) were exposed to PFOS or related per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for 72 h and tested for evidence of neuropathology through examination of cholinergic, dopaminergic, gamma-amino butyric acid (GABA)ergic, and serotoninergic neuronal morphologies. Dopaminergic and cholinergic functional analyses were assessed through 1-nonanol and Aldicarb assay. Mechanistic studies assessed total reactive oxygen species, superoxide ions, and mitochondrial content. Finally, therapeutic approaches were utilized to further examine pathogenic mechanisms. Dopaminergic neuropathology occurred at lower exposure levels (25 ppm, approximately 50 µM) than required to produce neuropathology in GABAergic, serotonergic, and cholinergic neurons (100 ppm, approximately 200 µM). Further, PFOS exposure led to dopamine-dependent functional deficits, without altering acetylcholine-dependent paralysis. Mitochondrial content was affected by PFOS at far lower exposure level than required to induce pathology (≥1 ppm, approximately 2 µM). Perfluorooctane sulfonate exposure also enhanced oxidative stress. Further, mutation in mitochondrial superoxide dismutase rendered animals more vulnerable. Neuroprotective approaches such as antioxidants, PFAS-protein dissociation, and targeted (mitochondrial) radical and electron scavenging were neuroprotective, suggesting specific mechanisms of action. In general, other tested PFAS were less neurotoxic. The primary impact is to prompt research into potential adverse outcomes related to PFAS-induced dopaminergic neurotoxicity in humans.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/toxsci/kfz191

Cites

90 of 90 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mitochondrial dysfunction and increased ROS production may be an underlying mechanistic driver of dopaminergic neurotoxicity and loss of dopaminergic neurons.

    “Therefore, mitochondrial dysfunction and increased ROS production may be an underlying mechanistic driver of dopaminergic neurotoxicity and loss of dopaminergic neurons (Sammi et al., 2019).”
  • In C. elegans, PFOS causes dopaminergic neurotoxicity at 50 μM, whereas GABAergic, cholinergic, and serotonergic neurons did not show neurotoxicity at concentrations below 200 μM PFOS.

    “a study in C. elegans demonstrated that exposure to PFOS causes dopaminergic neurotoxicity at 50 µM, whereas GABAergic, cholinergic, and serotonergic neurons did not show neurotoxicity at concentrations below 200 µM PFOS.”
  • In the same C. elegans study, mitochondrial content was significantly reduced and ROS levels were increased by PFOS at lower exposure concentrations (2 and 5 μM, respectively) than those required to induce dopaminergic neuropathology.

    “mitochondrial content was significantly reduced, and ROS levels were increased by PFOS at lower exposure concentrations, 2 and 5 µM, respectively, than those required to induce dopaminergic neuropathology.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sammi, S. R., Foguth, R. M., Nieves, C. S., De Perre, C., Wipf, P., McMurray, C. T., Lee, L. S., & Cannon, J. R.
Affiliations
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
  • Department of Agronomy, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Cannon, Jason R
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2019-08-19
Volume
172
Issue
2
Pages
417-434
ISSN
  • 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-6080
OpenAlex
W2969883740
Cited by
93
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 5
FWCI
2.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Toxicological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Chemistry › Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Pesticide Exposure and Toxicity
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Toxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Keywords
PFOS, PFAS, dopaminergic neurotoxicity, Caenorhabditis elegans, dopaminergic neurons, cholinergic neurons, GABAergic neurons, serotonergic neurons, mitochondrial content, oxidative stress, superoxide dismutase, neuroprotection, antioxidants, electron scavenging
MeSH terms
Animals, Antioxidants, Cell Line, Dopamine, Environmental Pollutants, Fluorocarbons, Humans, Neurons, Caenorhabditis elegans, Reactive Oxygen Species, Alkanesulfonic Acids, Oxidative Stress, Neurotoxicity Syndromes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review