Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:04:22.093Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The modes of action of toxic agents I. Observations on the poisoning of certain crustaceans by copper and mercury

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

E. D. S. Corner  and
B. W. Sparrow
E. D. S. Corner
Affiliation:
From the Plymouth Laboratory and the International Paints Research Laboratory, Newton Ferrers, Devon
B. W. Sparrow
Affiliation:
From the Plymouth Laboratory and the International Paints Research Laboratory, Newton Ferrers, Devon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Reports of recent attempts to discover how copper and mercury act as poisons to crustaceans are to be found in papers by Clarke (1947), Pyefinch & Mott (1948), Barnes & Stanbury (1948), Hoffmann (1950) and Russell Hunter (1950). Most of the evidence obtained has been interpreted in the light of two general theories (cf. Pyefinch & Mott, 1948). One is that these poisons exert their toxic effects by inactivating vital processes which occur at the animal's surface: the other is that they are absorbed by the animal and act internally by inhibiting metabolic changes. However, conclusive evidence supporting or excluding either possibility has yet to be obtained.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , October 1956 , pp. 531 - 548
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barnes, H. & Stanbury, F. A., 1948. The toxic action of copper and mercury salts both separately and when mixed on the harpactacid copepod, Nitocra spinipes (Boeck). J. exp. Biol, Vol. 25, pp. 270–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, G. L., 1947. Poisoning and recovery in barnacles and mussels. Biol. Bull., Woods Hole, Vol. 92, pp. 73–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heath, H., 1924. The external development of certain phyllopods. J. Morph., Vol. 38, pp. 453–83.Google Scholar
Hellerman, L., Chinard, P. C. & Deitz, V. R., 1943. Protein sulphydryl groups and the reversible inactivation of the enzyme urease. J. biol. Chem., Vol. 147, pp. 443–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellerman, L. & Perkins, M. E., 1934. Papain activity as influenced by oxidation-reduction and by the action of metal compounds. J. biol. Chem., Vol. 107, pp. 241–55.Google Scholar
Hoffman, C., 1950. Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Wirkung von Giften auf marine Organismen. Kieler Meeresforsch., Bd. 7, pp. 443–62.Google Scholar
Hunter, W. Russell, 1950. The poisoning of Marinogammarus marinus by cupric sulphate and mercuric chloride. J. exp. Biol., Vol. 26, pp. 113–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyefinch, K. A. & Mott, J. C., 1948. The sensitivity of barnacles and their larvae to copper and mercury. J. exp. Biol., Vol. 25, pp. 276–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sexton, W. A., 1953. Chemical Constitution and Biological Activity (2nd ed.), 265 pp. London: E. and F. N. Spon.Google Scholar
Stoppani, A. O. M., Actis, A. S., Deferrari, J. O. & Gonzalez, E. L., 1953. The role of sulphydryl groups of yeast carboxylase. Biochem. J., Vol. 54, pp. 378–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed