ACLS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gale, G.
Right arrow Articles by Jones, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gale, G.
Right arrow Articles by Jones, M.
Annals of Clinical and Laboratory Science, Vol 13, Issue 6, 474-481
Copyright © 1983 by Association of Clinical Scientists


Articles

Mechanism of diethyldithiocarbamate, dihydroxyethyldithiocarbamate, and dicarboxymethyldithiocarbamate action of distribution and excretion of cadmium

GR Gale, LM Atkins, Walker EM Jr, AB Smith, and MM Jones

Diethyldithiocarbamate (DEDC), dihydroxyethyldithiocarbamate (DHDC), and dicarboxymethyldithiocarbamate (DCDC) were assessed for their relative efficacies in mobilizing metallothionein-bound cadmium (Cd) from selected organs and tissues of mice and in promoting Cd excretion. The DHDC was effective but less so than DEDC in mobilizing Cd from liver, kidney and spleen. However, while DEDC effected a redistribution of Cd which resulted in higher levels in lungs, testes, heart, and brain, DHDC after 13 injections reduced the levels of Cd in all four of these organs. The DCDC analog did not alter the Cd load of any organ. Bone Cd content was most effectively reduced by DEDC; DCDC was somewhat less active, and DCDC was without effect. Skin Cd burden was enhanced markedly after treatment with DEDC but was reduced by treatment with DHDC or DCDC. Treatment with DEDC increased the muscle Cd content about 250 percent over control values; treatment with DHDC reduced it significantly, while DCDC was without effect. Both DEDC and DHDC reduced the whole body Cd burden, but DCDC was ineffective. The initial rate of fecal excretion of Cd was much greater following DHDC treatment than after DEDC treatment, while DCDC did not promote excretion to any detectable extent. The pattern of mobilization, redistribution, and excretion of Cd following treatment with each chelator was related to the organic/aqueous partition coefficient of each dithiocarbamate-Cd complex.





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1983 by the Association of Clinical Scientists.