Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 26;126(4):047014. doi: 10.1289/EHP2698

Figure 5.

Figure 5A is a bar graph plotting CYP19 transcripts (coding regions) (y-axis) across DMSO, thiacloprid, U73122 plus thiacloprid, and PD98059 plus thiacloprid, as well as DMSO, imidacloprid, U73122 plus imidacloprid, and PD98059 plus imidacloprid (x-axis). Figure 5B is a bar graph plotting PII-derived CYP19 transcripts (y-axis) across DMSO, thiacloprid, and U73122 plus thiacloprid, as well as DMSO, imidacloprid, and U73122 plus imidacloprid (x-axis). Figure 5C is a bar graph plotting I.3-derived CYP19 transcripts (y-axis) across DMSO, thiacloprid, and U73122 plus thiacloprid, as well as DMSO, imidacloprid, and U73122 plus imidacloprid (x-axis). Figure 5D is a bar graph plotting I.7-derived CYP19 transcripts (y-axis) across DMSO, thiacloprid, and PD98059 plus thiacloprid, as well as DMSO, imidacloprid, and PD98059 plus imidacloprid (x-axis).

Relative expression of (A) CYP19 coding region (nonpromoter-specific or total), and CYP19 transcripts derived from promoters (B) PII, (C) I.3, and (D) I.7 in Hs578t cells exposed to thiacloprid (0.1μM) or imidacloprid (0.1μM) in the presence or absence of selective inhibitors of the PLC (U73122, 2μM) or MEK/MAPK 1/3 (PD98059, 50μM) signaling pathways. Relative transcript levels are expressed as a percentage (%) of the response of Hs578t cells exposed to 0.1μM thiacloprid or imidacloprid (100%). Experiments were performed in triplicate with three different cell passages; per experiment, each treatment was tested in triplicate. *, p<0.05; **, p<0.01; ***, p<0.001. Statistically significant difference between inhibitor pretreatment and neonicotinoid treatment alone (Student t-test).