{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022920759659463, 'fraction_numerical': 0.05108055009823183, 'mean_word_length': 4.945525291828794, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Toxicity induced by Basic Violet 14, Direct Red 28 and Acid Red 26 in zebrafish larvae

Basic Violet 14, Direct Red 28 and Acid Red 26 are classified as carcinogenic dyes in the European textile ecology standard, despite insufficient toxicity data. In this study, the toxicity of these dyes was assessed in a zebrafish model, and the underlying toxic mechanisms were investigated. Basic Violet 14 and Direct Red 28 showed acute toxicity with a LC50 value at 60.63 and 476.84 µg ml–1, respectively, whereas the LC50 of Acid Red 26 was between 2500 and 2800 µg ml–1. Treatment with Basic Violet 14, Direct Red 28 and Acid Red 26 resulted in common developmental abnormalities including delayed yolk sac absorption and swimming bladder deflation. Hepatotoxicity was observed in zebrafish treated with Basic Violet 14, and cardiovascular toxicity was found in zebrafish treated with Acid Red 26 at concentrations higher than 2500 µg ml–1. Basic Violet 14 also caused significant up‐regulation of GCLC gene expression in a dose‐dependent manner whereas Acid Red 26 induced significant up‐regulation of NKX2.5 and down‐regulation of GATA4 at a high concentration in a dose‐dependent manner. These results suggest that Basic Violet 14, Direct Red 28 and Acid Red 26 induce developmental and organ‐specific toxicity, and oxidative stress may play a role in the hepatotoxicity of Basic Violet 14, the suppressed GATA4 expression may have a relation to the cardiovascular toxicity of Acid Red 26. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.