Previous Article in Journal
Electron Spin Resonance Spectroscopy Suitability for Investigating the Oxidative Stability of Non-Alcoholic Beers
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Sulforaphane Prevents Cadmium Chloride-Induced Reproductive Toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans

by
Estefani Yaquelin Hernández-Cruz
1,*,
Elí Juárez-Peredo
1,
Karla Alejandra Avendaño-Briseño
1,2,
Jorge Escutia-Martínez
1,2,
Karla Jaqueline Ramírez-Magaña
1,3,
Tania Gómez-Sierra
1 and
José Pedraza-Chaverri
1,*
1
Laboratory F-315, Department of Biology, Faculty of Chemistry, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), Mexico City 04510, Mexico
2
Graduate Program in Biological Sciences, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), University City, Mexico City 04510, Mexico
3
Graduate Program in Biochemical Sciences, National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), University City, Mexico City 04510, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Oxygen 2025, 5(3), 15; https://doi.org/10.3390/oxygen5030015
Submission received: 10 June 2025 / Revised: 26 July 2025 / Accepted: 29 July 2025 / Published: 31 July 2025

Abstract

Cadmium (Cd) is a highly toxic heavy metal that disrupts development and reproduction, primarily through oxidative stress. In this context, sulforaphane (SFN), an antioxidant compound, may serve as a promising agent to counteract Cd-induced oxidative damage and prevent developmental and reproductive abnormalities. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of SFN on reproductive toxicity induced by cadmium chloride (CdCl2) in the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans). Five experimental groups were established: (I) Control: no treatment, (II) dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO): 48 h with 0.01% DMSO, (III) CdCl2: 24 h with 4600 µM CdCl2, (IV) SFN + CdCl2: 24 h with 100 µM SFN followed by 24 h with both SFN and CdCl2, and (V) SFN: 48 h with 100 µM SFN. Co-exposure to SFN and CdCl2 prevented the reduction in the percentage of adult nematodes and increased egg-laying. It also significantly improved hatching rates, allowing more embryos to reach the larval stage, and prevented reductions in body size. However, no effects were observed on glutathione S-transferase-4 (GST-4) levels in the transgenic CL2166 strain. In conclusion, SFN substantially prevents Cd-induced reproductive toxicity in C. elegans. Future studies should investigate the molecular mechanisms by which SFN enhances egg-laying and offspring viability in this model.

1. Introduction

Heavy metal pollution, including cadmium (Cd), poses a significant threat to food security and public health [1]. Cd is a highly toxic metal with no known biological function in living organisms. Its toxicity impacts multiple body systems, leading to diseases such as chronic kidney disease, end-stage renal failure, diabetes, cancer, and even death [1,2,3,4,5]. Notably, Cd exposure is strongly associated with adverse reproductive outcomes in both males and females, disrupting fundamental processes that lead to infertility, hormonal imbalances, and developmental disorders [6,7,8]. The primary mechanism by which Cd interferes with reproduction is through the excessive production of reactive oxygen species (ROS), resulting in oxidative stress and cellular damage [6,9]. Additionally, Cd acts as an endocrine disruptor, mimicking or inhibiting the actions of endogenous hormones and interfering with steroidogenesis [6,10,11]. It has also been shown to induce epigenetic changes that alter the expression of genes involved in reproductive function, thereby perpetuating its toxic effects [6].
On the other hand, sulforaphane (SFN) is a bioactive compound widely recognized for its cytoprotective, antioxidant, and anti-inflammatory properties [12,13]. Several studies have reported that SFN attenuates the toxic effects of heavy metals [14,15]. It has been shown that SFN reduces apoptosis and necrosis in human lymphocytes, as well as inflammation and oxidative stress in HepG2 cells, thereby decreasing Cd-induced hepatotoxicity [14,15,16]. Furthermore, our research group previously demonstrated that SFN protects Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) from disruptions in redox homeostasis and mitochondrial function caused by cadmium chloride (CdCl2) [17]. However, there is still limited evidence regarding the specific effects of SFN on Cd-induced reproductive toxicity.
In this context, the nematode C. elegans is an ideal model for reproductive toxicity studies due to its simple and highly conserved reproductive system, short life cycle, and high fecundity, which enable rapid experiments and statistically significant data collection [18,19,20]. C. elegans is also highly sensitive to toxic compounds such as heavy metals and endocrine disruptors, and its response to these toxins is relevant for understanding human toxicity [18,21]. Moreover, exposure to Cd in C. elegans has already been reported to negatively affect reproduction. Cd exposure impairs oogenesis and fertility, induces apoptosis in germ cells, and reduces the number of offspring produced [22,23]. Additionally, Cd disrupts nutrient absorption and alters egg-laying behavior, further decreasing reproductive success [24,25,26]. Therefore, the objective of this study is to investigate whether SFN supplementation can mitigate CdCl2-induced reproductive toxicity in the nematode C. elegans.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Reagents

Sulforaphane (SFN-S8044) was purchased from LKT Laboratories, Inc. (St. Paul, MN, USA). Cadmium chloride (CdCl2, C2544), yeast extract (70161), cholesterol (C3045), dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and streptomycin sulfate (S6501) were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). Sodium hypochlorite (NaClO) was purchased from Cloralex (Oakland, CA, USA). Levamisole hydrochloride 12% (Levamisole HCl 12 g, Q-0021-006) was obtained from PARFAM S.A. (Mexico City, Mexico). Bacto™ agar (214010), Bacto™ peptone (211677), and Bacto™ tryptone (211705) were purchased from GIBCO (Thermo Fisher Scientific; Waltham, MA, USA). Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate (MgSO4·7H2O, 2500-01), monobasic potassium phosphate (KH2PO4, 3246-01), disodium phosphate (Na2HPO4, 3828), sodium hydroxide (NaOH, 46697), and sodium chloride (NaCl, 7647) were purchased from JT Baker (Xalostoc, State of Mexico, Mexico). Potassium chloride (KCl, 6858) and dibasic potassium phosphate (K2HPO4, 7088) were purchased from Mallinckrodt AR (St. Louis, MO, USA).

2.2. C. Elegans Strains and Maintenance

The C. elegans strains used in this study were obtained from the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA). The strains employed in this experiment include: N2 (wild-type, Bristol [27] and CL2166 dvIs19 [(pAF15)gst-4p::GFP::NLS]III [28].
C. elegans was cultured on Nematode Growth Medium (NGM) plates [composition: 0.3% NaCl, 1.7% agar, 2.5% peptone, 0.1% potassium phosphate buffer (1 M, pH 6.0), 5 µg/mL cholesterol, 1 mM CaCl2, and 1 mM MgSO4] seeded with a lawn of Escherichia coli strain OP50-1 (CGC, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA). E. coli cultures were grown overnight at 37 °C in lysogeny broth (LB: 10 g Bacto™ tryptone, 5 g yeast extract, 5 g NaCl, and 1000 mL ddH2O supplemented with streptomycin), and then diluted to an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of approximately 0.3, as previously described [29]. Subsequently, 1000 µL of the E. coli suspension was seeded onto 60 mm NGM plates and dried overnight at room temperature. Worms were maintained following standard protocols [30] at an incubation temperature of 20 °C.

2.3. Experimental Design

C. elegans were collected from NGM plates using M9 buffer (6 g Na2HPO4, 3 g KH2PO4, 5 g NaCl, 0.25 g MgSO4·7 H2O, and 1000 mL ddH2O), and cultures were synchronized using a bleaching solution (0.5% NaClO and 0.5 M NaOH, mixed at a 2:1 ratio) [31]. Subsequently, eggs were allowed to hatch on NGM plates seeded with E. coli to ensure larval development. Twenty-four hours after synchronization, L1-stage larvae were transferred to 6-well microplates containing K medium (52 mM NaCl and 32 mM KCl), E. coli (1:10 dilution), and the respective treatments. Plates were incubated at 20 °C under constant agitation (Table 1). Five experimental groups were established: (I) Control, untreated; (II) DMSO, vehicle for SFN; (III) CdCl2; (IV) SFN + CdCl2; and (V) SFN. The concentrations used in this study were previously established by our research group [17]. To prepare the SFN working concentrations, a 100 mM stock solution was prepared in DMSO and diluted 1:1000 in K medium. For CdCl2, a 1 M stock solution was prepared in Milli-Q water and subsequently diluted to 50 mM in K medium [17,32,33].
Upon completion of the treatment exposures, evaluations were conducted following the protocol outlined in Figure 1. Evaluation Day 0 was designated as the time point marking the conclusion of the treatment phase. Throughout the assessment period, nematodes were maintained on Nematode Growth Medium (NGM) agar plates seeded with E. coli OP50-1 and incubated at 20 °C to ensure consistent environmental conditions.

2.4. Survival

After treatment exposure, N2 nematodes were classified as alive or dead by observation under a dissecting microscope (Nikon SMZ-645, Nikon Instruments Inc., Melville, NY, USA). Nematodes were considered alive if they exhibited mobility in a liquid medium, and dead if they showed no movement, even after gentle agitation [34]. Five independent experiments were conducted, each including three technical replicates per condition.

2.5. Number of Eggs Laid

Following treatment exposure, individual N2 hermaphrodites were transferred to NGM plates seeded with E. coli [35]. Every 24 h, the parent worms were removed and placed on a new plate under the same conditions until the end of the experiment. The total number of eggs per day was recorded by counting both the eggs and the larvae present on each plate (to include eggs that had already hatched). Counting was performed manually using a hand tally counter and a dissection microscope (Nikon SMZ-645, Nikon Instruments Inc., Melville, NY, USA). Seven independent experiments were conducted, each including three technical replicates per condition.

2.6. Progeny Quality

To assess progeny quality, the number of hatched eggs was determined. After treatment exposure, individual N2 hermaphrodites were transferred to NGM plates seeded with E. coli. Each worm was transferred daily to a new plate under the same conditions for nine consecutive days. This allowed us to isolate the eggs laid by each worm per 24 h interval. The number of hatched larvae and unhatched eggs on each plate was recorded daily under a dissecting microscope. An egg was considered hatched when a larva had visibly exited the eggshell. At the end of the experiment, the total number of eggs and hatched larvae per worm (summed across all plates from day 1 to day 9) was used to calculate the hatching percentage. Three independent experiments were conducted, each including three technical replicates per condition.

2.7. Size and Development of C. Elegans

Nematodes were collected at the designated evaluation time points and transferred to black 96-well plates with clear flat bottoms (cat. no. sc-204468; Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc., Dallas, TX, USA). Subsequently, worms were immobilized using 5 mM levamisole, and images were captured using the Cytation™ 5 imaging system and multimode plate reader (BioTek Instruments, Inc., Winooski, VT, USA), with a 4× objective and brightfield filter. The acquired images were analyzed using Fiji ImageJ software version 1.54f [36]. With these nematodes and using the 20× objective of the Cytation™ 5, the worms were classified as non-adults (no visible eggs in the vulval region) or adults (visible eggs in the vulval region). Three independent experiments were conducted.

2.8. Expression of Glutathione S-Transferase-4 (GST-4)

GST-4 expression was assessed on day 1 of the experiment using the C. elegans strain CL2166 dvIs19 [(pAF15)gst-4p::GFP::NLS]III. Nematodes were collected after exposure to the different treatments and transferred to black 96-well plates with clear flat bottoms. Worms were then immobilized with 5 mM levamisole for 15 min, and fluorescence images were captured using the Cytation™ 5 imaging system and multimode plate reader (BioTek Instruments, Inc., Winooski, VT, USA), with a 4× objective and a green fluorescence filter (465 nm).
The images obtained were analyzed using Fiji ImageJ software version 1.54f [36]. A macro was developed to automate the analysis, which included the following steps: conversion of images to 8-bit grayscale, segmentation of worms using automatic thresholding, and manual selection of the corresponding outlines. Each outline was stored in the Region of Interest (ROI) manager, and fluorescence intensity was measured in the appropriate channel for each worm. To account for the background signal, random rectangles were placed in non-fluorescent regions and designated as ROIs. Background fluorescence was subtracted from each fluorescence measurement, and the resulting values were normalized to those of the control group. Furthermore, fluorescence values were adjusted according to the size of each nematode to ensure accurate and reliable comparisons across experimental conditions.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

Results are presented as the mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to assess normality. Differences between experimental groups were analyzed using one-way or two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), as appropriate, followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. Statistical analyses were performed using GraphPad Prism 9™ software (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Additional details regarding the number of biological and technical replicates, the number of worms or eggs analyzed, and the associated statistics for each experiment are provided in the Supplementary Tables.

3. Results

3.1. SFN Prevented CdCl2-Induced Reduction in Survival

C. elegans (Bristol-N2) were exposed to the different treatments described in Table 1, and survival was assessed for 48 h post-treatment. As illustrated in Figure 2, the control group demonstrated a survival rate of 96.4 ± 1.2%. Treatment with CdCl2 led to a marked decrease in survival, reducing it to 53.3 ± 3.1% (p < 0.001 vs. control), indicating a 46.7% reduction relative to the control group. Conversely, co-treatment with SFN and CdCl2 resulted in a partial restoration compared to the group exposed only to CdCl2. Importantly, SFN administration alone had no significant effect on survival when compared to the control group (99.8 ± 0.1%; p = 0.88).

3.2. SFN Prevented CdCl2-Induced Alterations in Egg Deposition

Egg counts were performed daily from day 0 (the day on which exposure to the treatments ended) through day 5 [37,38]. However, due to the developmental delay induced by CdCl2 (see subsequent results), egg counting was extended to day 9. Nematodes in the control group laid a cumulative total of 157 ± 15 eggs by day 9, with a hatching rate of 98.8 ± 0.4%. In contrast, exposure to CdCl2 reduced cumulative egg laying to 56.4 ± 4.5, representing a 64.1% decrease compared to the control. Likewise, the hatching rate dropped to 41.1 ± 1.2% (p < 0.001 vs. control), equivalent to a 58.4% reduction relative to the control group. Conversely, nematodes exposed to SFN + CdCl2 exhibited egg-laying rates similar to the CdCl2-only group during the first five days. However, from day 8 onward, a significant recovery was observed, reaching 118.6 ± 10.01 eggs by day 9 (p < 0.05 vs. CdCl2). Similarly, the hatching rate was 75.07 ± 2.6% (p < 0.001 vs. CdCl2), reflecting a 28.6% increase in progeny viability. These findings suggest that SFN not only partially restores egg laying but also enhances embryonic survival in the presence of CdCl2. Treatment with DMSO showed a downward trend in oviposition, though not statistically significant, with a cumulative total of 128.2 ± 12.2 eggs by day 9 (p = 0.49 vs. control). However, it moderately reduced the hatching rate to 86.7 ± 1.4% (p < 0.01 vs. control). In contrast, exposure to SFN alone significantly increased the hatching rate to 98.01 ± 0.5% (p < 0.01 vs. DMSO) (Figure 3).

3.3. SFN Prevents the Reduction in Size and Developmental Delay in C. elegans Exposed to CdCl2

The body length and width of C. elegans were measured to assess their potential relationship with reduced egg-laying. On day 8 of evaluation, nematodes in the control group exhibited an average length of 0.950 ± 0.015 mm and a width of 0.066 ± 0.001 mm. In contrast, nematodes exposed solely to CdCl2 showed a marked reduction, with a length of 0.600 ± 0.012 mm and a width of 0.038 ± 0.001 mm (p < 0.001 vs. control). Nematodes co-exposed to SFN + CdCl2 exhibited partial recovery of their body dimensions, with a length of 0.790 ± 0.014 mm (p < 0.001 vs. CdCl2) and a width of 0.051 ± 0.001 mm (p < 0.001 vs. CdCl2). Interestingly, signs of recovery became apparent by day 4 for body length solely with CdCl2. Additionally, worms exposed only to SFN exhibited a modest increase in size relative to the control group, with a length of 1.030 ± 0.026 mm (p < 0.05 vs. control) and a width of 0.060 ± 0.002 mm (p = 0.012 vs. control) (Figure 4). These findings suggest that CdCl2 exposure leads to significant reductions in both body length and width, whereas co-treatment with SFN partially mitigates these morphological alterations.
Figure 5 shows the effects of the different treatments on the proportion of nematodes that reached the adult stage. Both the control group and the DMSO and SFN groups exhibited full maturation (100%) by day 4, with no statistically significant differences among them. In contrast, CdCl2 treatment caused a sustained developmental delay, with only 45.8 ± 3.2% of nematodes reaching adulthood by day 8 (p < 0.001 vs. control). Co-exposure to SFN and CdCl2 partially attenuated this toxic effect, as approximately 60% of nematodes reached adulthood from day 5 onward, and by day 879.8 ± 3.7% had reached maturity (p < 0.001 vs. CdCl2), although this percentage remained below the 100% observed in the control group. These results indicate that CdCl2 significantly delays larval development to the adult stage, while co-administration of SFN partially mitigates this toxicity by promoting developmental progression.

3.4. GST-4 Expression Is Not Associated with the Protective Effect of SFN Against CdCl2-Induced Damage

Figure 6 shows green fluorescent protein (GFP) levels, which indicate GST-4 expression in the CL2166 strain. Fluorescence was normalized to the control group, which was set at 1.0 ± 0.021. Exposure to DMSO did not significantly alter the signal (1.033 ± 0.022; p = 0.852 vs. control). In contrast, exposure to CdCl2 induced a significant increase in fluorescence to 1.147 ± 0.024 (p < 0.01 vs. control), indicating activation of the antioxidant response mediated by GST-4. When nematodes were co-exposed to SFN and CdCl2, fluorescence rose to 1.193 ± 0.012 (p < 0.01 vs. control); however, this increase only showed a trend toward being higher than CdCl2 alone (p = 0.60) and did not reach statistical significance.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to evaluate the effect of SFN on CdCl2-induced reproductive toxicity in the nematode C. elegans. To this end, we first validated the CdCl2 toxicity model and the protective effect of SFN. In previous studies conducted by our research group, the median lethal concentration (LC50) of CdCl2 was determined to be approximately 4600 µM, and a concentration of 100 µM SFN was found to be effective in protecting against the CdCl2-induced decrease in survival [17]. In the present study, the same concentrations were used, successfully replicating previously reported effects, with SFN conferring an 18.7% increase in survival (Figure 3).
Subsequently, the effects of Cd on reproduction and development in C. elegans were evaluated. Exposure to CdCl2 caused a significant reduction in egg production, hatching rate, body size, and the percentage of nematodes reaching adulthood. As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 5, CdCl2 delayed nematode development, which may be directly related to a delay in egg laying, extending up to day 8. It is worth noting that although the reproductive period appeared prolonged, overall egg production was ultimately reduced by CdCl2 exposure. These effects have been linked to oxidative stress and gonadal damage, where meiotic alterations and DNA fragmentation in germ cells and oocytes have been observed [10,22]. Furthermore, Cd accumulates in reproductive organs, resulting in sterility or adverse effects on offspring [39,40].
The reduction in egg-laying may also be attributed to the degeneration of motor neurons, leading to impaired serotonin synthesis and oviposition [10,41]. In turn, the decreased hatching rate may be explained by Cd interference with oogenesis and embryogenesis: when administered 48 h post-synchronization, corresponding to the L3–L4 larval stages, Cd disrupts gamete formation and exerts mutagenic and teratogenic effects during embryonic development [39,42,43].
Additionally, Cd impairs nutrient absorption and assimilation by disrupting mitochondrial function in the pharynx and intestine. This leads to cellular damage, formation of inclusion bodies, and morphological changes in cytosomes, ultimately limiting energy availability required for growth [26,44]. Altogether, these findings indicate that Cd adversely affects reproduction, development, and growth in C. elegans through multiple mechanisms, including direct cellular damage, oxidative stress, nutrient uptake disruption, and energy metabolism alterations. These mechanisms converge to produce a phenotype characterized by reduced fecundity and arrested somatic development.
Considering the pivotal involvement of oxidative stress and mitochondria impairment in Cd-induced reproductive toxicity, identifying strategies to counter these effects is of paramount importance. In this regard, antioxidant agents such as SFN have shown considerable potential due to their capacity to alleviate oxidative damage and support mitochondrial function [45,46].
In our study, simultaneous exposure to SFN and CdCl2 alleviated several of the reproductive and developmental impairments induced by cadmium. Notably, SFN treatment helped maintain a higher proportion of adult nematodes, which was associated with an increased number of eggs laid compared to the CdCl2-only group. Moreover, SFN significantly enhanced egg viability, as evidenced by a higher hatching rate. Consequently, the treated population not only exhibited greater reproductive output but also achieved a higher rate of successful larval development. Furthermore, SFN prevented reductions in body size and adult numbers, parameters commonly associated with Cd-dependent toxicity, that, when restored, contribute to sustaining reproductive performance.
These findings are consistent with observations in mammals, where SFN has been shown to protect reproductive function from Cd-or obesity-induced damage by inhibiting oxidative stress via the Nrf2/ARE signaling pathway [47,48]. Similarly, protection against reproductive toxicity induced by phthalates such as DBP has been reported [48], along with enhanced proliferation of ovarian granulosa cells in mice [49].
Mechanistically, SFN exerts its effects by activating endogenous antioxidant systems. In mammals, this occurs through the activation of the Nrf2 transcription factor, whereas in C. elegans, it involves the activation of the orthologs skn-1 and daf-16 [17,47]. Hernández-Cruz et al. [17] reported that this activation reduces reactive oxygen species (ROS) formation, extends lifespan, and prevents Cd-induced mitochondrial dysfunction, positioning Insulin/IGF-like Signaling (IIS) pathway regulation as a key mechanism for metabolic protection.
Finally, we sought to explore the relationship between oxidative stress and reproduction in C. elegans by evaluating the activity of the GST-4 enzyme. Cd exposure significantly increased GST-4 levels, consistent with several studies showing this enzyme is upregulated in response to Cd-induced oxidative stress, acting as a detoxification mechanism [50,51]. However, in the SFN + CdCl2-treated group, although a tendency for increased expression was observed, no significant differences were found compared to Cd exposure alone. Since SFN is known to induce the expression of various antioxidant enzymes through Nrf2 pathway activation, it would be relevant to assess the activity of other enzymes such as superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) to determine whether SFN’s protective effect is mediated through these. Additionally, performing time-course analyses would help better characterize the temporal dynamics of the antioxidant response.

5. Conclusions

Our results support that SFN not only prevents the loss of adult nematodes and deterioration in body size but also enhances both egg production and hatching rates, resulting in a comprehensive recovery of reproductive capacity in the face of Cd-induced toxicity. For future research, it would be valuable to explore in greater depth the molecular pathways through which SFN improves egg-laying and progeny quality in C. elegans, as well as to characterize in detail the developmental alterations caused by cadmium exposure.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/oxygen5030015/s1, Table S1. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 2; Table S2. Percentage of live nematodes in each biological replicate corresponding to Figure 2; Table S3. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 3A; Table S4. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 3B; Table S5. The number of eggs laid in each biological replicate corresponding to Figure 3A,B; Table S6. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 3C; Table S7. The percentage of eggs hatched in each biological replicate corresponding to Figure 3C; Table S8. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 4A; Table S9. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 4B; Table S10. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 4C; Table S11. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 4D; Table S12. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 5A; Table S13. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 5B; Table S14. The percentage of adult nematodes in each biological replicate corresponding to Figure 5A,B; Table S15. Summary of experimental parameters and quantitative data associated with Figure 6; Table S16. Data represents relative of green fluorescent protein (GFP) in the CL2166 strain in each biological replicate corresponding to Figure 6.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.Y.H.-C. and J.P.-C.; methodology, E.Y.H.-C. and E.J.-P.; formal analysis, E.Y.H.-C., E.J.-P., K.A.A.-B., J.E.-M. and K.J.R.-M.; investigation, E.Y.H.-C.; resources, T.G.-S. and J.P.-C.; writing—original draft preparation, E.Y.H.-C.; writing—review and editing, E.Y.H.-C., T.G.-S. and J.P.-C.; supervision, E.Y.H.-C. and J.P.-C.; project adminis tration, E.Y.H.-C., and J.P.-C.; funding acquisition, T.G.-S. and J.P.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The funding for this article was supported by Secretaría de Ciencia, Humanidades, Tecnología e Innovación (Secihti; CBF2023-2024-190), Programa de Apoyo a Proyectos de Investigación e Innovación Tecnológica (PAPIIT IN200922 y PAPIIT IN202725) and Programa de Apoyo a la Investigación y al Posgrado (PAIP, 5000-9105).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

All the authors are thankful to their respective affiliated institutions for providing research facilities to carry out this work. We thank the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center (CGC) at the University of Minnesota.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ANOVAAnalysis of Variance
AREAntioxidant Response Element
C. elegansCaenorhabditis elegans
CATCatalase
CdCadmium
CdCl2Cadmium chloride
CGCCaenorhabditis Genetics Center
DMSODimethyl sulfoxide
GFPGreen Fluorescent Protein
GST-4Glutathione S-transferase 4
IISInsulin/IGF-like Signaling
KClPotassium chloride
K2HPO4Dibasic potassium phosphate
KH2PO4Monobasic potassium phosphate
LBLysogeny Broth
LC50Lethal Concentration 50
MgSO4Magnesium sulfate heptahydrate
NaClSodium chloride
NaClOSodium hypochlorite
Na2HPO4Disodium phosphate
NaOHSodium hydroxide
NGMNematode Growth Medium
Nrf2Nuclear factor erythroid 2–related factor 2
OD600Optical Density at 600 nm
PAIPResearch and Graduate Support Program
ROIRegion of Interest
ROSReactive oxygen species
SEMStandard Error of the Mean
SFNSulforaphane
SODSuperoxide dismutase

References

  1. Charkiewicz, A.E.; Omeljaniuk, W.J.; Nowak, K.; Garley, M.; Nikliński, J. Cadmium Toxicity and Health Effects—A Brief Summary. Molecules 2023, 28, 6620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zhang, H.; Reynolds, M. Cadmium Exposure in Living Organisms: A Short Review. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 678, 761–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Rafati Rahimzadeh, M.; Rafati Rahimzadeh, M.; Kazemi, S.; Moghadamnia, A.-A. Cadmium Toxicity and Treatment: An Update. Casp. J. Intern. Med. 2017, 8, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Tägt, J.; Helte, E.; Donat-Vargas, C.; Larsson, S.C.; Michaëlsson, K.; Wolk, A.; Vahter, M.; Kippler, M.; Åkesson, A. Long-Term Cadmium Exposure and Fractures, Cardiovascular Disease, and Mortality in a Prospective Cohort of Women. Environ. Int. 2022, 161, 107114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Fatima, G.; Raza, A.M.; Hadi, N.; Nigam, N.; Mahdi, A.A. Cadmium in Human Diseases: It’s More than Just a Mere Metal. Indian J. Clin. Biochem. 2019, 34, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. de Angelis, C.; Galdiero, M.; Pivonello, C.; Salzano, C.; Gianfrilli, D.; Piscitelli, P.; Lenzi, A.; Colao, A.; Pivonello, R. The Environment and Male Reproduction: The Effect of Cadmium Exposure on Reproductive Function and Its Implication in Fertility. Reprod. Toxicol. 2017, 73, 105–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kumar, S.; Sharma, A. Cadmium Toxicity: Effects on Human Reproduction and Fertility. Rev. Environ. Health 2019, 34, 327–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhao, L.-I.; Ru, Y.-F.; Liu, M.; Tang, J.-N.; Zheng, J.-F.; Wu, B.; Gu, Y.-H.; Shi, H.-J. Reproductive Effects of Cadmium on Sperm Function and Early Embryonic Development In Vitro. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0186727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Liu, J.; Wang, E.; Jing, W.; Dahms, H.-U.; Murugan, K.; Wang, L. Mitigative Effects of Zinc on Cadmium-Induced Reproductive Toxicity in the Male Freshwater Crab Sinopotamon Henanense. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020, 27, 16282–16292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wang, S.; Chu, Z.; Zhang, K.; Miao, G. Cadmium-Induced Serotonergic Neuron and Reproduction Damages Conferred Lethality in the Nematode Caenorhabditis Elegans. Chemosphere 2018, 213, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Henson, M.C.; Chedrese, P.J. Endocrine Disruption by Cadmium, a Common Environmental Toxicant with Paradoxical Effects on Reproduction. Exp. Biol. Med. 2004, 229, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Vanduchova, A.; Anzenbacher, P.; Anzenbacherova, E. Isothiocyanate from Broccoli, Sulforaphane, and Its Properties. J. Med. Food 2019, 22, 121–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Liu, Y.; Yang, X. Sulforaphane and Ophthalmic Diseases. Food Sci. Nutr. 2024, 12, 5296–5311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Alkharashi, N.A.O.; Periasamy, V.S.; Athinarayanan, J.; Alshatwi, A.A. Sulforaphane Mitigates Cadmium-Induced Toxicity Pattern in Human Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes and Monocytes. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2017, 55, 223–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Alkharashi, N.A.O.; Periasamy, V.S.; Athinarayanan, J.; Alshatwi, A.A. Assessment of Sulforaphane-Induced Protective Mechanisms against Cadmium Toxicity in Human Mesenchymal Stem Cells. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 10080–10089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. He, Q.; Luo, Y.; Xie, Z. Sulforaphane Ameliorates Cadmium Induced Hepatotoxicity through the Up-Regulation of /Nrf2/ARE Pathway and the Inactivation of NF-ΚB. J. Funct. Foods 2021, 77, 104297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hernández-Cruz, E.Y.; Aparicio-Trejo, O.E.; Eugenio-Pérez, D.; Juárez-Peredo, E.; Zurita-León, M.; Valdés, V.J.; Pedraza-Chaverri, J. Sulforaphane Exposure Prevents Cadmium-Induced Toxicity and Mitochondrial Dysfunction in the Nematode Caenorhabditis Elegans by Regulating the Insulin/Insulin-like Growth Factor Signaling (IIS) Pathway. Antioxidants 2024, 13, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hunt, P.R.; The, C. Elegans Model in Toxicity Testing. J. Appl. Toxicol. 2017, 37, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Mukhopadhyay, A.; Tissenbaum, H.A. Reproduction and Longevity: Secrets Revealed by C. Elegans. Trends Cell Biol. 2007, 17, 65–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Li, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, P.; Zhou, Q.; Zheng, X.; Gu, Q. Caenorhabditis Elegans: A Nature Present for Advanced Food Science. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2023, 49, 100971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hernández-Cruz, E.Y.; Eugenio-Pérez, D.; Ramírez-Magaña, K.J.; Pedraza-Chaverri, J. Effects of Vegetal Extracts and Metabolites against Oxidative Stress and Associated Diseases: Studies in Caenorhabditis Elegans. ACS Omega 2023, 8, 8936–8959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Qu, Z.; Liu, L.; Wu, X.; Guo, P.; Yu, Z.; Wang, P.; Song, Y.; Zheng, S.; Liu, N. Cadmium-Induced Reproductive Toxicity Combined with a Correlation to the Oogenesis Process and Competing Endogenous RNA Networks Based on a Caenorhabditis Elegans Model. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 268, 115687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Huang, X.; Ye, Q.; Dai, W.; Zheng, J.; Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Luo, Z.; Yang, J.; Zhuo, W.; Wan, Q.-L. Cadmium Exposure Induces Multigenerational Inheritance of Germ Cell Apoptosis and Fertility Suppression in Caenorhabditis Elegans. Environ. Int. 2024, 191, 108952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Pestov, N.B.; Shakhparonov, M.I.; Korneenko, T.V. Matricide in Caenorhabditis Elegans as an Example of Programmed Death of an Animal Organism: The Role of Mitochondrial Oxidative Stress. Russ. J. Bioorg. Chem. 2011, 37, 634–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pei, C.; Sun, L.; Zhao, Y.; Ni, S.; Nie, Y.; Wu, L.; Xu, A. Enhanced Uptake of Arsenic Induces Increased Toxicity with Cadmium at Non-Toxic Concentrations on Caenorhabditis Elegans. Toxics 2022, 10, 133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Popham, J.D.; Webster, J.M. Cadmium Toxicity in the Free-Living Nematode, Caenorhabditis Elegans. Environ. Res. 1979, 20, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Brenner, S. The Genetics of Caenorhabditis Elegans. Genetics 1974, 77, 71–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Leiers, B.; Kampkötter, A.; Grevelding, C.G.; Link, C.D.; Johnson, T.E.; Henkle-Dührsen, K. A Stress-Responsive Glutathione S-Transferase Confers Resistance to Oxidative Stress in Caenorhabditis Elegans. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 2003, 34, 1405–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ke, T.; Santamaría, A.; Tinkov, A.A.; Bornhorst, J.; Aschner, M. Generating Bacterial Foods in Toxicology Studies with Caenorhabditis Elegans. Curr. Protoc. Toxicol. 2020, 84, e94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Stiernagle, T. Maintenance of C. elegans. In WormBook: The Online Review of C. elegans Biology [Internet]; WormBook: Pasadena, CA, USA, 2006. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK19649/ (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  31. Donkin, S.G.; Williams, P.L. Influence of Developmental Stage, Salts and Food Presence on Various End Points Using Caenorhabditis Elegans for Aquatic Toxicity Testing. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 1995, 14, 2139–2147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Song, S.; Han, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Ma, H.; Zhang, L.; Huo, J.; Wang, P.; Liang, M.; Gao, M. Protective Role of Citric Acid against Oxidative Stress Induced by Heavy Metals in Caenorhabditis Elegans. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 36820–36831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Qi, Z.; Ji, H.; Le, M.; Li, H.; Wieland, A.; Bauer, S.; Liu, L.; Wink, M.; Herr, I. Sulforaphane Promotes, C. Elegans Longevity and Healthspan via DAF-16/DAF-2 Insulin/IGF-1 Signaling. Aging 2021, 13, 1649–1670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Park, H.-E.H.; Jung, Y.; Lee, S.-J.V. Survival Assays Using Caenorhabditis Elegans. Mol. Cells 2017, 40, 90–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Wang, H.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, Z. Age-Dependent Effects of Floxuridine (FUdR) on Senescent Pathology and Mortality in the Nematode Caenorhabditis Elegans. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2019, 509, 694–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Schindelin, J.; Arganda-Carreras, I.; Frise, E.; Kaynig, V.; Longair, M.; Pietzsch, T.; Preibisch, S.; Rueden, C.; Saalfeld, S.; Schmid, B.; et al. Fiji: An Open-Source Platform for Biological-Image Analysis. Nat. Methods 2012, 9, 676–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Scharf, A.; Pohl, F.; Egan, B.M.; Kocsisova, Z.; Kornfeld, K. Reproductive Aging in Caenorhabditis Elegans: From Molecules to Ecology. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 9, 718522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Mignerot, L.; Gimond, C.; Bolelli, L.; Bouleau, C.; Sandjak, A.; Boulin, T.; Braendle, C. Natural Variation in the Caenorhabditis Elegans Egg-Laying Circuit Modulates an Intergenerational Fitness Trade-Off. eLife 2024, 12, RP88253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Geng, H.-X.; Wang, L. Cadmium: Toxic Effects on Placental and Embryonic Development. Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2019, 67, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Thompson, J.; Bannigan, J. Cadmium: Toxic Effects on the Reproductive System and the Embryo. Reprod. Toxicol. 2008, 25, 304–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Trent, C.; Tsung, N.; Horvitz, H.R. Egg-Laying Defective Mutants of the Nematode Caenorhabditis Elegans. Genetics 1983, 104, 619–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Roy, D.; Michaelson, D.; Hochman, T.; Santella, A.; Bao, Z.; Goldberg, J.D.; Hubbard, E.J.A. Cell Cycle Features of C. Elegans Germline Stem/Progenitor Cells Vary Temporally and Spatially. Dev. Biol. 2016, 409, 261–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Degraeve, N. Carcinogenic, Teratogenic and Mutagenic Effects of Cadmium. Mutat. Res./Rev. Genet. Toxicol. 1981, 86, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Preez, G.D.; Fourie, H.; Daneel, M.; Miller, H.; Höss, S.; Ricci, C.; Engelbrecht, G.; Zouhar, M.; Wepener, V. Oxygen Consumption Rate of Caenorhabditis Elegans as a High-Throughput Endpoint of Toxicity Testing Using the Seahorse XFe96 Extracellular Flux Analyzer. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 4239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Carrasco-Pozo, C.; Tan, K.N.; Gotteland, M.; Borges, K. Sulforaphane Protects against High Cholesterol-Induced Mitochondrial Bioenergetics Impairments, Inflammation, and Oxidative Stress and Preserves Pancreatic β-Cells Function. Oxid. Med. Cell Longev. 2017, 2017, 3839756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Sohel, M.M.H.; Amin, A.; Prastowo, S.; Linares-Otoya, L.; Hoelker, M.; Schellander, K.; Tesfaye, D. Sulforaphane Protects Granulosa Cells against Oxidative Stress via Activation of NRF2-ARE Pathway. Cell Tissue Res. 2018, 374, 629–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yang, S.-H.; Long, M.; Yu, L.-H.; Li, L.; Li, P.; Zhang, Y.; Guo, Y.; Gao, F.; Liu, M.-D.; He, J.-B. Sulforaphane Prevents Testicular Damage in Kunming Mice Exposed to Cadmium via Activation of Nrf2/ARE Signaling Pathways. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2016, 17, 1703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Huo, L.; Su, Y.; Xu, G.; Zhai, L.; Zhao, J. Sulforaphane Protects the Male Reproductive System of Mice from Obesity-Induced Damage: Involvement of Oxidative Stress and Autophagy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhang, X.; Zhang, D.; Fan, A.; Zhou, X.; Yang, C.; Zhou, J.; Shen, M.; Liu, H.; Zou, K.; Tao, J. A Novel Effect of Sulforaphane on Promoting Mouse Granulosa Cells Proliferation via the NRF2–TKT Pathway. J. Adv. Res. 2024, 74, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Sidhu, M.; Sharma, M.; Bhatia, M.; Awasthi, Y.C.; Nath, R. Effect of Chronic Cadmium Exposure on Glutathione S-Transferase and Glutathione Peroxidase Activities in Rhesus Monkey: The Role of Selenium. Toxicology 1993, 83, 203–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Espinoza, H.M.; Williams, C.R.; Gallagher, E.P. Effect of Cadmium on Glutathione S-Transferase and Metallothionein Gene Expression in Coho Salmon Liver, Gill and Olfactory Tissues. Aquat. Toxicol. 2012, 110–111, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Experimental design to evaluate the protective effects of sulforaphane (SFN) against cadmium chloride (CdCl2)-induced reproductive toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans). Nematodes were synchronized at 0 h, and treatments were initiated 24 h post-synchronization. At 48 h, nematodes previously treated for 24 h underwent a media change, including the addition of fresh bacteria, followed by reapplication of the treatments. At 72 h post-synchronization, a single survival assessment was conducted, and evaluations of egg-laying, hatching, body size (length and width), and the number of adult nematodes were initiated. Oxidative stress marker GST-4 expression was assessed on day 1. Measurements of nematode size and adult count were completed on day 8, while egg-laying and hatching evaluations concluded on day 9. DMSO: dimethyl sulfoxide. Created in BioRender. Chaverri, J. (2025) BioRender.com/610n0h0 (accessed on 20 May 2025).
Figure 1. Experimental design to evaluate the protective effects of sulforaphane (SFN) against cadmium chloride (CdCl2)-induced reproductive toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans). Nematodes were synchronized at 0 h, and treatments were initiated 24 h post-synchronization. At 48 h, nematodes previously treated for 24 h underwent a media change, including the addition of fresh bacteria, followed by reapplication of the treatments. At 72 h post-synchronization, a single survival assessment was conducted, and evaluations of egg-laying, hatching, body size (length and width), and the number of adult nematodes were initiated. Oxidative stress marker GST-4 expression was assessed on day 1. Measurements of nematode size and adult count were completed on day 8, while egg-laying and hatching evaluations concluded on day 9. DMSO: dimethyl sulfoxide. Created in BioRender. Chaverri, J. (2025) BioRender.com/610n0h0 (accessed on 20 May 2025).
Oxygen 05 00015 g001
Figure 2. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on the survival of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). L1-stage N2 nematodes were exposed to: (1) Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Following treatment, nematodes were scored under a dissecting microscope as alive if they exhibited movement or as dead if they failed to respond to gentle prodding. Percent survival was calculated based on collected data. Results are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), n = 5 independent replicates. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on the survival of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). L1-stage N2 nematodes were exposed to: (1) Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Following treatment, nematodes were scored under a dissecting microscope as alive if they exhibited movement or as dead if they failed to respond to gentle prodding. Percent survival was calculated based on collected data. Results are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM), n = 5 independent replicates. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. *** p < 0.001.
Oxygen 05 00015 g002
Figure 3. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on egg-laying and egg quality in Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). N2 nematodes were exposed to (1) Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Following exposure, evaluations were performed, considering day 0 as the time point at which treatments concluded. (A) Cumulative number of eggs recorded daily from day 0 to day 9 post-treatment. Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analysis: two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 vs. control group; ## p < 0.01 vs. CdCl2 group. (B) Total number of accumulated eggs on day 9. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. n = 7 independent biological assays with 3 replicates each. (C) Cumulative percentage of hatched eggs. Data are presented as mean ± SEM, n = 7 independent biological assays with 3 replicates each. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on egg-laying and egg quality in Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). N2 nematodes were exposed to (1) Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Following exposure, evaluations were performed, considering day 0 as the time point at which treatments concluded. (A) Cumulative number of eggs recorded daily from day 0 to day 9 post-treatment. Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analysis: two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 vs. control group; ## p < 0.01 vs. CdCl2 group. (B) Total number of accumulated eggs on day 9. Data are presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. n = 7 independent biological assays with 3 replicates each. (C) Cumulative percentage of hatched eggs. Data are presented as mean ± SEM, n = 7 independent biological assays with 3 replicates each. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test. ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Oxygen 05 00015 g003
Figure 4. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on the body length and width of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). N2 nematodes were exposed to four conditions: (1) Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Day 0 was defined as the point at which treatments concluded. (A) Body length measured daily from day 0 to day 8. (B) Body length on day 8. (C) Body width measured daily from day 0 to day 8. (D) Body width on day 8. (E) Representative micrographs of nematodes on days 0 and 8 (4× objective = 1000 µm). Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analysis: two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for longitudinal data (A,C), and one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for comparisons on day 8 (B,D). (A,C): ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 vs. control; ### p < 0.001 vs. CdCl2. (B,D): * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. n = 3 independent experiments.
Figure 4. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on the body length and width of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). N2 nematodes were exposed to four conditions: (1) Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Day 0 was defined as the point at which treatments concluded. (A) Body length measured daily from day 0 to day 8. (B) Body length on day 8. (C) Body width measured daily from day 0 to day 8. (D) Body width on day 8. (E) Representative micrographs of nematodes on days 0 and 8 (4× objective = 1000 µm). Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analysis: two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for longitudinal data (A,C), and one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for comparisons on day 8 (B,D). (A,C): ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001 vs. control; ### p < 0.001 vs. CdCl2. (B,D): * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. n = 3 independent experiments.
Oxygen 05 00015 g004
Figure 5. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on the development of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). N2 nematodes were exposed to four conditions: (1) Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Day 0 was defined as the point at which treatments concluded. (A) Percentage of adult nematodes assessed daily from day 0 to day 8. (B) Percentage of adult nematodes on day 8. Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (C) Representative micrographs of adult nematodes (with visible eggs inside) vs. non-adult nematodes (20× objective = 100 µm). Statistical analysis: two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for longitudinal data (A), and one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test for comparisons on day 8 (B). (A): * p < 0.05 vs. control; *** p < 0.001 vs. control; ### p < 0.001 vs. CdCl2. (B): *** p < 0.001. n = 3 independent experiments.
Figure 5. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on the development of Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). N2 nematodes were exposed to four conditions: (1) Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Day 0 was defined as the point at which treatments concluded. (A) Percentage of adult nematodes assessed daily from day 0 to day 8. (B) Percentage of adult nematodes on day 8. Data are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). (C) Representative micrographs of adult nematodes (with visible eggs inside) vs. non-adult nematodes (20× objective = 100 µm). Statistical analysis: two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test for longitudinal data (A), and one-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test for comparisons on day 8 (B). (A): * p < 0.05 vs. control; *** p < 0.001 vs. control; ### p < 0.001 vs. CdCl2. (B): *** p < 0.001. n = 3 independent experiments.
Oxygen 05 00015 g005
Figure 6. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on GST-4 expression in Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). CL2166 nematodes were exposed to four conditions: (1) Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Data represent the relative of green fluorescent protein (GFP) in the CL2166 strain and are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (n = 3 independent experiments). ** p < 0.01 and ns: not significant.
Figure 6. Effect of sulforaphane (SFN) on GST-4 expression in Caenorhabditis elegans (C. elegans) exposed to cadmium chloride (CdCl2). CL2166 nematodes were exposed to four conditions: (1) Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO, 0.01%), (2) CdCl2 (4600 µM), (3) SFN (100 µM) + CdCl2 (4600 µM), and (4) SFN (100 µM). Data represent the relative of green fluorescent protein (GFP) in the CL2166 strain and are presented as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post hoc test (n = 3 independent experiments). ** p < 0.01 and ns: not significant.
Oxygen 05 00015 g006
Table 1. Experimental groups.
Table 1. Experimental groups.
WellTreatment 1:
for 24 h
Treatment 2:
Another 24 h
ControlVehicle onlyVehicle only
DMSODMSO (0.01%)DMSO (0.01%)
CdCl2Vehicle onlyCdCl2 (4600 µM)
* SFN + CdCl2SFN (100 µM)SFN (100 µM) +
CdCl2 (4600 µM)
SFNSFN (100 µM)SFN (100 µM)
Abbreviations: DMSO = dimethyl sulfoxide; SFN = sulforaphane; CdCl2 = cadmium chloride; Vehicle only: K medium with bacteria. * The co-exposure group (SFN + CdCl2) received SFN alone during the first 24 h, followed by a renewal of SFN and the addition of CdCl2 during the final 24 h of treatment. For all experimental groups, a medium change with fresh bacteria was performed at the 24 h mark.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hernández-Cruz, E.Y.; Juárez-Peredo, E.; Avendaño-Briseño, K.A.; Escutia-Martínez, J.; Ramírez-Magaña, K.J.; Gómez-Sierra, T.; Pedraza-Chaverri, J. Sulforaphane Prevents Cadmium Chloride-Induced Reproductive Toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Oxygen 2025, 5, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/oxygen5030015

AMA Style

Hernández-Cruz EY, Juárez-Peredo E, Avendaño-Briseño KA, Escutia-Martínez J, Ramírez-Magaña KJ, Gómez-Sierra T, Pedraza-Chaverri J. Sulforaphane Prevents Cadmium Chloride-Induced Reproductive Toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Oxygen. 2025; 5(3):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/oxygen5030015

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hernández-Cruz, Estefani Yaquelin, Elí Juárez-Peredo, Karla Alejandra Avendaño-Briseño, Jorge Escutia-Martínez, Karla Jaqueline Ramírez-Magaña, Tania Gómez-Sierra, and José Pedraza-Chaverri. 2025. "Sulforaphane Prevents Cadmium Chloride-Induced Reproductive Toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans" Oxygen 5, no. 3: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/oxygen5030015

APA Style

Hernández-Cruz, E. Y., Juárez-Peredo, E., Avendaño-Briseño, K. A., Escutia-Martínez, J., Ramírez-Magaña, K. J., Gómez-Sierra, T., & Pedraza-Chaverri, J. (2025). Sulforaphane Prevents Cadmium Chloride-Induced Reproductive Toxicity in Caenorhabditis elegans. Oxygen, 5(3), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/oxygen5030015

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop