Back

Chronic Dietary Exposure to Methylparaben and Ethyl paraben Induces Developmental, Biochemical, and Behavioural Toxicity in Drosophila melanogaster

Huchegowda, R.; Bhat, S. S.; Srinivas, P.; Tare, M.; Pradeep, D. R.; Sahana, S. R.; Dubey, R.; Kulkarni, R. R.; R, M. P.

2025-10-15 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.10.14.682250 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Parabens, particularly methylparaben (MP) and ethylparaben (EP), are extensively used preservatives in cosmetics, foods, and pharmaceuticals. Although considered safe at low concentrations, recent evidence questions their biological inertness under chronic exposure. This study evaluated the developmental, biochemical, and behavioral effects of continuous dietary MP and EP exposure in Drosophila melanogaster, an established in vivo model for toxicological screening. Flies were chronically exposed to MP (0.5-2%) or EP (0.5-1.5%) throughout development and adulthood. Developmental timing, lifespan, oxidative-stress markers (MDA, FRAP, total protein), and locomotor performance (negative geotaxis in adults, crawling in larvae) were quantified. Paraben exposure significantly delayed development ([~]15% increase in eclosion time), reduced median lifespan (up to 50% decrease at 2% MP), and elevated oxidative damage ({uparrow}MDA, {downarrow}FRAP) in a dose-dependent manner. Protein content declined more rapidly with age, suggesting oxidative degradation or proteolysis. Both adult climbing and larval crawling performances were impaired, linking biochemical stress to neuromuscular dysfunction. MP produced stronger oxidative and behavioral effects than EP. Feeding controls confirmed that observed deficits were not due to nutritional differences. Chronic MP and EP exposure induces systemic toxicity in D. melanogaster, integrating endocrine disruption and redox imbalance as plausible mechanisms. Given conserved stress and hormonal pathways, these findings reinforce the need to re-evaluate low-dose paraben safety limits and highlight Drosophila as a rapid, ethically viable platform for screening environmental preservatives and safer substitutes.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
NeuroToxicology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.6%
2
Journal of Hazardous Materials
19 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
3
Chemosphere
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.3%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 8%
9.3%
5
Archives of Toxicology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.6%
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 31%
4.9%
7
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.7%
8
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
453 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.8%
9
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 43%
2.8%
10
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
11
Toxicological Sciences
38 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
12
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 42%
1.7%
13
RSC Advances
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
14
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.2%
15
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
16
Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior
17 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
17
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
18
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
19
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
20
Advanced Science
249 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Neuroscience
223 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
22
eneuro
389 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
23
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.5%