4.7 Article

General stress, detoxification pathways, neurotoxicity and genotoxicity evaluated in Ruditapes philippinarum exposed to human pharmaceuticals

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY
Volume 124, Issue -, Pages 18-31

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2015.09.031

Keywords

Digestive gland tissue; Bioassay; Sublethal effects; Drugs; Biomarkers; Clams

Funding

  1. Andalusian Government, Spain [P09-RNM-5136]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A battery of biomarkers was evaluated on Ruditapes philippinarum exposed during 14 days to caffeine, ibuprofen, carbamazepine and novobiocin (0.1,1, 5, 10, 15, and 50 mu g L-1). The battery included general stress (lysosomal membrane stability - LMS) analysed in the hemolymph, and biochemical biomarkers analysed in digestive gland tissues including: biomarkers of phase I (etoxyresorufin O-deethylase - EROD, dibenzylfluorescein dealkylase - DBF), phase II (gluthathione-S-transferase - GST), oxidative stress (gluthathione reductase - GR, gluthathione peroxidase - GPX, lipid peroxidation - LPO), neurotoxicity (acetylcholinesterase activity - AChE), and genotoxicity (DNA damage). Pharmaceuticals tested induced the sublethal responses (even at the environmental range 0.1 mu g L-1). At this low concentration; caffeine, ibuprofen and carbamazepine decreased the LMS significantly compared with controls (p <0.05). The four compounds induced significantly the detoxification metabolism and oxidative stress (p < 0.05). Neurotoxicity was noticed in clams exposed to caffeine and carbamazepine (p < 0.05). Ibuprofen, carbamazepine and novobiocin produced genotoxic effects (p < 0.05). Results from this research validate the use of biomarkers when assessing the effects of pharmaceuticals within a marine environmental risk assessment framework, using as a laboratory bioassay model the species R. philippinarum. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available