4.2 Article

Baseline and oxidative DNA damage in marine invertebrates

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2017.1352179

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Anthropogenic pollutants produce oxidative stress in marine organisms, directly or following generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), potentially resulting in increased accumulation of DNA strand breaks quantified. The aim of this study is to quantify baseline levels of DNA strand breaks in marine species from four phyla and to assess relative sensitivity to oxidative stress as well as ability to recover. DNA strand breaks were determined using a formamidopyrimidine DNA glycosylase (Fpg)-amended comet assay in circulating cells from blue mussel (Mytilus edulis), shore crab (Carcinus maenas), sea star (Asterias rubens), and vase tunicate (Ciona intestinalis). Lymphocytes from Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua) were used as a reference. In addition to immediate analysis, cells from all species were exposed ex vivo to two concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) at 25 or 250 mu M prior to assay. Mean baseline DNA strand breaks were highest for cells from sea star (34%) followed by crab (25%), mussel (22%), tunicate (17%), and cod (14%). Circulating cells from invertebrates were markedly more sensitive to oxidative stress compared to cod lymphocytes. DNA strand breaks exceeded 80% for sea star, crab, and mussel cells following exposure to the lowest H2O2 concentration. There was no recovery for cells from any species following 1 hr in buffer. This study provides an in-depth analysis of DNA integrity for ecologically important species representing 4 phyla. Data indicate that circulating cells from invertebrates are more sensitive to oxidative stress than cells from fish as evidenced by DNA strand breaks. Future studies need to address the extent to which DNA strand breaks may exert consequences for body maintenance costs in marine invertebrates.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available