4.5 Article

Construction of a bioreporter by heterogeneously expressing a Vibrio natriegens recA:: luxCDABE fusion in Escherichia coli, and genotoxicity assessments of petrochemical-contaminated groundwater in northern China

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE-PROCESSES & IMPACTS
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 751-759

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c6em00120c

关键词

-

资金

  1. Special Scientific Research Fund of Public Welfare of Environmental Protection
  2. Ministry of Environmental Protection of China [201309001]
  3. National Science and Technology Major Project on Water Pollution Control and Treatment [2011ZX07301-003]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Here, we constructed an Escherichia coli recA:: luxCDABE bioreporter for genotoxicity assessments. The recA promoter was cloned from the marine bacterium Vibrio natriegens. This bioreporter showed a dose-response relationship following induction by mitomycin C, and other pollutants or environmental samples could be calculated as mitomycin C equivalents, which provided a way to quantitatively compare the genotoxicities of different environmental samples. This bioreporter was used to evaluate the genotoxicity under a wide range of external environmental conditions, like temperatures ranging from 15 degrees C to 42 degrees C, pH between 4.0 and 9.0, and salinity ranging from 0% to 3%. This successfully extended its application from the laboratory to the field, and allowed the bioreporter to assess the genotoxicity and bioavailability of genotoxins in various environmental media, including surface water, groundwater, seawater, and soil matrix. Expression of V. natriegens recA in E. coli indicated a LexA-like regulator in V. natriegens, and the putative SOS box of V. natriegens recA was similar to that of E. coli. The genotoxicities of groundwater samples from a petrochemical-contaminated site in northern China were evaluated by this bioreporter assay, and the genotoxic levels were in accordance with contamination levels obtained by chemical analyses.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据