4.2 Article

Faster Development Covaries with Higher DNA Damage in Grasshoppers (Chorthippus albomarginatus) from Chernobyl

期刊

PHYSIOLOGICAL AND BIOCHEMICAL ZOOLOGY
卷 91, 期 2, 页码 776-787

出版社

UNIV CHICAGO PRESS
DOI: 10.1086/696005

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of South Carolina College of Arts of Science and Office of Research
  2. Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France)
  3. Fulbright Program
  4. National Geographic Society
  5. University of South Carolina School of the Earth, Ocean, and Environment
  6. Samuel Freeman Charitable Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Chernobyl, chronic exposure to radioactive contaminants has a variety of deleterious effects on exposed organisms, including genetic damage and mutation accumulation. However, the potential for such effects to be transmitted to the next generation is poorly understood. We captured lesser marsh grasshoppers (Chorthippus albomarginatus) in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone from sites varying in levels of environmental radiation by more than three orders of magnitude. We then raised their offspring in a common garden experiment in order to assess the effects of parental exposure to radiation on offspring development and DNA damage. Offspring that reached maturity at a younger age had higher levels of DNA damage. Contrary to our hypothesis, parental exposure to radioactive contamination did not affect DNA damage in their offspring possibly because of intervening adaptation or parental compensatory mechanisms. Our results suggest a trade-off between developmental rate and resistance to DNA damage, whereby offspring developing at faster rates do so at the cost of damaging their DNA. This result is consistent with and extends findings in other species, suggesting that faster growth rates cause increased oxidative damage and stress. We propose that growth rates are subject to stabilizing selection balancing the benefits of fast development and the competing need of buffering its damaging effects to macromolecules and tissues.

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

4.2
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