4.5 Article

Micronucleus induction in gill cells of green-lipped mussels (Perna viridis) exposed to mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and chlorinated pesticides

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY
卷 23, 期 5, 页码 1317-1325

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1897/03-225

关键词

Perna viridis; micronucleus; biomarker; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons; chlorinated pesticides

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Different groups of green-lipped mussels (Perna viridis) were exposed to the same net amount of a genotoxicant mixture of four polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ([PAHs]: anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, and benzo[a]pyrene) and four organochlorine pesticides ([OCs]; alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), aldrin, dieldrin, and p,p'-DDT) for four weeks under different regimes that simulated various scenarios of fluctuating toxicant levels in the marine environment. micronucleus (MN) formation in gill cells was studied at the end of each week. Micronucleus frequencies increased with continual addition of genotoxicants, and did not diminish significantly under conditions of either gradually decreasing concentrations or cessation of exposure for one to two weeks, suggesting that the MN response may persist over relatively long exposure periods. An almost two-fold higher mean MN frequency was recorded in a chronic exposure group than in an acute group that had received the same net nominal dose of genotoxicants, indicating that chronic exposure may lead to a greater genotoxic impact than acute exposure. The results suggested that in field studies, MN response should be monitored at multiple time points in order to elucidate the effects of potentially fluctuating toxicant levels. Finally, MN Formation was positively correlated with both nominal contaminant levels and tissue levels of the genotoxicants. These findings suggest that MN responses can be a sensitive indicator of exposure to relatively low levels of genotoxicants and that MN response in Mussel gill cells can he a stable biomarker of genotoxicity.

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