4.4 Article

Assessing Mercury Exposure and Biomarkers in Largemouth Bass (Micropterus Salmoides) from a Contaminated River System in California

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00244-012-9838-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Earl and Ethel Myers Marine Biology and Oceanographic Trust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We evaluated mercury (Hg) exposure and two biomarkers, metallothionein (MT) gene expression and histopathological alterations in a wild fish species, largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), collected from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, CA, a region polluted with Hg from historic mining activities. Hg is highly toxic and can disrupt multiple physiological systems in vertebrate species, including the immune system. Total mercury (THg) concentration in muscle tissue ranged from 0.12 to 0.98 ppm (wet weight) and was not related to body condition (r (2) = 0.005, p = 0.555). Using linear regression analysis, we found a positive relationship between MT gene expression (as determined using quantitative polymerase chain reaction) and copper, zinc, manganese, aluminum, and nickel (decreased to one variable by way of principal component analysis) (r (2) = 0.379, p = 0.044), a negative relationship with selenium (r (2) = 0.487, p = 0.017), and a weak, negative relationship with THg concentrations (r (2) = 0.337, p = 0.061). Juvenile largemouth bass collected from Hg-contaminated areas displayed histopathological features of immunosuppression compared with those collected from less contaminated areas as evidenced by significantly lower macrophage density in kidney and liver tissue (p = 0.018 and 0.020, respectively), greater trematode density in liver tissue (p = 0.014), and a greater number of adult trematodes. Our results suggest that largemouth bass may be experiencing sublethal effects from chronic Hg exposure. Furthermore, our findings illustrate the utility of examining multiple sublethal markers of effect to assess the impacts of contaminant exposure on physiological function in wild species.

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

4.4
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