4.7 Article

Toxic chemicals-induced genotoxicity detected by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) seedlings

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 76, 期 7, 页码 900-906

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.05.001

关键词

Genotoxicity; Phaseolus vulgaris; Toxic chemicals; RAPD; DNA damage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Assessment of genotoxins-induced DNA damage and mutations at molecular level is important in eco-genotoxicology. In this research, RAPID was used to detect DNA damage in the roots and leaves of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L) seedlings exposed to toxic chemicals of Hg, B, Cr and Zn (HgCl2, H3BO3, K2Cr2O7 and ZnSO4 center dot 7H(2)O) at concentrations of 150 and 350 ppm for 7 d. Inhibition of shoot and root growth and increase of Hg, B, Cr and Zn element contents in the roots and leaves were observed with an increase in the concentration. For the RAPD analyses, 12 RAPID primers of 60-70% GC content were found to produce unique polymorphic band profiles and subsequently were used to produce a total of 120 bands of 263-3125 bp in the roots and leaves of untreated and treated seedlings. Polymorphisms became evident as disappearance and/or appearance of DNA bands in 150 and 350 ppm treatments compared with untreated control treatments. The DNA changes in RAPD profiles were more in the roots than in the leaves. The highest polymorphism was observed in boric acid treatments among the toxic chemicals. In a dendrogram constructed based on genetic similarity coefficients, the treatments were grouped into three main clusters: (a) root-B-150 ppm treatment grouped alone, (b) root-350 ppm-Hg, B, Cr and Zn treatments clustered together, and (c) the others including untreated control treatments merged together. We concluded that DNA alterations detected by RAPD analysis offered a useful biomarker assay for the evaluation of genotoxic effects of Hg, B, Cr and Zn pollutions on plants. Crown Copyright (C) 2009 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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