4.7 Article

DNA damage in grasshoppers' larvae - Comet assay in environmental approach

期刊

CHEMOSPHERE
卷 96, 期 -, 页码 180-187

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.10.033

关键词

DNA strand-breaks; DNA repair; Comet assay; Insect; Oxidative stress

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The comet assay that provides a quantitative measure of the DNA-strand breaks may be used for assessing the 'genotoxic potential' of the environment. Young adults of Chorthippus brunneus (Orthoptera), collected at three sites in Southern Poland, differing in the level of pollution, particularly with heavy metals: Pilica (reference), Olkusz (moderately polluted) and Szopienice (heavily polluted) - were allowed to mate under laboratory conditions that were free from any pollution. Egg-pods were collected and, after diapause, brain cells from one-day old larvae were used for the comet assay. We compared the level of DNA damage in the larvae originating from these sites and also measured time-dependent DNA repair after single 10 min. application of H2O2 (20 mu M final concentration). The DNA damage was relatively low in larval cells irrespectively of the site pollution their parents came from. However, measured comet parameters - tail DNA content (TDNA), tail length (TL), and olive tail moment (OTM) - were significantly higher in larvae originating from the Szopienice site than in those from the reference site. Incubation of cells with H2O2 resulted in significantly higher values of the comet parameters in the insects from all the study sites with the highest ones observed in the offspring of grasshoppers from Szopienice. Moreover, DNA repair, following the treatment, did not occur in the latter group. These data contribute to almost unexplored subject of genotoxic effects of environmental pollutants in insects. They are discussed in the light of the concept of adaptive strategies in energy allocation depending on the level of biotope pollution. (C) 2013 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