ResearchersLinks

Short Communication · Volume 53, Issue 5, 19 August 2021 · Open Access

Micronuclei Assay: A Suitable Tool for Evaluating the Heavy Metals Induced Genotoxicity in Fish, Labeo rohita

· · · · ·

Affiliations & Notes ⌄
  1. 1Department of Zoology, Wildlife and Fisheries, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 2Department of Zoology, Cholistan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bahawalpur 3State Key Laboratory for Conservation and Utilization of Subtropical Agro-Bioresources, Guangxi University, Nanning, Guangxi 530005, PR China , * Corresponding author: dr.humanaz98@gmail.com
  2. 2humanaz@cuvas.edu.pk
Article Info ⌄
Journal:
Pakistan Journal of Zoology
Published:
19 August 2021

From the article

  • Results showed that test dose 26.61 mgL-1 induced significantly higher mean MN followed by 13.30 mgL-1, 19.98 mgL-1, 7.98 mgL-1, PC and NC (Fig. 1C).
  • Micronuclei and deshaped nuclei frequency differ with the exposure period as 28>21>14>7 days (Table I).
  • The present study indicated that Cr+Co mixture is a genotoxic agent for Labeo rohita under different concentrations.
  • Micronucleus test is a sensitive and rapid method to detect the effect of heavy metal pollution in aquatic environment.

Selected from the article's own text.

Abstract

Increasing load of heavy metals from industrial, agricultural and commercial chemicals discharged into aquatic habitats could pose a serious threat to the aquatic life like fish. These metals have ability to induce the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). These ROS can interact with nucleic acids and cause oxidation of DNA. The potential of ROS to damage DNA has become a topic of significant interest for environmental toxicology studies. Thepresent research was conducted to assess the genotoxic potential of cobalt (Co) and chromium (Cr) mixture to fish Labeo rohita by using micronuclei assay. Fish were exposed to the four sub-lethal doses (26.61, 13.30, 19.98 and 7.98 mgL-1) of Cr+Cr mixture for 28 days and blood was sampled after 7 days interval. A group (n=10) of fish were also kept in clean water (negative control=NC) and cyclophasphamid (positive control=PC), separately. Blood from caudal vein of fish was collected to see the micronuclei (MN) and de-shape nuclei (DN). Results showed that test dose 26.61 mgL-1 induced significantly higher mean MN followed by 13.30 mgL-1, 19.98 mgL-1, 7.98 mgL-1, PCand NC. However the result of DN showed minor difference. The frequency of DN in RBCs was maximum in fish exposed to 26.61 mgL-1 dose followed by the order: 13.30 mgL-1> 19.98 mgL-1> PC > 7.98 mgL-1> NC. Micronuclei and deshaped nuclei frequency differ with the exposure period as 28>21>14>7 days. This study concluded that metals present in mixture in aquatic environment can induce DNA damage in fish.

Materials and methods

Labeo rohita was selected for this experiment. Fish were procured from Fish Seed Hatchery, Faisalabad and live transferred to wet laboratory at Fisheries Research Farm, University of Agriculture Faisalabad. Fish were initially acclimatized to laboratory environment for a period of 14 days and then fish (n=10) of 120-day age (average weight, 16.21±0.35; length,115.41±2.26) were shifted to 100-L glass aquarium. The LC50 of chromium(Cr)+cobalt(Co) mixture for 96-hr for L. rohita was calculated as 39.92 mgL-1 . Fish were treated with different sub-lethal doses viz. 2/3rd, 1/ 3rd,1/4th and 1/5th of LC50 of Cr+Co mixture calculated as 26.61, 13.30, 19.98 and 7.98 mgL-1, respectively. Water was partially changed throughout the study period. Fish were treated for one month and blood samples were collected after seven days interval. Fish (n=10) were maintained in clean water considered as negative control (NC) . The cyclophasphamid was used as a positive control (PC). Fish were fed with diet available commercially at 2% body weight. The water quality parameters such as water hardness (225 mgL-1), temperature (28ᵒC), pH (7.0) and dissolve oxygen (5ppm) were monitored for whole study.

Blood from the fish caudal vein was collected and instantly smeared a drop on slide. The smears were immediately fixed in methanol for 10 minute and left over for air dry, and finally stained with wright-giemsa stain for 8 minutes . Scoring of micronuclei and deshape nuclei were performed (per 1,000 cell) on coded slides using a binocular microscope according to the criteria described by Fenech et al. (2003). Following formulae was used to calculate the MN frequency.

Figure 1.

The experiment was performed with three independent replicates for each treatment. Data were expressed as mean (±SE) and analyzed by non-parametric Mann-Whitney U-test .

Results

Results showed that test dose 26.61 mgL-1 induced significantly higher mean MN followed by 13.30 mgL-1, 19.98 mgL-1, 7.98 mgL-1, PC and NC (Fig. 1C). However, the result of DN showed minor difference. The frequency of DN in RBCs was maximum in fish exposed to 26.61 mgL-1 dose followed by the order: 13.30 mgL-1> 19.98 mgL-1> PC > 7.98 mgL-1> NC (Fig. 1B). Micronuclei and deshaped nuclei frequency differ with the exposure period as 28>21>14>7 days (Table I).


Discussion

Aquatic environment has been contaminated due to presence of various toxicants released from industries and agricultural activities . Aquatic pollutants include heavy metals which may enter in aquatic ecosystem through natural and anthropogenic sources. Sub-lethal exposure of these metals to aquatic organisms results in amassment of metals in tissues that cause unfavorable effects not only in the exposed animal, but also in humans through food chain . Various toxicants in contaminated water can induce damage to genetic material of aquatic life and produce geno-toxic effects. Aquatic animals especially, fish is a good indicator to study the heavy metals produced genotoxic and mutagenic damage such as DNA strand breakages .

In recent investigation, the ability of Cr+Co mixture to produce micronuclei (MN) and deshape nuclei in erythrocytes of L. rohita varied due to test doses and exposure period. The formation of MN and deshaped nuclei increased during first 21-day, after that it was decreased. These nuclear abnormalities can be rapidly defeated by DNA repair mechanisms . Mixture of Cd+Zn significantly increased the formation of MN and nuclear abnormalities (NA) in the erythrocyte of O. niloticus in a duration dependent manner . Similarly, Jiraungkoorskul et al. (2007) also observed the time-dependent effects in RBCs of fish exposed to cadmium, copper, lead, and cadmium chloride. Potential of cadmium and mercury to induce MN and NA in Phoxinus phoxinus was recorded by Ayllon and Gracia-Vazquez (2000).

Several authors reported the Cd induced MN in RBCs of fish like C. paleatus, C. carpio and C. gibelio and A. anguilla . According to Udroiu (2006) the production of micronucleus in blood varies due to species and exposure period. A significantly positive correlation between metal

Table I. Cr+Co mixture induced nuclear abnormalities in Labeo rohita.

Parameters

Exposure duration

Doses

NC

PC

7.98 mgL-1

19.98 mgL-1

13.30 mgL-1

26.61mgL-1

Micronuclei

7-day

1.00Df

22.00De

27.00Dd

42.00Dc

48.00Db

50.00Da

14-day

2.00Cf

27.00Ce

30.00Cd

46.00Cc

53.00Cb

58.00Ca

21-day

3.00Bf

31.00Be

34.00Bd

51.00Bc

60.00Bb

67.00Ba

28-day

2.00Af

32.00Ae

37.00Ad

59.00Ac

64.00Ab

70.00Aa

Micronuclei

frequency (%)

7-day

0.05±0.02Df

1.1±0.04De

1.35±0.03Dd

2.20±0.05Dc

2.40±0.40Db

2.70±0.19Da

14-day

0.10±0.01Cf

1.35±0.02Ce

1.50±0.01Cd

2.30±0.01Cc

2.65±0.02Cb

2.90±0.02Ca

21-day

1.15±0.02Bf

1.55±0.06Be

1.70±0.06Bd

2.55±0.23Bc

3.00±0.19Bb

3.35±0.12Ba

28-day

0.10±0.01Af

1.60±0.10Ae

1.85±0.10Ad

2.95±0.10Ac

3.20±0.02Ab

3.50±0.10Aa

De-shaped

7-day

2.00Df

6.00Dd

4.00De

7.00Dc

9.00Db

13 .00Da

14-day

2.00 Cf

10.00Cd

7.00Ce

8.00Cc

11.00Cb

15.00Ca

21-day

3.00Bf

11.00Bd

9.00Be

11.00Bc

16.00Bb

19.00Ba

28-day

4.00Af

14.00Ad

12.00Ae

13.00Ac

19.00Ab

21.00Aa

De-shaped

frequency (%)

7-day

0.10±0.01Df

0.30±0.10Dd

0.20±0.05De

0.35±0.4Dc

0.40±0.20Db

0.60±0.10Da

14-day

0.10±0.01Cf

0.50±0.03Cd

0.35±0.01Ce

0.40±0.02Cc

0.55±0.04Cb

0.75±0.10Ca

21-day

0.15±0.02Bf

0.55±0.10Bd

0.45±0.10Be

0.55±0.02Bc

0.80±0.02Bb

0.95±0.10Ba

28-day

0.20±0.01Af

0.70±0.03Ad

0.60±0.01Ae

0.65±0.04Ac

0.95±0.02Ab

1.05±0.30Aa

Small alphabet superscripts show the difference between treatments within the same row While capital alphabet shows significant (P < 0.05) among different durations of exposure within the same column.

concentration and frequency of NA in O. niloticus was noted by Summak et al. (2010). A dose (arsenic) reliant raise in MN and NA frequency in Channa punctatus and Carassius auratus was observed by Kumar et al. (2013). Kousar and Javed (2016) also reported the arsenic induced micronuclei and de-shaped nuclei in fish species viz. L. rohita, C. idella, C. catla and C. mrigala. Arsenic, mercury and copper also can induced genotoxicity in Channa punctata (Yadav and Trivedi, 2009). Kousar et al. (2018) observed the concentration dependent higher micronuclei frequency in RBCs of Cirrhina mrigala. Chromium induced genotoxicity in term of micronuclei in L. rohita was observed by Parveen et al. (2011). The abattoir effluent also induced the frequency of MN in a time reliant manner was observed by Alimba et al. (2015). Rasal et al. (2011) also reported the chromium induced genotoxicity in Labeo rohita.

Conclusion

The present study indicated that Cr+Co mixture is a genotoxic agent for Labeo rohita under different concentrations. Micronucleus test is a sensitive and rapid method to detect the effect of heavy metal pollution in aquatic environment.

Statement of conflict of interest

The authors declare there is no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1..

Normal (A), De-shaped (B) and Micro (C) nuclei.

References

  1. Abu-Bakar, S.N.N., Ashriya, A., Shuib, A.S. and Razak, S.A., 2014. Sains Malay., 43: 1053-1059.
  2. Alimba, C.G., Ajayi, E.O., Hassan, T., Sowunmi, A.A. and Bakare, A.A., 2015. Chinese J. Biol., 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/624524[CrossRef]
  3. Avenant-oldewage, A. and Marx, H.M., 2000. Water S.A., 26: 621-640
  4. Ayllon, F. and Gracia-Vazquez, E., 2000. Mutat. Res., 467: 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5718(00)00033-4[CrossRef]
  5. Barsiene, J., Dedonyte, V., Rybakovas, A., Andreikenaite, L. and Andersen, O.K., 2006. Aquat. Toxicol., 78: 99-104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2006.02.022[CrossRef]
  6. Barsiene, J., Lazutka, J., Syvokiene, J., Dedonyte, V., Rybakovas, A., Bjornstad, A. and Andersen, O.K., 2004. Environ. Toxicol., 19:365-371. https://doi.org/10.1002/tox.20031[CrossRef]
  7. Batool, U. and Javed, M., 2015. Pakistan J. Zool., 47: 617-623.
  8. Bolognesi, C. and Hayashi, M., 2011. Mutagenesis, 26: 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/geq073[CrossRef]
  9. Cavas, T. and Ergene-Gozukara, S., 2005a. Aquat. Toxicol., 74: 264-271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2005.06.001[CrossRef]
  10. Cavas, T. and Ergene-Gozukara, S., 2005b. Environ. Mol. Mutagen., 46: 64-70. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.20130[CrossRef]
  11. Cavas, T., Garanko, N.N. and Arkhipchuk, V.V., 2005. Fd. Chem. Toxicol., 43: 569-574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2004.12.014[CrossRef]
  12. DaSilva-Souza, T. and Fontanetti, C.S., 2006. Mutat. Res., 60: 587-593.
  13. Fenech, M., 2002. Drug. Discov. Today, 7: 1128-1137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1359-6446(02)02502-3[CrossRef]
  14. Fenech, M., 2007. Nat. Protoc., 2: 1084-1104. https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.77[CrossRef]
  15. Fenech, M., Chang, W.P., Kirsch-Volders, M., Holland, N., Bonassi, S. and Zeiger, E., 2003. Mutat. Res., 534: 65-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5718(02)00249-8[CrossRef]
  16. Fenech, M. and Crott, J.W., 2002. Mutat. Res., 504: 131-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0027-5107(02)00086-6[CrossRef]
  17. Frenzilli, G., Nigro, M. and Lyons, B.P., 2009. Mutat. Res./Rev. Mutat. Res., 681: 80-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2008.03.001[CrossRef]
  18. Has-Schon, E., Bogut, I. and Strelec, I., 2006. Arch. environ. Contam. Toxicol., 50: 545-551. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-005-0047-2[CrossRef]
  19. I.A.R.C., 2003. Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Vol. 86, Lyon, France.
  20. IARC, 1993. IARC scientific publications, Lyon, France. 58: 119-238.
  21. Isani, G., Andreani, G., Cocchioni, F., Fedeli, D., Carpene, E. and Falcioni, G., 2009. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safe., 72: 224-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2008.04.015[CrossRef]
  22. Jiraungkoorskul, W., Kosai, P., Sahaphong, S. and Kirtputra, P., 2007. Res. J. environ. Sci., 1: 56-63.
  23. Kligerman, D., 1982. Mutagenicity: New horizons in genetic technology. Acad. Press, New York, USA, pp. 435-456. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-336180-6.50020-X[CrossRef]
  24. Kousar, S. and Javed, M., 2015. Turk. J. Fish. aquat. Sci., 15: 879-886. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v15_4_11[CrossRef]
  25. Kousar, S. and Javed, M., 2016. J. Anim. Plant. Sci., 26: 1501-1506.
  26. Kousar, S., Javed, M., Ambreen, F., Ashraf, A., Ilyas, R., Batool, M. and Azmat, H., 2018. Pakistan J. Zool. Suppl. Ser., 13: pp. 65-73.
  27. Kousar, S. and Javed. M., 2015. Turk. J. Fish. aqua. Sci., 15: 879-886. https://doi.org/10.4194/1303-2712-v15_4_11[CrossRef]
  28. Kumar, A., Vibudh, P.K. and Parimal, K.K., 2013. BioMetals, 26: 337-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10534-013-9620-8[CrossRef]
  29. Mateuca, R., Lombaert, N., Aka, P.V., Decordier, I. and Kirsch-Volders, M., 2006. Biochimie, 88: 1515-1531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biochi.2006.07.004[CrossRef]
  30. Obiakor, M.O., Ezeonyejiaku, C.D., Ezenwelu, C.O. and Ugochukwu, G.C., 2010. Am.-Eurasian J. toxicol. Sci., 2: 196-202.
  31. Obiakor, M.O., Okonkwo, J.C. and Ezeonyejiaku, C.D., 2010. J. appl. Sci. environ. Manage., 14: 59-64. https://doi.org/10.4314/jasem.v14i3.61468[CrossRef]
  32. Parveen, N. and Shadab, G.G.H.A., 2011. Int. J. Sci. Nat., 2: 625-631.
  33. Pruski, A.M. and Dixon, D.R., 2002. Aquat. Toxicol., 57: 127-137. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-445X(01)00192-8[CrossRef]
  34. Rajan, A.P., Nathiya, T. and Alphonse, M.A., 2012. Int. J. Res. Ayurveda. Pharm., 3: 105-108.
  35. Ramsdorf, W.A., Ferraro, M.V.M., Oliveiraribeiro, C.A., Costa, J.R.M. and Cestari, M.M., 2009. Environ. Monit. Assess., 158: 77-85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0566-1[CrossRef]
  36. Rasal, K., Rasal, A. and Makwana, N., 2011. Asian J. Anim. Sci., 6: 32-34.
  37. Sanchez-Galan, S., Linde, A.R., Ayllon, F. and Garcia-Vazquez, E., 2001. Ecotoxicol. environ. Safe., 49: 139-143. https://doi.org/10.1006/eesa.2001.2048[CrossRef]
  38. Steel, R.G.D., Torrie, J.H. and Dinkkey, D.A. 1996. Principles and procedures of statistics (3rd Ed.) McGraw Hill Book Co., Singapore.
  39. Summak, S., Aydemir, N.C., Vatan, O., Yilmaz, D., Zorlu, T. and Bilaloglu, R., 2010. Fd. Chem. Toxicol., 48: 2443-2447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2010.06.007[CrossRef]
  40. Udroiu, I., 2006. Aquat. Toxicol., 79: 201-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2006.06.013[CrossRef]
  41. Yaqub, S. and Javed, M., 2012. Int. J. agric. Biol., 14: 276-280.

Cited by 1 article

In journals published by ResearchersLinks.

  1. Micronucleus Assay as a Biomarker to Diagnose Lead, Chromium and Cadmium Induced Genotoxicity in Erythrocytes of Carnivorous Fish, Wallago attuPunjab University Journal of Zoology · 2021

Services

Article usage statistics

Loading…

Micronuclei Assay: A Suitable Tool for Evaluating the Heavy Metals Induced Genotoxicity in Fish, Labeo rohita · ResearchersLinks