Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1381–1390 | Cite as

Differential genotoxicity of Roundup® formulation and its constituents in blood cells of fish (Anguilla anguilla): considerations on chemical interactions and DNA damaging mechanisms

  • S. Guilherme
  • M. A. Santos
  • C. Barroso
  • I. Gaivão
  • M. Pacheco
Article

Abstract

It has been widely recognized that pesticides represent a potential threat in aquatic ecosystems. However, the knowledge on the genotoxicity of pesticides to fish is still limited. Moreover, genotoxic studies have been almost exclusively focused on the active ingredients, whereas the effect of adjuvants is frequently ignored. Hence, the present study addressed the herbicide Roundup®, evaluating the relative contribution of the active ingredient (glyphosate) and the surfactant (polyethoxylated amine; POEA) to the genotoxicity of the commercial formulation on Anguilla anguilla. Fish were exposed to equivalent concentrations of Roundup® (58, 116 μg L−1), glyphosate (17.9, 35.7 μg L−1) and POEA (9.3, 18.6 μg L−1), during 1 and 3 days. The comet assay was applied to blood cells, either as the standard procedure, or with an extra step involving DNA lesion-specific repair enzymes in an attempt to clarify DNA damaging mechanisms. The results confirmed the genotoxicity of Roundup®, also demonstrating the genotoxic potential of glyphosate and POEA individually. Though both components contributed to the overall genotoxicity of the pesticide formulation, the sum of their individual effects was never observed, pointing out an antagonistic interaction. Although POEA is far from being considered biologically inert, it did not increase the risk associated to glyphosate when the two were combined. The analysis of oxidatively induced breaks suggested that oxidation of DNA bases was not a dominant mechanism of damage. The present findings highlighted the risk posed to fish populations by the assessed chemicals, jointly or individually, emphasizing the need to define regulatory thresholds for all the formulation components and recommending, in particular, the revision of the hazard classification of POEA.

Keywords

Roundup® Glyphosate POEA Genotoxicity DNA lesion-specific repair enzymes Fish 

Notes

Acknowlegdements

This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT; Government of Portugal) through the Research project PTDC/AAC-AMB/114123/2009 [co-financed by FCT/MCTES in its national budget component (PIDDAC) and by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through COMPETE - Thematic Factors of Competitiveness Operational Programme (POFC)] and the Ph.D. fellowship SFRH/BD/42103/2007, as well as by Centre for Environmental and Marine Studies (CESAM).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Azqueta A, Shaposhnikov S, Collins A (2009) DNA oxidation: investigating its key role in environmental mutagenesis with the comet assay. Mutat Res 674:101–108Google Scholar
  2. Brausch J, Smith P (2007) Toxicity of three polyethoxylated tallow amine surfactant formulations to laboratory and field collected fairy shrimp, Thamnocephalus platyurus. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52(2):217–221. doi: 10.1007/s00244-006-0151-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brausch J, Beall B, Smith P (2007) Acute and sub-lethal toxicity of three POEA surfactant formulations to Daphnia magna. B Environ Contam Tox 78(6):510–514. doi: 10.1007/s00128-007-9091-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cavalcante M, Martinez R, Sofia S (2008) Genotoxic effects of Roundup on the fish Prochilodus lineatus. Mutat Res 655(1–2):41–46Google Scholar
  5. Çavas T, Könen S (2007) Detection of cytogenetic and DNA damage in peripheral erythrocytes of goldfish (Carassius auratus) exposed to a glyphosate formulation using the micronucleus test and the comet assay. Mutagenesis 22:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Collins A (2004) The comet assay for DNA damage and repair. Mol Biotechnol 26:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Foy C (1987) Adjuvants: terminology, classification, and mode of action. In: Adjuvants and agrochemicals, CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  8. Frontera J, Vatnick I, Chaulet A, Rodríguez E (2011) Effects of glyphosate and polyoxyethylenamine on growth and energetic reserves in the freshwater crayfish Cherax quadricarinatus (Decapoda, Parastacidae). Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 61(4):590–598. doi: 10.1007/s00244-011-9661-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giesy J, Dobson S, Solomon K (2000) Ecotoxicological risk assessment for Roundup herbicide. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 167:35–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grisolia C (2002) A comparison between mouse and fish micronucleus test using cyclophosphamide, mitomycin C and various pesticides. Mutat Res 518:145–150Google Scholar
  11. Guilherme S, Gaivão I, Santos MA, Pacheco M (2010) European eel (Anguilla anguilla) genotoxic and pro-oxidant responses following short-term exposure to Roundup®: a glyphosate-based herbicide. Mutagenesis 25(5):523–530. doi: 10.1093/mutage/geq038 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guilherme S, Gaivão I, Santos MA, Pacheco M (2012) DNA damage in fish (Anguilla anguilla) exposed to a glyphosate-based herbicide—Elucidation of organ-specificity and the role of oxidative stress. Mutat Res-Gen Tox En 743:1–9Google Scholar
  13. Howe CM, Berrill M, Pauli BD, Helbing CC, Werry K, Veldhoen N (2004) Toxicity of glyphosate-based pesticides to four North American frog species. Environ Toxicol Chem 23(8):1928–1938. doi: 10.1897/03-71 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lee R, Steinert S (2003) Use of the single cell gel electrophoresis/comet assay for detecting DNA damage in aquatic (marine and freshwater) animals. Mutat Res 544:43–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lindgren Å, Sjöström M, Wold S (1996) QSAR modelling of the toxicity of some technical non-ionic surfactants towards fairy shrimps. Quant Struct-Act Relat 15(3):208–218. doi: 10.1002/qsar.19960150305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Pacheco M, Santos MA (2002) Biotransformation, genotoxic, and histopathological effects of environmental contaminants in European eel (Anguilla anguilla L.). Ecotox Environ Saf 53:331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Palus J, Dziubaltowska E, Rydzynski K (1999) DNA damage detected by the comet assay in the white blood cells of workers in a wooden furniture plant. Mutat Res-Gen Tox En 444(1):61–74. doi: 10.1016/s1383-5718(99)00089-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Partearroyo MA, Pilling SJ, Jones MN (1991) The lysis of isolated fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) gill epithelial cells by surfactants. Comp Biochem Phys C 100(3):381–388. doi: 10.1016/0742-8413(91)90012-i CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Peixoto F (2005) Comparative effects of the Roundup and glyphosate on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation. Chemosphere 61:1115–1122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Perkins PJ, Boermans HJ, Stephenson GR (2000) Toxicity of glyphosate and triclopyr using the frog embryo teratogenesis assay: Xenopus. Environ Toxicol Chem 19(4):940–945. doi: 10.1002/etc.5620190422 Google Scholar
  21. Rank J, Jensen AG, Skov B, Pedersen LH, Jensen K (1993) Genotoxicity testing of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate isopropylamine using the mouse bone marrow micronucleus test, Salmonella mutagenicity test, and Allium anaphase-telophase test. Mutat Res 300(1):29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Relyea RA (2005) The lethal impact of Roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecol Appl 15(4):1118–1124. doi: 10.1890/04-1291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Renner R (2005) Are industry’s secret “inerts” an unrecognized environmental danger? Environ Sci Technol 39(20):417A–418ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Richard S, Moslemi S, Sipahutar H, Benachour N, Seralini G (2005) Differential effects of glyphosate and roundup on human placental cells and aromatase. Environ Health Perspect 113(6):716–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Saleha Banu B, Danadevi K, Rahman MF, Ahuja YR, Kaiser J (2001) Genotoxic effect of monocrotophos to sentinel species using comet assay. Food Chem Toxicol 39(4):361–366. doi: 10.1016/s0278-6915(00)00141-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shaposhnikov S, Azqueta A, Henriksson S, Meier S, Gaivão I, Huskisson NH, Smart A, Brunborg G, Nilsson M, Collins AR (2010) Twelve-gel slide format optimised for comet assay and fluorescent in situ hybridisation. Toxicol Lett 195(1):31–34. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2010.02.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsui MTK, Chu LM (2003) Aquatic toxicity of glyphosate-based formulations: comparison between different organisms and the effects of environmental factors. Chemosphere 52(7):1189–1197. doi: 10.1016/s0045-6535(03)00306-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. USEPA (1993) Reregistration eligibility decision: glyphosate. In: Environmental 1108Google Scholar
  29. Valkenburg JV (1982) Terminology, classification, and chemistry. In: Adjuvants for herbicides. Weed Science Society of America. Champaign, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  30. Zar J (1996) Biostatistical analysis., Prentice Hall International Inc., New JerseyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Guilherme
    • 1
  • M. A. Santos
    • 1
  • C. Barroso
    • 1
  • I. Gaivão
    • 2
  • M. Pacheco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biology and CESAMUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.CECAV and Department of Genetics and BiotechnologyTrás-os-Montes and Alto Douro UniversityVila RealPortugal

Personalised recommendations