Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 815–824 | Cite as

Parental exposure to methyl methane sulfonate of three-spined stickleback: contribution of DNA damage in male and female germ cells to further development impairment in progeny

  • R. Santos
  • M. Palos-Ladeiro
  • A. Besnard
  • J. Reggio
  • E. Vulliet
  • J. M. Porcher
  • S. Bony
  • W. Sanchez
  • A. DevauxEmail author
Article

Abstract

Data regarding the link between DNA integrity of germ cells and the quality of progeny in fish exposed to genotoxicant are scarce although such information is of value to understand genotoxic effects of contaminants in aquatic fauna. This work aimed at studying the consequences of a parental exposure during the breeding season on offspring quality in three-spined stickleback. After in vivo exposure of adult fish to methyl methane sulfonate, a model alkylating compound, a clear increase in DNA damage was observed in erythrocytes of both genders, here used as a biomarker of exposure. MMS exposure significantly affected sperm DNA integrity but neither female fecundity nor fertilization success. In order to understand the contribution of each sex to potential deleterious effects in progeny due to parental exposure, mating of males and females exposed or not to MMS, was carried out. Exposure of both males and females or of males alone led to a significant increase in both mortality during embryo–larval stages and abnormality rate at hatching that appeared to be sensitive stages. Thus, in accordance with recent studies carried out in other freshwater fish species, such development defects in progeny were clearly driven by male genome, known to be devoid of DNA repair capacity in spermatozoa. The next step will be to investigate the link between DNA damage in stickleback sperm and reproductive impairment in natural populations exposed to complex mixture of genotoxicants.

Keywords

Stickleback Genotoxicity Comet assay Germ cell Reproduction Offspring quality 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the French Ministry of Ecology and Sustainable Development (Programme 190 Ecotoxicology).The authors thank Cyril Turies, Vincent Lisiak and Benjamin Piccini for their help to build embryo incubators and larvae tanks. Thanks to Stephane Maestra and Patrick Nisole for helping to design the genotoxic waste water treatment system. Thanks to Goulwen de Kermoysan and Remy Baudoin for fish sexing. The authors thank anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and valuable remarks that greatly improve the final version of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical standards

Procedures described in the present paper were conducted in accordance with laws and regulations controlling animal experiments in France. All experimental protocols were approved by the ethical committee of the French Institute of Industrial Environment and Risks.

References

  1. Aguirre WE, Akinpelu O (2010) Sexual dimorphism of head morphology in three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus. J Fish Biol 77:802–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitken RJ, Koopman P, Lewis SE (2004) Seeds of concern. Nature 432:48–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aitken RJ, De Iuliis GN, McLachlan RI (2009) Biological and clinical significance of DNA damage in the male germ line. Int J Androl 32:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson SL, Wild GC (1994) Linking genotoxic responses and reproductive success in ecotoxicology. Environ Health Perspect 102:9–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ashby J, Waters MD, Preston J et al (1996) IPCS harmonization of methods for the prediction and quantification of human carcinogenic/mutagenic hazard, and for indicating the probable mechanism of action of carcinogens. Mutat Res 352:153–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barton TS, Robaire B, Hales BF (2007) DNA damage recognition in the rat zygote following chronic paternal cyclophosphamide exposure. Toxicol Sci 100:495–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baumgartner A, Kurzawa-Zegota M, Laubenthal J et al (2012) Comet-assay parameters as rapid biomarkers of exposure to dietary/environmental compounds-An in vitro feasibility study on spermatozoa and lymphocytes. Mutat Res 743:25–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bickham JW, Smolen MJ (1994) Somatic and heritable effects of environmental genotoxins and the emergence of evolutionary toxicology. Environ Health Perspect 102:25–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bobe J, Labbé C (2010) Egg and sperm quality in fish. Gen Comp Endocr 165:535–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonnet E, Fostier A, Bobe J (2007) Microarray-based analysis of fish egg quality after natural or controlled ovulation. BMC Genomics 8:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Claxton LD, Houk VS, Hughes TJ (1998) Genotoxicity of industrial wastes and effluents. Mutat Res 410:237–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins AR (2004) The comet assay for DNA damage and repair: principles, applications and limitations. Mol Biotech 26:249–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. COM (2000) Committee on Mutagenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, Guidance on a Strategy for Testing of Chemicals for Mutagenicity, Ed.: J. Parry, Crown copyright, UK Department of Health. http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/com/guidance.pdf. Accessed 9 Mar 2013
  14. Cucchi P, Sucré E, Santos R et al (2012) Embryonic development of the sea bass Dicentrarchus labrax. Helg Mar Res 66:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dearfield KL, Cimino MC, McCarroll NE et al (2002) Genotoxicity risk assessment: a proposed classification strategy. Mutat Res 521:121–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Depledge MH (1998) The ecotoxicological significance of genotoxicity in marine invertebrates. Mutat Res 399:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Depledge MH, Galloway TS (2005) Healthy animals, healthy ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 3:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Devaux A, Fiat L, Gillet C et al (2011) Reproduction impairment following paternal genotoxin exposure in brown trout (Salmo trutta) and Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus). Aquat Toxicol 101:405–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dietrich GJ, Szpyrka A, Wojtczak M et al (2005) Effects of UV irradiation and hydrogen peroxide on DNA fragmentation, motility and fertilizing ability of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) spermatozoa. Theriogenology 64:1809–1822CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dietrich GJ, Dietrich M, Kowalski RK et al (2010) Exposure of rainbow trout milt to mercury and cadmium alters sperm motility parameters and reproductive success. Aquat Toxicol 97:277–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eastmond DA, Hartwig A, Anderson D et al (2009) Mutagenicity testing for chemical risk assessment: update of the WHO/IPCS harmonized scheme. Mutagenesis 24:341–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Egami N, Shimada A, Hamafurukawa A (1983) Dominant lethal mutation-rate after gamma-irradiation of the fish, Oryzias latipes. Mutat Res 107:265–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Esteves SC, Hamada A, Kondray V et al (2012) What every gynecologist should know about male infertility: an update. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Evenson DP, Darzynkiewicz Z, Melamed MR (1980) Relationship of mammalian sperm chromatin heterogeneity to fertility. Science 210:1131–1133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grenier L, Robaire B, Hales BF (2010) Paternal exposure to cyclophosphamide affects the progression of sperm chromatin decondensation and activates a DNA damage response in the prepronuclear rat zygote. Biol Reprod 83:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hidaka M, Oda S, Kuwahara Y et al (2010) Cell lines derived from a medaka radiation-sensitive mutant have defects in DNA double-strand break responses. J Radiat Res 51:165–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jha AN (2008) Ecotoxicological applications and significance of the comet assay. Mutagenesis 23:207–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Katsiadaki I, Scott AP, Mayer I (2002) The potential of the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) as a combined biomarker for oestrogens and androgens in European waters. Mar Envir Res 54:725–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Katsiadaki I, Sanders M, Henrys P et al (2012) Field surveys reveal the presence of anti-androgens in an effluent-receiving river using stickleback-specific biomarkers. Aquat Toxicol 122–123:75–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kimmel CB, Ballard WW, Kimmel SR et al (1995) Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev Dyn 203:253–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kitano J, Mori S, Peichel CL (2007) Sexual dimorphism in the external morphology of the threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Copeia 2007:336–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kopeika J, Kopeika E, Zhang T et al (2004) Effect of DNA repair inhibitor (3-aminobenzamide) on genetic stability of loach (Misgurnus fossilis) embryos derived from cryopreserved sperm. Theriogenology 61:1661–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lacaze E, Geffard O, Goyet D et al (2011) Linking genotoxic responses in Gammarus fossarum germ cells with reproduction impairment, using the Comet assay. Environ Res 111:626–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lemke MJ, Chiva M, Coyle B (1999) Variability of sperm nuclear basic proteins in the three-spined stickleback and related species of Gasterosteoidei. Comp Biochem Physiol 122:339–353CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis C, Ford AT (2012) Infertility in male aquatic invertebrates: a review. Aquat Toxicol 120–121:79–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lewis C, Galloway T (2009) Reproductive consequences of paternal genotoxin exposure in marine invertebrates. Environ Sci Technol 43:928–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Li W (2004) Trace analysis of residual methyl methanesulfonate, ethyl methanesulfonate and isopropyl methanesulfonate in pharmaceuticals by capillary gas chromatography with flame ionization detection. J Chromatogr 1046:297–301Google Scholar
  38. Maunder RJ, Matthiessen P, Sumpter JP et al (2007) Impaired reproduction in three-spined sticklebacks exposed to ethinyl estradiol as juveniles. Biol Reprod 77:999–1006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pérez-Cereales S, Martinez-Pàramo S, Beirao M et al (2010) Fertilization capacity with rainbow trout DNA-damaged sperm and embryo developmental success. Reproduction 139:989–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pottinger TG, Cook A, Jürgens MD et al (2011) Effects of sewage effluent remediation on body size, somatic RNA: DNA ratio, and markers of chemical exposure in three-spined sticklebacks. Environ Int 37:158–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org. Accessed 13 Jan 2012
  42. Sanchez W, Palluel O, Meunier L et al (2005) Copper-induced oxidative stress in three-spined stickleback: relationship with hepatic metal levels. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 19:177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sanchez W, Katsiadaki I, Piccini B et al (2008) Biomarker responses in wild three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus L.) as a useful tool for freshwater biomonitoring: a multiparametric approach. Environ Int 34:490–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Santos R, Palos-Ladeiro M, Besnard A et al (2013) Relationship between DNA damage in sperm after ex vivo exposure and abnormal embryo development in the progeny of the three-spined stickleback. Reprod Toxicol 36:6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Shugart LR, Theodorakis C (1994) Environmental genotoxicity: probing the underlying mechanisms. Environ Health Perspect 102:13–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shugart LR, Theodorakis C (1998) New trends in biological monitoring: application of biomarkers to genetic ecotoxicology. Biotherapy 11:119–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR et al (1988) A simple technique for quantitation of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res 175:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Swarup H (1958) Stages in the development of the stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus (L.). J Embryol Exp Morphol 6:373–383Google Scholar
  49. Trasler JM, Hales BF, Robaire B (1985) Paternal cyclophosphamide treatment of rats causes fetal loss and malformations without affecting male fertility. Nature 316:144–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Udroiu I (2006) The micronucleus test in piscine erythrocytes. Aquat Toxicol 79:201–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Uren-Webster TM, Lewis C, Filby AL et al (2010) Mechanisms of toxicity of di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate on the reproductive health of male zebrafish. Aquat Toxicol 99:360–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wooton RJ (1976) The biology of the sticklebacks. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  53. Würgler FE, Kramers PGN (1992) Environmental effects of genotoxins (ecogenotoxicology). Mutagenesis 7:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Santos
    • 1
    • 3
  • M. Palos-Ladeiro
    • 3
  • A. Besnard
    • 4
  • J. Reggio
    • 5
  • E. Vulliet
    • 5
  • J. M. Porcher
    • 3
  • S. Bony
    • 1
    • 2
  • W. Sanchez
    • 3
  • A. Devaux
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Université de Lyon, UMR 5023 LEHNAVilleurbanneFrance
  2. 2.INRA, USC IGH, ENTPEVaulx en VelinFrance
  3. 3.INERIS, Unité d’écotoxicologie in vitro et in vivoVerneuil en HalatteFrance
  4. 4.Centre d’Ecologie Fonctionnelle et Evolutive (UMR 5175), EPHE, Biogéographie et Ecologie des Vertébrés, campus CNRSMontpellier cedex 5France
  5. 5.Département Service Central d’Analyse, Institut des Sciences Analytiques, UMR 5280VilleurbanneFrance

Personalised recommendations