Advertisement

Ecotoxicology

, Volume 23, Issue 8, pp 1419–1429 | Cite as

Assessment of mitochondrial DNA damage in little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) collected near a mercury-contaminated river

  • Natalie K. Karouna-Renier
  • Carl White
  • Christopher R. Perkins
  • John J. Schmerfeld
  • David Yates
Article

Abstract

Historical discharges of Hg into the South River near the town of Waynesboro, VA, USA, have resulted in persistently elevated Hg concentrations in sediment, surface water, ground water, soil, and wildlife downstream of the discharge site. In the present study, we examined mercury (Hg) levels in in little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) from this location and assessed the utility of a non-destructively collected tissue sample (wing punch) for determining mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) damage in Hg exposed bats. Bats captured 1 and 3 km from the South River, exhibited significantly higher levels of total Hg (THg) in blood and fur than those from the reference location. We compared levels of mtDNA damage using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of two distinct regions of mtDNA. Genotoxicity is among the many known toxic effects of Hg, resulting from direct interactions with DNA or from oxidative damage. Because it lacks many of the protective protein structures and repair mechanisms associated with nuclear DNA, mtDNA is more sensitive to the effects of genotoxic chemicals and therefore may be a useful biomarker in chronically exposed organisms. Significantly higher levels of damage were observed in both regions of mtDNA in bats captured 3 km from the river than in controls. However, levels of mtDNA damage exhibited weak correlations with fur and blood THg levels, suggesting that other factors may play a role in the site-specific differences.

Keywords

Mercury DNA damage Wildlife Biomarkers Little brown bats Myotis lucifugus 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding and support for this work was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DuPont ™, the South River Science Team, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We would like to thank the many biologists that helped obtain samples for this study, Tim Divoll, Lucas Savoy, Dustin Meatty, Pedro Ardapple, Casey Huck, Patrick Keenan, Rick Reynolds (VADGF) and all the field technicians who put in countless hours. We also thank Catherine Maddox and Kelly Hallinger for their assistance in the laboratory.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10646_2014_1284_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 15 kb)

References

  1. Baker R, Lavie B, Nevo E (1985) Natural selection for resistance to mercury pollution. Cell Mol Life Sci 41(5):697–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belyaeva EA, Sokolova TV, Emelyanova LV, Zakharova IO (2012) Mitochondrial electron transport chain in heavy metal-induced neurotoxicity: effects of cadmium, mercury, and copper. Sci World J 2012:136063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Ozer EY, Rosenspire AJ, McCabe MJ Jr, Worth RG, Kindzelskii AL, Warra NS, Petty HR (2000) Mercuric chloride damages cellular DNA by a non-apoptotic mechanism. Mutat Res 470:19–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergeron CM, Bodinof CM, Unrine JM, Hopkins WA (2010) Bioaccumulation and maternal transfer of mercury and selenium in amphibians. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(4):989–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cantoni O, Costa M (1983) Correlations of DNA strand breaks and their repair with cell survival following acute exposure to mercury (II) and X-rays. Mol Pharmacol 24:84–87Google Scholar
  6. Cardona-Marek T, Knott KK, Meyer BE, O’Hara TM (2009) Mercury concentrations in Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears: variation based on stable isotopes of carbon and nitrogen. Environ Toxicol Chem 28(7):1416–1424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carter LJ (1977) Chemical plants leave unexpected legacy for two Virginia rivers. Science 198:1015–1020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cline SD (2012) Mitochondrial DNA damage and its consequences for mitochondrial gene expression. Biochim Biophys Acta 1819(9/10):979–991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crespo-Lopez ME, Macedo GL, Pereira SID, Arrifano GPF, Picanco-Diniz DLW, do Nascimento JLM, Herculano AM (2009) Mercury and human genotoxicity: critical considerations and possible molecular mechanisms. Pharmacol Res 60(4):212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crespo-Lópeza ME, Macêdoa GL, Pereirab SID, Arrifanoa GPF, Picanço-Dinizc DLW, Nascimentod JLMD, Herculano AM (2009) Mercury and human genotoxicity: critical considerations and possible molecular mechanisms. Pharmacol Res 60(4):212–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cristol DA, Brasso RL, Condon AM, Fovargue RE, Friedman SL, Hallinger KK, Monroe AP, White AE (2008) The movement of aquatic mercury through Terrestrial food webs. Science 320(5874):335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DelVecchio R, Friedman S, Unsworth R (2010) South river and South Fork of the Shenandoah River natural resource damage assessment: draft damage assessment plan. Industrial Economics Incorporated, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Drummond AJ, Ashton B, Cheung M, Heled J, Kearse M, Moir R, Stones-Havas S, Thierer T, Wilson A (2009) Geneious v4.75. http://www.geneious.com
  14. Edwards JG (2009) Quantification of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) damage and error rates by real-time QPCR. Mitochondrion 9(1):31–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ercal N, Gurer-Orhan H, Aykin-Burns N (2001) Toxic metals and oxidative stress part I: mechanisms involved in metal induced oxidative damage. Curr Top Med Chem 1:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grotto D, Barcelos GM, Valentini J, Antunes LG, Angeli J, Garcia S, Barbosa F Jr (2009) Low levels of methylmercury induce DNA damage in rats: protective effects of selenium. Arch Toxicol 83(3):249–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jung D, Cho Y, Collins LB, Swenberg JA, Di Giulio RT (2009) Effects of benzo[a]pyrene on mitochondrial and nuclear DNA damage in Atlantic killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus) from a creosote-contaminated and reference site. Aquat Toxicol 95(1):44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim S, Johnson V, Sharma R (2003) Oral exposure to inorganic mercury alters T lymphocyte phenotypes and cytokine expression in BALB/c mice. Arch Toxicol 77(11):613–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Livak K, Schmittgen T (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2-DeltaDeltaCT method. Methods 25:402–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Murphy GW (2004) Uptake of mercury and relationship to food habits of selected fish species in the Shenandoah River basin. Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, BlacksburgGoogle Scholar
  21. Nam D-H, Yates D, Ardapple P, Evers D, Schmerfeld J, Basu N (2012) Elevated mercury exposure and neurochemical alterations in little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) from a site with historical mercury contamination. Ecotoxicology 21(4):1094–1101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nascimento JLMD, Oliveira KRM, Crespo-Lopez ME, Macchi BM, Maués LAL, MDCN Pinheiro, Silveira LCL, Herculano AM (2008) Methylmercury neurotoxicity & antioxidant defenses. Indian J Med Res 128:373–382Google Scholar
  23. Onyido I, Norris AR, Buncel E (2004) Biomolecule-mercury interactions: modalities of DNA base-mercury binding mechanisms. Remediation strategies. Chem Rev 104(12):5911–5929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Osborne CE, Evers DC, Duron M, Schoch N, Yates D, Buck D, Lane OP, Franklin J (2011) Mercury contamination within terrestrial ecosystems in New England and Mid-Atlantic States: [rofiles of soil, invertebrates, songbirds, and bats. Biodiversity Research Institute, GorhamGoogle Scholar
  25. Pereira C, Guilherme S, Barroso C, Verschaeve L, Pacheco M, Mendo S (2010) Evaluation of DNA damage induced by environmental exposure to mercury in Liza aurata using the comet assay. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 58(1):112–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Santos JH, Meyer JN, Mandavilli BS, Houten BV (2006) Quantitative PCR-based measurement of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA damage and repair in mammalian cells. In: Henderson DS (ed) Methods in molecular biology: DNA repair protocols: mammalian systems, 2nd edn. Humana Press Inc, TotowaGoogle Scholar
  27. Sharpe MA, Livingston AD, Baskin DS (2012) Thimerosal-derived ethylmercury is a mitochondrial toxin in human astrocytes: possible role of fenton chemistry in the oxidation and breakage of mtDNA. J Toxicol 2012:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sorenson MD (2003) Avian mtDNA primers (http://people.bu.edu/msoren/primers.html)
  29. Sugg DW, Chesser RK, Brooks JA, Grasman BT (1995) The association of DNA damage to concentrations of mercury and radiocesium in largemouth bass. Environ Toxicol Chem 14(4):661–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Taddei F, Scarcelli V, Frenzilli G, Nigro M (2001) Genotoxic hazard of pollutants in cetaceans: dNA damage and repair evaluated in the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) by the comet assay. Mar Pollut Bull 42(4):324–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Varian-Ramos CW, Swaddle JP, Cristol DA (2014) Mercury reduces avian reproductive success and imposes selection: an experimental study with adult- or lifetime-exposure in zebra finch. PLoS ONE 9(4):e95674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wada H, Cristol DA, McNabb FMA, Hopkins WA (2009) Suppressed adrenocortical responses and thyroid hormone levels in birds near a mercury-contaminated river. Environ Sci Technol 43(15):6031–6038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wada H, Yates D, Evers D, Taylor R, Hopkins W (2010) Tissue mercury concentrations and adrenocortical responses of female big brown bats (Eptesicus fuscus) near a contaminated river. Ecotoxicology 19(7):1277–1284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang J, Newman MC, Xu X, Liang L (2013) Higher and more variable methylmercury biomagnification factors for floodplain than the contiguous river (South River, Virginia USA). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 92:191–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Weaver KN, Alfano SE, Kronquist AR, Reeder DM (2009) Healing rates of wing punch wounds in free-ranging little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus). Acta Chiropt 11(1):220–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Whitaker JO Jr (1995) Food of the big brown bat eptesicus fuscus from maternity colonies in Indiana and Illinois. Am Midl Nat 134(2):346–360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wolfe MF, Schwarzbach S, Sulaiman RA (1998) Effects of mercury on wildlife: a comprehensive review. Environ Toxicol Chem 17(2):146–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Worthington-Wilmer J, Barratt E (1996) A non-lethal method of tissue sampling for genetic studies of chiropterans. Bat Res News 37(1):1–3Google Scholar
  39. Yamane T, Davidson N (1961) On the complexing of desoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) by mercuric ion. J Am Chem Soc 83:2599–2607CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yates D, Angelo S, Divoll T, Evers DC (2012) Assessment of mercury exposure to bats at Onondaga Lake. Onondaga Lake, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Yates D, Adams E, Angelo S, Evers D, Schmerfeld J, Moore M, Kunz T, Divoll T, Edmonds S, Perkins C, Taylor R, O’Driscoll N (2014) Mercury in bats from the northeastern United States. Ecotoxicology 23(1):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Zimmermann S (1999) The Development of a new approach to evaluate environmentally induced genetic damage in Hudson River biota. Bios 70(1):11–21Google Scholar
  43. Zocche JJ, Leffa DD, Damiani AP, Carvalho F, Mendonça RÁ, dos Santos CEI, Boufleur LA, Dias JF, de Andrade VM (2010) Heavy metals and DNA damage in blood cells of insectivore bats in coal mining areas of Catarinense coal basin Brazil. Environ Res 110(7):684–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalie K. Karouna-Renier
    • 1
  • Carl White
    • 1
  • Christopher R. Perkins
    • 2
  • John J. Schmerfeld
    • 3
  • David Yates
    • 4
  1. 1.USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research CenterBeltsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Center for Environmental Sciences & EngineeringUniversity of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  3. 3.USFWS, National Wildlife Refuge SystemArlingtonUSA
  4. 4.BioDiversity Research InstituteGorhamUSA

Personalised recommendations