Biochemical biomarkers in environmental studies—lessons learnt from enzymes catalase, glutathione S-transferase and cholinesterase in two crustacean species
- 1.3k Downloads
Background, aim and scope
For reliable environmental risk assessment of pollutants, knowledge on the effects at different levels of biological organisation is needed. During the early days of biomarker research in environmental studies approximately two decades ago, biochemical biomarkers were considered as the most promising tool for such purposes. Among these, three enzymes have often been studied: catalase (CAT), glutathione S-transferase (GST) and cholinesterase (ChE). However, despite their intensive research, their measurements in invertebrates have not been commonly applied in environmental risk assessment (ERA) or for regulatory purposes.
In the present review, we summarise our past experiences in biochemical biomarker research in two crustacean species: water flea Daphnia magna and terrestrial isopod Porcellio scaber. This is to orientate their use and to provide recommendations for the use of novel biomarkers in environmental studies, such as proteomic or genomic responses.
Results and discussion
We assessed the intrinsic properties of biochemical biomarkers CAT, GST and ChE in the D. magna and the isopod P. scaber. It was found that they are not in agreement with the expectations that were previously given for their use in environmental studies. To advance their use in environmental risk assessment, we suggest that based on their properties, their role should be more specifically defined. ERA includes several distinct steps, among them hazard identification, effect assessment and finally risk characterisation, each of which requires a different type of toxicity data. We recommend that the use of biochemical markers is most appropriate for hazard identification because this is a procedure whose purpose is to characterise the potential hazard of the substance in question and is more flexible in terms of using different tools. Furthermore, our results imply that biochemical markers are not always more sensitive than whole-organism responses, as was anticipated. Their sensitivity depends on the mode of action, duration of exposure and test species. Therefore, we suggest that combining both a battery of biomarkers from different levels of biological organisation and an array of biomarkers within a single level could identify hazard adequately.
The lesson learnt from biochemical biomarkers in environmental studies utilizing crustacean model species is that, for successful application of each group of biomarkers, their intrinsic properties are needed to be known before an (eco)toxicity study is designed. We suggest that a substantial body of experience obtained with biochemical biomarkers should be exploited to new emerging biomarkers in environmental studies in order to facilitate their application.
Recommendations and perspectives
The future of biomarkers lies in a combination of traditional biochemical and new-generation biomarkers. The latter are not only a potential replacement for existing biomarkers but will also provide new knowledge which might encourage renewed research and development of traditional biomarkers. For research purposes, complete ecotoxicity information should include contributions from molecular fingerprint of an organism, as well as whole organism, population and ecosystem responses. Still, the type of biomarkers used for routine purposes will depend on their reproducibility, their ease of use, robustness, affordability of the methodology and the type of chemicals, organisms and ecosystem of interest.
KeywordsBiochemical biomarker Catalase Cholinesterase Daphnia magna Environmental risk assessment Glutathione S-transferase Hazard Marker Metals Pesticides Terrestrial invertebrate Porcellio scaber Toxicogenomics Toxicoproteomics
This work was financially supported by Slovenian Research Agency and the Slovenian Science Foundation (WFS National Scholarship). We thank Dr. Bill Milne for editing and commenting the manuscript.
- Abele D, Burlando B, Viarengo A, Pörtner HO (1998) Exposure to elevated temperatures and hydrogen peroxide elicits oxidative stress and antioxidant response in the Antarctic intertidal limpet Nacella concinna. Comp Biochem Physiol 120 B:425–435Google Scholar
- Adams SM (2002) Biological indicators of aquatic ecosystem stress. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
- Almar MM, Diaz-Mayans J, Romero FJ (1987) Glutathione content and GSH S-transferase activity in midgut gland of Procambarus clarkii. Sex differences, the effect of fasting, and their implications in cadmium toxicity. Comp Biochem Physiol 87C:433–435Google Scholar
- Barata C, Varo I, Navarro JC, Arun S, Porte C (2005) Antioxidant enzyme activities and lipid peroxidation in the freshwater cladoceran Daphnia magna exposed to redox cycling compounds. Comp Biochem Physiol 140 C:175–186Google Scholar
- Calzolai L, Ansorge W, Calabrese E, Denslow N, Part P, Lettieri T (2007) Transcriptomics and proteomics. Applications to ecotoxicology. Comp Biochem Physiol part D 2:245–249Google Scholar
- Connon R, Hooper HL, Sibly RM, Lim FL, Heckmann LH, Moore DJ, Watanabe H, Soetaert A, Cook K, Maund SJ, Hutchinson TH, Moggs J, De Coen W, Iguchi T, Callaghan A (2008) Linking molecular and population stress responses in Daphnia magna exposed to cadmium. Environ Sci Technol 42:2181–2188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Demásio JB, Barata C, Munne A, Ginebreda A, Guasch H, Sabater S, Caixach J, Porte C (2007) Comparing the response of biochemical indicators (biomarkers) and biological indices to diagnose the ecological impact of an oil spillage in a Meditteranean river (NE Catalunya, Spain). Chemosphere 66:1206–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Halliwell B, Gutteridge JMC (2007) Free radicals in biology and medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
- Jemec A, Drobne D, Tišler T, Trebše P, Roš M, Sepčić K (2007a) The applicability of acetylcholinesterase and glutathione S-transferase in Daphnia magna toxicity test. Comp Biochem Physiol 144 C:303–309Google Scholar
- Jemec A, Tišler T, Drobne D, Sepčić K, Jamnik P, Roš M (2008a) Biochemical biomarkers in chronically metal-stressed daphnids. Comp Biochem Physiol 147 C:61–68Google Scholar
- Kammenga JE, Dallinger R, Donker MH, Köhler HR, Simonsen V, Triebskorn R, Weeks JM (2000) Biomarkers in terrestrial invertebrates for ecotoxicological soil risk assessment. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 164:93–147Google Scholar
- Lagadic L (1999) Biomarkers in Invertebrates. In: Peakall DB, Colin HW, Migula P (eds) Biomarkers: a pragmatic basis for remediation of severe pollution in Eastern Europe. NATO Science Series. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
- Livingstone DR (1998) The fate of organic xenobiotic in aquatic ecosystems: quantitative and qualitative differences in biotransformation by invertebrates and fish. Comp Biochem Physiol 120 A:43–49Google Scholar
- Livingstone DR, Lemaire P, Matthews A, Peters LD, Porte C, Fitzpatrick PJ, Förlin L, Nasci C, Fossato V, Wootton N, Goldfarb P (1995) Assessment of the impact of organic pollutants on goby (Zosterisessor ophicephalus) and mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) from Venice Lagoon Italy. Mar Environ Res 39:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McCarthy JF, Shugart LR (1990) Biomarkers of environmental contamination. Lewis, Florida, USAGoogle Scholar
- Monserrat JM, Martínez PE, Geracitano LA, Amado LL, Martins CM, Pinho GL, Chaves IS, Ferreira-Cravo M, Ventura-Lima J, Bianchini A (2007) Pollution biomarkers in estuarine animals:critical review and new perspectives. Comp Biochem Physiol 146 C:221–234Google Scholar
- Mora P, Fournier D, Narbonne JF (1999) Cholinesterases from the marine mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk. and Mytilus edulis L. and from freshwater bivalve Corbicula fluminea Müller. Comp Biochem Physiol 122 C:353–361Google Scholar
- Mourente G, Díaz-Salvago E (1999) Characterization of antioxidant systems, oxidation status and lipids in brain of wild-caught size-class distributed Aristeus antennatus (Risso, 1816) Crustacea, Decapoda. Comp Biochem Physiol 124 B:405–416Google Scholar
- Radenac G, Bocquene G, Fichet D, Miramand P (1998) Contamination of a dredged-material disposal site (La Rochelle Bay, France). The use of the acetylcholinesterase activity of Mytilus edulis (L.) as a biomarker of pesticides: the need for a critical approach. Biomarkers 3:305–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Shaw JR, Pfrender ME, Eads BD, Klaper R, Callaghan A, Sibly RM, Colson I, Jansen B, Gilbert D, Colbourne JK (2008) Daphnia as an emerging model for toxicological genomics. Adv Exp Biol 2(165–219):327–328Google Scholar
- Stenersen J, Kobro S, Bjerke M, Arend U (1987) Glutathione transferases in aquatic and terrestrial animals from nine phyla. Comp Biochem Physiol 86C:73–82Google Scholar
- TGD Document (2003) Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment, part II. European Commission. http://europa.eu.int
- Vega-López A, Galar-Martínez M, Jiménez-Orozco FA, García-Latorre E, Domínguez- López ML (2007) Gender related differences in the oxidative stress response to PCB exposure in an endangered goodeid fish (Girardinichthys viviparus). Comp Biochem Physiol 146 A:672–678Google Scholar
- Walker CH (1999) The use of biomarkers in vertebrates. In: Peakall DB, Colin HW, Migula P (eds) Biomarkers: a pragmatic basis for remediation of severe pollution in Eastern Europe. NATO Science Series. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar