Advertisement

Exposure and Health

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 21–31 | Cite as

Evaluating groundwater for its probable mutagenicity and genotoxicity using in vitro bioanalytical tools

  • Tajinder Kaur
  • Renu Bhardwaj
  • Saroj AroraEmail author
Original Paper
  • 155 Downloads

Abstract

The present study entails the investigation of mutagenic and genotoxic effect of groundwater samples collected from twenty four different locations of Malwa region (India) using in vitro bioassays, viz. Ames fluctuation test (with/without exogenous metabolic activation) using Salmonella typhimurium TA98 and TA100 strains, Vibrio harveyi bioluminescence assay using V. harveyi A16 strain (a dim luxE mutant), plasmid nicking assay, and comet assay. It was observed that the water samples of all the sites of study area demonstrated mutagenic activity on both strains of S. typhimurium. The different sampling periods caused variation in genotoxic intensity with summer samples showing higher mutagenicity values and, therefore, more genotoxic as compared to winter samples. However, V. harveyi bioluminescence assay was found to be comparatively less sensitive for genotoxicity screening of water samples. In plasmid nicking assay, 42% samples collected during summer were found to induce genotoxicity by increasing the level of DNA damage. To further establish the level of primary DNA damage, the alkaline version of comet assay was performed with human lymphocytes. No significant increase in DNA damage was seen as compared to negative control. Our results highlighted the significance of using more than one bioassay to evaluate the genotoxicity of water samples in different seasons. These results also demonstrate the need for further biological studies in this area for the detection of potentially genotoxic contaminants providing useful data in risk assessment.

Keywords

Genotoxicity Groundwater Malwa region Comet assay Ames fluctuation test Vibrio harveyi bioluminescence assay 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to UPE (under the university with potential for excellence) and University Grants Commission (UGC), New Delhi for providing financial assistance to carry out this work.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animals rights

Human and animal subjects were not involved in this study. In order to carry out comet assay, blood was obtained from healthy donors by venipuncture by a pathologist at the Guru Nanak Dev University dispensary for which approval was obtained from the ethical committee.

References

  1. Ames BN, Lee FD, Durston WE (1973) An improved bacterial test system for the detection and classification of mutagens and carcinogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70:782–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Azqueta A, Meier S, Priestley C, Bjerve Gutzkow K, Brunborg G, Sallette J, Soussaline F, Collins A (2011) The influence of scoring method on variability in results obtained with the comet assay. Mutagenesis 26(3):393–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bajwa BS, Kumar S, Singh S, Sahoo SK, Tripathi RM (2015) Uranium and other heavy toxic elements distribution in the drinking water samples of SW-Punjab, India. J Radiat Res Appl Sci 10:1–9Google Scholar
  4. Bianchi E, Goldoni A, Trintinaglia L, Lessing G, Silva CEM, Nascimento CA, Ziulkoski AL, Spilki FR, Silva LB (2013) Evaluation of genotoxicity and cytotoxicity of water samples from the Sinos river basin, southern Brazil. Braz J Biol 75(2):S68–S74Google Scholar
  5. BIS (1991) Specification for drinking water ISI: 10500Google Scholar
  6. Bonassi S, Ugolini D, Kirsch-Volders M, Stromberg U, Vermeulen R, Tucker JD (2005) Human population studies with cytogenetic biomarkers: review of the literature and future prospectives. Environ Mol Mutagen 45:258–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brender JD, Weyer PJ (2016) Agricultural compounds in water and birth defects. Curr Environ Health Rep.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-016-0085-0 Google Scholar
  8. Charalampous N, Kindou A, Vlastos D, Tsarpali V, Antonopolou M, Konstantinou I, Dailianis S (2015) A multidisciplinary assessment of river surface water quality in areas heavily influenced by human activities. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 69:208–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins AR, Ma AG, Duthie SJ (1995) The kinetics of repair of oxidative DNA damage (strand breaks and oxidised pyrimidines) in human cells. Mutat Res 336:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fatima RA, Ahmad M (2006) Genotoxicity of industrial wastewaters obtained from two different pollution sources in northern India: a comparison of three bioassays. Mutat Res 609:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green MHL, Muriel WJ, Bridges BA (1976) Use of a simplified fluctuation test to detect low levels mutagens. Mutat Res 38:33–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gupta AK, Ahmad I, Ahmad M (2015) Genotoxicity of refinery waste assessed by some DNA damage tests. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 114:250–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Halder A (2009) Premature greying of hairs, premature ageing and predisposition to cancer in Jajjal, Punjab: a preliminary observation. J Clin Diagn Res 1(6):577–580Google Scholar
  14. Hundal HS, Kumar R, Singh K, Singh D (2007) Occurrence and geochemistry of arsenic in groundwater of Punjab, Northwest India. Commun Soil Sci Plant Anal 38(17–18):2257–2277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaur T, Bhardwaj R, Arora S (2016) Assessment of groundwater quality for drinking and irrigation purposes using hydrochemical studies in Malwa region, southwestern part of Punjab. Appl Water Sci, India.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-016-0476-2 Google Scholar
  16. Lah B, Žinko B, Narat M, Marinšek-Logar R (2005) Monitoring of genotoxicity in drinking water using in vitro comet assay and Ames test. Food Technol Biotechnol 43(2):139–146Google Scholar
  17. Legault R, Blaise C, Rokosh D et al (1994) Comparative assessment of the SOS chromotest kit and the Mutatox test with the Salmonella plate incorporation (Ames test) and fluctuation tests for screening genotoxic agents. Environ Toxicol Water 9:45–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leusch FDL, Khan SJ, Laingam S, Prochazka E, Froscio S, Trinh T, Chapman HF, Humpage A (2014) Assessment of the application of bioanalytical tools as surrogate measure of chemical contaminants in recycled water. Water Res 49:300–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu X, Tang L, Yang L, Zhang X, Wang L, Yu F, Liu Y, Chen Q, Liu D (2015) Genotoxicity evaluation of irrigative wastewater from Shijiazhuang city in China. PLoS ONE 10(2):e0144729.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0144729 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Manzano BC, Roberto MM, Hoshina MM, Menegario AA, Marin-Morales MA (2015) Evaluation of the genotoxicity of waters impacted by domestic and industrial effluents of a highly industrialized region of São Paulo State, Brazil, by the comet assay in HTC cells. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:1399–1407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsumoto ST, Mantovani MS, Mallaguti MI, Marin-Morales MA (2003) Investigation of the genotoxic potential of the waters of a river receiving tannery effluents by means of the in vitro comet assay. Cytologia 68(4):395–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matsumoto ST, Rigonato J, Mantovani M, Marin-Morales MA (2005) Evaluation of the genotoxic potential due to the action of an effluent contaminated with chromium, by the comet assay in CHO-K1 cultures. Caryologia 58:40–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monrad M, Kjær Ersbøllb A, Sørensena M, Baastrupa R, Hansenc B, Gammelmarkd A, Tjønnelanda A, Overvadd K, Raaschou-Nielsena O (2017) Low-level arsenic in drinking water and risk of incident myocardial infarction: a cohort study. Environ Res 154:318–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Podgórska B, Węgrzyn G (2006) A modified Vibrio harveyi mutagenicity assay based on bioluminescence induction. Appl Microbiol 42:578–582Google Scholar
  25. Podgórska B, Węgrzyn G (2007) The use of marine bacteria in mutagenicity assays. Pol J Microbiol 56(4):227–231Google Scholar
  26. Rajaguru P, Vidya L, Baskarasethupathi B, Kumar PA, Palanivel M, Kalaiselvi K (2002) Genotoxicity evaluation of polluted groundwater in human peripheral blood lymphocytes using the comet assay. Mutat Res 517:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rocha PS, Luvizotto GL, Kosmehl T, Böttcher M, Storch V, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2009) Sediment genotoxicity in the Tietê river (São Paulo, Brazil): in vitro comet assay versus in situ micronucleus assay studies. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 72:1842–1848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Salles FJ, de Toledo MCB, César ACG, Ferreira GM, Barbério A (2016) Cytotoxic and genotoxic assessment of surface water from São Paulo State, Brazil, during the rainy dry seasons. Ecotoxicology 25:633–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharma P, Mathur N, Singh A, Sogani M, Bhatnagar P, Atri R, Pareek S (2015) Monitoring hospital wastewaters for their probable genotoxicity and mutagenicity. Environ Monit Assess 187:4180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shrivastava BK (2015) Elevated uranium and toxic elements concentration in groundwater in Punjab State of India: extent of the problem and risk due to consumption of unsafe drinking water. Water Qual Expo Health 7:407–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR, Schneider EL (1988) A simple technique for quantization of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Exp Cell Res 175:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tabrez S, Ahmad M (2011) Oxidative stress-mediated genotoxicity of wastewaters collected from two different stations in northern India. Mutat Res 726:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thakur JS, Rao BT, Rajwanshi A, Parwana HK, Kumar R (2008) Epidemiological study of high cancer among rural agricultural community of Punjab in Northern India. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 5(5):399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Vabre P, Gatimel N, Moreau J, Gayrard V, Picard-Hagen N, Parinaud J, Leandri RD (2017) Environmental pollutants, a possible etiology for premature ovarian insufficiency: a narrative review of animal and human data. Environ Health 16:37.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-017-0242-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wieczerzak M, Namieśnik J, Kudłak B (2016) Bioassays as one of the green chemistry tools for assessing environmental quality: a review. Environ Int 94:341–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yulin W, Haigang C, Zhaoli L, Liwei S, Mengmeng Q, Mei L, Zhiming K (2008) Genotoxicity evaluation of drinking water sources in human peripheral blood lymphocytes using the comet assay. J Environ Sci 20:487–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zegura B, Heath E, Cernosa A, Filipic M (2009) Combination of in vitro bioassays for the determination of cytotoxic and genotoxic potential of wastewater, surface water and drinking water samples. Chemosphere 75:1453–1460CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Botanical and Environmental SciencesGuru Nanak Dev UniversityPunjabIndia

Personalised recommendations