Advertisement

Sister Chromatid Exchange Analysis in Cultured Peripheral Blood Leukocytes of the Coldwater Marine Fish, Pacific Staghorn Sculpin (Leptocottus Armatus): A Feasible System for Assessing Genotoxic Marine Pollutants

  • Helen R. Zakour
  • Marsha L. Landolt
  • Richard M. Kocan

Abstract

The genotoxicity of environmental contaminants and test compounds to aquatic and marine fish has primarily been assessed by in vivo techniques that require sacrifice of the test organism for analysis. The major objective of this research was to develop an in vitro sister chromatid exchange (SCE) assay which would utilize cultured peripheral blood leukocytes (PBLs) of a coldwater marine fish species. Use of PBLs in cytogenetic genotoxicity tests has several advantages, the major one being that the experimental fish need not be sacrificed for sample collection. In addition, this nondestructive method of tissue collection permits the investigator to take multiple samples from a single individual and thereby allows the use of an individual as its own control and to monitor its SCE frequency over time.

A suitable in vitro culture method for fish PBLs was a prerequisite for cytogenetic analysis of this tissue. The in vitro culture conditions necessary to provide a sufficient nuraber of dividing cells for Performance of the SCE assay were established in our laboratory for the PBLs of the Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottusarmatus), a common bottom-dwelling Puget Sound fish. The major components of this culture System are heparinized whole blood, fetal bovine serum-supplemented enriched tissue culture medium (RPMI 1640), purified protein derivative of tuberculin as a mitogen, and an incubation temperature of 13.5°C. This in vitro PBL culture system is unique because it involves cultured blood cells from a coldwater marine fish species.

Using this culture method, SCE induction was investigated in Pacific staghorn sculpin PBLs which had been exposed in vitro to N-methyl-N’-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG), a known direct-acting inducer of SCEs. Cultured cells exposed in vitro responded to MNNG in a dose-related manner in regard to SCE induction, and the frequency of “outlier” cells increased at the higher concentrations of MNNG.

With further development, this technique may be adaptable for use with in vivo genotoxicity studies and provide information concerning the induction and persistence of chemically induced SCEs in fish. This PBL/SCE assay may also be a feasible assessment tool for detecting exposure of marine fish to genotoxic environmental contaminants in laboratory and field situations.

Keywords

Marine Fish Purify Protein Derivative Fish Cell Genotoxic Agent English Sole 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beardmore, J., C. Barker, B. Battaglia, R. Berry, A. Longwell, J. Payne, and A. Rosenfield (1980) The use of genetic approaches to monitoring biological effects of pollution. Rapp. P.-V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 179:299–305.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Payne, J., and I. Martins (1980) Monitoring for mutagenic compounds in the marine environment. Rapp. P.-V. Reun. Cons. Int. Explor. Mer. 179:292–298.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Latt, S., R. Schreck, K. Loveday, and C. Shuler (1979) In vitro and in vivo analysis of sister chromatid exchange. Pharmacol. Rev. 30:501–535.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perry, P. (1980) Chemical mutagens and sister chromatid exchange. In Chemical Mutagens: Principles and Methods for Their Detection, F. de Serres and A. Hollaender, eds. Plenum Press, New York, Vol. 6, pp.1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stromberg, P., M. Landolt, and R. Kocan (1981) Alterations in the frequency of sister chromatid exchanges in flatfish from Puget Sound, Washington, following experimental and natural ex posure to mutagenic chemicals. NOAA Technical Memorandum, Office of Marine Pollution Assessment, Boulder, Colorado. 43 pp.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    NCI/EPA Collaborative Symposium: The Use of Small Fish Species in Carcinogenicity Testing. Washington, D.C., December, 1981 (unpublished).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kligerman, A. (1980) The use of aquatic organisms to detect mutagens that cause cytogenetic damage. In Radiation Effects on Aquatic Organisms, E. Egami, ed. Japan Science Soc. Press, Tokyo, pp. 241–252.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kligerman, A. (1979) Induction of sister chromatid exchanges in the central mudminnow following in vivo exposure to mutagenic agents. Mutat. Res. 64:205–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hooftman, R., and G. Vink (1981) Cytogenetic effects on the Eastern mudminnow, Umbra pygmaea, exposed to ethyl methansulfonate, benzo(a)pyrene and river water. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety 5:261–269.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van der Hoevan, J., I. Bruggeman, G. Alink, and J. Koeman (1982) The killifish Notobranchius rachowi, a new animal in genetic toxicology. Mutat. Res. 97:35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alink, G., E. Frederix-Wolters, A. van der Gaag, J. van der Kerkhoff, and C. Poels (1980) Induction of sister-chromatid exchanges in fish exposed to Rhine water. Mutat. Res. 78:369–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maddock, M., and J. Kelly (1980) A sister chromatid exchange assay for detecting genetic damage to marine fish exposed to mutagens and carcinogens. In Water Chlorination: Environmen tal Impact and Health Effects, R. Jolley et al., eds. Ann Arbor Sci. Publ., Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, pp. 835–844.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Barker, C, and B. Rackham (1979) The induction of sister-chromatid exchanges in cultured fish cells (Ameca splendens) by carcinogenic mutagens. Mutat. Res. 68:381–387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loeb, L. (1974) Molecular analysis of lymphocyte transformation. In Developments in Lymphoid Cell Biology, A. Gottlieb, ed. CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio, pp. 104–131.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stetka, D., and S. Wolff (1976) Sister chromatid exchange as an assay for genetic damage induced by mutagens-carcinogens. I. In vivo test for compounds requiring metabolic activation. Mutat. Res. 41:333–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stetka, D., and S. Wolff (1976) Sister chromatid exchange as an assay for genetic damage induced by mutagens-carcinogens. II. In vitro test for compounds requiring metabolic activation. Mutat. Res. 41:343–350.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kligerman, A., J. Wilmer, and G. Erexson (1981) Characterization of a rat lymphocyte culture system for assessing sister chromatid exchange after in. vivo exposure to genotoxic agents. Environ. Mut. 3:531–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Erexson, G., J. Wilmer, and A. Kligerman (1983) Analyses of sister-chromatid exchange and cell-cycle kinetics in mouse T-and B-lymphocytes from peripheral blood cultures. Mutat. Res. 109:271–281.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zakour, H., M. Landolt, and R. Kocan. An in vitro culture technique for the peripheral blood leukocytes of a coldwater marine fish, the Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus). (Submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suyama, I., and H. Etoh (1983) X-ray-induced dicentric yields in lymphocytes of the teleost, Umbra limi. Mutat. Res .107:111–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Alves, P., and J. Jonasson (1978) New staining method for the detection of sister-chromatid exchanges in BrdU-labelled chromosomes. J. Cell Sci. 32:185–195.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Snedecor, G., and W. Cochran (1967) Statistical Methods. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 593 pp.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Harrison, F., and I. Jones (1982) An in vivo sister chromatid exchange assay in the larvae of the mussel Mytilus edulis: Re sponse to 3 mutagens. Mutat. Res. 105:235–242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kligerman, A., G. Erexson, M. Phelps, and J. Wilmer (1983) Sister-chromatid exchange induction in peripheral blood lymphocytes exposed to ethylene oxide by inhalation. Mutat. Res. 120:37–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lambert, B., and A. Lindblad (1980) Sister chromatid exchange and chromosome aberrations in lymphocytes of laboratory personnel. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health 6:1237–1243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Buckton, K., and H. Evans (1982) Human peripheral blood lymphocytes. In Cytogenetic Assays of Environmental Mutagens, T. Hsu, ed. Allanheld, Osmun and Co., Totowa, New Jersey, pp. 183–202.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ojima, Y., S. Hitotsumachi, and M. Hayashi (1970) A blood culture method for fish chromosomes. Japan. J. Genet. 45:161–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Heckman, J., F. Allendorf, and J. Wright (1971) Trout leukocytes: growth in oxygenated cultures. Science 173:246.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kang, Y., and E. Park (1975) Leukocyte culture of the eel without autologous serum. Japan. J. Genet. 50:159–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thorgaard, G. (1976) Robertsonian polymorphism and constitutive heterochromatin distribution in chromosomes of the rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 17:174–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Etlinger, H., H. Hodgins, and J. Chiller (1976) Evolution of the lymphoid system. I. Evidence for lymphocyte heterogeneity in rainbow trout revealed by organ distribution of mitogenic responses. J. Immunol. 166:1547–1553.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chilmonczyk, S. (1978) In vitro stimulation by mitogens of per ipheral blood lymphocytes from rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri). Annal Immunol. 129:3–12.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lopez, D., M. Sigel, and J. Lee (1974) Phylogenetic studies on T-cells. I. Lymphocytes of the shark with differential response to phytohemagglutinin and concanavalin A. Cell. Immunol. 10:287–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    McKinney, E., G. Ortiz, J. Lee, M. Sigel, D. Lopez, R. Epstein, and T. McLeod (1976) Lymphocytes of fish: multipotential or specialized? In Phylogeny of Thymus and Bone Marrow-Bursa Cells, R. Wright and E. Cooper, eds. Elsevier/North Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 73–82.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sultzer, B., and B. Nilsson (1972) PPD-tuberculin -a B-cell mitogen. Nature (New Biol.) 240:198–200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helen R. Zakour
    • 1
  • Marsha L. Landolt
    • 1
  • Richard M. Kocan
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Fisheries, WH-10 College of Ocean and Fishery SciencesUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations