Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 13, pp 13592–13601 | Cite as

How can the natural radiation background affect DNA integrity in angiosperm plant species at different altitudes in Rila Mountain (Southwest Bulgaria)?

  • Gabriele JovtchevEmail author
  • Alexander Stankov
  • Ivanka Ravnachka
  • Svetla Gateva
  • Dimitar Dimitrov
  • Nikolai Tyutyundzhiev
  • Nina Nikolova
  • Christo Angelov
Research Article
  • 39 Downloads

Abstract

Climate changes and anthropogenic factors are the main factors contributing to the destruction of natural ecosystems. The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which wild plants adapt to UV, gamma background, and gross beta activity, as well as the possible damage that can be recorded in plants growing at different altitudes in Rila Mountain. We used physicochemical, cytogenetic, and molecular methods. Our investigations were done on the nine plant species characteristic of the ecosystems in Rila Mountain at three altitudes: 1500 m, 1782 m, and 2925 m. The registered beta activity in the plants did not depend on the altitude of the habitats. Our results showed that wild plant species differ in their tolerance to the combined effect of UV and IR radiation as well as climate factors. The genotype plays a more important role than the difference in the habitat altitude. The comet assay adapted by us for these plant species showed that the DNA of Epilobium angustifolium L. (Onagraceae) growing at 1500 m was more susceptible to damage than that of Dactylis glomerata L. (Poaceae). Both these species growing at 1782 m did not show any increase in DNA damage evaluated as the level of DNA migration. The level of DNA damage in Pedicularis orthantha Griseb. (Orobanchaceae) at 2925 m was comparable to that at a lower altitude. Regarding the formation of micronuclei, grass species were more sensitive to UV- and IR-induced DNA damage than cereals. Our data imply the existence of specific protective mechanisms developed by plants to overcome DNA damage induced by stress factors.

Keywords

UV radiation Gross beta activity Altitude DNA damage Angiosperm species Plants adaptation 

Notes

Funding information

The present study was supported by the Bulgarian Ministry of Education, Youth and Science under contract grant number DN 04/1 entitled: “Study of the combined effects of the natural radioactive background, UV radiation, climate change and cosmic rays on model groups of plant and animal organisms in mountain ecosystems.”

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11356_2019_4872_MOESM1_ESM.doc (147 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 147 kb)

References

  1. Ballaré CL (2003) Stress under the sun: spotlight on ultraviolet-B responses. Plant Physiol 132:1725–1727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Batschauer A (1999) Light perception in higher plants. Cell Mol Life Sci 55:153–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caplin N, Willey N (2018) Ionizing radiation, higher plants, and radioprotection: from acute high doses to chronic low doses. Front Plant Sci 9:847.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chen P, Chen H, Han R (2016) Effects of enhanced ultraviolet-B radiation on chromosomes and microtubule arrays in wheat roots. Int J Agric Biol 18:649–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Deutscher Bundestag (2016) Umweltradioaktivität und Strahlenbelastung im Jahr 2014, Drucksache 18/9600 (in German)Google Scholar
  6. Dimitrov S, Iovtchev M, Geleva E (2010) Determination of the total beta activity and heavy metals in biomonitoring species (phytomonitors) from the area of the IRT – Sofia, Proceedings of Bulgarian Nuclear Society, Nuclear Power for the People, Conference November 11-14, 2009, Veliko Tarnovo, Bulgaria, BsNS Transactions 14:94–96Google Scholar
  7. Donà M, Ventura L, Macovei A, Confalonieri M, Savio M, Giovannini A, Carbonera D, Balestrazzi A (2013) Gamma irradiation with different dose rates induces different DNA damage responses in Petunia x hybrida cells. J Plant Physiol 170:780–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fedotov IS, Kalchenko VA, Igonina EV, Rubanovich AV (2006) Radiation and genetic consequences of ionizing irradiation on populations of Pinus sylvestris L, within the zone of the Chernobyl NPP. Radiats Biol Radioecol 46:283–288 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  9. Ganpudi AL, Schroeder DF (2011) Chapter 4. UV damaged DNA repair & tolerance in plants. In: Chen C (ed) Selected topics in DNA repair. InTech, pp 73–96. http://www.intechopen.com/books/selected-topics-in-dna-repair/uv-damaged-dna-repair-tolerance-in-plants
  10. Geleva E (2018) Radioecological environmental studies in clean areas and around nuclear facilities. PhD thesis. http://www.inrne.bas.bg/index.php/ns/c221/582-konkursi-geleva (in Bulgarian)
  11. Georgieva M, Rashydov NN, Hajduch M (2017) DNA damage, repair monitoring and epigenetic DNA methylation changes in seedlings of Chernobyl soybeans. DNA Repair 50:14–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Geraskin SA, Dikarev VG, Zyablitskaya YY, Oudalova AA, Spirin YV, Alexakhin RM (2003) Genetic consequences of radioactive contamination by the Chernobyl fallout to agricultural crops. J Environ Radioact 66:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Geraskin SA, Fesenko SV, Alexakhin RM (2008) Effects of non-human species irradiation after the Chernobyl NPP accident. Environ Int 34:880–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gill S, Anjum N, Gill R, Jha M, Tuteja N (2015) DNA damage and repair in plants under ultraviolet and ionizing radiations. Sci World J 250158.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/250158
  15. Hall EJ, Giaccia A (2006) Radiobiology for the radiologist, 6th edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1460396906000343
  16. Hollosy F (2002) Effects of ultraviolet radiation on plant cells. Micron 33:179–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hopkins L, Bond M, Tobin A (2002) Ultraviolet-B radiation reduces the rates of cell division and elongation in the primary leaf of wheat (Triticum aestivum L. cv Maris Huntsman). Plant Cell Environ 25:617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IAEA (2001) Present and future environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident. International Atomic Energy Agency; IAEA-TECDOC-1240Google Scholar
  19. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) (2008) Environmental protection - the concept and use of reference animals and plants. ICRP Publication 108, 38. Ann Arbor, MI: ICRP, 4–6Google Scholar
  20. Iovtchev M, Bogoeva L, Apostolova M, Kostova M, Sariev D (1995a) Total beta activity of samples from Rila Mountain. In: Carbonnel JP, Stamenov J (eds) Observatoire de Moussla OM2 4. INRNE Press, Sofia, pp 8–13Google Scholar
  21. Iovtchev M, Kostova M, Rusev R, Sariev D, Apostolova M, Bogoeva L (1995b) Investigations of the total beta activity of samples from the Beli Iskar River Valley, Rila Mountain. In: Carbonnel JP, Stamenov J (eds) Observatoire de Moussla OM2 4. INRNE Press, Sofia, pp 14–19Google Scholar
  22. Iovtchev M, Peev D, Bogoeva L, Sariev D, Apostolova M, Tzoneva S, Valjovska N, Kashukeeva K (1996) Phytomonitoring in Rila Mountain – 1995, III Total ß-activity of samples in phytomonitors from control populations. In: Carbonnel JP, Stamenov J (eds) Observatoire de Moussla OM2 4. INRNE Press, Sofia, pp 164–167Google Scholar
  23. Itoh S, Eguchi T, Kato N, Takahashi S (2014) Radioactive particles in soil, plant, and dust samples after the Fukushima nuclear accident. Soil Sci Plant Nutr 60:540–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ivanishvili NI, Gogebashvili ME, Gvritishvili NZ (2016) Gamma-radiation effect on the parameters of the population recovery of plants. Ann Agric Sci 14:319–322Google Scholar
  25. Jenkins GI (2009) Signal transduction in responses to UV-B radiation. Annu Rev Plant Biol 60:407–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jiang L, Wang Y, Bjorn L, Li S (2011) UV-B induced DNA damage mediates expression changes of cell cycle regulatory genes in Arabidopsis root tips. Planta 233:831–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jovtchev G, Menke M, Schubert I (2001) The comet assay detects adaptation to MNU-induced DNA damage in barley. Mutat Res 493:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jovtchev G, Stergios M, Schubert I (2002) A comparison of N-methyl-N-nitrosourea-induced chromatid aberrations and micronuclei in barley meristems using FISH techniques. Mutat Res 517:47–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kamenova-Totzeva RM, Kotova RM, Tenev JG, Totzev AV, Badulin VM (2015) Natural radioactivity content in Bulgarian drinking waters and consequent dose estimation. Radiat Prot Dosim 164:402–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Karimullina E, Antonova EV, Pozolotina VN (2016) Genetic variation in natural Melandrium album populations exposed to chronic ionizing radiation. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:21565–21576.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7355-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kovacs E, Keresztes A (2002) Effect of gamma and UV–B/C radiation on plant cells. Micron 33:199–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumar G, Pandey A (2017) Effect of UV-B radiation on chromosomal organisation and biochemical constituents of Coriandrum sativum L. Jordan J Biol Sci 10:85–93Google Scholar
  33. Li X, Ke X, Zhou H, Tang Y (2018) Contrasting altitudinal patterns of leaf UV reflectance and absorbance in four herbaceous species on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau. J Plant Ecol rty016.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jpe/rty016/5003426
  34. Lyderson FV, de Carvalho CR (2001) Analysis of gamma radiation-induced chromosome variations in maize (Zea mays L.). Caryologia 54:319–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mc Cormick JF, Platt RB (1962) Effects of ionizing radiation on a natural plant community. Radiat Bot 2:161–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Metcheva R, Beltcheva M, Chassovnikarova T (2008) The snow vole (Chionomys nivalis) as an appropriate environmental bioindicator in alpine ecosystems. Sci Total Environ 391:278–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mishev A, Kalapov I, Stamenov J (2007) Recent gamma background measurements at BEO Moussala with active detectors. Proceedings of Global Change, Environment, Sustainable Development of the Society and High Mountain Observatories Network Conference 21-25 March 2007, Gyulechitsa Bulgaria, pp 40–47Google Scholar
  38. Muratova EN, Goryachkina OV, Kornilova MG, Pimenov AV, Sedelnikova TS, Bolsunovsky AY (2014) Cytogenetic studies on submerged plants from the Yenisei River area in the zone of radioactive contamination. Biol Bull 41:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nishiguchi M, Nanjo T, Yoshida K (2012) The effects of gamma irradiation on growth and expression of genes encoding DNA repair-related proteins in Lombardy poplar (Populus nigra var. italica). J Environ Radioact 109:19–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rastogi RP, Richa, Kumar A, Tyagi MB, Sinha RP (2010) Molecular mechanisms of ultraviolet radiation-induced DNA damage and repair. J Nucleic Acids 592980.  https://doi.org/10.4061/2010/592980
  41. Ries G, Heller W, Puchta H, Sandermann H, Seidlitz H, Hohn B (2000) Elevated UV-B radiation reduces genome stability in plants. Nature 406:98–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rila National Park, Management Plan 2001–2010, published 2001, p 289. http://rilanationalpark.bg/assets/userfiles/Rila%20NP-en.pdf
  43. Roro AG, Terfa MT, Solhaug KA, Tsegaye A, Olsen JE, Torre S (2016) The impact of UV radiation at high altitudes close to the equator on morphology and productivity of pea (Pisum sativum) in different seasons. S Afr J Bot 106:119–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rozema J, van de Staaij J, Tosserams M (1997) Effects of UV-B radiation on plants from agro- and natural ecosystems. In: Lumsden P (ed) Plants and UV-B: responses to environmental change. University Press, Cambridge, pp 213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Safaralikhonov A, Aknazarov O (2016) The dynamics of endegenous hormone activity in plant leaves depending on the altitude of their growing. Soc Nat Sci J 10:9–14Google Scholar
  46. Sinha RP, Häeder DP (2006) Impact of UV-radiation on rice-field cyanobacteria: role of photoprotectve compounds. In: Ghetti F, Checcucci G, Bornman JF (eds) Environmental UV-radiation: impact on ecosystems and human health and predictive models, proceedings of the NATO study institute advanced study institute on environmental UV radiation. Springer Press, Dordrecht, pp 217–230Google Scholar
  47. Sola Y, Lorente J, Campmany E, de Cabo X, Bech J, Redano A, Martinez-Lozano JA, Utrillas MP, Alados-Arboledas L, Olmo FJ, Diaz JP, Exposito FJ, Cachorro V, Sorribas M, Labajo A, Vilaplana JM, Silva AM, Badosa J (2008) Altitude effect in UV radiation during the Evaluation of the Effects of Elevation and Aerosols on the Ultraviolet Radiation 2002 (VELETA-2002) field campaign. J Geophys Res 113:D23202.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD009742 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Soliman MSA, Hegazy AK, Goda SK, Emam MH, Al-Atar AA (2011) Cytotoxicity and mutagenic effects of soil radionuclides on some black sand plant species. Mediterr Ecol 11:5–20Google Scholar
  49. Spurny F, Gelev M, Turek K, Dimov I, Hristova E (2004) Environmental external radiation at some Bulgarian localities. International Symposium INSINUME. In situ nuclear metrology as a tool of radioecology. Radioprotection of the environment; Albena (Bulgaria); 27–30 Sep 2004, INIS 35 (50): 1-8, Reference Number 35106156Google Scholar
  50. Stoychev S (2004) Global climate changes and food resources. J Environ Prot Ecol 5:63–67Google Scholar
  51. Torabinejad J, Caldwell MN, Flint SD, Durham S (1998) Susceptibility of pollen to UV-B radiation: an assay of 24 taxa. Am J Bot 85:360–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tyutyundzhiev N, Angelov Ch, Lovchino K, Nitchev Hr, Petrov M, Arsov T (2018) Modeling the natural UV irradiation and comparative UV measurements at Moussala BEO (BG). IOP Publishing, J Phys: Conf Ser 992(012022):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1088/17426596/992/1/012022Google Scholar
  53. Wang QW, Hidema J, Hikosaka K (2014) Is UV-induced DNA damage greater at higher elevation? Am J Bot 101:796–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Yokota Y, Shikazono N, Tanaka A, Hase Y, Funayama T, Wada S, Inoue M (2005) Comparative radiation tolerance based on the induction of DNA double-strand breaks in tobacco BY-2 cells and CHO-K1 cells irradiated with gamma rays. Radiat Res 163:520–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yordanova I, Staneva D, Bineva T, Stoeva N (2007) Dynamics of the radioactive pollution in the surface layer of soils in Bulgaria twenty years after the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident. J Cent Eur Agric 8:407–412Google Scholar
  56. Yordanova II, Banov MD, Misheva LG, Staneva DN, Bineva TK (2015) Natural radioactivity in virgin soils and soils from some areas with closed uranium mining facilities in Bulgaria. Open Chem 13:600–605Google Scholar
  57. Zlatev ZS, Lidon FJC, Kaimakanova M (2012) Plant physiological responses to UV-B radiation. Emir J Food Agric 24:481–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecosystem Research, Environmental Risk Assessment and Conservation Biology, Institute of Biodiversity and Ecosystem ResearchBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.BEO-Moussala, Institute for Nuclear Researches and Nuclear EnergyBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  3. 3.National Museum of Natural HistoryBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria
  4. 4.Central Laboratory of Solar Energy and New Energy SourcesBulgarian Academy of SciencesSofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations