Advertisement

Marine Biology

, Volume 120, Issue 1, pp 41–45 | Cite as

Proliferation kinetics of mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis) gill cells

  • M. J. Martínez-Expósito
  • J. J. Pasantes
  • J. Méndez
Article
  • 51 Downloads

Abstract

A technique of sister chromatid differentiation (SCD) using bromodeoxyuridine (BrdU) incorporation and a modification of the fluorescence plus Giemsa (FPG) method was employed to determine cell-proliferation kinetics in gill tissue of the mussel Mytilus galloprovincialis. Dose-dependent proliferation inhibition was examined. In vivo administration of BrdU for 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, and 96 h was studied. Our data show that the highest yield of second-generation metaphase plates is obtained after 60 h BrdU treatment; the duration of a cell cycle is 24 to 30 h. On the basis of these data, a BrdU incorporation period of 48 to 60 h would seem to be most appropriate for the sister chromatid exchange (SCE) tests carried out in gill cells of M. galloprovincialis, whereas the 12 to 24 h exposure would give the best results for replication band analysis.

Keywords

Cell Cycle Sister Chromatid BrdU Incorporation Sister Chromatid Exchange Bromodeoxyuridine 
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. Ardito G, Lamberti L, Bigatti P, Stanyon R (1983) The effect of cell kinetics and harvest time on SCE and NOR associations in Macaca fuscata lymphocytes. Cytogenet Cell Genet 36:532–536Google Scholar
  2. Brunetti R, Gola I, Majone F (1986) Sister-chromatid exchange in developing eggs of Mytilus galloprovincialis Lmk. (Bivalvia). Mutation Res 174:207–211Google Scholar
  3. Dixon DR, Clarke KR (1982) Sister chromatid exchange: a sensitive method for detecting damage caused by exposure to environmental mutagens in the chromosomes of adult Mytilus edulis. Mar Biol Lett 3:163–172Google Scholar
  4. Dixon DR, Jones IM, Harrison FL (1985) Cytogenetic evidence of inducible processes linked with metabolism of a xenobiotic chemical in adult and larval Mytilus edulis. Sci total Envir 46:1–8Google Scholar
  5. Dixon DR, Prosser H (1986) An investigation of the genotoxic effects of an organotin antifouling compound (bis (tributyltin) oxide) on the chromosomes of the edible mussel, Mytilus edulis. Aquat Toxic 8:185–195Google Scholar
  6. Giles V, Thode G, Álvarez MC (1988) Early replication bands in two scorpion fishes, Scorpaena porcus and S. notata (order Scorpaneiformes). Cytogenet Cell Genet 47:80–83Google Scholar
  7. Harrison FL, Jones IM (1982) An in vivo sister-chromatid exchange assay in the larvae of the mussel Mytilus edulis: response to 3 mutagens. Mutation Res 105:235–242Google Scholar
  8. Jones IM, Harrison FL (1987) Variability in the frequency of sisterchromatid exchange in larvae of Mytilus edulis: implications for field monitoring. J exp mar biol Ecol 113:283–288Google Scholar
  9. Kligerman AD, Bishop WE, Valentine LC (1984) Use of the mudminnow, Umbra sp., in an in vivo sister chromatid exchange test. Natn Cancer Inst Monogr 65:111–118Google Scholar
  10. Kligerman AD, Bloom SE (1976) Sister chromatid exchanges in adult mudminnows (Umbra limi) after in vivo exposure to 5-bromodeoxyuridine. Chromosoma 56:101–109Google Scholar
  11. Latt SA (1974) Localization of sister chromatid exchanges in human chromosomes. Science, NY 185:74–75Google Scholar
  12. Pardee AB (1989) G1 events and regulation of cell proliferation. Science, NY 246:603–608Google Scholar
  13. Perry P, Wolff S (1974) New Giemsa method for the differential staining of sister chromatids. Nature, Lond 251:156–158Google Scholar
  14. Pesch GG, Pesch CE, Malcolm AR (1981) Neanthes arenaceodentata, a cytogenetic model for marine genetic toxicology. Aquat Toxic 1:301–311Google Scholar
  15. Schneider EL, Tice RR, Kram D (1978) Bromodeoxyuridine differential chromatid staining technique: a new approach to examining sister chromatid exchange and cell replication kinetics. Meth Cell Biol 20:379–409Google Scholar
  16. Van der Hoeven JCM, Bruggeman IM, Alink GM, Koeman JH (1982) The killifish Nothobranchius rachowi, a new animal in genetic toxicology. Mutation Res 97:35–42Google Scholar
  17. Van de Kerkhoff JFJ, Van der Gaag MA (1985) Some factors affecting optimal differential staining of sister chromatids in vivo in the fish Nothobranchius rachowi. Mutation Res 143:39–43Google Scholar
  18. Verma RS (1990) The genome. VCH Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Verma RS, Babu A (1989) Human chromosomes. Manual of basic techniques. Pergamon Press Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. Martínez-Expósito
    • 1
  • J. J. Pasantes
    • 1
  • J. Méndez
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento Biología Celular y Molecular, Área de GenéticaUniversidad de La CoruãLa CoruñaSpain

Personalised recommendations