Assessment of mitochondrial DNA damage in little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) collected near a mercury-contaminated river
- 283 Downloads
Historical discharges of Hg into the South River near the town of Waynesboro, VA, USA, have resulted in persistently elevated Hg concentrations in sediment, surface water, ground water, soil, and wildlife downstream of the discharge site. In the present study, we examined mercury (Hg) levels in in little brown bats (Myotis lucifugus) from this location and assessed the utility of a non-destructively collected tissue sample (wing punch) for determining mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) damage in Hg exposed bats. Bats captured 1 and 3 km from the South River, exhibited significantly higher levels of total Hg (THg) in blood and fur than those from the reference location. We compared levels of mtDNA damage using real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) analysis of two distinct regions of mtDNA. Genotoxicity is among the many known toxic effects of Hg, resulting from direct interactions with DNA or from oxidative damage. Because it lacks many of the protective protein structures and repair mechanisms associated with nuclear DNA, mtDNA is more sensitive to the effects of genotoxic chemicals and therefore may be a useful biomarker in chronically exposed organisms. Significantly higher levels of damage were observed in both regions of mtDNA in bats captured 3 km from the river than in controls. However, levels of mtDNA damage exhibited weak correlations with fur and blood THg levels, suggesting that other factors may play a role in the site-specific differences.
KeywordsMercury DNA damage Wildlife Biomarkers Little brown bats Myotis lucifugus
Funding and support for this work was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, DuPont ™, the South River Science Team, and the U.S. Geological Survey. The use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We would like to thank the many biologists that helped obtain samples for this study, Tim Divoll, Lucas Savoy, Dustin Meatty, Pedro Ardapple, Casey Huck, Patrick Keenan, Rick Reynolds (VADGF) and all the field technicians who put in countless hours. We also thank Catherine Maddox and Kelly Hallinger for their assistance in the laboratory.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Cantoni O, Costa M (1983) Correlations of DNA strand breaks and their repair with cell survival following acute exposure to mercury (II) and X-rays. Mol Pharmacol 24:84–87Google Scholar
- DelVecchio R, Friedman S, Unsworth R (2010) South river and South Fork of the Shenandoah River natural resource damage assessment: draft damage assessment plan. Industrial Economics Incorporated, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- Drummond AJ, Ashton B, Cheung M, Heled J, Kearse M, Moir R, Stones-Havas S, Thierer T, Wilson A (2009) Geneious v4.75. http://www.geneious.com
- Murphy GW (2004) Uptake of mercury and relationship to food habits of selected fish species in the Shenandoah River basin. Virginia Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, BlacksburgGoogle Scholar
- Nascimento JLMD, Oliveira KRM, Crespo-Lopez ME, Macchi BM, Maués LAL, MDCN Pinheiro, Silveira LCL, Herculano AM (2008) Methylmercury neurotoxicity & antioxidant defenses. Indian J Med Res 128:373–382Google Scholar
- Osborne CE, Evers DC, Duron M, Schoch N, Yates D, Buck D, Lane OP, Franklin J (2011) Mercury contamination within terrestrial ecosystems in New England and Mid-Atlantic States: [rofiles of soil, invertebrates, songbirds, and bats. Biodiversity Research Institute, GorhamGoogle Scholar
- Santos JH, Meyer JN, Mandavilli BS, Houten BV (2006) Quantitative PCR-based measurement of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA damage and repair in mammalian cells. In: Henderson DS (ed) Methods in molecular biology: DNA repair protocols: mammalian systems, 2nd edn. Humana Press Inc, TotowaGoogle Scholar
- Sorenson MD (2003) Avian mtDNA primers (http://people.bu.edu/msoren/primers.html)
- Worthington-Wilmer J, Barratt E (1996) A non-lethal method of tissue sampling for genetic studies of chiropterans. Bat Res News 37(1):1–3Google Scholar
- Yates D, Angelo S, Divoll T, Evers DC (2012) Assessment of mercury exposure to bats at Onondaga Lake. Onondaga Lake, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Zimmermann S (1999) The Development of a new approach to evaluate environmentally induced genetic damage in Hudson River biota. Bios 70(1):11–21Google Scholar