, 587:79 | Cite as

Biomarkers: a strategic tool in the assessment of environmental quality of coastal waters

  • Ana Picado
  • M. J. Bebianno
  • M. H. Costa
  • A. Ferreira
  • C. Vale


Ecosystems are under the pressure of complex mixtures of contaminants whose effects are not always simple to assess. Biomarkers, acting as early warning signals of the presence of potentially toxic xenobiotics, are useful tools for assessing either exposure to, or the effects of these compounds providing information about the toxicant bioavailability. In fact, it has been argued that a full understanding of ecotoxicological processes must consider an integrated multi-level approach, in which molecular impact is related with higher-order biological consequences at the individual, population and community levels. Monitoring programs should make use of this tool to link contaminants and ecological responses fulfilling strategies like those launched by OSPAR (Commissions of Oslo and Paris) Convention on the protection of the marine environment of the North-East Atlantic and the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES). An overview of the work done in the past few years using biomarkers as in situ tools for pollution assessment in Portuguese coastal waters is presented as a contribution to the set up of a biomonitoring program for the Portuguese coastal zone. Considering the data set available the biomonitoring proposal should include the analysis of biomarkers and effects at individual levels. The aim of the program will include a spatial and temporal characterization of the biomarkers acetyl-cholinesterase, metallothioneins, DNA damage, adenylate energy charge and scope-for-growth levels. The investigation of the spatial variation of biomarkers is crucial to define sites for long term monitoring, which will be integrated with a chemical monitoring program. This framework will be a major contribution to the implementation of a national database for the use of biomarkers along the Portuguese coast.


Biomarkers of exposure Biomarkers of defence Coastal waters Monitoring Environment quality 


  1. Atkinson, D. E. & G. M. Walton, 1967. Adenosine triphosphate conservation in metabolic regulation. Rat liver citrate cleavage enzyme. Journal of Biological Chemistry 242: 3239–3241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barroso, C. M., M. H. Moreira & M. J. Bebianno, 2002. Imposex, female sterility and organotins in the prosobranch Nassarius reticulatus (L.) from the Portuguese Coast. Marine Environmental Progress Series 230: 127–135.Google Scholar
  3. Bebianno, M. J. & L. M. Machado, 1997. Concentrations of metals and metallothioneins in Mytilus galloprovincialis along the South Coast of Portugal. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34: 666–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bebianno, M. J. & M. A. Serafim, 2003. Variation of metallothionein and metal concentrations in a natural clam population of Ruditapes decussatus. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 44: 53–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bebianno, M. J., A. Cravo, C. Miguel & S. Morais, 2003. Variation of metallothionein concentrations in a field population of Patella aspera. The Science of the Total Environment 301: 151–161.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bettin, C., J. Oehlmann & E. Stroben, 1996. TBT-induced imposex in marine neogastropods is mediated by an increasing androgen level. Helgolander Meeresuntersuchungen 50: 299–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bickham, J. W., 1990. Flow cytometry as a technique to monitor the effects of environmental genotoxins on wildlife populations. In Sandu, S. S. (ed.), In situ biological hazards of environmental pollutants. Plenum Press, New York, 94–108.Google Scholar
  8. Borja, A., J. Franco, V. Valencia, J. Bald, I. Muxika, M. J. Belzunce & O. Solaun, 2004. Implementation of the European water framework directive from the Basque country (Northern Spain): a methodological approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 48: 209–218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bryan, G. W., P. Gibbs, L. G. Hummerstone & G. R. Burt, 1986. The decline of the gastropod Nucella lapillus around the South-West England: evidence for the effect of tributyltin from antifouling paints. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 66: 611–640.Google Scholar
  10. Caetano, M. & C. Vale, 2003. Trace–elemental composition of seston and plankton along the Portuguese coast. Acta Oecologica 24: 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cajaraville, M. P., M. J. Bebianno, J. Blasco, C. Porte, C. Sarasquete & A. Viarengo, 2000. The use of biomarkers to assess the impact of pollution in coastal environments of the Iberian Peninsula: a practical approach. The Science of the Total Environment 247: 295–311.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chan, J., Z. Huang, M. E. Merrifield, M. T. Salgado & M. J. Stillman, 2002. Studies of metal binding reactions in metallothioneins by spectroscopic, molecular biology, and molecular modeling techniques. Coordination Chemistry Reviews 233–234: 319–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Correia, A. D., M. H. Costa, K. P. Ryan & J. A. Nott, 2002a. Studies on biomarkers of copper exposure and toxicity in a marine amphipod Gammarus locusta (Crustacea): II. Copper-containing granules within the midgut gland. Journal of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 82: 827–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Correia, A. D., A. L. Pereira, M. H. Costa & F. Carrapiço, 2002b. Functional anatomy of midgut gland of Gammarus locusta (L.) (Crustacea, Amphipoda). Journal of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 82: 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa, F. O., T. Neuparth, M. H. Costa, C. W. Theodorakis & L. R. Shugart, 2002. Detection of DNA strand breakage in a marine amphipod by agarose gel electrophoresis: exposure to X-rays and copper. Biomarkers 7: 451–463.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Costa, F. O., T. Neuparth, A. D. Correia & M. H. Costa, 2005. Multi-level assessment of chronic toxicity of estuarine sediments with the amphipod Gammarus locusta: II. Individual and population endpoints. Marine Environmental Research 60: 93–110.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dabrio, M., A. R. Rodriguez, M. Nordberg, M. J. Bebianno, G. Bordin, M. G. De Ley, I. Sestakova & M. Vasak, 2002. Recent developments in quantification methods for metallothionein. Journal of Inorganic Biochemistry 88: 343–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Del Valls, T. A., M. C. Casado-Martínez, I. Riba & J. Blasco, 2004. Linking sediment chemical and biological guidelines for characterization of dredged material. In Proccedings of the 3rd Workshop on Monitoring sediment quality at river basin scale. Understanding the behaviour and fate of pollutants. European Sediment Research Network, Apeldoorn, 101–105.Google Scholar
  19. den Besten, P. J., 1998. Concepts for the implementation of Biomarkers in environmental monitoring. Marine Environmental Research 46: 253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fernandes, S., V. Reis, F. O. Costa, M. H. Costa & P. Sobral, 2002. Scope-for-growth of Gammarus locusta and Hediste diversicolor as a tool to evaluate sediment quality in coastal systems. Part 1. Reference energy budgets. In Duarte, P. (ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on sustainable management of coastal Ecosystems. Ramsar, Gland.Google Scholar
  21. Franco, J., A. Borja, O. Solaun & V. Pérez, 2002. Heavy metals in molluscs from the Basque Coast (Northern Spain): results from an 11-year monitoring programme. Marine Pollution Bulletin 44: 956–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gibbs, P. E. & G. W. Bryan, 1986. Reproductive failure in populations of the dog-whelk, Nucella lapillus, caused by imposex induced by tributyltin from antifouling paints. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 66: 767–777.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldberg, E. D. & K. K. Bertine, 2000. Beyond the mussel watch – new directions for monitoring marine pollution. The Science of the Total Environment 247: 165–174.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldberg, E. D., V. T. Bowen, J. W. Farrington, G. Harvey, J. H. Martin, P. L. Parker, R. W. Riseborough, W. Robertson, E. Schneider & E. Gambie, 1978. The mussel watch. Environmental Conservation 5: 101–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gravato, C. & M. A. Santos, 2003. Genotoxicity biomarker’ association with B(a)P biotransformation in Dicentrarchus labrax L. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 55: 352–358.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Handy, R. D., A. N. Jha & M. H. Depledge, 2002. Biomarker approaches for ecotoxicological biomonitoring at different levels of biological organisation. In Burden, F., I. McKelvie, U. Förstner & A. Guenther (eds), Handbook of Environmental Monitoring. McGraw Hill, New York, 9.1–9.32.Google Scholar
  27. Howells, G., D. Calamari, J. Gary & P. G. Wells, 1990. An analytical approach to assessment of long term effects of low level of contaminants in the marine environment. Marine Pollution Bulletin 21: 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Husby, M. P. & K. McBee, 1999. Nuclear DNA content variation and double-strand DNA breakage in white-footed nice (Peromyscus leucopus) collected from abandoned strip mines, Oklahoma, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18: 926–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. ICES, 1997. ICES review of the status of biological effects techniques relative to their potential application programmes. ICES Cooperative Research Report 222: 12–20.Google Scholar
  30. ICES, 2001. The ICES Strategic Plan. ICES, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  31. JAMP, 1998a. JAMP guidelines for general biological effects monitoring. Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme. Oslo and Paris Commissions, Oslo.Google Scholar
  32. JAMP, 1998b. JAMP guidelines for contaminant-specific biological effects monitoring. Joint Assessment and Monitoring Programme. Oslo and Paris Commissions, Oslo.Google Scholar
  33. Lagadic, L., T. Caquet & J. C. Amiard, 1997. Intérêt d’une approche multiparamétrique pour le suivi de la qualité de l’environnement. In Lagadic, L., T. Caquet, J. C. Amiard & F. Ramade (eds), Biomarqueurs en écotoxicologie. Aspects Fondamentaux. Masson, Paris, 393–401.Google Scholar
  34. Lam, P. K. S. & J. S. Gray, 2003. The use of biomarkers in environmental monitoring programmes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 46: 182–186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Langston, W. J., M. J. Bebianno & G. R. Burt, 1998. Metal handling strategies in molluscs. In Langston, J. & M. J. Bebianno (eds), Metal metabolism in the aquatic environment. Chapman and Hall, London, 219–272.Google Scholar
  36. Maria, V. L., A. C. Correia & M. A. Santos, 2003. Genotoxic and hepatic biotransformation responses induced by the overflow of pulp mill and secondary-treated effluents on Anguilla anguilla L. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 55: 126–137.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Narbonne, J. F., M. Daubèze, C. Clérandeau & P. Garrigues, 1999. Scale of classification based on biochemical markers in mussels: application to pollution monitoring in European coast. Biomarkers 4: 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Neuparth, T., 2004. Development of methodologies to assess genotoxicity in crustaceans and fish. PhD thesis, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon.Google Scholar
  39. Neuparth, T., A. D. Correia, F. O. Costa, G. Lima, & M. H. Costa, 2005. Multi-level assessment of chronic toxicity of estuarine sediments with the amphipod Gammarus locusta: I. Biochemical endpoints. Marine Environmental Research 60: 69–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. NMMP UK, 2004. The Centre for Environment Fisheries and Aquaculture Science.
  41. Nordberg, M., 1998. Metallothioneins: historical review and state of knowledge. Talanta 46: 243-254.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. OSPAR, 2004. OSPAR Commission.
  43. Picado, A. M., 1997. La charge énergétique adénylique: utilisation pratique pour l’évaluation des effets sub-létaux des pollutions. PhD thesis, Ecole Pratique Hautes Etudes, Paris.Google Scholar
  44. Quental, T., A. M. Ferreira & C. Vale, 2003. The distribution of PCBs and DDTs in seston and plankton along the Portuguese coast. Acta Oecologica 24: 333–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Santos, M. M., N. Vieira & A. M. Santos, 2000. Imposex in the dogwelk Nucella lapillus (L.) along the Portuguese coast. Marine Pollution Bulletin 40: 643–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos, M. M., C. C. Ten Hallers-Tjabbes, A. M. Santos & N. Vieira, 2002. Imposex in Nucella lapillus, a bioindicator for TBT contamination: re-survey along the Portuguese coast to monitor the effectiveness of EU regulation. Journal of Sea Research 48: 217–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schulte-Oehlmann, U., M. Tillmann, B. Markert, J. Oehlmann, B. Watermann & S. Scherf, 2000. Effects of endocrine disruptors on prosobranch snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) in the laboratory. Part II: Triphenyltin as a xeno-androgen. Ecotoxicology 9: 399–412.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sobral, P. & J. Widdows, 1997. Effects of copper exposure on the scope for growth of the clam Ruditapes decussatus, from Southern Portugal. Marine Pollution Bulletin 34: 992–1000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sobral, P. & J. Widdows, 2000. Effects of increasing current velocity, turbidity and particle size selection on the feeding activity and scope for growth of Ruditapes decussatus from Ria Formosa, Southern Portugal. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 245: 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Thébault, M. T., J. P. Raffin, A. Picado, E. Mendonça, E. F Skorkowski & Y. Le Gal, 2000. Coordinated changes of adenylate energy charge and ATP: use in ecotoxicological studies. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 46: 23–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Theodorakis, C. W., C. D. Swartz, W. J. Rogers, J. W. Bickham, K. C. Donnelly & S. M. Adams, 2000. Relationship between genotoxicity, mutagenicity, and fish community structure in a contaminated stream. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 7: 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Widdows, J. & P. Donkin, 1992. Mussels and environmental contaminants: bioaccumulation and environmental aspects. In Gosling, E. (ed.), The Mussel Mytilus: Ecology, Physiology, Genetics and Culture. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science. Elsevier, London, 383–424.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ana Picado
    • 1
  • M. J. Bebianno
    • 2
  • M. H. Costa
    • 3
  • A. Ferreira
    • 4
  • C. Vale
    • 4
  1. 1.INETILisbonPortugal
  2. 2.CIMA, FCMAUniversity of AlgarveFaroPortugal
  3. 3.IMAR, DCEANew University of LisbonCaparicaPortugal
  4. 4.INIAP-IPIMARLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations