Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 9730–9736 | Cite as

Use of statistical analysis to validate ecogenotoxicology findings arising from various comet assay components

  • Bilal Hussain
  • Tayyaba Sultana
  • Salma Sultana
  • Khalid Abdullah Al-Ghanim
  • Muhammad Shahreef Masoud
  • Shahid Mahboob
Research Article
  • 204 Downloads

Abstract

Cirrhinus mrigala, Labeo rohita, and Catla catla are economically important fish for human consumption in Pakistan, but industrial and sewage pollution has drastically reduced their population in the River Chenab. Statistics are an important tool to analyze and interpret comet assay results. The specific aims of the study were to determine the DNA damage in Cirrhinus mrigala, Labeo rohita, and Catla catla due to chemical pollution and to assess the validity of statistical analyses to determine the viability of the comet assay for a possible use with these freshwater fish species as a good indicator of pollution load and habitat degradation. Comet assay results indicated a significant (P < 0.05) degree of DNA fragmentation in Cirrhinus mrigala followed by Labeo rohita and Catla catla in respect to comet head diameter, comet tail length, and % DNA damage. Regression analysis and correlation matrices conducted among the parameters of the comet assay affirmed the precision and the legitimacy of the results. The present study, therefore, strongly recommends that genotoxicological studies conduct appropriate analysis of the various components of comet assays to offer better interpretation of the assay data.

Keywords

Ecotoxicology Major carps Heavy metals Comet assay Regression Correlation Outcomes 

Notes

Funding information

The authors (SM and KAAG) would like to express their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University for its funding of this research through the Research Group Project No. RG-1435-012.

References

  1. Alink GM, Quik J, Penders EJ, Spenkelink A, Rotteveel SGP, Massac JL, Hoogenboezemb W (2007) Genotoxic effects in the eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea L.) after exposure to Rhine water, as assessed by use of the SCE and comet assays: a comparison between 1978 and 2005. Mutat Res 631(2):93–100.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrgentox.2007.03.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsiene J, Rybakovas A, Lang T, Andreikenaite L, Michailovas A (2013) Environmental genotoxicity and cytotoxicity levels in fish from the North Sea offshore region and Atlantic coastal waters. Mar Pollu Bull 68(1–2):106–116.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.12.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belfiore NM, Anderson SL (1998) Genetic patterns as a tool for monitoring and assessment of environmental aspects: the example of genetic toxicology. Environ Monit Assess 51(1/2):465–479.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005971132502 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dar SA, Yousuf AR, Balkhi MH (2016) An introduction about genotoxicology methods as tools for monitoring aquatic ecosystem: present status and future perspectives. Fish Aqua J 7(01):158.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2150-3508.1000158 Google Scholar
  5. Dhawan, A., Bajpayee, M., Pandey, A.K., & Parmar, D. (2009) Protocol for the single cell gel electrophoresis/comet assay for rapid genotoxicity assessment. Developmental Toxicology Division Industrial Toxicology Research Centre Marg, Lucknow 226001U.P. India, Retrieved September 21, 2013 from http://www.cometassayindia.org/Protocol%20for%20Comet%20Assay.PDF
  6. Dikilitas M, Kocyigit A, Yigit A (2009) Molecular-based fast method to determine the extent of DNA damages in higher plants and fungi. Afr J Biotech 8(14):3118–3127Google Scholar
  7. Duez P, Dehon G, Kunps A, Dubbios J (2003) Statistics of the comet assay: a key to discriminate between genotoxic effects. Mutagenesis 18(2):159–166.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/18.2.159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Flammarion P, Devvaux A, Nehls V, Migeon B, Noury P, Garric J (2002) Multibiomarker responses in fish from the Moselle River (France). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 51(2):145–153.  https://doi.org/10.1006/eesa.2001.2134 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ghazala MS, Sultana S, Sultana T, Ahmad L, Asi MR (2014) Cholinesterases: cholinergic biomarkers for the detection of sublethal effects of organophosphorous and carbamates in Catla catla. Int J Agri Biol 16:406–410Google Scholar
  10. Hussain B, Sultana S, Sultana T, Mahboob S, Al-Ghanim KA, Nadeem S (2016a) Variation in genotoxic susceptibility and biomarker responses in Cirrhinus mrigala and Catla catla from different ecological niches of the River Chenab. Environ Sci Pollu J 23(14):14589–14599.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-6645-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hussain B, Sultana S, Sultana T, Mahboob S, Al-Ghanim KA, Nadeem S (2016b) Effect of pollution on DNA damage and essential fatty acid profile in Cirrhinus mrigala from River Chenab. Chin J Oceanol Limnol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00343-017-5304-5
  12. Jha AN, Cheung VV, Foulkes ME, Hill SJ, Depledge MH (2000) Detection of genotoxins in the marine environment: adoption and evaluation of an integrated approach using the embryo larval stages of the marine mussel, Mytilus edulis. Mutat Res 464(2):213–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1383-5718(99)00188-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kumaravel TS, Vilhar B, Faux SP, Jha AN (2009) Comet assay measurements: a perspective. Cell Biol Toxicol 25(1):53–64.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10565-007-9043-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lovell DP, Omori T (2008) Statistical issues in the use of the comet assay. Mutagenesis 23(3):171–182.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mutage/gen015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lovell DP, Thomas G, Dunbrow R (1999) Issues related to the experimental design and subsequent statistical analysis of in vivo and in vitro comet studies. Terato Carcinog Mutag 19(2):109–119.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6866(1999)19:2<109::AID-TCM4>3.0.CO;2-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Moller P, Loft S (2014) Statistical analysis of comet assay results. Front Genet 5:292.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2014.00292 Google Scholar
  17. Nagrani N, Devi VJ, Kumaragru AK (2012) Identification of DNA damage in marine fish Therapon jarbua by comet assay technique. J Environ Biol 33:699–703Google Scholar
  18. Nehemia A, Maganira JD, Rumisha C (2012) Length-weight relationship and condition factor of tilapia species grown in marine and fresh water ponds. Agri and Biol J North Am 3(3):117–124.  https://doi.org/10.5251/abjna.2012.3.3.117.124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Newman MC (1998) Fundamentals of ecotoxicology. Ann Arbor Press, ChelseaGoogle Scholar
  20. Obiakor MO, Okonkwo JC, Nnanbude PC, Ezeonyeijku CD (2012) Eco-genotoxicology: micronucleus assay in fish erythrocytes as In situ aquatic pollution biomarker: a Review. J Sci Adv 2(1):123–133Google Scholar
  21. Ostling O, Johanson KJ (1984) Microelectrophoretic study of radiation induced DNA damages in individual mammalian cells. Biochem Biophy Res Comm 123(1):291–298.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-291X(84)90411-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pavlica M, Štambuk A, Malovic L, Mladinic M, Goran I, Klobu VC (2011) DNA integrity of chub erythrocytes (Squalius cephalus L.) as an indicator of pollution related genotoxicity in the River Sava. Environ Moni Asses 77(1–4):85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pulkrabova J, Hajslova J, Poustka J, Kazda R (2007) Fish as biomonitors of polybrominated diphenyl ethers and hexabromocyclododecane in Czech aquatic ecosystems: pollution of the Elbe River basin. Environ Heal Persp 115(S-1):28–34.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.9354 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Richards JP, Glegg AG, Culinane S (2000) Environmental regulation: industry and the marine environment. J Environ Manag 58(2):119–134.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0315 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shirani M, Mirvaghefi A, Farahmand H, Abdollahi M (2012) Biomarker responses in mudskipper (Periophthalmus waltoni) from the coastal areas of the Persian Gulf with oil pollution. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 34(3):705–713.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.etap.2012.09.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shugart LR, Theodorkais CW (1998) New trends in biological monitoring: application of biomarkers to genetic ecotoxicology. Biotherapy 11(2/3):119–127.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007911027243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singh NP, McCoy MT, Tice RR, Schneider RR (1988) A simple technique for quantification of low levels of DNA damage in individual cells. Experimental and Cellular Research 175(01):184–191Google Scholar
  28. Tice RR, Agurell E, Anderson D, Bulinson AH, Kobayashi H, Miyamae Y, Rojas E, Ryu JC, Sassaki YF (2000) Single cell gel/comet assay: guidelines for in vitro and in vivo genetic toxicology testing. Environ Mol Mutag 35(3):206–221.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2280(2000)35:3<206::AID-EM8>3.0.CO;2-J CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tritek Corporation (2010) CometScore™ v1.5 (TriTek Corp., Sumerduck, VA, USA)Google Scholar
  30. Viaregoa A, Loweb D, Bolognesic C, Fabbraid E, Koehlere A (2007) The use of biomarkers in biomonitoring: a 2-tier approach assessing the level of pollutant-induced stress syndrome in sentinel organisms. Comp Biochem Physiol Part C: Toxicol Pharmacol 146(3):281–300Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of ZoologyGovernment College UniversityFaisalabadPakistan
  2. 2.Department of Zoology, College of ScienceKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Department of Bioinformatics and BiotechnologyGovernment College UniversityFaisalabadPakistan

Personalised recommendations