Micronucleus Test (MNT)

  • Shabnum Nabi


Mercury, one of the most widely diffused and hazardous organ-specific environmental contaminants, exists in a wide variety of physical and chemical states, each of which with unique characteristics of target organ specificity (Aleo et al. 2002). In nature the different forms of mercury include the metallic form, inorganic compounds, as well as alkyl, alkoxy, and aryl mercury compounds. Once introduced into the environment, mercury compounds can undergo a wide variety of transformations. In sediments, inorganic mercury (HgCl2) may be converted into methyl (CH3HgCl) and dimethyl (CH3CH2HgCl) forms by methanogenic bacteria. This biotransformation constitutes a serious environmental risk, given that CH3HgCl is the most toxic of the mercury compounds and accumulates in the aquatic food chain, eventually reaching human diets (Tchounwou et al. 2003). CH3HgCl has been an environmental concern to public health and regulatory agencies for over 50 years because of its neurotoxicity. Its association with nervous system toxicity in adults and infants near Minamata Bay, Japan, in the 1950s initiated environmental health research inquiries that continue to this day (Faustman et al. 2002). The three modern “faces” of mercury are our perceptions of risk from the exposure of billions of people to CH3HgCl in fish, mercury vapor from amalgam tooth fillings, and CH3CH2HgCl in the form of thimerosal added as an antiseptic to widely used vaccines (Clarkson 2002). Mercury genotoxicity has been usually attributed to its ability to react with the sulfhydryl groups of tubulin, impairing spindle function and leading to chromosomal aberrations and polyploidy (De Flora et al. 1994). Another important mechanism of mercury genotoxicity is its ability to produce free radicals that can cause DNA damage (Schurz et al. 2000; Ehrenstein et al. 2002). In vivo studies have demonstrated a clastogenic effect of mercury on people exposed to this element in their working environment or through the consumption of contaminated food or sometimes accidentally. Increased numbers of chromosome alterations and micronuclei have been reported in people who consume contaminated fish (Amorim et al. 2000; Franchi et al. 1994) and in miners and workers of explosive factories (Al-Sabti et al. 1992; Anwar and Gabal 1991). Negative results were also obtained in some cases (Hansteen et al. 1993; Mabille et al. 1984), demonstrating that cytogenetic monitoring of peripheral blood lymphocytes in individuals exposed to mercury from different sources may not be completely specific (De Flora et al. 1994). The effects of CH3HgCl contamination have been studied in an increasing way since the outbreaks in Japan and Iraq. Many of these studies had their focus on the neurological effects of CH3HgCl exposure in adult animals and used high doses of this compound (1,900–30,000 ppb = μg/L) to obtain its most severe effects (National Research Council 2000). Most of the in vitro studies with lymphocytes also used high doses (250–6,250 μg/L) of mercury compounds in order to evaluate its clastogenic effects (Ogura et al. 1996; Betti et al. 1993, 1992).


Micronucleus Test Mercury Compound Micronucleus Frequency Aquatic Food Chain Genotoxic Damage 


  1. Aeschbacher HU (1986) Rates of micronuclei induction in different mouse strains. Mutat Res 164:109–115PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aleo MF, Morandini F, Benttoni F, Tanganelli S, Vezzola A, Giuliani R, Steimberg N, Boniotti J, Bertasi B, Losio N, Apostoli P, Mazzoleni G (2002) In vitro study of the nephrotoxic mechanism of mercuric chloride. Med Lav 93:267–278PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Al-Sabti K, Lloyd DC, Edwards AA, Stegnar P (1992) A survey of lymphocyte chromosomal damage in Slovenian workers exposed to occupational clastogens. Mutat Res 280:215–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Al-Sabti K (1995) An in vitro binucleated blocked hepatic cell technique for genotoxicity testing in fish. Mutat Res 335:109–120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amorim AIM, Mergler D, Bahia MO, Dubeau H, Miranda D, Lebel J, Burbano RR, Lucotte M (2000) Cytogenetic damage related to low levels of methylmercury contamination in the Brazilian Amazon. An Acad Bras Cienc 72:497–507PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anwar WA, Gabal MS (1991) Cytogenetic study in workers occupationally exposed to mercury fulminate. Mutagenesis 6:189–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ateeq B, Abul Farah M, Niamat A, Ahmad W (2002) Induction of micronuclei and erythrocyte alterations in the Cat fish Clarias batrachus by 2, 4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and butachlor. Mutat Res 518:135–144PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ayllon F, Garcia-Vasquez EG (2000) Introduction of micronuclei and other nuclear abnormalities in European minnow Phoxinus phoxinus and mollie poecilia latipinna: an assessment of the fish micronucleus test. Mutat Res 467:177–186PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Betti C, Davini T, Barale R (1992) Genotoxic activity of methyl mercury chloride and dimethyl mercury in human lymphocytes. Mutat Res 281:255–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Betti C, Barale R, Pool-Zobel BL (1993) Comparative studies on cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of two organic mercury compounds in lymphocytes and gastric mucosa cells of Sprague-Dawley rats. Environ Mol Mutagen 22:172–180PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bhilwade HN, Chaubey RC, Chauhan PS (2004) Gamma Ray induced bone marrow micronucleated erythrocytes in seven strains of mouse. Mutat Res 560:19–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bonacker D, Stoiber T, Wang M, Bohm KJ, Prots I, Unger E, Their R, Bolt HM, Degen GH (2004) Genotoxicity of inorganic mercury salts based on disturbed microtubule function. Arch Toxicol 78:575–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Catena C, Conti D, Villani P, Nastasi R, Archilei R, Righi E (1994) Micronuclei and 3AB in human and canine lymphocytes after in vitro X-irradiation. Mutat Res 312:1–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chorvatovicova D, Kovacikova Z (1993) Transplacental effect of organomercurial. 1. Micronucleus test. Biol Bratislava 48:271–274Google Scholar
  15. Clarkson RW (2002) The three modern faces of mercury. Environ Health Perspect 110:11–23PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collaborative Study Group for the Micronucleus Test (CSGMT) (1988) Strain difference in the micronucleus test. Mutat Res 204:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cristaldi M, Ieradi LA, Udroiu I, Zilli R (2004) Comparative evaluation of background micronucleus frequencies in domestic mammals. Mutat Res 559:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Da Silva J, de Freitas TRO, Heuser V, Marinho JR, Bittencourt F, Cerski CTS, Kliemann LM, Erdtmann B (2000a) Effects of chronic exposure to coal in wild rodent (Ctenomys torquatus) evaluated by multiple methods and tissues. Mutat Res 470:35–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Da Silva J, de Freitas TRO, Heuser V, Marinho JR, Erdtman B (2000b) Genotoxicity biomonitoring in coal regions using wild rodent Ctenomys torquatus by comet assay and micronucleus test. Environ Mol Mutagen 35:270–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Flora S, Benniceli C, Bagnasco M (1994) Genotoxicity of mercury compounds. A review. Mutat Res 31:57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ehrenstein C, Shu P, Wickenheiser EB, Hirner AV, Dolfen M, Emons H, Obe G (2002) Methyl mercury uptake and associations with the induction of chromosomal aberrations in Chinese hamster ovary (CHO) cells. Chem Biol Interact 141:259–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (1998) Health effects test guidelines OPPTS 870.5395. Mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test. National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP), Washington, DC, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  23. Faustman EM, Ponce RA, Ou YC, Mendonza MA, Lewandowski R, Kavanagh T (2002) Investigations of methylmercury-induced alterations in neurogenesis. Environ Health Perspect 110:859–864PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fenech M, Neville S, Rinaldi J (1994) Sex is an important variable affecting spontaneous micronucleus frequency in cytokinesis-blocked lymphocytes. Mutat Res 313:203–207PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fenech M, Chang M, Kirsch-Volders M, Holland N, Bonassi S, Zeiger E (2003) HUMN project: detailed description of the scoring criteria for the cytokinesis-block micronucleus assay using isolated human lymphocyte cultures. Mutat Res 534:65–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Franchi E, Loprieno G, Ballardin M, Petrozzi L, Migliore L (1994) Cytogenetic monitoring of fishermen with environmental mercury exposure. Mutat Res 320:23–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gimmler-Luz MC, Rodrigues de Andrade HH, Tozzo Marafon-Bayer A (1997) Benzidine and diaminobenzidine induced micronuclei in mice after intraperitoneal and oral single or multiple treatments. Braz J Genet 20:247–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamada S, Yamasaki K, Nakanishi S, Omori T, Serikawa T, Hayashi M (2001) Evaluation of general suitability of the rat for the micronucleus assay: the effect of cyclophosphamide in 14 rats. Mutat Res 495:127–134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hansteen H, Ellingsen DG, Clausen KO, Kjuus H (1993) Chromosome aberrations in chloralkali workers previously exposed to mercury vapour. Scand J Work Environ Health 19:375–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayashi M, Sofuni T, Ishidate M (1982) High sensitivity in micronucleus induction of a mouse strain (MS). Mutat Res 105:253–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kovachikova Z, Chorvatovicova D (1993) Transplacental effect of organomercurial. 2. Alanine and aspartate aminotransferase activities in liver. Biol Bratislava 48:275–277Google Scholar
  32. Lynch A, Parry J (1993) The cytochalasin-B micronucleus/kinetochore assay in vitro: Studies with 10 suspected aneugens. Mutat Res 287:71–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mabille V, Roels H, Jacquet P, Léonard A, Lauweris R (1984) Cytogenetic examination of leucocytes of workers exposed to mercury vapour. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 53:257–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mentieres S, Marzin D (2004) Apoptosis may contribute to false positive results in the in vitro micronucleus test performed in extreme osmolality, ionic strength and pH conditions. Mutat Res 560:101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mudry MD, Carballo M, Labal de Vinuesa ML, Gonzalez Cid M, Larripa I (1994) Mutagenic bioassay of certain pharmacological drugs: III. Metronidazole (MTZ). Mutat Res 305:127–132PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. National Research Council, Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000) Toxicological effects of methylmercury. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  37. Nepomuceno JC, Ferrari I, Spano MA, Centeno AJ (1997) Detection of micronuclei in peripheral erythrocytes of cyprinus carpio exposed to metallic mercury. Environ Mol Mutagen 30:293–297PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ogura H, Takeuchi T, Morimoto K (1996) A comparison of the 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine, chromosome aberrations and micronucleus techniques for the assessment of the genotoxicity of mercury compounds in human blood lymphocytes. Mutat Res 340:175–182PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Organization for Economic Operation and Development (OEOD) (1997) Guidelines for testing of chemicals n. 474. Mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test. OEOD, Paris, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  40. Queiroz MLS, Bincoletto C, Quadros MR, De Capitani EM (1999) Presence of micronuclei in lymphocytes of mercury exposed workers. Immunophamacol Immunotoxicol 21:141–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Recio L, Bauer A, Faiola B (2005) Use of genetically modified mouse models to assess pathways of benzene-induced bone marrow cytotoxicity and genotoxicity. Chem Biol Interact 153–154:159–164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Salamone MF, Mavourin KH (1994) Bone marrow micronucleus assay: a review of the mouse stocks used and their published mean spontaneous micronucleus frequencies. Environ Mol Mutagen 23:239–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sanchez-Galan S, Linde AR, Ayllon F, Garcia-Vazquez E (2001) Induction of micronuclei in eel (Anguilla anguilla) by heavy metals. Ecotoxicol Environ Safe 49:139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sato S, Tomita I (2001) Short-term screening method for the prediction of carcinogenicity or chemical substances: current status and problems of an in vivo rodent micronucleus assay. J Health Sci 47:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sato S, Kitajima H, Konishi S, Takizawa H, Inui N (1987) Mouse strain differences in the induction of micronuclei by polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Mutat Res 192:185–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sato S, Tazikawa H, Inui N (1993) Mouse strain differences in induction of micronuclei by base analogues and nucleosides. Mutat Res 301:45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmid W (1975) The micronucleus test. Mutat Res 31:9–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schurz F, Sabater-Vilar M, Fink-Gremmels J (2000) Mutagenicity of mercury chloride and mechanisms of cellular defence: the role of metal-binding proteins. Mutagenesis 15:525–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Simula AP, Priestly BG (1992) Species differences in the genotoxicity of cyclophosphamide and styrene in three in vivo assays. Mutat Res 271:49–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stoiber T, Bonacker D, Bohm KJ, Bolt HM, Their R, Degen GH, Unger E (2004) Disturbed microtubule function and induction of micronuclei by chelate complexes of mercury (II). Mutat Res 563:97–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Styles JA, Richardson CR, Burlinson B (1983) A comparison of incidence of micronuclei in blood and bone marrow in 3 strains of mouse dosed with cyclophosphamide or hexamethylphosphoramide (HMPA). Mutat Res 122:143–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tchounwou PB, Ayensu WK, Ninashvili N, Sutton D (2003) Environmental exposure to mercury and its toxicopathologic implications for public health. Environ Toxicol 18:149–175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Their R, Bonacker D, Stoiber T, Bohm KJ, Wang M, Unger E, Bolt HM, Degen G (2003) Interaction of metal salts with cytoskeletal motor protein systems. Toxicol Lett 140–141:75–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vanparys P, Vermeiren F, Sysmans M, Temmerman R (1990) The micronucleus assay as a test for the detection of aneugenic activity. Mutat Res 244:95–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zuniga-Gonzalez G, Torres-Bugarín O, Luna-Aguirre J, Gonzalez-Rodríguez A, Zamora-Perez A, Gomez-Meda BC, Ventura-Aguilar AJ, Ramos-Ibarra ML, Ramos-Mora A, Ortiz GG, Gallegos-Arreola MP (2000) Spontaneous micronuclei in peripheral blood erythrocytes from 54 animal species (mammals, reptiles and birds): part two. Mutat Res 467:99–103PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Zuniga-Gonzalez G, Torres-Bugarin O, Ramos-Ibarra ML, Zamora-Perez A, Gomez-Meda BC, Ventura-Aguilar AJ, Ramos-Mora A, Ortiz GG, Alvarez-Moya C, Gonzalez-Rodriguez A, Luna-Aguirre J, Gallegos-Arreola MP (2001a) Variation of micronucleated erythrocytes in peripheral blood of Sciurus aureogaster in relation to age: an increment of micronucleated polychromatic erythrocytes after the administration of colchicine. Environ Mol Mutagen 37:173–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zuniga-Gonzalez G, Torres-Bugarin O, Zamora-Perez A, Gomez-Meda BC, Ramos-Ibarra ML, Martinez-Gonzalez S, Gonzalez-Rodriguez A, Luna-Aguirre J, Ramos-Mora A, Ontiveros-Lira D, Gallegos-Arreola MP (2001b) Differences in the number of micronucleated erythrocytes among young and adult animals including humans. Spontaneous micronuclei in 43 species. Mutat Res 494:161–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shabnum Nabi
    • 1
  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Brain Research Centre (IBRC) Jawaharlal Nehru Medical CollegeAligarh Muslim UniversityAligarhIndia

Personalised recommendations