Chromosomal Aberrations

  • 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. 1992, 1993).


Chromosomal Aberration Sulfhydryl Group Genotoxic Effect Inorganic Mercury Mercury Compound 
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.


  1. Akiyama M, Oshima H, Nakamura M (2001) Genotoxicity of mercury used in chromosome aberration tests. Toxicol In Vitro 15:463–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle 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. 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
  5. Andersen O, Ronne M, Nordberg G (1983) Effects of inorganic metal salts on chromosome length in human lymphocytes. Hereditas 98:65–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Anwar WA, Gabal MS (1991) Cytogenetic study in workers occupationally exposed to mercury fulminate. Mutagenesis 6:189–192PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bahia MO, Amorim MIM, Burbano RR, Vincent S, Dubeau H (1999) Genotoxic effects of mercury on in vitro cultures of human cells. An Acad Bras Cienc 71:437–443Google Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Choi H, Kim C (1984) The comparative effects of methylmercury chloride and mercuric chloride upon DNA synthesis in mouse fetal astrocytes in vitro. Exp Mol Pathol 41:371–376PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarkson RW (2002) The three modern faces of mercury. Environ Health Perspect 110:11–23PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Flora S, Benniceli C, Bagnasco M (1994) Genotoxicity of mercury compounds. A review. Mutat Res 31:57–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. Grover P, Saleha Banu B, Dana Devi K, Begum S (2001) In vivo genotoxic effects of mercuric chloride in rat peripheral blood leucocytes using comet assay. Toxicology 167:191–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall EJ (2000) Cell survival curves. In: Hall EJ (ed) Radiobiology for the radiologist, 5th edn. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 32–50Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Lee CH, Lin RH, Liu SH, Lin-Shiau SY (1997) Distinct genotoxicity of phenylmercury acetate in human lymphocytes as compared with other mercury compounds. Mutat Res 392:269–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. National Research Council, Committee on the Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury (2000) Toxicological effects of methylmercury. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Preston RJ, Dean BJ, Galloway S, Holden H, McFee AF, Shelby M (1987) Mammalian in vivo cytogenetic assay: analysis of chromosomal aberrations in bone marrow cells. Mutat Res 189:157–165PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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

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