Genotoxicity Testing and Biomarker Studies on Surface Waters: An Overview of the Techniques and Their Efficacies

Abstract

Rapid industrialization, use of modern agriculture practices, and fast urbanization vis-a-vis indiscriminate use of xenobiotics have led to the serious problems of water pollution in India and abroad. The complexicity of the pollutants in environmental samples demands a multitude of genotoxicity testing with increasing simplicity, sensitivity, and affordability. Moreover, various pollutants mutually affect their own toxic behavior, which complicates the problem of risk assessment. An overview, highlighting the genotoxicity testing system, such as Ames plate incorporation test, Ames fluctuation test, E. coli survival assay, Allium cepa toxicity/genotoxicity test, comet assay, and plasmid nicking assay, is presented in this article, and a comparison has been made to estimate the efficacy of these genotoxicity bioassays performed on some surface waters. Some work on toxicity biomarkers vis-a-vis studies on surface waters has also been included in the present review.

Cytogenotoxicity of Shakes Added with Synthetic Micro Ingredients

“…According to Caritá & Marin-Morales [22], cell division indices below the negative control, when considered significant, indicate the presence of agents whose toxic action impairs the growth and development of organisms subjected to these substances. In addition, Gomes et al [13], Sales et al [23] and Moura et al [1] argue that the inhibition of cell proliferation triggered by cytotoxic compounds in tissues of intense cell proliferation and normal performance and/or no cell changes -such as the root meristems used herein to assess the toxicity of diet shakes -is extremely harmful to the organism, since it has the property of inhibiting or limiting the replacement of cells, altering the protein synthesis and, consequently, resulting in malfunction of the organ where it is located.…”

“…The root meristem of Allium cepa L. (onion) is considered in the scientific milieu as an efficient bioassay for the evaluation of the acute toxicity at the cellular level of chemical compounds due to the reduced chromosome number (2n = 16), which favors detection of chromosomal or clastogenic alterations, mitotic spindle disturbances or aneugenic alterations, and disorders in the cell proliferation index. This test system is internationally accepted by research agencies as an assessment tool with accurate sensitivity for analysis of cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and mutagenicity of the substance of interest, since the results achieved demonstrate, in most cases, satisfactory similarity to those obtained though animal testing systems and in cell cultures Herrero et al [10], Neves et al [11], Lacerda et al [12], Tabrez et al [13]; Gomes et al [14], Oliveira et al [15]; CAMPOS & MarinMorales [16]; Moura et al [17], Santana et al [18].Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of diet shakes in root meristem cells of A. cepa, from three different highly commercialized brands in drugstores all over Brazil.…”

Evaluation of cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of two artificial sweeteners by using eukaryotic test systems

“…Among them, Allium cepa is an excellent test system to indicate possible toxicological effects of a wide variety of substances. It is popularly used due to the fact that the cells in the meristematic region of roots have kinetic properties of proliferation and have a small number of chromosomes (2n = 16), leading to raise reliability and agreement with the other toxicological studies using higher eukaryotic test systems (Tabrez et al, 2011).…”

Cytotoxic, genotoxic and mutagenic potential of UHT whole milk

“…This test system is internationally accepted by research agencies as an assessment tool with accurate sensitivity for analysis of cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and mutagenicity of the substance of interest, since the results obtained mostly show satisfactory similarity to those obtained via animal testing systems and cell cultures (Herrero et al, 2012;Lacerda et al, 2014;Tabrez et al, 2011;Gomes et al, 2013;Dliveira et al, 2013;Campos-Ventura et al, 2016;Moura et al, 2016;Santana et al, 2016;Bezerra et al, 2016;Nunes et al, 2016).…”