Literature DB >> 20599273

Spatial and temporal variations of biological responses to environmental pollution in the freshwater zebra mussel.

Edwige Guerlet1, Paule Vasseur, Laure Giambérini.   

Abstract

The validation of a suite of cellular biomarkers for biomonitoring studies necessitates a good knowledge of the meaning of these early responses to environmental stress in terms of individual health. This requires confirmation (i) of linkages between the cellular and higher levels of the biological organisation, (ii) of temporal persistence of the stress symptoms and (iii) of their reversibility after a return to more favourable conditions. Besides, (iv) the sensitivity of the biomarker suite towards subtle variations of environmental contamination has to be assessed. With this aim, field experiments were performed on deployed freshwater zebra mussels (Dreissena polymorpha) in the vicinity of the confluence of a small heavily anthropized stream with a larger river. We examined the persistence of the responses over a 90-day period and their reversibility after a depuration-transplantation. A second experiment was conducted later by adding a study site at an increased distance from the confluence. Decreased digestive lysosomal volume and neutral lipid contents, and lipofuscin accumulation preceded effects on the mussels' condition. The following experiment confirmed that the cellular biomarkers were more sensitive than both individual endpoints to reflect the effects of subtler variations of environmental contamination. Integration of the results with multivariate analysis and the Integrated Biomarker Response tended to confirm the relevance of the biomarker suite. Copyright (c) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20599273     DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.05.009

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ecotoxicol Environ Saf        ISSN: 0147-6513            Impact factor:   6.291


  6 in total

1.  Relationship between periphyton biomarkers and trace metals with the responses to environment applying an integrated biomarker response index (IBR) in estuaries.

Authors:  Jing L Liu; Yi Yang; Feng Liu; Lu L Zhang
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2014-05-01       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Detoxification, oxidative stress, and cytogenotoxicity of crack cocaine in the brown mussel Perna perna.

Authors:  Andressa Dos Santos Barbosa Ortega; Luciane Alves Maranho; Caio Rodrigues Nobre; Beatriz Barbosa Moreno; Rafael Solé Guimarães; Daniel Temponi Lebre; Denis Moledo de Souza Abessa; Daniel Araki Ribeiro; Camilo Dias Seabra Pereira
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  An Integrated biomarker approach for explaining the potency of exogenous glucose on transportation induced stress in Labeo rohita fingerlings.

Authors:  Abhilipsa Biswal; Prem Prakash Srivastava; Gopal Krishna; Tapas Paul; Prasenjit Pal; Subodh Gupta; Tincy Varghese; Manish Jayant
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 4.379

4.  A global synthesis of ecosystem services provided and disrupted by freshwater bivalve molluscs.

Authors:  Alexandra Zieritz; Ronaldo Sousa; David C Aldridge; Karel Douda; Eduardo Esteves; Noé Ferreira-Rodríguez; Jon H Mageroy; Daniele Nizzoli; Martin Osterling; Joaquim Reis; Nicoletta Riccardi; Daniel Daill; Clemens Gumpinger; Ana Sofia Vaz
Journal:  Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc       Date:  2022-06-30

5.  Differential tolerance to nickel between Dreissena polymorpha and Dreissena rostriformis bugensis populations.

Authors:  Marine Potet; Laure Giambérini; Sandrine Pain-Devin; Fanny Louis; Carole Bertrand; Simon Devin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 4.379

6.  Biomarkers for the toxicity of sublethal concentrations of triclosan to the early life stages of carps.

Authors:  Owias Iqbal Dar; Sunil Sharma; Kirpal Singh; Anket Sharma; Renu Bhardwaj; Arvinder Kaur
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-10-14       Impact factor: 4.379

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.