Determination of genotoxic effects of copper sulphate and cobalt chloride in Allium cepa root cells by chromosome aberration and comet assays
We used the anaphase–telophase chromosome aberration and comet (Single Cell Gel Electrophoresis, SCGE) assays to evaluate the genotoxic effects of copper sulphate (CS) and cobalt chloride (CC) chemicals prepared in two concentrations (EC 50, 2xEC 50), using methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) as a positiv...
Saved in:
Published in: | Chemosphere (Oxford) Vol. 75; no. 7; pp. 934 - 938 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , |
Format: | Journal Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Kidlington
Elsevier Ltd
01-05-2009
Elsevier |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | We used the anaphase–telophase chromosome aberration and comet (Single Cell Gel Electrophoresis, SCGE) assays to evaluate the genotoxic effects of copper sulphate (CS) and cobalt chloride (CC) chemicals prepared in two concentrations (EC
50, 2xEC
50), using methyl methanesulfonate (MMS) as a positive control and untreated cells as a negative control. In
Allium root growth inhibition test, EC
50 values for CS and CC are 1.5 and 5.5
ppm, respectively. Mitotic index (MI) decreased in all concentrations tested of CS and CC compared to the control at each exposure time. The bridge, stickiness, vagrant chromosomes, fragments, c-anaphase and multipolarity chromosome aberrations were observed in anaphase–telophase cells. The total chromosome aberrations were more frequent with an increasing in the exposure time and the concentrations of both chemicals. The genotoxicity of CS and CC in
Allium cepa root cells was analyzed using a mild alkaline comet assay at pH 12.3, which allows the detection of single strand breaks. In all the concentrations, CS and CC induced a significant increase (
P
<
0.05) in DNA damage. No significant difference was found between positive control (300
±
5.81) and 3
ppm CS (280
±
4.61). The methods used are applicable for biological monitoring of environmental pollutants. |
---|---|
Bibliography: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.023 ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 ObjectType-Article-2 ObjectType-Feature-1 |
ISSN: | 0045-6535 1879-1298 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2009.01.023 |