Comparative genotoxicity testing of rhine river sediment extracts using the comet assay with permanent fish cell lines (rtg-2 and rtl-w1) and the ames test*

Goals, Scope and Background

Improved quality of surface waters and sediments requires advanced strategies for ecotoxicological assessment. Whilst at least in Germany assessment strategies on the basis of chemical analysis and acute toxicity data dominated the last decades, the development of more specific biological endpoints and biomarkers in ecotoxicology is required in order to arrive at a good ecological potential and good chemical status of surface waters in the European river basins until the year 2015, as required by the European Water Framework Directive. Since sediments have for long been known to function both as a sink and as a source of pollutants in aquatic systems, and since part of the particle-associated substances have frequently been demonstrated to cause mutagenic and carcinogenic effects in aquatic organisms, particularly in fish, there is, among other requirements, an urgent need to develop, standardize and implement integrated vertebrate-based test systems addressing genotoxicity into recent sediment investigation strategies. Thus, the present study was designed to compare the suitability of two commonly used test systems, the comet assay and the Ames test, for the evaluation of the ecotoxicological burden of surface and core sediment samples from the river Rhine.

Methods (or Main Features)

In order to determine the importance of inherent enzymatic activities, two permanent fish cell lines with different biotransformation capacities, RTL-W1 and RTG-2, were compared with respect to their capability of detecting genotoxic effects in 18 surface and core sediment samples from 9 locations along the River Rhine in the comet assay with and without exogenous bioactivation. For further comparison, as a prokaryotic mutagenicity assay, theSalmonella plate incorporation assay (Ames test) with the test strains TA98 and TA 100 with and without exogenous metabolic activation was used.

Results and Discussion

Whereas all sediment extracts induced genotoxic effects in the comet assay with RTL-W1 cells, only 12 out of 18 sediment extracts revealed significant genotoxicity in the tests with the less biotransformation-competent RTG-2 cells. Exogenous bioactivation by addition of ß-naphthoflavone /phenobarbital-induced S9 from rat liver resulted in both reduction or increase of genotoxicity in samples from different sites, however, without consistent reaction patterns. In general, the responses of RTL-W1 cells indicated higher biotransformation capacity than in RTG-2 cells without S9 complementation. In Ames tests using TA98 with S9, 16 out of 18 extracts induced significant mutagenicity with induction factors up to 4. Compared to TA98, the strain TA100 proved less sensitive, with maximum induction factors of 1.3, indicating the potential presence of substances inducing frarneshift mutations, which can only be detected in the strain TA98. Chemical analyses revealed particularly high levels of hexachlorbenzene (up to 860 µg/kg) and priority PAHs (up to 4.8 mg/kg); so far, however, no correlation could be found between compounds analyzed and the corresponding biotests.

Conclusions

Results document that both comet assay and Ames test are capable of detecting xenobiotic interaction with DNA in consequence of exposure to complex environmental samples. Whereas the alkaline version of the comet assay detects a broad range of interactions with the DNA, however without information about their eventual importance, the Ames test only reveals established mutations, but fails to detect transient (reparable) DNA alterations. However, even transient primary changes in the DNA structure might result in carcinogenic processes and, eventually, in implications at the population level. As a consequence, for hazard assessment purposes, a combination of both assays is required to avoid false negatives in genotoxicity evaluation. Poor correlation between data obtained by chemical analysis and results in bioassays is indicative of our limited understanding of the sources of genotoxicity. In fact, numerous studies combining chemical and biological approaches for hazard assessment of complex environmental mixtures indicate that priority pollutant concentrations are a poor indicator of toxicity.If compared to the cell line RTG-2, RTL-W1 proved more effective in detecting genotoxicity in surface sediment samples and, thus, indicated the importance of bioactivation of at least part of the compounds in superficial layers of sediments. Results further document that the common assumption may be wrong that, in comparison to deeper strata, surface layers carry a lower toxic burden in consequence of the current decrease in water pollution. This might at least in part be due to remobilization of more heavily polluted sediments from deeper layers during severe flood events followed by re-sedimentation in flood plains or upstream weirs, where they might cover less polluted younger sediment layers.

Recommendations and Perspectives

For a comprehensive assessment of genotoxicity in surface and core sediments, a combination of eukaryotic (comet assay) and prokaryotic assays (Ames test) with and without exogenous bioactivation is recommended. Since studies with organic sediments extracts simulate a worst-case scenario and fail to take into account bioavailability, there is broad consensus that whole-sediment exposure protocols represent the most realistic scenarios. Whereas more realistic solid phase exposure has frequently been applied in both microbial and invertebrate acute toxicity testing, there is an urgent need to develop corresponding whole sediment fish-based genotoxicity tests.