Biomarker Methods

49
Cellular Biomarkers (Lysosomal Destabilization, Glutathione & Lipid Peroxidation) in Three Common Estuarine Species: A Methods Handbook A.H. Ringwood, J. Hoguet, C.J. Keppler, M.L. Gielazyn, B.P. Ward, A.R. Rourk submitted by Marine Resources Research Institute South Carolina Department of Natural Resources 217 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, SC 29412 January, 2003

Transcript of Biomarker Methods

Page 1: Biomarker Methods

Cellular Biomarkers (Lysosomal Destabilization, Glutathione & Lipid Peroxidation)

in Three Common Estuarine Species: A Methods Handbook

A.H. Ringwood, J. Hoguet, C.J. Keppler, M.L. Gielazyn, B.P. Ward, A.R. Rourk

submitted by

Marine Resources Research Institute South Carolina Department of Natural Resources

217 Fort Johnson Road Charleston, SC 29412

January, 2003

Page 2: Biomarker Methods

Acknowledgments

The work described in this handbook is the result of the efforts and dedication of many individuals. The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable assistance of Emily Howard, Kellee James, Bentley Andrews, and Matthew Jenny. We would also like to thank Dr. Betty Wenner (MRRI), Research Director of the ACE Basin’s NERR’s Program, for her input.

We gratefully acknowledge the funding for these studies, from the Cooperative Institute for Coastal and Estuarine Environmental Technology (CICEET), University of New Hampshire and NOAA, CICEET grant # NA870R0512.

Page 3: Biomarker Methods

Table of Contents I. Introductory Comments .......................................................................................1 II. Collection of Organisms .......................................................................................3 III. Dissection and Tissue Processing

Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) .............................................................................4 Grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) ......................................................................5 Mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus) ...................................................................6 Homogenization (all species) .................................................................................7

IV. Lysosomal Destabilization

Introduction and General Comments .....................................................................8 Oyster – Flow Chart........................................................................................... ..10 Oyster – Detailed Instructions..............................................................................11 Grass shrimp – Flow Chart...................................................................................14 Grass shrimp – Detailed Instructions................................................................ ...15 Mummichog – Flow Chart................................................................................. ..18 Mummichog – Detailed Instructions....................................................................19

V. Glutathione

Introduction and General Comments.............................................................… ..22 Flow Chart.....................................................................................................…...23 Detailed Instructions – DTNB/GSSG Recycling Assay.................................… .24 Data Quality Assurance and Control Charts..................................................... ...27

VI. Lipid Peroxidation

Introduction and General Comments.................................................................. 29 Flow Chart............................................................................................................30 Detailed Instructions – Malondialdehyde Quantification.....................................31 Data Quality Assurance and Control Charts.........................................................34

VII. Data Management, Statistics, and Interpretation ...................................... 36 VIII. Concluding Comments ....................................................................................41 IX. References.. .......................................................................................................43

Page 4: Biomarker Methods

1

I. Introductory Comments Coastal and estuarine ecosystems and their inhabitants are subject to increased stress

associated with human population growth, in some cases nearly explosive, in coastal areas of

the United States. This requires careful monitoring of biological resources and development

of strategies to minimize the impacts. Increased contaminants and bioaccumulation in

organisms, more extensive areas experiencing dissolved oxygen stress, and poor water

quality associated with increased pathogens and harmful algal species are readily

documented. While acute toxicity incidents (e.g. fish kills, depauperate communities) are

highly visible occurrences, it is more difficult to appreciate the potential long term effects of

sublethal stress. Therefore, the critical issues involve determining if the organisms that

should live and thrive in a habitat are adversely affected, and identifying the effects of

chronic stress on biotic health. In some cases, compensatory mechanisms may function to

sequester, detoxify, or ameliorate the effects of stressors so exposures do not always translate

into adverse effects. In other cases, individual stressors or combinations of stressors may

cause chronic stress that can compromise basic physiological functions, including

reproduction, so that long-term population dynamics and sustainability are endangered.

Therefore, sensitive tools are needed that will facilitate our ability to recognize when habitat

conditions adversely affect biotic integrity, before the effects are irreversible or expensive to

remedy.

Cellular biomarker responses provide the greatest potential for identifying when

conditions have exceeded compensatory mechanisms and the individuals and populations are

experiencing chronic stress, which if unmitigated may progress to severe effects at the

ecosystem level. They are routinely used as diagnostic tools in biomedical applications, as

early warning signals of early disease conditions, for prognosis, and evaluating the

effectiveness of remedies. These kinds of frameworks can be applied to estuarine organisms

as a means of characterizing habitat quality. To do this effectively requires a sound basis for

interpreting cellular data, including expected values and an appreciation of the potential

variation. In the biomedical context, this is analogous to defining the normal range of

responses.

Page 5: Biomarker Methods

2

This handbook contains detailed descriptions for a suite of commonly used cellular

biomarkers (lysosomal integrity, glutathione concentrations, and lipid peroxidation) in three

common estuarine species: oysters (Crassostrea virginica), grass shrimp (Palaemonetes

pugio), and mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus). One of the attributes of cellular response

assays is that they should be readily applicable to a wide range of organisms, with fairly

minor modifications. This was found to be true for these species from three diverse

taxonomic groups (mollusks, crustaceans, and fish). Therefore, detailed descriptions of the

various assays, including specific adaptations required for different species due to the nature

or size of the tissues are provided. The tissue type used for the assays described in the

handbook was hepatopancreas (sometimes referred to as digestive gland) or liver tissues.

Some comments about the use of other tissues (blood cells, gill tissues, etc.) are provided, but

hepatic tissues can be used most broadly and are also one of the most important sites for

contaminant deposition and effects. The lysosomal assay is most readily used for hepatic

tissues and blood cells, whereas the glutathione and lipid peroxidation assays are readily used

for virtually any tissue type (hepatic, gill, gonadal, muscle, mantle, etc.).

The handbook is designed to provide specific technical guidance for conducting the

assays. The collection and dissection of the animals are described in the first two sections,

then there are separate sections for each assay. In each case, a brief description of the assay

and its significance is provided, followed by species-specific flow-charts depicting the

various steps of each assay and detailed descriptions of the different steps. The final section

provides some guidance and recommendations regarding statistical analyses and for

establishing a data base management system.

The detailed descriptions are designed to function as independent sections that can be

used by teachers and students, as well as research scientists. Hopefully, this handbook can be

used in a variety of settings, as a framework for comparative biochemistry and physiology

studies, a starting point for adaptation to other species, and for assessment and monitoring

programs. The overall intent of this effort is to encourage the development of biomarker

techniques that can be used by a variety of researchers and teachers, and facilitate greater

exchange of data between investigators in order to advance the routine use of cellular

biomarker tools in an ecotoxicological framework.

Page 6: Biomarker Methods

3

II. Collection of Organisms:

Oysters (Crassostrea virginica) Grass Shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio)

Mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus): Use gloves and oyster knives to collect oysters; break off dead shells and rinse off

excess mud.

Use baited minnow traps and dipnets to collect mummichogs and shrimp.

Place animals in 5 gallon buckets with lids. Cover animals with water collected from the site (i.e. “site water”). All buckets must be kept cool (i.e. in coolers with ice) and aerated on the boat and during the return trip back to the laboratory.

Record site name, water temperature, salinity, pH, date, GPS reading, arrival and departure time, and approximate number of animals collected on a data sheet.

All buckets should be aerated in the lab overnight in site water and animals dissected the next day.

Page 7: Biomarker Methods

4

III. Dissection and Tissue Processing:

Use a cold surface for processing tissues (e.g. pack a clean petri dish with ice and turn upside down over a larger petri dish). Specific instructions for individual species follow.

Oysters (Crassostrea virginica):

Oysters should be rinsed with cool tap water to remove excess mud.

Record shell length and height and carefully open oyster.

Evaluate for gonadal ripeness (“gonadal index”) using a subjective scale of 1 to 4 as follows:

1 – no gametes present

2 – gametes present, extends over a small portion of the hepatopancreas

3 – extensive gonadal development that covers most of the hepatopancreas

4 – extensive gonadal development, hepatopancreas obscured

Dissect out the digestive gland (hepatopancreas) and trim away extraneous tissues

(e.g. mantle or gonadal material). • A small piece (approximately 0.02g) of the hepatopancreas should be minced

with a scalpel, rinsed with calcium- and magnesium-free saline (CMFS), and immediately processed for the lysosomal assay.

• A piece of hepatopancreas (0.02g minimum) should be kept for the

glutathione assay (GSH), and a slightly larger piece (0.05g minimum) for the lipid peroxidation assay (LPx). Hepatopancreas samples for GSH and LPx may be placed in numbered and labeled plastic petri dishes (e.g. tissue pieces from 5 individuals in a 50mm X 9mm petri dish) or snap-cap tubes and kept on ice. Store samples in a –80oC freezer until analyzed. It is recommended that samples be weighed prior to freezing.

Measuring the length and height (cm) ofan oyster.

Location of the digestive gland (e.g. hepatopancreas, HP) in an oyster.

height

length

HP

Page 8: Biomarker Methods

5

Grass Shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio):

Place shrimp in a 15 cm diameter plastic petri dish and place on ice.

When shrimp are immobilized, identify to species level. A related species, Paleamonetes vulgaris, can co-occur with P. pugio. Generally, P. pugio and P. vulgaris can be differentiated by looking at the rostrum. P. pugio’s rostrum has one tooth behind the posterior margin of orbit, while P. vulgaris has two. In addition,

P. pugio has a longer “unarmed” tip of the rostrum, while P. vulgaris has teeth all the way to the end of the rostrum (Williams, 1984).

Record length from tip of rostrum to end of tail (e.g. uropod), and note any gravid

females. Cut shrimp in half with a scalpel between the carapace and 1st abdominal segment.

Dissect out hepatopancreas and remove extraneous tissue.

Diagram modified from Bell and Lightner, 1988. • Individual hepatopancreas samples should be processed for lysosomal

destabilization immediately. • Composite multiple hepatopancreas samples on ice to get a sufficient tissue

amount for the GSH (0.02g minimum) and LPx (0.05g minimum) assays. Composite samples for GSH and LPx analyses may be placed in microcentrifuge tubes and preweighed prior to freezing. Store samples in a –80oC freezer until analyzed.

Use rostrum to identify to species. Record length of shrimp.

rostrum

posterior margin of

orbit

1st abdominal segment carapace

hepatopancreas

Cut

intestine

stomach

Page 9: Biomarker Methods

6

Mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus):

To anesthetize fish, place in a 15 cm diameter plastic petri dish in the freezer (–20oC) until fish are immobilized.

*Preliminary experiments were conducted using MS-222 (methanesulfonate salt), a widely used fish anesthetic, but it resulted in elevated LPx values. Remove the fish from the freezer after anesthetized, and sever the spine prior to

dissection. Record sex and length.

Using dissecting scissors, cut open the abdomen along the anterior-posterior axis,

from the anus to the base of the gills. Make a second cut on the left side of the fish, from the base of the gills to the spine.

Remove the liver from the body with forceps, and trim away any extraneous tissue.

liver

Dissection of mummichog. Once cut, the liver is easily accessible.

liver

The length (cm) and sex of each fish is taken before each bioassay. Male (top) and female (bottom).

Page 10: Biomarker Methods

7

• A small piece (0.02g) of the liver should be rinsed well by dipping in calcium- and magnesium-free saline (CMFS), minced with a scalpel, rinsed again with CMFS, and immediately processed for the lysosomal assay.

• One piece of liver (0.02g minimum) should be kept for GSH and a slightly

larger piece (0.05g minimum) kept for LPx. Liver samples for GSH and LPx may be placed in numbered and labeled plastic petri dishes (e.g. separate tissue pieces from 5 individuals in a 50mm X 9mm petri dish) or snap-cap tubes and kept on ice. Store samples in a –80oC freezer until analyzed. It is recommended that samples be weighed prior to freezing.

Homogenization of tissues:

Depending on the species and tissue, either glass or teflon tissue grinders may be

used. Typically, both shrimp and fish tissues are adequately homogenized with teflon tissue

grinders. However, oyster tissues are sufficiently disrupted only when homogenized with

ground glass homogenizers. A sample of homogenate should be examined with a compound

microscope to verify that the methods are effective for cellular disruption.

Homogenizing tissues on ice ensures that tissues remain cold.

Page 11: Biomarker Methods

8

IV. Lysosomal Destabilization

Introduction

Lysosomes are intracellular organelles that are involved in many essential functions,

including membrane turnover, nutrition, and cellular defense (Adema et al., 1991; Auffret

and Oubella, 1994). The internal acidic environment of the lysosome, integral for the

optimal activity of acid hydrolases, is maintained by a membrane-bound, ATPase-dependent

proton pump (Ohkuma et al., 1982). Lysosomes also act to sequester metals and other

contaminants, which may lead to membrane destabilization (Lowe et al., 1981, 1995a; Moore

1982, 1985). Disruption of the proton pump by chemical contaminants can lead to the

impairment of vital functions and cell death (Moore, 1994; Lowe, 1996). Lysosomal

destabilization has been used as a valuable indicator of cellular damage in a variety of fish

and shellfish (Lowe et al., 1992; Moore, 1994; Ringwood et al., 1998b) and has been

regarded as a valuable indicator of compromised biotic integrity (Moore, 1994).

A relatively simple assay using neutral red retention is used to assess lysosomal

stability. This assay has been conducted successfully with hemocytes and hepatic cells.

Studies with hemocytes and hepatic cells from the same individual oysters give comparable

results (Conners and Ringwood, unpublished data). In general, hepatic preparations provide

a larger number of cells and are the only real option for small organisms or those that are

difficult to bleed. Furthermore, hepatic tissues are frequently a major site of accumulation of

toxins and a likely target for adverse effects. Cells incubated in neutral red accumulate the

lipophilic dye in the lysosomes, where it is trapped by protonization. In healthy cells, neutral

red is taken up and retained in stable lysosomes, whereas in damaged cells it leaks out of

lysosomes and into the cytoplasm. The leaking of neutral red reflects the efflux of lysosomal

contents into the cytosol, which ultimately causes cell death (Lowe et al., 1995b).

Page 12: Biomarker Methods

9

General Comments:

The flow charts schematically detail the major steps of the lysosomal destabilization

assay for oysters (Crassostrea virginica), grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio), and

mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus). A few guidelines concerning species-specific

differences for the lysosomal destabilization assay are provided below. Refer to the species-

specific protocols for more detail.

Different physiological buffers are used for different species.

For all species, calcium- and magnesium-free saline (CMFS) is used for the initial

dissociation of the tissues. For oysters, trypsin is then used to complete the

dissociation process for generating cellular preparations. For the shrimp and fish,

collagenase is used for the second phase of tissue dissociation (note: In trials with the

combined use of trypsin and collagenase, there was no improvement in the cell

preparations and in some cases cell viability decreased). Magnesium-free saline

(MFS; contains calcium) is used for that step because collagenase requires the

presence of calcium ions. Furthermore, for collagenase to be effective, the pH must

be > 7.5, so the pH of the buffers used for the fish and shrimp assay are higher than

those used for oysters.

The proper pH range of CMFS and MFS is critical and must be measured in the

solutions immediately prior to use (7.35 - 7.40 for oysters, 7.50 – 7.53 for grass

shrimp and mummichogs).

Different size screens are used during the cell filtration step of the lysosomal assay

(23 µm for oysters, 73 µm for grass shrimp, and 41 µm for mummichogs) due to cell

size differences between species.

The concentration of neutral red used for the grass shrimp and mummichogs is higher

than the concentration used for the oysters, and the incubation period is also longer

(e.g. 40 µg/ml, a 90 minute incubation period for grass shrimp and mummichogs;

20 µg/ml, a 60 minute incubation period for oysters).

Page 13: Biomarker Methods

10

Oyster - Lysosomal Destabilization Assay Flow Chart

Calculate % of cells with destabilized lysosomes.

Record oyster height and length, and gonadal index; dissect out digestive gland, remove excess gonadal tissue.

Shear samples with a glass pipette; Transfer to a microcentrifuge tube/filter apparatus (23 µm screen). Centrifuge at 200-225 g, 5 minutes, (15oC).

Shake samples at 100-120 rpm on a reciprocating shaker for 20 minutes.

Perform 1 – 2 rinses, i.e. centrifuge at 200-225 g, 5 minutes, (15oC). Discard supernatant, resuspend cells in 50-300 µl CMFS.

Rinse tissue with CMFS, mince into small pieces, and rinse again. Place tissues into a 24-well plate (each with 600 µl CMFS). Cover plate with lid and keep cool.

Remove filter, discard supernatant, resuspend cells in 1 ml CMFS.

Add 400 µl trypsin (in CMFS) to each sample, shake for 20 minutes; keep cool.

Using a 40X lens, score cells (> 50) as either dye present in the lysosome or dye present in the cytosol.

Add 2o NR stock (0.04 mg/ml) 1:1 to sample (final NR concentration = 20 µg/ml). Mix and incubate in a dark humidified chamber for 60 minutes.

Page 14: Biomarker Methods

11

Lysosomal Destabilization Assay for Oysters Detailed Instructions

SOLUTIONS NEEDED:

Ca2+ / Mg2+ Free Saline (CMFS) (contains 20mM HEPES, 360mM NaCl, 12.5mM KCl, and 5mM tetrasodium EDTA).

Combine 4.766g HEPES, 20.00g NaCl, 0.932g KCl and 1.901g EDTA in 995ml DI H2O.

Adjust pH to 7.35 – 7.40 with 6N NaOH. Adjust final volume to 1000ml with DI H2O if necessary and filter through a 0.45µm

screen. Check pH and salinity just prior to use (salinity should not be below 25o/oo). Store at 2 to 8oC for up to 1 week.

Trypsin (1.0 mg/ml) Add 1.0mg of trypsin to 1.0ml CMFS for a final assay concentration of 1.0mg/ml. Can be frozen and thawed one time.

Neutral Red Dye (NR) Make a 1o stock solution by adding 4mg of neutral red powder to 1ml of DMSO. Prior to the assay, make a 2o stock solution (NR concentration of 0.04 mg/ml) by

adding 20µl of the 1o stock solution to 1.98 ml CMFS. Wrap in foil to protect from light and keep at room temperature, as crystals can form

if kept cold. Make 1o and 2o stocks fresh daily.

SAMPLE PREPARATION: 1. Oxygenate all buffers by bubbling with air and keep cool. 2. In a 24-well cell culture plate, add 600µL of CMFS to each well (keep plate cool

throughout entire process [10-15ºC]). 3. Separate oysters, clean, and remove all adhering debris. 4. Record length and height in cm and gonadal index (1-4). 5. Dissect out digestive gland tissue. Avoid or trim off excess gonadal and mantle tissue. 6. Rinse digestive gland tissue with clean CMFS, mince into small pieces, rinse again with

CMFS, and place in the 24-well cell culture plate.

Page 15: Biomarker Methods

12

7. Place cell culture plate with lid in a plastic container with an ice packet. Shake samples

at 100-120 rpm on a reciprocating shaker for 20 minutes.

8. Add 400µL trypsin (1mg/mL) to each well and shake for 20 minutes.

9. Gently shear samples with pipette and transfer to microcentrifuge/filter tubes (23µm screen).

10. Centrifuge samples cool (15oC) at 200-225 g for 5 minutes. Remove filter, discard

supernatant and resuspend cells in 1000µL CMFS.

11. Repeat centrifugation, discard supernatant and resuspend cells in CMFS (50-300µL - volume depending on size of pellet).

Cell culture plate with oyster hepatopancreas samples.

Microcentrifuge tube/filter apparatus, consisting of a microcentrifuge tube, square piece of nylon filter, and a cut off pipet tip.

Page 16: Biomarker Methods

13

NEUTRAL RED ASSAY: 1. Add 2o NR stock solution to oyster sample microcentrifuge tubes. NR volume must

equal that of CMFS used in cell resuspension (see Sample Preparation #11).

2. Mix samples with plastic pipette tip and store in a light protected humidified chamber at room temperature.

3. Samples should be scored 60 minutes after the addition of NR. Cells may be incubated in the microcentrifuge tubes, mixed, and placed on a microscope slide just prior to scoring. Alternatively, cells and NR can be placed on the slides at the start of the incubation period and held in the dark humidified chamber until scored.

4. Score cells (≥50) using a 40 X lens, as either dye present in the lysosome or dye present in the cytosol. Score only hepatic cells that are large (25-40µm) and contain lysosomes.

Calculations: The percent destabilization of each individual organism is determined by dividing the number of cells with neutral red in the cytosol by the total number of cells counted (both neutral red in the cytosol and lysosomes) and multiplying by 100. QA/QC Procedures:

1. Microscopic photography of representative cells is recommended in order to validate the scoring of the cells as stable or destabilized.

2. In order to validate the scoring of cells, a second reader is recommended, along with documentation of the cells, whether it be through still photography or video.

Oyster hepatopancreas cells scored as dye present in the lysosome, e.g.,

stable.

Oyster hepatopancreas cells scored as dye present in the cytosol, e.g.,

destabilized.

Page 17: Biomarker Methods

14

Record shrimp length (and identify gravid females); dissect out hepatopancreas.

Shear samples again, transfer to microcentrifuge tube/filter apparatus (73 µm screen). Centrifuge at 200-225 g, 5 minutes, (15oC).

Add 2o NR stock (0.08 mg/ml) 1:1 to sample (final NR concentration = 40 µg/ml). Mix and incubate in a dark humidified chamber for 90 minutes.

Shake samples at 100-120 rpm on a reciprocating shaker for 20 minutes.

Perform 1 – 2 rinses, i.e. centrifuge at 200-225 g, 5 minutes, (15oC). Discard supernatant, resuspend cells in 25-200 µl CMFS.

Rinse tissue with CMFS, mince into small pieces, and rinse again. Place tissues into a 24-well plate (with 500 µl CMFS). Cover plate with lid and keep cool.

Remove filter, discard supernatant, resuspend cells in 1 ml CMFS.

Grass shrimp - Lysosomal Destabilization Assay Flow Chart

Add 500 µl collagenase (in MFS) to each sample, shake for 15 minutes; keep cool. Shear samples with a glass pipette; shake for an additional 15 minutes.

Using a 40X lens, score cells (> 50) as either dye present in the lysosome or dye present in the cytosol.

Calculate % of cells with destabilized lysosomes.

Page 18: Biomarker Methods

15

Lysosomal Destabilization Assay for Grass Shrimp Detailed Instructions

SOLUTIONS NEEDED:

Ca2+ / Mg2+ Free Saline (CMFS) (contains 20mM HEPES, 450mM NaCl, 12.5mM KCl, and 5mM tetrasodium EDTA). Combine 4.766g HEPES, 25.0g NaCl, 0.932g KCl, and 1.90g EDTA in 995ml DI

H2O. Adjust pH to 7.5 – 7.53 with 6N NaOH. Adjust final volume to 1000ml with DI H2O if necessary and filter through a 0.45µm

screen. Check pH and salinity just prior to use (salinity should not be below 30o/oo). Store at 2 to 8oC, for up to 1 week.

Mg2+ Free Saline (MFS) (contains 20mM HEPES, 480mM NaCl, 12.5mM KCl, and 5.0mM CaCl2). Combine 0.477g HEPES, 2.661g NaCl, 0.093g KCl, and 0.055g CaCl2 in 99.5ml DI

H2O. Adjust pH to 7.50 – 7.53 with 6N NaOH. Adjust final volume to 100ml with DI H2O if necessary and filter through a 0.45µm

screen. Check pH and salinity just prior to use (salinity should not be below 30 o/oo). Store at 2 to 8oC, for up to 1 week.

Collagenase (1.0 mg/ml) Add 1.0mg of collagenase to 1.0ml MFS for a final assay concentration of

1.0 mg/ml. Can be frozen and thawed one time.

Neutral Red Dye (NR) Make a 1o stock solution by adding 4mg of neutral red powder to 1ml of DMSO. Prior to the assay, add 40µl of the 1o stock solution to 1.96 ml CMFS for a 2o stock

solution concentration of 0.08 mg/ml. Wrap in foil to protect from light and keep at room temperature, as crystals can form

if kept cold. Make 1o and 2o stocks fresh daily.

SAMPLE PREPARATION: 1. Oxygenate all buffers by bubbling with air and keep cool.

2. Allow shrimp to cool on ice before dissecting.

3. In a 24-well cell culture plate, add 500µL of CMFS to each well (keep plate cool throughout entire process [10-15ºC]).

Page 19: Biomarker Methods

16

4. Record length in cm for all shrimp. Record any gravid females.

5. Dissect out hepatopancreas and rinse with CMFS.

6. Mince the tissue into small pieces, rinse again, and place in a 24-well cell culture plate.

7. Place cell plate with lid in a plastic container with an ice packet. Shake samples at 100-120 rpm on a reciprocating shaker for 20 minutes.

8. Add 500µL collagenase (1mg/mL) to each well and shake for 15 minutes.

9. Gently shear samples with pipette and shake for another 15 minutes.

10. Shear samples again with pipette and transfer to microcentrifuge/filter tubes (73µm screen).

11. Centrifuge samples cool (15oC) at 200-225 g for 5 minutes. Remove filter, discard

supernatant, and resuspend cells in 1000µL CMFS.

12. Repeat centrifugation, discard supernatant, and resuspend cells in CMFS (25-200µL - volume depending on size of pellet).

Cell culture plate with shrimp hepatopancreas samples.

Microcentrifuge tube/filter apparatus, consisting of a microcentrifuge tube, square piece of nylon filter, and a cut off pipet tip.

Page 20: Biomarker Methods

17

NEUTRAL RED ASSAY: 1. Add 2o NR stock solution to shrimp sample microcentrifuge tubes. NR volume must

equal that of CMFS used in cell resuspension (see Sample Preparation #12).

2. Mix samples with plastic pipette tip and store in a light protected humidified chamber at room temperature.

3. Samples should be scored 90 minutes after the addition of NR. Cells may be incubated in the microcentrifuge tubes, mixed, and placed on a microscope slide just prior to scoring. Alternatively, cells and NR can be placed on the slides at the start of the incubation period and held in the dark humidified chamber until scored.

4. Score cells (≥50) using a 40 X lens, as either dye present in the lysosome or dye present in the cytosol. Score only hepatic cells that are large (60-75µm) and contain lysosomes.

Calculations: The percent destabilization of each individual organism is determined by dividing the number of cells with neutral red in the cytosol by the total number of cells counted (both neutral red in the cytosol and lysosomes) and multiplying by 100. QA/QC Procedures:

1. Microscopic photography of representative cells is recommended in order to validate the scoring of the cells as stable or destabilized.

2. In order to validate the scoring of cells, a second reader is recommended, along with documentation of the cells, whether it be through still photography or video.

Shrimp hepatopancreas cells scored as dye present in the lysosome, e.g.

stable.

Shrimp hepatopancreas cells scored as dye present in the cytosol, e.g.,

destabilized.

Page 21: Biomarker Methods

18

Record fish length and sex, dissect out liver.

Shear samples again, transfer to microcentrifuge tube/filter apparatus (41 µm screen), Centrifuge at 200-225 g, 5 minutes, (15oC).

Add 2o NR stock (0.08 mg/ml) 1:1 with sample (final NR concentration = 40 µg/ml). Mix and incubate in a dark humidified chamber for 2 hours.

Shake samples at 100-120 rpm on a reciprocating shaker for 20 minutes.

Dip liver in CMFS several times, mince into small pieces, and rinse again.Place tissues into a 24-well plate (each with 500 µl CMFS). Cover plate with lid and keep cool.

Remove filter, discard supernatant, resuspend cells in 1 ml CMFS.

Mummichog - Lysosomal Destabilization Assay Flow Chart

Add 500 µl collagenase (in MFS) to each sample, shake for 15 minutes; keep cool.Shear samples with a glass pipette; shake for an additional 15 minutes.

Using a 40X lens, score cells (> 50) as either dye present in the lysosome or dye present in the cytosol.

Calculate % of cells with destabilized lysosomes.

Perform 1 – 2 rinses, i.e. centrifuge at 200-225 g, 5 minutes, (15oC). Discard supernatant, resuspend cells in 25-200 µl CMFS.

Page 22: Biomarker Methods

19

Lysosomal Destabilization Assay for Mummichogs Detailed Instructions

SOLUTIONS NEEDED:

Ca2+ / Mg2+ Free Saline (CMFS) (contains 20mM HEPES, 450mM NaCl, 12.5mM KCl, and 5mM tetrasodium EDTA). Combine 4.766g HEPES, 25.0g NaCl, 0.932g KCl, and 1.901g EDTA in 995ml DI

H2O. Adjust pH to 7.5 – 7.53 with 6N NaOH. Adjust final volume to 1000ml with DI H2O if necessary and filter through a 0.45µm

screen. Check pH and salinity just prior to use (salinity should not be below 30o/oo). Store at 2 to 8oC, for up to 1 week.

Mg2+ Free Saline (MFS) (contains 20mM HEPES, 480mM NaCl, 12.5mM KCl, and 5.0mM CaCl2). Combine 0.477g HEPES, 2.661g NaCl, 0.093g KCl, and 0.055g CaCl2 in 99.5ml DI

H2O. Adjust pH to 7.5 – 7.53 with 6N NaOH. Adjust final volume to 100ml with DI H2O if necessary and filter through a 0.45µm

screen. Check pH and salinity just prior to use (salinity should not be below 30o/oo). Store at 2 to 8oC, for up to 1 week.

Collagenase (1.0 mg/ml) Add 1.0mg of collagenase to 1.0ml MFS for a final assay concentration of 1.0 mg/ml. Can be frozen and thawed one time.

Neutral Red Dye (NR) Make a 1o stock solution by adding 4mg of neutral red powder to 1ml of DMSO. Prior to the assay, add 40µl of the 1o stock solution to 1.96 ml CMFS for a 2o stock

solution concentration of 0.08 mg/ml. Wrap in foil to protect from light and keep at room temperature as crystals can form if

kept cold. Make 1o and 2o stocks fresh daily.

SAMPLE PREPARATION: 1. Oxygenate all buffers by bubbling with air and keep cool.

2. Anesthetize fish by cooling on ice or in the freezer.

3. In a 24-well cell culture plate, add 500µL of CMFS to each well (keep plate cool throughout entire process [10-15ºC]).

Page 23: Biomarker Methods

20

4. Record the sex and length of each fish.

5. Dissect out liver.

6. Dip liver in CMFS several times to rinse. This reduces the amount of extraneous blood cells in the preparation.

7. Rinse liver well with clean CMFS and mince into small pieces.

8. Place cell plate with lid in a plastic container with an ice packet. Shake samples at 100-120 rpm on a reciprocating shaker for 20 minutes.

9. Add 500µL collagenase (1mg/mL) to each well and shake for 15 minutes.

10. Gently shear samples with a pipette and shake for another 15 minutes.

11. Shear samples again with a pipette and transfer to microcentrifuge/filter tubes (41µm screen).

12. Centrifuge samples cool (15oC) at 200-225 g for 5 minutes. Remove filter, discard supernatant, and resuspend cells in 1000µL CMFS.

13. Repeat centrifugation, discard supernatant, and resuspend cells in CMFS (25-200µL - volume depending on size of pellet).

Cell culture plate with fish liver samples.

Microcentrifuge tube/filter apparatus, consisting of a microcentrifuge tube, square piece of nylon filter, and a cut off pipet tip.

Page 24: Biomarker Methods

21

NEUTRAL RED ASSAY: 1. Add 2o NR stock solution to fish sample microcentrifuge tubes. NR volume must equal

that of CMFS used in cell resuspension (see Sample Preparation #13).

2. Mix samples with plastic tip pipette and store in a light protected humidified chamber at room temperature.

3. Samples should be scored 2 hours after the addition of NR. Cells may be incubated in the microcentrifuge tubes, mixed, and placed on a microscope slide just prior to scoring. Alternatively, cells and NR can be placed on the slides at the start of the incubation period and held in the dark humidified chamber until scored.

4. Score cells (≥50) using a 40 X lens, as either dye present in the lysosome or dye present in the cytosol. Score only liver cells that are large (35-45µm) and contain lysosomes.

Calculations: The percent destabilization of each individual organism is determined by dividing the number of cells with neutral red in the cytosol by the total number of cells counted (both neutral red in the cytosol and lysosomes) and multiplying by 100. QA/QC Procedures:

1. Microscopic photography of representative cells is recommended in order to validate the scoring of the cells as stable or destabilized.

2. In order to validate the scoring of cells, a second reader is recommended, along with documentation of the cells, whether it be through still photography or video.

Fish liver cells scored as dye present in the lysosome, e.g.,

stable.

Fish liver cells scored as dye present in the cytosol, e.g.,

destabilized.

Page 25: Biomarker Methods

22

V. Glutathione Assay

Introduction:

Glutathione (GSH) is a ubiquitous tripeptide that is regarded as one of the most

important non-protein thiols in biological systems (Kosower and Kosower, 1978; Mason and

Jenkins, 1996). GSH functions as an important overall modulator of cellular homeostasis,

and serves numerous essential functions including detoxification of metals and oxy-radicals

(Meister and Anderson, 1983; Christie and Costa, 1984). While exposure to pollutants or

stressful conditions can result in elevated GSH levels, there is evidence that adverse effects

are associated with GSH depletion in marine bivalves (Viarengo et al., 1990; Ringwood et

al., 1999), as well as mammalian systems (Dudley and Klaasen, 1984). Organisms may also

be more susceptible to additional stressors when GSH is depleted (Conners and Ringwood,

2000; Ringwood and Conners, 2000), and GSH status has been proposed as a potential risk

factor in human-based risk assessments (Jones et al., 1995).

General Comments:

The following flow chart schematically details the major steps of the glutathione

(GSH) assay for oysters (Crassostrea virginica), grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio), and

mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus). The GSH assay is a basic spectrophotometric assay

that is readily applied to different tissue types as well as different species.

Page 26: Biomarker Methods

23

GSH Flow Chart

Weigh tissues. Homogenize in 10 volumes 5% SSA.

Transfer 900 µl to 1.5 ml cuvette.

Add the following solutions to microcentrifuge tubes and vortex: 700 µl NADPH Buffer 100 µl DTNB 175 µl DI H2O 25 µl sample, GSH standard or 5% SSA blank

Determine rates for standards and generate standard curve. Determine concentrations of tissue samples (see calculations).

Prepare GSH standards (see GSH protocol).

Centrifuge at 13,000 g for 5 minutes, (4oC).

Add 15 µl GSSG reductase to cuvette and shake. Immediately read absorbance at 405 nm for a 90-120 second period

(continuous read or at 15 second intervals).

Combine 100 µl sample supernatant with 100 µl 5% SSA.

Page 27: Biomarker Methods

24

DTNB-GSSG Reductase Recycling Assay for Glutathione Detailed Instructions

EQUIPMENT: A spectrophotometer capable of kinetic analyses (i.e. records multiple readings over a

defined time period) is preferred for this assay since reaction rates are required for GSH quantification. If this type of instrument is not available, fixed wavelength analysis can be used. However, absorbances for each sample must be recorded every 15-30 seconds for at least 90 seconds. Standards and sample rates must then be determined by linear regression (i.e. slopes represent reaction rates used in GSH calculations). This assay can also be adapted for a microplate reader. SOLUTIONS NEEDED:

5% Sulfosalicylic Acid (SSA) Add 12.5g sulfosalicylic acid to 250ml DI H2O. Store at 2 to 8oC for up to 2 weeks.

143mM Sodium Phosphate Buffer Dissolve 4.29g monobasic sodium phosphate and 0.5988g tetrasodium EDTA in

250ml DI H2O. Dissolve 5.0765g dibasic sodium phosphate and 0.5988g tetrasodium EDTA in 250ml DI H2O.

Mix 248ml monobasic solution and 248ml dibasic solution together. Adjust pH to 7.5. Adjust final volume to 500ml with DI H2O if necessary. Store at 2 to 8oC for up to 2 weeks.

10mM 5,5’-Dithiobis(2-Nitrobenzoic acid) (DTNB) Add 0.03963g DTNB to 10ml sodium phosphate buffer. Make fresh daily.

0.238mg/ml NADPH Buffer Dissolve NADPH in sodium phosphate buffer. Make fresh daily.

50 U/ml Glutathione Reductase Note that the specific activity and concentration of the GSSG reductase varies with

different batches, so the volumes and dilution factors will vary. The purified standard may be diluted by either of the ways provided in the following examples:

(1) GSH reductase shipped as 6.8 mg protein/ml in 0.38 ml , 198 U / mg protein; therefore (6.8 mg protein/ml x 0.38 ml ) x 198 U/mg protein = 511.63 U; so the total required volume = 511.63 U ÷ 500 U/ml = 1.023 ml. Since the vial already contains 0.38 ml, the amount of buffer to be added for 500 U/ml would be 1.023 ml – 0.380 ml = 0.642 ml. Prepare a 1/10 dilution to yield a 50 U/ml for use in the assay.

Page 28: Biomarker Methods

25

(2) Alternatively, the purified reductase can be left undiluted. The volume of 50 U/ml GSSG reductase required for the number of samples to be analyzed can be calculated, and the appropriate volume of undiluted reductase can be used to make the working solution for the assay.

Store undiluted stock at 2 to 8oC; make working stocks fresh daily.

SAMPLE PREPARATION: 1. Weigh tissue samples and homogenize in 10 volumes 5% SSA (e.g. if sample is 0.1g add

1.0ml 5% SSA). 2. Centrifuge samples at 13,000 g, 5 minutes, (4oC). 3. Combine 100µl supernatant with 100µl 5% SSA. Store at 2 to 8oC until used.

Samples can then be stored for up to 24 hours at 4oC prior to running assay. PREPARATION OF GSH STANDARDS: Prepare GSH standards from the primary 1mM stock of GSH and 5% SSA for the following concentrations:

Primary (1°) Stock: 1 mM GSH - (3.073 mg GSH in 10 ml 5% SSA)

Secondary (2°) Stock: 200 µM GSH - (60 µl of 1° Stock + 240 µl 5% SSA) Prepare serial dilutions as follows (e.g. 200 µM GSH standard should be made directly from the 1mmol stock; all other standards should be made by adding 150µl of the previous standard mixture to 150µl of 5% SSA).

(b) 100 µM GSH 150 µl (a) + 150 µl SSA

(a) 200 µM GSH

2° Stock

(c) 50 µM GSH 150 µl (b) + 150 µl SSA

(d) 25 µM GSH 150 µl (c) + 150 µl SSA

(e) 12.5 µM GSH 150 µl (d) + 150 µl SSA

(f) 6.25 µM GSH 150 µl (e) + 150 µl SSA

a b c d e f

Page 29: Biomarker Methods

26

GSH ASSAY: 1. Each sample and standard is then mixed with the following solutions so that the relative

proportions are:

700µl NADPH Buffer

100µl DTNB

175µl DI H2O

25µl sample, standard, or 5% SSA for blanks*

Note: A bulk “cocktail” solution of NADPH Buffer, DTNB, and DI H2O can be made and added as a single volume to each sample or standard. Determine the estimated number of samples to be run (including the standards and blanks), prepare the cocktail mixture, and add 975µl of the “cocktail” to each sample, standard or blank. *Two blanks must be made: (1) “cocktail blank” used to zero spectrophotometer

(2) “GSH blank” (0µM GSH) to be treated as a sample (i.e. add GSSG reductase); the standard and sample rates are then adjusted for the GSH blank.

2. Vortex samples. 3. Transfer 900µl of cocktail/sample mixture to 1.5ml cuvettes. 4. Quickly add 15µl GSSG reductase to cuvettes, shake, and read absorbance at 405nm

every 30 seconds for at least 90 seconds. 5. Zero spectrophotometer between samples with “cocktail blank”. CALCULATIONS:

Standard Curve 1. Run standards, including the “GSH blank,” and record rate of the GSH standards. 2. Generate adjusted standard rates by subtracting the “GSH blank” rate from the GSH

standard rates. 3. Plot known µM concentrations of GSH standards (x axis) against their adjusted rates

(y axis). 4. Run a linear regression analysis of standards to generate the equation of a line

(e.g. the standard curve); check r2 value of line (e.g. goodness of fit should be close to 1); check slope of line and intercept for consistency with control charts. Re-run a new set of standards if these values (r2, slope and y-intercept) are not acceptable or consistent with control chart limits.

Page 30: Biomarker Methods

27

Samples 1. Run samples and record sample reaction rates.

2. Generate adjusted sample rates by subtracting the “GSH blank rate” from measured sample rates.

3. Use equation of line (y = mx + b) from standards to calculate GSH µM concentrations for each sample, e.g., solve for x (x = y-b / m].

4. Since 100µl of each sample was diluted with 100µl of SSA buffer at the beginning of the assay, multiply the GSH µM concentration of each sample by 2.

5. Convert µM GSH concentrations (µmol/L) of samples to nmol/g wet weight.

Note: Since the conversion of µmol/L to nmol/g involves multiplying and dividing by 1000, these steps essentially cancel out, so that µmol/L = nmol/ml. Therefore, the original GSH concentration in µmol/L (after step 4) can be converted to the final concentration of nmol/g wet weight by the following calculation:

(GSH nmol/ml x total sample volume (ml)) /g wet weight = GSH nmol/g wet weight Data Quality Assurance and Control Charts

A new standard curve must be generated prior to each experiment by measuring the absorbance of five known standard concentrations. It is recommended that two to three sets of standards be analyzed per experiment in order to validate spectrophotometer readings and to identify potential experimenter errors (i.e. making up the standards). The regression parameters should be similar between the multiple analyses and consistent with the control chart limits. Also, an a priori acceptance criteria of r2 > 0.95 was established for standard curves of GSH. Any standard curves with r2 values below 0.95 should be re-run. Control Charts

GSH control charts, based on the slope and y-intercept values from the standard curves, should be used to assess the repeatability of standard curve parameters (Millard and Neerchal, 2001). Upper (UCL) and lower control limits (LCL) were calculated as:

UCL = running slope or y-intercept mean + 1 standard deviation

LCL = running slope or y-intercept mean - 1 standard deviation

Any standard curve that results in a slope or y-intercept value deviating beyond the UCL or LCL should be re-run prior to running the samples.

Page 31: Biomarker Methods

28

GSH control charts for two forms of GSH reductase (bovine and yeast-derived GSH reductase) are shown below. The solid line indicates the running mean and the dashed lines indicate one standard deviation. During 2000, bovine-derived GSH reductase was not available from any supplier and was replaced with yeast-derived GSH reductase. Yeast reductase was just as effective and also less expensive. The reaction rates with yeast reductase are a little faster.

GSH Control Chart - Bovine Reductase

0.0000

0.0005

0.0010

0.0015

0.0020

0.0025

0.0030

0.0035

0.0040

1999

Slop

e of

Lin

e

GSH Control Chart - Yeast Reductase

0.0000

0.0010

0.0020

0.0030

0.0040

0.0050

0.0060

0.0070

2000

Slop

e of

Lin

e

Page 32: Biomarker Methods

29

VI. Lipid Peroxidation Assay:

Introduction:

Lipid peroxidation (LPx), an indicator of damage to cell membranes, occurs when

free radicals react with lipids, and is a source of cytotoxic products that may damage DNA

and enzymes (Kehrer, 1993; Yu, 1994). Increased lipid peroxidation has been demonstrated

in response to ischemia-reperfusion events in mammalian tissues, paraquat and contaminant

exposures in bivalves, cadmium and PCB exposures in mullet, and exposures of catfish to

PAH contaminated sediments (Wenning et al., 1988; Wofford and Thomas, 1988; Regoli,

1992; Di Giulio et al., 1995; Livingstone, 2001). Laboratory exposures to copper have

shown increased lipid peroxidation levels in digestive gland tissues from Crassostrea

virginica (Ringwood et al., 1998a; Conners and Ringwood, 2000).

General Comments:

The following flow chart schematically details the major steps of the lipid

peroxidation (LPx) assay for oysters (Crassostrea virginica), grass shrimp (Palaemonetes

pugio), and mummichogs (Fundulus heteroclitus). The assay described here is based on the

detection of malondialdehyde (MDA), a common end-product of oxidatively damaged

membrane lipids. The LPx assay is a basic spectrophotometric assay that is readily applied

to different tissue types as well as different species.

A wider range of standard concentrations is needed for different species (e.g. oyster

standards range from 25 – 800µM; for crustaceans, use standards from 25 – 3200µM;

and for Fundulus, standards from 6.25 – 800µM MDA are recommended).

Page 33: Biomarker Methods

30

Weigh tissues; Homogenize in 4 volumes K2PO4

Heat samples in a 100oC water bath for 15 minutes.

Determine MDA concentrations (see calculations).

Add the following solutions to a microcentrifuge tube and vortex: 100 µl sample, MDA standard or blank 1400 µl TBA 14 µl BHT

Transfer supernatant to 1.5 ml cuvette; read absorbance at 532 nm.

Prepare MDA standards (see LPx protocol).

Centrifuge samples at 13,000 g for 5 minutes, (4oC).

Centrifuge samples at 13,000 g for 5 minutes.

LPx Flow Chart

Page 34: Biomarker Methods

31

Lipid Peroxidation Assay (Based on Malondialdehyde Concentrations)

Detailed Instructions SOLUTIONS NEEDED:

1N Hydrochloric Acid (HCl) Add 8.2ml 12.1N HCl to 91.8ml ultrapure DI H2O. Store at room temperature.

50 mM Potassium Phosphate (K2PO4) Buffer Dissolve 1.7011g monobasic K2PO4 and 2.177g dibasic K2PO4 in 495ml DI H2O. Adjust pH to 7.0 with 1N HCl. Adjust final volume to 500ml with DI H2O. Filter through a 0.22µm screen. Store at 2 to 8oC for up to 2 weeks.

Malondialdehyde Tetraethylacetal (10mM stock solution of MDA) Combine 24µl 1,1,3,3-tetraethoxypropane (TEP), 1ml 1N HCl, and 90ml DI H2O in a

volumetric flask, bring volume up to 100ml with DI H2O, and mix well. Cap and seal with parafilm. Heat in a 50o C water bath for 60 minutes. Cool to room temperature. Make fresh daily.

0.375% Thiobarbituric Acid (TBA) Instructions for 20 samples plus standards: Dissolve 6.0g of 15% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) and 0.15g thiobarbituric acid (TBA)

in 40ml 0.25N HCl (10ml 1N HCl to 30ml DI H2O). Make fresh daily. Keep at 2 to 8oC.

2% Butylated Hydroxytoluene (BHT) Instructions for 20 samples plus standards: Dissolve 0.04g BHT in 2ml absolute alcohol. Seal solution tightly to avoid evaporation before use. Make fresh daily. Keep at room temperature.

SAMPLE PREPARATION: 1. Weigh tissue samples and homogenize in 4 volumes of K2PO4 buffer (i.e. if tissue weighs

0.2g, add 0.8ml buffer). Transfer homogenate to microcentrifuge tubes. Keep samples cold.

2. Centrifuge samples at 13,000 g for 5 minutes, 4o C. 3. Transfer 100µl of supernatant to new set of microcentrifuge tubes for assay.

Page 35: Biomarker Methods

32

PREPARATION OF STANDARDS: Prepare MDA standards from original 10mM stock of MDA and K2PO4 buffer in the following concentrations:

*Note: These standards are made by serial dilution. The 3200µmol/L MDA standard should be made directly from the 10mmol stock. All other standards should be made by adding 300µl of the previous standard mixture.

Primary (1°) Stock: 10 mM MDA - (see SOLUTIONS NEEDED above)

Secondary (2°) Stock: 3200 µM MDA - (408 µl of 1° Stock + 192 µl K2PO4)

Prepare serial dilutions as follows (e.g. 3200µmol/L MDA standard should be made directly from the 10mmol stock; all other standards should be made by adding 300µl of the previous standard mixture).

f g ha b c d e

(b) 1600 µM MDA 150 µl (a) + 150 µl K2PO4

(a) 3200 µM MDA

2° Stock

(c) 800 µM MDA

300 µl (b) + 300 µl K2PO4

(d) 400 µM MDA

300 µl (c) + 300 µl K2PO4

(e) 200 µM MDA

300 µl (d) + 300 µl K2PO4

(f) 100 µM MDA

300 µl (e) + 300 µl K2PO4

(g) 50 µM MDA 300 µl (f) + 300 µl K2PO4

(h) 25 µM MDA 300 µl (g) + 300 µl K2PO4

Page 36: Biomarker Methods

33

LIPID PEROXIDATION ASSAY: 1. Mix the following solutions with 100µl of each sample or standard (including a blank of

100µl of K2PO4): 1400µl (1.4ml) TBA 14µl BHT 2. Vortex, then heat samples and standards in a 100oC water bath for 15 minutes. 3. Centrifuge samples and standards at 13,000 g for 5 minutes at room temperature.

4. Transfer supernatant to cuvettes and read absorbance at 532nm on a spectrophotometer.

5. Prepare a standard curve by running a linear regression of concentration vs. absorbance of standards. Calculate the MDA concentration in samples based on the standard curve.

CALCULATIONS: 1. Plot known µmol/L concentrations of MDA standards (x axis) against their absorbance

reading from the spectrophotometer (y axis).

2. Run a linear regression analysis of standards to generate the equation of a line (e.g. the standard curve); check r2 value of line (e.g. goodness of fit should be close to 1); check slope of line and intercept for consistency with control charts. Re-run a new set of standards if these values (r2, slope and y-intercept) are not acceptable or consistent with control chart limits.

LPx samples heating in water bath. Make holes at the top of each tube with a hypodermic needle to allow for pressure release while the samples are being heated.

Page 37: Biomarker Methods

34

3. Use equation of line (y = mx + b) from standards to calculate MDA µmol/L concentrations of samples from absorbance readings (y value is absorbance – use equation of line to solve for x, which will yield a concentration in µmol/L for each sample).

4. Convert MDA µmol/L concentrations of samples to nmol/g wet weight. • Convert µmol/L to µmol/ml by dividing by 1000.

• Convert to MDA µmol/ml by multiplying by the total sample volume (i.e. volume of potassium phosphate buffer (in ml) added to each sample).

• Convert MDA µmol concentrations to nmol by multiplying by 1000.

• Divide the MDA nmol concentration by the wet weight (in grams) of each sample to give a final MDA concentration in nmol/g.

Note: Since the conversion of µmol/L to nmol/g involves dividing and multiplying by 1000, these steps essentially cancel out, so that µmol/L = nmol/ml. Therefore, the original MDA concentration in µmol/L can be simply converted to the final concentration of nmol/g wet weight by the following calculation:

(MDA µmol/L x volume K2PO4 ml) / g wet weight = MDA nmol/g wet weight

Data Quality Assurance and Control Charts Equipment and Procedural Validation

A new standard curve must be generated prior to each experiment by measuring the absorbance of five known standard concentrations. It is recommended that two to three sets of standards be analyzed per experiment in order to validate spectrophotometer readings and to identify potential experimenter errors (i.e. preparing the standards). The regression parameters should be similar between the multiple analyses and consistent with the control chart mean. Also, an a priori acceptance criteria of r2 > 0.95 was established for standard curves of LPx; any r2 values below 0.95 should be rerun.

Page 38: Biomarker Methods

35

Control Charts

Control charts should be used to assess the repeatability of standard curve parameters (e.g. slopes and intercepts) (Millard and Neerchal, 2001). A LPx control chart, based on the slope values of standard curves conducted from 1998 – 2000, is shown below. Upper (UCL) and lower control limits (LCL) were calculated as:

UCL = running slope (or y-intercept) mean + 1 standard deviation

LCL = running slope (or y-intercept) mean - 1 standard deviation

Any standard curve that resulted in a slope or y-intercept value deviating beyond the UCL or LCL was re-run prior to running the samples. Values for the standard curve slope for LPx ranged from 0.0010 to 0.0014. A y-intercept below 0.005 was considered acceptable.

LPX Control Chart

0.0004

0.0006

0.0008

0.0010

0.0012

0.0014

0.0016

0.0018

0.0020

Slop

e of

Lin

e

Control chart for LPx standard curve slopes. The solid line indicates the running mean and the dashed lines indicate one standard deviation.

1998 1999 2000

Page 39: Biomarker Methods

36

VII. Data Management, Statistics, and Interpretation

The data should be organized into spreadsheet formats (e.g. Excel) that can be readily

exported for statistical analyses software (e.g. Sigma Stat or SAS) and for relational database

software (e.g. Access). These approaches provide important means of extracting subsets of

the data and performing various queries as well as archiving the data in a form that can be

made available to other scientists. Data should be entered into spreadsheets as soon as

possible and organized into “raw data” and “summary” tables. The raw data tables should

include data such as the site name or code, species code, collection and processing dates,

each individual organism’s height, length, sex or gonadal index, as well as the biomarker

responses for each individual or composite sample. The “summary” data tables should

include enough redundant information that they can be clearly linked to the raw data tables

(such as the site name or code, species name, dates) and also provide overall summaries (e.g.

statistical values such as the mean, standard deviation, median, 25th and 75th percentiles).

A “QACODE” column should be included on all tables and used as a flag for any data points

that need some explanation (single letter codes can be used to identify outlying data not used

in the final analysis, missing data points, etc…). Site names or codes can be designed any

number of ways. It is recommended that they should include information regarding the

project name, site name, season (if applicable) and year of study. This will allow for easy

identification of each data point if the results of several studies over the course of several

years are combined. An example of a site code and the explanations for the different fields

are illustrated as follows:

Site Code Explanation of fields

CIMOSW00 CI – refers to the CICEET Project; MOS – refers to the site, Mosquito Creek; W indicates winter season; 00 indicates year 2000.

For the species code, the first 3 or 4 letters of the genus followed by the first 3 or 4 letters of

the species are combined as follows:

Species Code Explanation

crasvirg Crassostrea virginica

Page 40: Biomarker Methods

37

Examples of raw data and summary tables for the lysosomal destabilization assay are

shown below for two sites, AAA and MOS:

Another set of examples is provided below for the GSH data. In this case, there are 3

sets of data tables: a raw data table, a summary table, and a QA table that contains the

standard curve parameters used to generate the control charts. Important components that

link all 3 of these tables include the sampling and processing dates, and site name. The

linking elements enable tracking between the raw and summary tables; they also enable

verification of the GSH standard curve data found in the QA table so that the validity of the

data can be verified. Verification that the control chart parameters between different analysis

Site SpeciesSampling

Date Animal #Height (cm)

Length (cm)

Gonadal Index

% Lysosomal Destablization

Lysosomal Analysis Date QACODE

CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 1 9.3 4.1 4 24.53 2/10/2000CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 2 9.0 4.4 3 26.56 2/10/2000CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 3 9.1 3.5 3 29.63 2/10/2000CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 4 8.6 3.6 4 26.23 2/10/2000CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 5 9.4 3.8 3 25.97 2/10/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 1 6.7 2.6 4 47.17 4/13/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 2 2.9 2.2 2 39.22 4/13/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 3 2.9 2.3 4 49.06 4/13/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 4 5.2 2.2 3 63.64 4/13/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 5 6.9 2.5 4 36.67 4/13/2000

A. Example of raw data table used for the lysosomal destabilization assay.

Site Species Assay # Animals Mea

n %

L

ysos

omal

D

esta

biliz

atio

n

STD Med

ian

%

Lys

osom

al

Des

tabi

lizat

ion

25% 75% QACODECIAAAW00 crasvirg Lyso 5 26.58 1.87 26.23 25.61 27.33CIMOSW00 crasvirg Lyso 5 47.15 10.59 47.17 38.58 52.71

B. Example of summary data table for the lysosomal destabilization assay.

Page 41: Biomarker Methods

38

sets (or even different investigators) are within acceptable ranges increases confidence in the

data.

B. Example of summary data table for GSH

Site Species Assay GSH

Ana

lysi

s D

ate

# Animals Mea

n G

SH

(nm

ol/g

)

STD Med

ian

GSH

(n

mol

/g)

25% 75% QACODECIAAAW00 crasvirg GSH 6/13/2000 4 1606 137.6 1599.3 1504.0 1708.0CIMOSW00 crasvirg GSH 6/14/2000 5 1343 471.3 1270.0 1031.5 1546.7

A. Example of raw data table for GSH

GSHSampling Animal GSH Analysis

Site Species Date # (nmol/g) Date QACODECIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 1 1558.7 6/13/2000CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 2 1640.0 6/13/2000CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 3 1776.0 6/13/2000CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 4 1449.3 6/13/2000CIAAAW00 crasvirg 2/9/2000 5 158.2 6/13/2000 ACIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 1 1355.0 6/14/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 2 1270.0 6/14/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 3 887.8 6/14/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 4 1079.4 6/14/2000CIMOSW00 crasvirg 4/12/2000 5 2121.7 6/14/2000

QACODE DefinitionsA Outlier not used in analysis

C. Example of QA table with GSH standard curve parameters used for the control charts.

Date AssayLow Standard

(uM)High Standard

(uM) Slope y Intercept r2 QACODE6/13/00 GSH 6.25 100 0.0045 -0.035 0.9946/14/00 GSH 6.25 100 0.0036 -0.038 0.999

Page 42: Biomarker Methods

39

Once the data have been organized into the data management framework, statistical

analyses can then be conducted. For our studies, the data were analyzed using Sigma Stat

(Jandel Scientific), with α set at 0.05 in all tests; this program also automatically performed

normality and equal variance tests as an initial step. Generally, a sample size (n) of 15 – 20

individuals or composites was recommended, although an n of 10 also yielded data sets that

were normally distributed. Since the lysosomal data were based on percentages, arcsin

transformations were conducted, although these data were normally distributed even as

percentage values. The variation observed with the biochemical parameters was sufficiently

narrow (e.g. coefficients of variation were generally < 30%); and variances were also

generally equal. However, data outliers, particularly those that are likely to be associated

with experimental errors (e.g. errors in weight measurements or reagent additions, data entry

errors, etc.) should be removed so that important patterns are not obscured (Snedecor and

Cochran, 1967). In most cases, experience with the assays and an appreciation of when

values are abnormally high or low would be a basis for flagging individual values; negative

values were automatically removed, especially when there seemed to be a sufficient amount

of tissue, because they were assumed to represent experimental errors. We also used more

objective approaches to evaluate extreme values. Individual responses were flagged as

potential outliers if individual samples were more than 2.5 standard deviations above or

below the mean value for a site; tests based on residuals can also be applied and can be used

to verify simpler variance rules (Barnett and Lewis, 1978). As a general rule, we do not

recommend removing more than 10 - 20% of the values to avoid biasing the data (e.g. if n=

10 or 20, then no more than 2 samples should be removed). In general removal of the

outliers may have little effect on the site-specific mean value, but due to the effect on the

variances, may facilitate meeting the assumptions of normality and equal variances.

Therefore, t tests or analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests are preferred for comparisons

between sites, with the Student-Neuman-Keuls (SNK) or Tukey tests used for a posteriori

pairwise multiple comparison analyses. However, when data do not meet the assumptions of

normality and equal variances, the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA on ranks should

be used for site comparisons, and the non-parametric Dunn’s test for a posteriori pairwise

multiple comparison analyses.

Page 43: Biomarker Methods

40

Normal Ranges

Normal ranges (expected GSH, LPx, and lysosomal destabilization values for a

species) can be determined based on data from unpolluted sites. This is analogous to the

normal range approaches used in medicine to determine if various test indicators (e.g. blood

parameters such as white cell counts) are perturbed. For example, we were interested in

determining if the normal ranges were different for winter and summer seasons. To calculate

these normal ranges, seasonal data from multiple years were combined, all sites designated a

priori as degraded or polluted were removed, and means and standard deviations were

calculated. The robustness of the normal range values will be dependent on the size of the

data set, but at some point, the values should not change very much with additional data. An

important value to the use of normal ranges is that investigators are not limited to evaluating

the effects at one unknown site to those of only one or a few reference sites, but can compare

any unknown site to a broader array / database of reference sites, thereby reducing

uncertainty. In this way, decisions about whether or not the organisms from a site are

stressed can be made with greater confidence. For example, using this process, we would

currently recomment the following criteria for oysters, based on responses of hepatopancreas

tissues:

Normal Range Concern Stress

Lysosomal Destablization < 15 – 30% 30 – 40% > 40%

Glutathione (nM/g) 800- 1600 < 800 < 500

> 1600

Lipid Peroxidation (nM/g) < 150 150 – 250 > 250

The “Normal Range” is regarded as the optimum conditions and are considered to indicate

that there is no evidence of stress. The “Concern” values represent levels that are somewhat

outside the Normal Range limits, and should be regarded as indicating that the animals are

experiencing some stressful conditions. Notice that for GSH, Concern levels are defined

both above and below the normal range. This reflects the fact that perturbed GSH responses

may be elevated (indicating activation of a detoxification response) or showing signs of

Page 44: Biomarker Methods

41

depletion. Then “Stress” levels for GSH and the other indicators are believed to indicate that

homeostatic and detoxification mechanisms have been overwhelmed and that the oysters are

significantly stressed. Our current working model is that “Concern” levels may be

reversible, if the source of the stress is reduced or removed. However, levels associated with

significant “Stress” may or may not be reversible, but would certainly be expected to cause

significant impairment of normal physiological functions (e.g. growth and reproduction), and

could result in mortality.

VIII. Concluding Comments

The biotechnologies and routine use of cellular biomarker responses have advanced

to the point that they should be incorporated into environmental assessments. Some of the

kinds of objections that were historically raised were factors such as lack of standardized

protocols, lack of QA/QC capabilities, and unclear linkages to higher level effects (e.g.

population and community changes). These are important issues that should be used as a

basic framework for defining the application of biomarker tools. This handbook provides

detail protocols for three frequently used cellular biomarkers for three common estuarine

species. This kind of document is a critical component for routine use of biomarkers in

order to assure that different scientists and laboratories are using the same methods. This

document also describes data management strategies and some of the kinds of QA/QC

components that can be included to assure comparable data from different analysis sets (e.g.

control charts, etc.) and potentially between different laboratories. We have more than five

years of data and experience with the oyster responses (e.g., extensive laboratory and field

data in addition to that developed for this CICEET-funded program), so at present we have

the most confidence in our recommendations for this species. Moreover, we have recently

been conducting studies that reinforce the linkages between the cellular biomarker responses

in oysters and physiological responses related to population processes (e.g. reproductive

success).

Page 45: Biomarker Methods

42

Finally, we welcome comments and feedback from anyone who uses these protocols,

and encourage any recommendations for improving the techniques, developing QA/QC

protocols, sharing and evaluating data, etc. Furthermore, as more of these approaches are

developed and incorporated for routine screening, the diagnostic potential will increase,

especially as the database from stressful and reference conditions increases. Using this

framework to add additional biomarker responses, including protein and gene responses,

other cellular damage indicators such as DNA damage, etc., will facilitate our ability to

characterize the effects of environmental conditions on organismal health and to develop a

sound basis for interpretation based on expected normal ranges. The benefits of sensitive

indicators, early diagnosis, and early intervention are well established in the human medical

arena. These same kinds of approaches applied to marine organisms should provide

important benefits for assessing the impacts of increasing anthropogenic activities in

estuarine and coastal regions. With improved diagnostic capabilities, valuable strategies for

mitigating pollution and other environmental problems can be implemented.

Page 46: Biomarker Methods

43

IX. References Adema, C.M., Van der Knaap, W.P., Sminia, T. 1991. Molluscan hemocyte-mediated

cytotoxicity: the role of reactive oxygen intermediates. Rev. Aquat. Sci. 4: 201-233.

Auffret, M., Oubella, R. 1994. Cytometric parameters of bivalve molluscs: effect of environmental factors. In J.S. Stolon, T. C. Fletcher (eds) Modulators of fish immune responses. SOS Publications, Fairhaven, NJ, p 23-32.

Barnett, V., Lewis. T. 1978. Outliers in Statistical Data. John Wiley & Sons, Chicester

Bell, T.A., Lightner, D.V. 1988. A handbook of normal penaeid shrimp histology. Baton Rouge, LA. World Aquaculture Society.

Christie, N. T., Costa, M. 1984. In vitro assessment of the toxicity of metal compounds. IV. Disposition of metals in cells: interactions with membranes, glutathione, metallothionein, and DNA. Biol. Trace Elements Res. 6: 139-158.

Conners, D.E., Ringwood, A.H. 2000. Effects of glutathione depletion on copper cytotoxicity in oysters (Crassostrea virginica). Aquat. Toxicol. 50: 341-349

Di Giulio, R. T., Behar, J. V., Carlson, D. B., Hasspeiler, B. M., Pollard, B. 1995. Determinations of species susceptibility to oxidative stress: a comparison of channel catfish and brown bullhead. Mar. Environ. Res. 39: 321-324.

Dudley, R.E., Klaassen, C.D. 1984. Changes in the hepatic glutathione concentration modify cadmium-induced hepatotoxicity. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 72: 530-538.

Jones, D.P., Brown, L.S., Sternberg, P. 1995. Variability in glutathione-dependent detoxication in vivo and its relevance to detoxication of chemical mixtures. Toxicol. 105: 267-274.

Kehrer, J.P. 1993. Free radicals as mediators of tissue injury and disease. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 23: 21-48.

Kosower, N.S., Kosower, E.M. 1978. The glutathione status of cells. Int. Rev. in Cytol. 54: 109-160.

Livingstone, D.R. 2001. Contaminant-stimulated reactive oxygen species production and oxidative damage in aquatic organisms. Mar. Poll. Bull. 42: 656-666.

Lowe, D.M. 1996. Mechanisms of toxicity in molluscan lysosomes. Mar. Environ. Res. 42: 109.

Lowe, D.M., Moore, M.N., Clarke, H.E. 1981. Effects of oil on digestive cells in mussels: Quantitative alteration in cellular and lysosomal structure. Aquat. Toxicol. 1: 213-226.

Lowe, D.M., Moore, M.N, Evans, B. 1992. Contaminant impact on interactions of molecular probes with lysosomes in living hepatocytes from dab (Limanda limanda). Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 91: 135-140.

Lowe, D.M., Soverchia, C., Moore, M.N. 1995a. Lysosomal membrane responses in the blood and digestive cells of mussels experimentally exposed to fluoranthene. Aquat. Toxicol. 33: 105-112.

Page 47: Biomarker Methods

44

Lowe, D.M., Fossato, V.U., Depledge, M.H. 1995b. Contaminant-induced lysosomal membrane damage in blood cells of mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis from the Venice Lagoon: an in vitro study. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 129: 189-196.

Mason, A.Z., Jenkins, K.D. 1996. Metal detoxification in aquatic systems. In: Metal Speciation and Bioavailability in Aquatic Systems, A. Tessier and D.R. Turner, eds. John Wiley & Sons, Chicester. p. 479-608.

Meister, A., Anderson, M.E. 1983. Glutathione. Ann. Rev. Biochem. 52: 711-760.

Millard, S.P. and Neerchal, N.K. 2001. Environmental Statistics with S-Plus. CRC Press, New York, New York.

Moore, M.N. 1982. Lysosomes and environmental stress. Mar. Poll. Bull. 13: 42-43.

Moore, M.N. 1985. Cellular responses to pollutants. Mar. Poll. Bull. 16: 134-139.

Moore, M.N. 1994. Contaminants in the Environment: A Multidisciplinary Assessment of Risks to Man and Other Organisms. p. 111-123. Lewis Publishers.

Ohkuma, S., Moriyama, Y., Takano, T. 1982. Identification and characterization of a proton pump on lysosomes by fluoroscein isothiocyanate-dextran fluorescence. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 79: 2758-2762.

Regoli, F. 1992. Lysosomal responses as a sensitive stress index in biomonitoring heavy metal pollution. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 84: 63-69.

Ringwood, A.H., Conners, D.E., DiNovo, A.A. 1998a. The effects of copper exposures on cellular responses in oysters. Mar. Environ. Res. 46: 591-595.

Ringwood, A.H., Conners, D.E., Hoguet, J. 1998b. Effects of natural and anthropogenic stressors on lysosomal destabilization in oyster Crassostrea virginica. Mar. Ecol. Progr. Ser. 166: 163-171.

Ringwood, A.H., Conners, D.E., Keppler, C.J., DiNovo, A.A. 1999. Biomarker studies with juvenile oysters (Crassostrea virginica) deployed in situ. Biomarkers 4: 400-415.

Ringwood, A.H., Conners, D.E. 2000. The effects of glutathione depletion on reproductive success in oysters, Crassostrea virginica. Mar. Environ. Res. 50: 207-211.

Snedecor, G.W., Cochran, W.G. 1967. Statistical Methods (sixth edition). The Iowa State University Press.

Viarengo, A.L., Canesi, L., Pertica, M., Poli, G., Moore, M.N., Orunesu, M. 1990. Heavy metal effects on lipid peroxidation in the tissues of Mytilus galloprovincialis Lam. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 97C: 32-42.

Wenning, R.J., Di Giulio, R.T., Page, D.S. 1988. Oxidant-mediated biochemical effects of paraquat in the ribbed mussel, Geukensia demissa. Aquat. Toxicol. 12: 157-170.

Williams, A.B. 1984. Shrimps, Lobsters, and Crabs of the Atlantic Coast of the Eastern United States, Maine to Florida. p. 71-74. Smithsonian Institution Press.

Wofford, H.W., Thomas, P. 1988. Peroxidation of mullet and rat liver lipids in vitro: Effects of pyridine nucleotides, iron, incubation buffer, and xenobiotics. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 89C: 201-206.

Page 48: Biomarker Methods

45

Yu, B.P. 1994. Cellular defenses against damage from reactive oxygen species. Physiol. Reveiws 74: 139-162.

Page 49: Biomarker Methods

46