In article <3qcfo0$agg at bud.peinet.pe.ca>, stewart at bud.peinet.pe.ca (Paul
Stewart) wrote:
> I am preparing a proposal for using the mussel (Mytilus edulis)
> as a biomonitor in estuarian waters. Many areas in Eastern N. America
> culture this species in estuaries, so the organism is built-in.
Good choice of indicator organism. Filter feeders process lots of
suspended sediment.
> I did a
> tox. study on oil effects on seabirds using assay of elevated MFO enzymes
> in their livers as indicator. My idea is to plate these enzymes (if they
> exist in the mussel) along with the bacterial mutants used in the Ames
> Salmonella Mutagenicity Test, using the number of revertant colonies as a
> background, then use these plates to test the relative toxicity of
> sediments and concentrated water samples in coastal and benthic areas. I
This is a highly indirect assay. Many variables need to be controlled if
you want meaningful numbers. Can you think of a more direct test for MFO
level?
> hope to apply this as useful monitor data to determine toxicity of
> sediment runoff from agricultural coastal land, as well as impact of
> offshore construction, drilling, etc.
Mixed Function Oxidases are involved in the metabolism of many toxic
substances, but it is hardly a comprehensive set. How do you assign
meaning to results when the assay has widely varying response factors that
may or may not correlate to "toxicity"? (No, this is not a rhetorical
question. The grant agency will likely ask it.)
I think your proposal has some good ideas in it, but there are a bunch of
issues that need to be sorted out before it is ready. Best of luck.
Mark Tracy
