Genetic Consequences of Fluted Pumpkin (Telfairia Occidentalis Hook F.) Seed Exposure to Different X-Rays Doses

Abstract

This study was carried out to investigate the genetic consequences of exposing the seeds of fluted pumpkin (Telfairia occidentalis Hook F.) to x-ray doses. The seeds were exposed to varying doses of x-ray irradiation before planting and experiment was set up in a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with five replications. M1 and M2 generations were raised, fresh fluted pumpkin leaves of both generations were subjected to molecular assessment. Data collated were further examined using phylogenetic analysis. Several kinds of SNP mutation in the form of indels and nucleotide substitutions were observed. A total of 17 indels were recorded and at different positions. One substitution was recorded. Both transversion and transition occurred in this study and were in the ratio 4:1 except for G: T transversion and A: G transition at positions 495 and 87 respectively which both had a ratio of 1:1. A total of 7 transversions and 4 transitions were recorded. The highest number of SNP’s mutation frequency was recorded on the M1 and M2 generation seeds exposed to 14.08mGy (4 and 8). This was followed with the M1 and M2 generation seeds exposed to 6.75mGy and 18.75mGy. The least number of point mutations (frequency) was recorded in the unexposed seeds in both generations followed by 10.08mGy exposures of both generations. The phylogenetic analysis revealed the formation of two major Claude from the phylogenetic clusters. These alterations in the DNA arrangement of the fluted pumpkin seeds indicate the effectiveness of x-ray as a mutagenic substance.

Country : Nigeria

1 Ibeabuchi ThankGod Chibuzo2 Osuagwu Gabriel. E3 Adie Emmanuel Bengiagieye

  1. Department of Plant Science and Biotechnology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike. P.M.B 7267 Umuahia Umudike, Nigeria
  2. Department of Plant Science and Biotechnology, Michael Okpara University of Agriculture, Umudike. P.M.B 7267 Umuahia Umudike, Nigeria
  3. Department of Crop Science, University of Calabar, P.M.B 1115, Calabar, Nigeria

IRJIET, Volume 6, Issue 10, October 2022 pp. 63-69

doi.org/10.47001/IRJIET/2022.610010

References

  1. Ahloowalia, B. S. and Maluzynski, M. (2001). Induced mutation: A new paradigm in plant breeding. Euphytica, 188 (2): 167-173.
  2. Ballarini F, Biaggi M, Ottolenghi A (2002). Nuclear architecture and radiation-induced chromosome aberrations: models and simulations. Radiat. Prot. Dosim. 99: 175-182.
  3. Ballarini F, Ottolenghi A (2003). Chromosome aberrations as biomarkers of radiation exposure: modelling basic mechanisms. Adv Space Res. 31:1557-1568.
  4. Bernstein H., Byerley H. C., Hopf F. A., Michod R. E. (1985). Genetic damage, mutation and the evolution of sex. Science 229 1277–1281. 10.1126/science.3898363.
  5. Cadet, J; Thierry Delatour; Thierry Douki; Didier Gasparutto; Jean-Pierre; Pouget Jean-LucRavanat; Sylvie Sauvaigo (1999). Hydroxyl radicals and DNA base damage. Mutat. Res.
  6. Cohen, B.L (1993). Relationship between exposure to radon and various types of cancer. Health Physics. 1993; 65(5):529–531.
  7. Cuttler, J.M (2020). Application of low doses of ionizing radiation in medical therapies. Dose-Response. 2020; 18(1):1–17.
  8. Dhawan, G; Kapoor, R; and Dhawan. R (2020). Low dose radiation therapy as a potential lifesaving treatment for COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Radiother Oncol. 2020;147:212–216.
  9. Dhanavel, D. and Girija, M. (2009).Mutagenic Effectiveness and Efficiency of gamma rays. Ethyl Methane sulphonate and their combined treatments in cowpea (Vignaunguiculata (L.) Walp).Global Journal of Molecular Sciences 4 (2): 68-75.
  10. Esnault M. A., Legue F., Chena C. (2010). Ionizing radiation: advances in plant response. Environ. Exp. Bot. 68 231–237. 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.01.007
  11. Evseeva T., Majstrenko T., Geras’kin S., Brown J., Belykh E. (2009). Estimation of ionizing radiation impact on natural Vicia cracca populations inhabiting areas contaminated with uranium mill tailings and radium production wastes. Sci. Total Environ. 407 5335–5343. 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.06.037.
  12. Evseeva T. I., Geras’kin S. A., Belykh E. S., Maistrenko T. A., Brown J. E. (2011). Assessment of the reproductive capacity of Pinus sylvestris trees growing under conditions of chronic exposure to radionuclides of uranium and thorium series. Russ. J. Ecol. 42, 382–387. 10.1134/S1067413611050055.
  13. Farooque, A; Mathur, R and Verma, A (2011). Low-dose radiation therapy of cancer: role of immune enhancement. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2011;11(5):791–802.
  14. Fedak K. M., Bernal A., Capshaw Z. A., Gross S. (2015). Applying the Bradford Hill criteria in the 21st century: how data integration has changed causal inference in molecular epidemiology. Emerg. Themes Epidemiol. 12:14. 10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4.
  15. Fedotov I. S., Kalchenko V. A., Igonina E. V., Rubanovich A. V. (2006). Radiation and genetic consequences of ionizing irradiation on population of Pinus sylvestris L. within the zone of the Chernobyl NPP. Radiats. Biol. Radioecol. 46, 268–278.
  16. Feinendegen, L.E (2005). Evidence for beneficial low level radiation effects and radiation hormesis. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(925):3–7.
  17. Foyer C. H., Noctor G. (2016). Stress-triggered redox signalling: what’s in pROSpect? Plant Cell Environ. 39 951–964. 10.1111/pce.12621.
  18. IAEA (1998):  https://www.iaea.org/topics/mutation-induction#:~:text=Physical%20mutagens%2C%20mostly%20ionizing%20radiation,been%20developed%20using%20physical%20mutagens
  19. Ionizing radiation, health effects and protective measures. WHO. (2016). Accessed April 2016 https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/ionizing-radiation-health-effects-and-protective-measures, 2020.
  20. Kharkwal, M. C. and Shu, Q. Y. (2009). The role of induce mutations in world food security. In: Shu, Q. Y. (Edition). Induced Plant mutations in the genomics era. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Pp 149-189
  21. Kendal, G.M; Muirhead, C.R; Macgibbon, B.H and Oagan, J.A (1992). First analysis of the national registry for radiation workers; occupational exposure to ionizing radiation and mortality. BMJ. 1992; 304(6821):220–225.
  22. Mba, C. (2013). Induced mutations unleash the potentials of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. Agronomy, 3(1): 200-231.
  23. Royo, L.T; Redondo, G.A; Pianetta, M.A and Prat, M.A (2020). Low-dose radiation therapy for benign pathologies. Rep Pract Oncol Radiother. 2020; 25(2):250–254.
  24. Shah, D.J; Sachs, R.K and Wilson, D.J (2012). Radiation-induced cancer: a modern view. Br J Radiol. 2012; 85(1020):e1166–e1173.
  25. Sharifi-sirchi G.R; Baghizadeh A; Golestani M. and Saffari V.R. (2012). The effects of chemical and physical mutagens on morphological and cytological characters of barley (Iranian cv. Nosrat). African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 11(16), pp. 3842-3848, 23 February, 2012 Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB DOI: 10.5897/AJB11.3342 ISSN 1684–5315 © 2012 Academic Journals.
  26. Yonezawa, M; Misonoh, J and Hosokawa, Y (1996). Two types of X-ray induced radio resistance in mice, presence of 4 dose ranges with distinct biological effects. Mutation Research. 1996; 358(2):237–243.