Analysis of transcriptional responses of normalizing genes on Crassostrea brasiliana under different experimental conditions.

Bivalves show remarkable plasticity to environmental changes and have been proposed as sentinel organisms in biomonitoring. Studies related to transcriptional analysis using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) in these organisms have notably increased, imposing a need to identify and validate adequate reference genes for an accurate and reliable analysis. In the present study, 9 reference genes were selected from transcriptome data of Crassostrea brasiliana to identify their suitability as qRT-PCR normalizer genes. The transcriptional patterns were analyzed in gills of oysters under 3 different conditions: different temperatures (18, 24, or 32 °C) and phenanthrene (100 µg L-1 ) combined exposure; different salinities (10, 25, or 35‰) and phenanthrene combined exposure; and 10% of diesel fuel water-accommodated fraction (diesel-WAF) exposure. Reference gene stability was calculated using 5 algorithms (geNorm, NormFinder, BestKeeper, ΔCt, RefFinder). Transcripts of ankyrin-like (ANK), glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate dehydrogenase-like (GAPDH), and α-tubulin-like (TUBA) genes showed minor changes in different temperature/phenanthrene treatment. Transcripts of ANK, ß-actin-like, and ß-tubulin-like genes showed better stability at salinity/phenanthrene treatment, and ANK, TUBA, and 28S ribosomal protein-like genes showed the most stable transcription pattern in oysters exposed to diesel-WAF exposure. The present study constitutes the first systematic analysis of reference gene selection for qRT-PCR normalization in C. brasiliana. These genes could be employed in studies using qRT-PCR analysis under similar experimental conditions. Environ Toxicol Chem 2017;36:2190-2198. © 2017 SETAC.

Virus, protozoa and organic compounds decay in depurated oysters.

AIMS: (1) Evaluate the dynamic of the depuration process of Crassostrea gigas oysters using different ultraviolet doses with different amounts of contaminants (virus, protozoa and organic contaminants) and (2) investigate the morphological changes in the oysters' tissues produced by the depuration procedures. METHODS: The oysters were allocated in sites with different degrees of contamination and analyzed after 14 days. Some animals were used as positive controls by artificial bioaccumulation with HAdV2 and MNV1 and subjected to depuration assays using UV lamps (18 or 36 W) for 168 h. The following pollutants were researched in the naturally contaminated oysters, oysters after 14 days in sites and oysters during the depuration processes: virus (HAdV, HAV, HuNoV GI/GII and JCPyV), by (RT) qPCR; protozoa (Cryptosporidium and Giardia species), by immunomagnetic separation and immunofluorescence; and organic compounds (AHs, PAHs, LABs, PCBs and organochlorine pesticides-OCs), by chromatography. Changes in the oysters' tissues produced by the depuration processes were also evaluated using histochemical analysis by light microscopy. In the artificially bioaccumulated oysters, only HAdV2 and MNV1 were investigated by (RT) qPCR before the depuration procedures and after 96 and 168 h of these procedures. RESULTS: At 14 days post-allocation, HAdV was found in all the sites (6.2 × 105 to 4.4 × 107 GC g(-1)), and Giardia species in only one site. Levels of PCBs and OCs in the oyster's tissues were below the detection limit for all samples. AHs (3.5 to 4.4 µg g(-1)), PAHs (11 to 191 ng g(-1)) and LABs (57 to 751 ng g(-1)) were detected in the samples from 3 sites. During the depuration assays, we found HAdV, Giardia and Cryptosporidium species until 168 h, independent of UV treatment. AHs, PAHs and LABs were found also after 168 h of depuration (36 W and without UV lamp). The depuration procedures did not produce changes in the oysters' tissues. In the artificially contaminated and depurated oysters, we detected HAdV until 168 h and MNV1 until 96 h of depuration. CONCLUSION: The applied depuration treatments were unable to eliminate the protozoa or to degrade the HAdV genomes but were able to degrade the MNV1 genomes. Similarly, the UV water treatment was not efficient for aliphatic hydrocarbons, PAHs and LABs, as their concentrations were equivalent or higher to the concentrations of the control samples and samples from depuration tanks without UV treatment.