Current Zoology 60 (2): 252–254, 2014 Editorial Comparative ecogenotoxicology: Monitoring the DNA of wildlife Dario ANGELETTI, Claudio CARERE, Guest Editors Department of Ecological and Biological Sciences, Ichthyogenic Experimental Marine Centre (CISMAR), Tuscia University, Borgo Le Saline, 01016 Tarquinia, VT, Italy; darioangeletti@unitus.it, claudiocarere@unitus.it Ecogenotoxicology is the study of interactions be- tween genetic material and DNA-damaging agents of anthropogenic origin in wild populations, in relation to subsequent effects on the health of organisms (Shugart and Theodorakis, 1994). Traditionally, biomarkers for genetic toxicology can be classified in “biomarkers of exposure” and “biomarkers of effect”, depending whether the aim is to monitor and quantify the exposure to genotoxicants, or to evaluate the biological response to the agents, i.e., early effects (e.g. gene mutations, chromosome aberrations, micronuclei, sister chromatide exchanges, DNA damage by comet assay) potentially relevant for genetic and/or carcinogenic damage. In recent years, the impact of physical and chemicals con- taminants on the integrity and functionality of DNA has been investigated in many animal species, in laboratory and field conditions, and many recent regulatory devel- opments stress the relevance of detecting the impact of carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic contaminants on wildlife species of different biological organization and in different ecological levels (e.g. Fuerhacker, 2009). Importantly, such investigations require a “cross- fertilization” between genotoxicologists, usually more focused on a human health framework in order to iden- tify and quantify the presence of genotoxic pollutants associated, and zoologists and evolutionary ecologists who usually start with a natural history approach in or- der to identify the effect or response to a pollutant and then the cause. Ecogenotoxicology studies have two main goals: (i) to explore the impact of xenobiotics on wildlife and their consequences at individual, population, species and ecosystem levels; (ii) to provide the early signals of contamination, before it significantly impacts ecosys- tems and human health. In the latter case, the research is mainly aimed at pinpointing, testing and standardizing protocols on potential “sentinel organisms” that can be then used to perform specific biomonitoring plans (e.g. Beeby, 2001; Sebbio et al., 2014). Such studies are also focused on identifying sensitive and reliable method- ologies, which are at the same time relatively inexpen- sive, transferable and suitable from a practical point of view. As documented by the huge number of publica- tions on the presence and the effect of Persistent Or- ganic Pollutants (POPs) on biota, and their influence in limiting the use of such compounds worldwide (e.g. DDT, PCBs), exploring the impact of pollution on the different levels of biological organization is far from irrelevant in driving political decision making, and this confers a great opportunity and responsibility to the researchers. Ecogenotoxicology in animals is a relatively new field (Dixon et al., 2002; Leinjans and van Schooten, 2002): while a number of studies on marine and fresh- water organisms are available, as genotoxins tend to accumulate in the living compartment of aquatic eco- systems, a lot remains to be explored in taxa belonging to aerial and terrestrial ecosystems (e.g. Bonisoli-Alquati, 2014), with the notable exception of earthworms (Vas- seur and Bonnard, 2014). The goal of this column is to highlight the relevance of these studies in a comparative perspective, taking into account the interaction between the mechanisms, dynamics and effects of pollution, and the variation of aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity, from species to population and individual level. We emphasize here the “comparative” aspect, since species, and even popula- tions within a species, may have a different sensitivity to pollutants and therefore focussing on a single organ- ism is clearly not a valid approach. To this aim, on one hand we trace a series of studies on taxa already widely investigated (e.g. mussels) and those that have a great development potential; on the other hand we present original researches aimed at taxa completely or partially Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/cz/article-abstract/60/2/252/1804194 by guest on 17 June 2020