An increased demand for chemical toxicity evaluations has resulted in the need for alternative testing strategies that address animal welfare concerns. The fish embryo toxicity (FET) test developed for zebrafish (Danio rerio) is one such alternative, and the application of the FET test to other species such as the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) has been proposed. In the present study, the performances of the FET test and the larval growth and survival (LGS; a standard toxicity testing method) test in zebrafish and fathead minnows were evaluated. This required that testing methods for the fathead minnow FET and zebrafish LGS tests be harmonized with existing test methods and that the performance of these testing strategies be evaluated by comparing the median lethal concentrations of 2 reference toxicants, 3,4-dicholoraniline and ammonia, obtained via each of the test types. The results showed that procedures for the zebrafish FET test can be adapted and applied to the fathead minnow. Differences in test sensitivity were observed for 3,4-dicholoraniline but not ammonia; therefore, conclusions regarding which test types offer the least or most sensitivity could not be made. Overall, these results show that the fathead minnow FET test has potential as an alternative toxicity testing strategy and that further analysis with other toxicants is warranted in an effort to better characterize the sensitivity and feasibility of this testing strategy.

The fish embryo toxicity (FET) test has been proposed as an alternative to the larval growth and survival (LGS) test. The objectives of the present study were to evaluate the sensitivity of the FET and LGS tests in fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas) and zebrafish (Danio rerio) and to determine if the inclusion of sublethal metrics as test endpoints could enhance test utility. In both species, LGS and FET tests were conducted using 2 simulated effluents. A comparison of median lethal concentrations determined via each test revealed significant differences between test types; however, it could not be determined which test was the least and/or most sensitive. At the conclusion of each test, developmental abnormalities and the expression of genes related to growth and toxicity were evaluated. Fathead minnows and zebrafish exposed to mock municipal wastewater-treatment plant effluent in a FET test experienced an increased incidence of pericardial edema and significant alterations in the expression of genes including insulin-like growth factors 1 and 2, heat shock protein 70, and cytochrome P4501A, suggesting that the inclusion of these endpoints could enhance test utility. The results not only show the utility of the fathead minnow FET test as a replacement for the LGS test but also provide evidence that inclusion of additional endpoints could improve the predictive power of the FET test.

BackgroundThis study compared the performance of five commercially available kits in extracting total RNA from small eukaryotic tissue samples (<15 mg). Total RNA was isolated from fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) tissues (spleen, blood, kidney, embryo, and larvae) using the Qiagen RNeasy® Plus Mini, Qiagen RNeasy® Plus Universal, Promega Maxwell® 16 LEV simplyRNA, Ambion MagMAX™-96 and Promega SimplyRNA HT kits. Kit performance was evaluated via measures of RNA quantity (e.g., total RNA amount) and quality (e.g., ratio of absorbance at 260 and 280 nm, RNA integrity number (RIN), presence of gDNA).ResultsWith the exception of embryos, each kit generally extracted ≥5 μg of total RNA from each sample. With regard to RNA quality, the RINs of RNA samples isolated via the Plus Mini and Maxwell® 16 kits were consistently higher than those of samples extracted via the remaining three kits and for all tissues, these kits produced intact RNA with average RIN values ≥7. The Plus Universal and SimplyRNA HT kits produced moderately degraded (RIN values <7, but ≥5), while the RNA recovered via the MagMAX™ kit tended to exhibit a high degree of degradation (RIN values <5).ConclusionsEach kit was generally capable of extracting the amount of RNA required for most downstream gene expression applications suggesting that RNA yield is unlikely to be a limiting factor for any of the kits evaluated. However, differences in the quality of RNA extracted via each of the kits indicate that these kits may differ in their ability to yield RNA acceptable for some applications. Overall, the findings of this study demonstrate that there are practical differences between commercially available RNA extraction kits that should be taken into account when selecting extraction methods to be used for isolating RNA designated for gene expression analysis.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12896-014-0094-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract