Acclimation capacity of the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus, L.) to a sudden biological stress following a polymetallic exposure

Abstract

To get closer to the environmental reality, ecotoxicological studies should no longer consider the evaluation of a single pollutant, but rather combination of stress and their interaction. The aim of this study was to determine if responses of a fish to a sudden biological stress could be modified by a prior exposure to a chemical stress (a polymetallic contamination). For this purpose, in situ experiment was conducted in three ponds in the Haute-Vienne department (France). One pond was chosen for its high uranium concentration due to uranium mine tailings, and the two other ponds, which were not submitted to these tailings. Three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus) were caged in these ponds for 14 days. After this period, fish were submitted to a biological stress, exerted by lipopolysaccharides injection after anesthesia, and were sacrificed 4 days after these injections for multi-biomarkers analyses (leucocyte viability, phagocytic capacity and reactive oxygen species production, antioxidant peptide and enzymes, lipid peroxidation and DNA damage). The pond which received uranium mine tailings had higher metallic concentrations. Without biological stress, sticklebacks caged in this pond presented an oxidative stress, with increasing of reactive oxygen species levels, modification of some parts of the antioxidant system, and lipid peroxidation. Caging in the two most metal-contaminated ponds resulted in an increase of susceptibility of sticklebacks to the biological stress, preventing their phagocytic responses to lipopolysaccharides and modifying their glutathione contents and glutathione-S-transferase activity.

Use of fish otoliths as a temporal biomarker of field uranium exposure

“…The selected U concentration in water (20 µg.L -1 ) was higher than the environmental quality guideline (e.g. 0.3 µg.L -1 (INERIS, 2011) or 0.5 µg.L -1 (AA-EQS, (van Herwijnen et Verbrugen, 2014) but close to in situ U concentrations measured in French contaminated ponds (Le Guernic et al, 2016b;Simon et al, 2005). Optimal conditions were achieved using a constant-flow peristaltic pump, with U concentration, pH and temperature monitored on a daily basis.…”

“…Maximum aqueous concentration of total uranium in countries involved in U mining is close to 1350 µg L -1 (Goulet et al, 2011;Goulet et al, 2018). Goulet et al (2011) reviewed the scientific literature on U toxicity in fish but little research has been done to assess the accumulation and toxic effects of U on fish in situ (Gagnaire et al, 2014;Goulet et al, 2015;Kraemer et al, 2012;Le Guernic et al, 2016a;Le Guernic et al, 2016b;Pyle et al, 2001) when the concentration in water is higher than the environmental quality guideline (e.g. 0.3 µg.L -1 ((INERIS, 2011)) or 0.5 µg.L -1 (AA-EQS, (van Herwijnen et al, 2014) and despite the fact that U can have harmful effects on ecosystems and human health, even after the end of mining activities.…”

Effects of Pollution on Fish Behavior, Personality, and Cognition: Some Research Perspectives

“…Pollution-exposed individuals generally invest more energy in costly detoxification processes (Du et al, 2018(Du et al, , 2019 at the expense of immunity (Dunier and Siwicki, 1993;Dunier, 1996), with potential consequences for parasite resistance (Arkoosh et al, 1991(Arkoosh et al, , 2001Jansen et al, 2011;Rohr et al, 2013). For instance, three-spined stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus exposed to a polymetallic stress were more susceptible to an immune challenge through changes in oxidative responses (Le Guernic et al, 2016). Parasites and their associated immune challenges could thus act as important biotic constraints altering the effects of pollution on fish behavior and fitness, but few studies experimentally tested this hypothesis, especially in fish.…”

Dose‐ and time‐dependent effects of an immune challenge on fish across biological levels

“…Hence, fish from low, medium, and high‐dose groups were injected with 10 µl of PBS containing 45 µg of PHA and 45 µg of LPS, 90 µg of PHA and 90 µg of LPS, or 180 µg of PHA and 180 µg of LPS, respectively. We chose these concentrations based on previous studies using a constant ratio of antigens concentration for fish biomass corresponding approximately to 4.5, 9, and 18 mg kg −1 of each antigen (see Ardia & Clotfelter, 2006; Johansen et al, 2006; Jolly et al, 2014; Le Guernic et al, 2016).…”

“…We then monitored fish responses across time (0, 2, 4, 8, and 16 days) by sampling 20 fish per time point in each treatment group (Figure 1). These time durations were chosen based on the literature showing significant changes in immune activity at 2 and 4 days postinjection in Atlantic salmon ( Salmo salar ) and three‐spined stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ), respectively (Langston et al, 2001; Le Guernic et al, 2016), while behavioral changes can be detected at 2, 4, and 8 days in mice (Zhao et al, 2019). In addition, we sampled fish 16 days after the immune challenge to observe potential lasting consequences on fish energy mobilization and behavior.…”