Ultraviolet-B Wavelengths Regulate Changes in UV Absorption of Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Mucus

Zamzow, Jill P.; Siebeck, Ulrike E.; Eckes, Maxi; Grutter, Alexandra S.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0078527

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Potential storage locations in tissues such as the gonads (Carefoot et al 2000) and gut (Zamzow et al 2013), followed by transport to the mucus producing goblet cells in the epidermis seem possible, and could be responsible for the swift increase in mucus absorbance observed in the present study. Whether MAAs could also be stored in the mucus producing goblet cells for an even faster release than from the gut is unclear and needs further investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

“…Changes in mucus absorbance, mediated by MAAs after changes to the UVR regime, have been documented before (Zamzow & Losey 2002, Zamzow 2004, Zamzow et al 2013), but usually are only detected after several days or weeks. Similarly, the accumulation of MAAs in algae (Karsten et al 1999), diatoms (Helbling et al 1996) and corals (Shick et al 1999) due to UVB exposure occurs over longer time periods.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The modulation of mucus absorbance could be visually triggered, since P. amboinensis is able to see UV light in contrast to T. lunare (Siebeck & Marshall 2000, where mucus absorbance must be modulated otherwise (Zamzow 2004, Zamzow et al 2013). For P. amboinensis, the ability to modulate the UV absorption properties of their external mucus layer might be essential in order to successfully send and receive their UV signals for communication (Siebeck 2004, Siebeck et al 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In teleosts fish, MAAs are found in eggs (Plack 1981), larvae (Lesser et al 2001) and in the ocular media and external mucus of reef fish (Dunlap et al 1989, Eckes et al 2008. The efficacy of these natural sunscreens in preventing UV-induced DNA damage has not directly been shown (Bandaranayake 1998 habitat (Zamzow 2007, Zamzow et al 2013 and is strongly reduced under UV-lacking conditions (Zamzow 2004). Similar relationships from invertebrates (Banaszak et al 1998, Lamare et al 2004) also strongly suggest a protective function of MAAs against the negative effects of UVR.…”

Section: Protectionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This approach allows mucus samples to be measured shortly after their collection in the field and is a reliable method for the quantification of the mucus absorbance (Zamzow & Losey 2002, Zamzow & Siebeck 2006, Zamzow et al 2013. Briefly, mucus samples were squashed between a UVtransparent slide (made from OP4 acrylic, T 50 = 278 nm) and a coverslip (T 50 = 290 nm).…”

Section: Mucus Absorbance Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

UV-induced DNA damage in coral reef fish: damage levels and protection mechanisms

Braun¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) reaching the surface of earth has been recognized as a major environmental stressor for marine organisms due to the potential of UVB (280 -315 nm) to induce DNA damage such as cyclobutane pyrimidine dimers (CPDs) that can lead to cell death. Despite inhabiting a UV-rich environment, the levels of DNA damage in reef fish and factors influencing these levels are unknown. Whether reef fish are able to avoid UVR and repair UV-induced DNA damage is unclear despite the importance of these protection mechanisms in other animals. The presence of UV-absorbing Mycosporine-like Amino Acids (MAAs) in the external mucus of reef fish has been confirmed, however the efficiency of these compounds in preventing CPDs has not been studied. The aim of this PhD was to assess the impact of ambient and elevated levels of UVR on reef fish in terms of UV-induced DNA damage, and to evaluate the protective mechanisms available to fish with and without UV vision.In order to determine the net level of DNA damage in skin samples of 15 species of fish from the reefs surrounding Lizard Island, a CPD-specific antibody was used in an ELISA. Analysis using a boosted regression tree shows that the most important factors governing CPDs were species and size, with higher damage being detected in smaller individuals. Other factors such as family, depth and the presence or absence of UV vision contributed the least to the variation in damage. The length of exposure to natural levels of UVR over the course of a day was found to have no significant influence on net DNA damage levels, which were relatively low in situ, compared to levels that were detected in later experiments using elevated UVR.The first protection mechanism, behavioural avoidance to UVR, was tested using behavioural experiments in which fish with (Pomacentrus amboinensis) and without UV vision (Thalassoma lunare) were given a choice between UV-protected and UV-exposed compartments. Additionally, foraging behaviour of settlement-stage larvae of P. amboinensis was determined under ambient levels of UVR. Automated analysis of video footage using MatLab shows that neither species showed a specific avoidance response to varying levels of UVB. Although P. amboinensis showed a preference for deeper sections of the experimental tanks, fish spent equal amounts of time in exposed and protected compartments. The foraging activity and distance to shelter of P. amboinensis that were exposed to UVR were significantly reduced compared to fish that were observed under light conditions that lacked UVR.Next, the efficiency of natural sunscreens, MAAs, in preventing CPDs was tested in P. amboinensis and T. lunare. The levels of MAAs in the mucus of the two species were either reduced or maintained during captivity before exposure to a short pulse of high UVR.Spectrometric measurements of light transmission through mucus samples collected after irradiation were used to quantify the amount of MAAs available for protection. In both species, DNA damage levels in skin sampl...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Protectionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Mucus Absorbance Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

UV-induced DNA damage in coral reef fish: damage levels and protection mechanisms

Braun¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The functional role of tabular structures for large reef fishes: avoiding predators or solar irradiance?

Kerry

Bellwood

2015

Coral Reefs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fish mucus versus parasitic gnathiid isopods as sources of energy and sunscreens for a cleaner fish

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The cleaning behaviour of the bluestreak cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus is extensively used as a model system for understanding cooperation. It feeds mainly on blood-sucking gnathiid isopods and also on the epidermal mucus of client fish; the nutritional quality of these foods, however, is unknown. The epidermal mucus of reef fish contains ultraviolet (UV)-absorbing compounds (mycosporine-like amino acids, MAAs), which are only obtained via the diet; nevertheless, while La. dimidiatus has high amounts of MAAs in its mucus, their source is unknown. Therefore, the energetic value (calories and protein estimated using carbon and nitrogen) and MAA level in gnathiids and mucus from several clients [parrotfishes, wrasses (Labridae), and a snapper (Lutjanidae)] were determined. The energetic value of mucus and gnathiids varied among fishes. Overall, carbon, nitrogen, calories, and protein per dry weight were higher in the mucus of most client species compared to gnathiids. Thus, depending on the client species, mucus may be energetically more advantageous for cleaner wrasse to feed on than gnathiids. UV absorbance, a confirmed proxy for MAA levels, indicated high MAA levels in mucus, whereas gnathiids had no detectable MAAs. This suggests that La. dimidiatus obtain MAAs from mucus but not from gnathiids. Hence, in addition to energy, the mucus of some clients also provides La. dimidiatus with the added bonus of UV-absorbing compounds. This may explain why cleaner fish prefer to feed on mucus over gnathiid isopods. The likely costs and benefits to clients of the removal of UV protecting mucus and parasitic gnathiids, respectively, and the variation in benefits gained by cleaner fish from feeding on these foods may explain some variation in cooperation levels in cleaning interactions.

show abstract

Ultraviolet-B Wavelengths Regulate Changes in UV Absorption of Cleaner Fish Labroides dimidiatus Mucus

Cited by 14 publications

References 60 publications

UV-induced DNA damage in coral reef fish: damage levels and protection mechanisms

UV-induced DNA damage in coral reef fish: damage levels and protection mechanisms

The functional role of tabular structures for large reef fishes: avoiding predators or solar irradiance?

Fish mucus versus parasitic gnathiid isopods as sources of energy and sunscreens for a cleaner fish

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About