Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 20, pp 19470–19479 | Cite as

Differential sensitivity to the antifouling chemical medetomidine between wood frog and American toad tadpoles with evidence for low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition of metamorphosis

  • Peter P. FongEmail author
  • Olivia J. Lambert
  • Margot L. Hoagland
  • Emily R. Kurtz
Research Article

Abstract

Antifouling chemicals are legacy contaminants in aquatic ecosystems. Previous experiments have shown that a 14-day exposure to the antifouling chemical medetomidine delays metamorphosis and reduces body mass in wood frog tadpoles. In the present study, we exposed wood frog tadpoles to medetomidine for 3, 7, and 10 days at 100 nM, 1 μM, and 10 μM. We also exposed American toad tadpoles to medetomidine for 3 days at four concentrations (10 nM, 100 nM, 1 μM, and 10 μM) in static renewal experiments. In each experiment, we measured growth, frequency and time to metamorphosis, and mass at metamorphosis. In both species, medetomidine significantly slowed development as measured by the Gosner stage. After 34 days in culture, wood frog tadpoles exposed to 1 and 10 μM medetomidine for as few as 3 days were significantly less developed compared to controls. Toads exposed to 1 μM medetomidine for 3 days were also significantly less developed on day 27, but by day 34, there was no difference from controls. For wood frogs, medetomidine significantly affected time to metamorphosis with a trend for tadpoles at lower concentrations metamorphosing sooner than those at higher concentrations. While medetomidine affected time to metamorphosis in wood frogs, it did not affect fresh mass, dry mass, or mortality compared to controls. Wood frog tadpoles that did not metamorphose after over 90 days in culture were more frequent in high-concentration groups than in the control. In toads, 10 μM medetomidine was 100% lethal within 23 days, but at the same concentration and duration, no wood frog tadpoles died. Lower concentrations were also significantly lethal to toads compared to controls, but tadpoles that survived in 10 and 100 nM metamorphosed sooner than those in 1 μM. Fresh mass of toad tadpoles exposed to 1 μm was significantly smaller at metamorphosis compared to that of controls. Medetomidine also affected the behavior of tadpoles. In toads, medetomidine significantly reduced both percent activity and startle response. In wood frogs, medetomidine significantly reduced percent activity, but increased startle response. We discuss our finding of low-dose stimulation and high-dose inhibition of different life history endpoints in terms of hormetic mechanisms. The differential sensitivity between species in terms of mortality, frequency of metamorphosis, and behavior highlights the potential negative environmental effects of medetomidine to amphibians.

Keywords

Ecotoxicology Amphibians Medetomidine Tadpole Metamorphosis Aquatic Antifouling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments.

Funding information

This work was supported, in part, by the Cross-Disciplinary Science Institute at Gettysburg College (X-SIG) with funds from the John McCrea and Marion Ball Dickson Professorship and Science Fund and the Eric E. Kolbe’ 65 Student-Faculty Research Fund. Additional support was provided by the Biology Department and the Office of the Provost of Gettysburg College.

Compliance with ethical standards

The collection and use of all animals was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) of Gettysburg College.

References

  1. Ahren B (1985) Effects of alpha-adrenoceptor agonists and antagonists on thyroid hormone secretion. Acta Endocrinol 108:184–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antizar-Ladislao B (2008) Environmental levels, toxicity and human exposure to tributyltin (TBT)-contaminated marine environment. A review. Environ Int 34(2):292–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arai T, Harino H, Ohji M, Langston WJ (2009) Ecotoxicology of antifouling biocides. Springer, Tokyo.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-85709-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barr JM, Palmucci JR, Lambert OJ, Fong PP (2018) Exposure to the antifouling chemical medetomidine slows development, reduces body mass, and delays metamorphosis in wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) tadpoles. Env. Sci. Poll. Res. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-018-1204-2
  5. Bellas J, Hilvarsson A, Birgersson G, Granmo A (2006) Effects of medetomidine, a novel antifouling agent, on the burrowing bivalve Abra nitida (Muller). Chemosphere 65:575–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgett AA, Wright CD, Smith GR, Fortune DT, Johnson SL (2007) Impact of ammonium nitrate on wood frog (Rana sylvatica) tadpoles: effects on survivorship and behavior. Herpetological Conserv Biol 2(1):29–34Google Scholar
  7. Calabrese EJ (2003) The maturing of hormesis as a credible dose-response model. Nonlinearity Biol Toxicol Med 1(3):319–343Google Scholar
  8. Calabrese EJ (2008) Hormesis: why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(7):1451–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Champ MA (2003) Economic and environmental impacts on ports and harbors from the convention to ban harmful marine anti-fouling systems. Mar Pollut Bull 46:935–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Collins SJ, Russell RW (2009) Toxicity of road salt to Nova Scotia amphibians. Environ Pollut 157(1):320–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conners DE, Rogers ED, Armbrust KL, Kwon JW, Black MC (2009) Growth and development of tadpoles (Xenopus laevis) exposed to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors fluoxetine and sertraline, throughout metamorphosis. Environ Toxicol Chem 28:2671–2676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Egea-Serrano A, Relyea RA, Tejedo M, Torralva M (2012) Understanding of the impact of chemicals on amphibians: a meta-analytic review. Ecol Evol 2(7):1382–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eidietis L (2006) The tactile-stimulated startle response of tadpoles: acceleration performance and its relationship to the anatomy of wood frog (Rana sylvatica), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and American toad (Bufo americanus) tadpoles. J Exp Zool 305A:348–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. European Chemicals Agency (2008) CLH report for medetomidine, proposal for harmonised classification and labeling, UK Competent Authority. Available from: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13626/clh_proposal_medetomidine_en.pdf
  15. Floyd RH, Wade J, Crain DA (2008) Differential acute sensitivity of wild Rana sylvatica and laboratory Xenopus laevis tadpoles to the herbicide atrazine. Bios 79(3):115–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fraker SL, Smith GR (2004) Direct and interactive effects of ecologically relevant concentrations of organic wastewater contaminants on Rana pipiens tadpoles. Environ Toxicol 19(3):250–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frueh J, Gai M, Yang Z, He Q (2014) Influence of polyelectrolyte multilayer coating on the degree and type of biofouling in freshwater environment. J Nanosci Nanotechnol 14(6):4341–4350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gipperth L (2009) The legal design of the international and European Union ban on tributyltin antifouling paint: direct and indirect effects. J Environ Manag 90(supple. 1):S86–S95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gomez-Mestre I, Kulkarni S, Buchholz DR (2013) Mechanisms and consequences of developmental acceleration in tadpoles responding to pond drying. PLoS One 8(12):e84266.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hayes T, Haston K, Tsui M, Hoang A, Haeffele C, Vonk A (2003) Atrazine-induced hermaphroditism at 0.1 ppb in American leopard frogs (Rana pipiens): laboratory and field evidence. Environ Health Perspect 111(4):568–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hilvarsson A, Halldorsson HP, Granmo A (2007) Medetomidine as a candidate antifoulant: sublethal effects on juvenile turbot (Psetta maxima L.). Aquat Toxicol 83(3):238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Horsberg TE, Burka JF, Tasker RAR (1999) Actions and pharmacokinetic properties of the alpha-2-adrenergic agents, medetomidine and atipamezole, in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Vet Anaesth Analg 26(1):18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hossie TJ, Ferland-Raymond B, Burness G, Murray DL (2010) Morphological and behavioural responses of frog tadpoles to perceived predation risk: a possible role for corticosterone mediation? Ecoscience 17(1):100–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huang H, Brown DD (2000) Overexpression of Xenopus laevis growth hormone stimulates growth of tadpoles and frogs. Proc Natl Acad Sci 97:190–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Junges CM, Peltzer PM, Lajmanovich RC, Attademo AM, Cabagna Zenklusen MC, Basso A (2012) Toxicity of the fungicide trifloxystrobin on tadpoles and its effect on fish-tadpole interaction. Chemosphere 87:1348–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kerby JL, Richards-Hrdlicka KL, Storfer A, Skelly DK (2010) An examination of amphibian sensitivity to environmental contaminants: are amphibians poor canaries? Ecol Lett 13:60–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. LaFortune M, Mitchell MA, Smith JA (2001) Evaluation of medetomidine, clove oil and propofol for anesthesia of leopard frogs, Rana pipiens. J Herp Med Surg 11(4):13–18Google Scholar
  28. Lefcourt H, Meguire RA, Wilson LH, Ettinger WF (1998) Heavy metals alter the survival, growth, metamorphosis, and antipredatory behavior of Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) tadpoles. Arch Environ Con Toxicol 35(3):447–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lennquist A, Hilvarsson A, Forlin L (2010) Responses in fish exposed to medetomidine, a new antifouling agent. Mar Environ Res 69:S43–S45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lennquist A, Asker N, Kristiansson E, Brenthel A, Bjornsson BT, Kling P, Hultman M, Larsson DG, Forlin L (2011) Physiology and mRNA expression in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) after long-term exposure to the new antifoulant medetomidine. Comp Biochem Physiol C 154(3):234–241Google Scholar
  31. Maag N, Gehrer L, Woodhams DC (2012) Sink or swim: a test of tadpole behavioral responses to predator cues and potential alarm pheromones from skin secretions. J Comp Physiol A 198:841–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Marco A, Quilchano C, Blaustein AR (1999) Sensitivity to nitrate and nitrite in pond-breeding amphibians from the Pacific Northwest, USA. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(12):2836–2839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Martins SE, Fillmann G, Lillicrap A, Thomas KV (2018) Review: ecotoxicity of organic and organo-metallic antifouling co-biocides and implications for environmental hazard and risk assessments in aquatic ecosystems. Biofouling 34(1):34–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Miyata K, Ose K (2012) Thyroid hormone-disrupting effects and the amphibian metamorphosis assay. J Toxicol Pathol 25(1):1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nakano D, Strayer DL (2014) Biofouling animals in fresh water: biology, impacts, and ecosystem engineering. Front Ecol Environ 12:167–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nations S, Long M, Wages M, Maul JD, Theodorakis CW, Cobb GP (2015) Subchronic and chronic developmental effects of copper oxide (CuO) nanoparticles on Xenopus laevis. Chemosphere 135:166–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ohlauson C, Eriksson KM, Blanck H (2012) Short-term effects of medetomidine on photosynthesis and protein synthesis in periphyton, epipsammon and plankton communities in relation to predicted environmental concentrations. Biofouling 28(5):491–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seiler JP (2002) Pharmacodynamic activity of drugs and ecotoxicology-can the two be connected? Toxicol Lett 131:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stanley JK, Perkins EJ, Habib T, Sims JG, Pornsawan C, Escalon BL, Wilbanks M, Garcia-Reyero N (2013) The good, the bad, and the toxic: approaching hormesis in Daphnia magna exposed to an energetic compound. Environ Sci Technol 47:9424–9433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Thompson LB, Carfagno GLF, Andresen K, Sitton AJ, Bury TB, Lee LL, Lerner KT, Fong PP (2017) Differential uptake of gold nanoparticles by 2 species of tadpole, the wood frog (Lithobates sylvaticus) and the bullfrog (L. catesbeianus). Environ Toxicol Chem 36(12):3351–3358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Venn RM, Bryant A, Hall GM, Grounds RM (2001) Effects of dexmedetomidine on adrenocortical function, and the cardiovascular, endocrine and inflammatory responses in post-operative patients needing sedation in the intensive care unit. Br J Anaesth 86:650–656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wendt I, Backhaus T, Blanck H, Arrhenius A (2016) The toxicity of the three antifouling biocides DCOIT, TPBP and medetomidine to the marine pelagic copepod Acartia tonsa. Ecotoxicology 25:871–879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Willis K, Woods C (2011) Managing invasive Styela clava populations: inhibiting larval recruitment with medetomidine. Aquat Invasions 6:511–514CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wood TS, Marsh TG (1999) Biofouling of wastewater treatment plants by the freshwater bryozoan, Plumatella vaihiriae (Hastings, 1929). Water Res 33(3):609–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter P. Fong
    • 1
    Email author
  • Olivia J. Lambert
    • 1
  • Margot L. Hoagland
    • 2
  • Emily R. Kurtz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyGettysburg CollegeGettysburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of Health SciencesGettysburg CollegeGettysburgUSA

Personalised recommendations