Abstract
The polychaete Diopatra neapolitana is a cosmopolitan annelid that can robustly regenerate both its anterior and posterior body part depending on the position of the amputation. Previous studies demonstrated that body regeneration represents a sensitive and unspecific response to environmental stresses, including contaminants and climate alterations.
The posterior body regeneration of D. neapolitana is thus a suitable, ecological and relevant biomarker in ecotoxicological and ecological risk assessment assays. Here we describe the amputation process, the monitoring of the regeneration process of the polychaete D. neapolitana and the quantification of the impact of environmental stresses on its regenerative capacity.
You have full access to this open access chapter, Download protocol PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Key words
1 Introduction
Annelids are known for their efficient wound healing and their capacity to regenerate both anterior and posterior segments after loss by injury [1, 2]. This regenerative ability varies significantly within the phylum, and some species can regenerate an entire individual from a single segment while others are much more limited [3]. Previous works demonstrated that species of the genus Diopatra could regenerate anterior and posterior segments and prostomial structures [3,4,5,6]. This mechanism performs a critical role in survivorship after tissue loss due to sublethal predation and harvesting [5, 7]. Additionally, it can also aid in recovery from injuries due to physical alterations [8].
Several studies demonstrated that exposure to environmental stressors such as contaminants or abiotic alterations reduced the regenerative capacity of polychaetes [9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17], with organisms regenerating slower and usually fewer chaetigers (segments that have chaetae). Nusetti et al. [9] observed that the polychaete Eurythoe complanata exposed to crankcase oil took longer to regenerate a new region and regenerated fewer segments. Exposure to micro- and nanoplastics reduced the capacity of Perinereis aibuhitensis and Hediste diversicolor to regenerate their posterior ends [14, 15]. Diopatra neapolitana exposed to several contaminants, such as metals, pharmaceuticals, carbon nanotubes, and environmental enrichment presented a delay in posterior segments regeneration, taking longer to achieve complete regeneration, and regenerated fewer segments [10,11,12,13, 16, 18]. Moreover, exposure to abiotic alterations, including pH variations and salinity changes, also reduced the regenerative ability of D. neapolitana [17].
Although the majority of toxicity studies with polychaetes have been conducted using the species H. diversicolor [14, 19,20,21,22,23], most of those regarding the use of the regenerative ability as a biomarker were carried out with the species D. neapolitana due to this process being well documented for Diopatra species (e.g., [3, 5, 24]). Additionally, this species represents a wide spatial distribution, being reported in intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats, namely, in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean [25], Mediterranean Sea [25,26,28], and the Atlantic Ocean [6, 28,29,31]. Furthermore, Diopatra species play an important ecological and economic role. Their tubes stabilize the sediments, increasing their structural complexity and thus their biodiversity, by supplying refugia from disturbance and predation [32] and facilitating the settlement and the attachment of some algal species [33]. Moreover, this species is commonly harvested to be sold as fish bait [31, 34, 35]. Altogether, these studies suggest that the regenerative capacity of polychaetes is a suitable biomarker in ecotoxicological and ecological risk assessment assays since it is sensitive to environmental stressors, including organic and inorganic contaminants and climate alterations.
The mechanisms behind this sensitive yet unspecific response to environmental stresses in Diopatra remain to be elucidated. Some authors suggested that the delay in regenerative capacity could be related to exposure to oxidative stress [10, 11, 14, 17] since free radicals may damage the biochemical and cellular functions that underlie the regenerative process. Moreover, Soneja et al. [36] reported that oxidative stress prolonged chronic wound inflammation as it stimulates cells of the immune system. Delayed regeneration may impact the sexual reproduction of individuals, as organisms will canalize their reserves toward tissue regeneration rather than producing gametes [5,6,7]. Also, the delay of organisms in starting gamete production compromises population maintenance, with consequences for communities and ecosystems [8].
Consequently, due to this species’ ecological importance, understanding the interplay between environmental stresses and regenerative capacity is particularly pertinent since delays in regenerative capacity may negatively impact population and ecosystem function.
This chapter presents a detailed protocol to study the impacts of environmental stressors in the posterior regenerative capacity in field-collected organisms of the polychaete D. neapolitana .
2 Materials
All reagents should be prepared with sterile reverse osmosis water and stored at room temperature (RT) unless otherwise stated.
-
1.
20 × 15 × 40 cm (W × L × H) glass aquariums (see Note 1).
-
2.
Sediments: clean medium or fine sand with low organic matter content. Collect from nonpolluted organisms’ sampling site (see Note 2).
-
3.
Artificial seawater (ASW): 30 g/L commercial synthetic sea salt (e.g., Tropic Marin Sea Salt) (see Note 3). Prepare at least 1 day before use.
-
4.
Aeration system.
-
5.
Acclimated culture room: photoperiod (12 h light:12 h dark), controlled temperature, constant aeration.
-
6.
Diopatra food: collect shellfish in a clean site, cut in 2 mm3 cubes, store until needed at −20 °C (see Note 4).
-
7.
Contaminated ASW (e.g., 0 to 0.25 μg/L of arsenic).
-
8.
Contaminated sediments (e.g., 0 to 9 mg/kg of lead).
-
9.
Anesthetizing solution: 4% (w/v) MgCl2·6H2O in ASW.
-
10.
Imaging setup: stereomicroscope with a camera attached and a ruler for measuring organisms.
3 Methods
3.1 Collection of Organisms and Acclimation
-
1.
Setup the acclimated culture room to the desired conditions (see Note 5).
-
2.
Fill each aquaria to be used with 3 L of sediment (see Note 6).
-
3.
Add 9 L of ASW.
-
4.
Add aeration to the aquaria.
-
5.
Choose a sampling site where D. neapolitana can be found (see Note 7).
-
6.
Identify a tube containing a specimen (Fig. 1a, see Note 8).
-
7.
Pitch a shovel 10 cm away from the tube, with an inclination of about 45° and deep up to 30 cm (Fig. 1b).
-
8.
Expose the tube by digging the shovel.
-
9.
Transfer Diopatra neapolitana inside their tube into a transport bucket (see Note 9).
-
10.
Repeat steps 6 to 9 until sufficient specimens are collected.
-
11.
Repeat steps 5 to 10 until all the target sampling sites have been explored.
-
12.
Transfer the animals to the lab (see Note 10).
-
13.
Fill a beaker with 2 L ASW.
-
14.
Pick a Diopatra tube using a pair of tweezers.
-
15.
Flush the anterior end of the tube to force the specimen out of its tube into the beaker using ASW (see Note 11).
-
16.
Transfer organisms with more than 60 chaetigers into the prepared aquaria but discard regenerating specimens (Fig. 2a, b, see Note 12).
-
17.
Repeat steps 14 to 16 until all tubes are processed.
-
18.
Repeat steps 13 to 17 until all transfer buckets are emptied of their animals.
-
19.
Wait 24 h.
-
20.
Discard animals that have not rebuilt a new tube.
-
21.
Discard unhealthy animals (see Note 13).
-
22.
Wait 24 h.
-
23.
Repeat steps 21 and 22 for 5 more days.
-
24.
Renew water of every aquarium.
-
25.
Place a piece of Diopatra food near the entrance of each tube as such as organisms can detect it.
-
26.
Wait 2 h for the animals to consume the food.
-
27.
Remove the food that is not consumed.
-
28.
Repeat steps 21 and 22 for 2 more days (see Note 14).
-
29.
Repeat steps 25 to 28 two more times.
-
30.
Renew water of every aquarium.
-
31.
Discard animals that have not healed their damaged posterior part (see Note 15).
-
32.
Repeat steps 25 to 30 to maintain the culture of Diopatra (see Note 16).
Diopatra neapolitana anterior end ventral view (a) and dorsal view (b); (c) D. neapolitana specimen regenerating the posterior end, (d) D. neapolitana with posterior end regenerated. The newly regenerated chaetigers have a lighter color, being possible to observe the blood vessels through the body wall. 10—chaetiger 10, 60—chaetiger 60, P—Prostomium, Br—Branchiae, Pa—parapode, R—width of the regenerated chaetiger; NR—width of the not regenerated chaetiger (chaetiger 60); RS—specimen with posterior end fully regenerated
3.2 Regeneration Assay
Experiments should be carried out with acclimatized specimens of similar size. The impacts of environmental stresses are tested by exposing the regenerating organisms to contaminated sediments and/or contaminated water.
-
1.
Follow steps 1 to 4 in Subheading 3.1 to prepare the aquariums for each condition that will be tested and for the controls (see Note 17).
-
2.
Follow steps 13 to 15 in Subheading 3.1 to remove the specimens from their tubes.
-
3.
Transfer an animal to a petri dish filled with 100 mL of anesthetizing solution.
-
4.
Wait 15 min for the animal to anesthetize (see Note 18).
-
5.
Transfer the dish under a stereomicroscope.
-
6.
Measure the width of the tenth chaetiger (without parapodia) using the ruler (Fig. 2b, see Notes 19 and 20).
-
7.
Amputate the anesthetized organism at the 60th chaetiger (see Note 21) (Fig. 2b) with a scalpel.
-
8.
Transfer the animal into a beaker filled with 100 mL ASW.
-
9.
Wait 20 min for the animal to “wake up” and start to swim in ASW.
-
10.
Select organisms with similar sizes for the regeneration assay (see Note 20).
-
11.
Place the amputated specimen in the experiment aquarium.
-
12.
Repeat steps 3 to 11 to measure and amputate at least nine individuals per condition.
-
13.
Follow steps 25 to 30 in Subheading 3.1 to feed the regenerating animals.
-
14.
Renew the water of each tank with the corresponding culture condition.
-
15.
Repeat steps 3 to 5 to anesthetize an animal.
-
16.
Measure the width of the regenerated body part (R), the width of the last nonregenerated segment (NR) (Fig. 2c) and count the number of regenerating segments (RS), identified by the lighter color and/or the narrower width compared to the rest of the body (Figs. 2c and 3a–f, see Note 22).
-
17.
Return the anesthetized animal to its experiment aquarium.
-
18.
Repeat steps 15 to 17 to measure all animals.
-
19.
Repeat steps 14 to 18 once a week until complete regeneration (see Notes 23 and 24).
-
20.
Quantify the regenerative capacity of each condition through three parameters: the percentage of body regenerated (R/NR, Figs. 2c and 3a–f), the number of segments regenerated (RS), and the time needed to achieve complete regeneration (i.e., when R = NR, Fig. 2d).
Different levels of posterior regeneration of Diopatra neapolitana exposed to sediments contaminated with lead (0.0, 3.0, 9.0 mg/kg). Photographic record of the regeneration process 14 (left column) and 28 days (right column) after amputation at control (a and b), 3.0 mg/kg (c and d), and 9.0 mg/kg (e and f)
4 Notes
-
1.
Keep animals at a maximum density of 50 individuals/m2. For example, this 20 × 15 cm aquarium can contain 14 organisms. Vary the size of the aquaria based on the number of organisms that will be used in each experiment.
-
2.
If possible, use the sediments of the same sampling site where organisms will be collected. If these sediments do not have good characteristics, use sediment from another clean site. Alternatively, use commercial sand.
-
3.
Salinity and pH should be adapted to parameters recorded in the sampling site. Alternatively, 0.22 μm filter-sterilized seawater (FSW) collected from the sampling site can be used.
-
4.
Cockles and mussels are Diopatra’s preferred shellfish. Make sure to collect in a clean site. Alternatively, use commercial fish food (46% protein, 11% lipids) as feed. If commercial fish food is adopted, feed each organism with about 10 mg.
-
5.
Organisms should be maintained at a constant temperature, salinity and pH similar to those measured in the collection site. In our case, experiments are usually carried out at a temperature between 17–20 °C, salinity between 28 and 30, and pH 7.8.
-
6.
The height of the sediment in the aquarium should be about 10–12 cm. Diopatra neapolitana adults are very long, but organisms are not collected whole. Additionally, organisms construct their tubes with some inclination; thus, this height of sediment is suitable.
-
7.
D. neapolitana are cosmopolitan tubiculous animals that live in muddy or muddy sand intertidal areas. They can be easily detected by the presence of their tubes on the sediment surface since they protrude a few millimeters above the surface of the sediment (Fig. 1a).
-
8.
A tube with water is an inhabited tube. On the other hand, if the tube contains sediment inside, it is not inhabited by the polychaete .
-
9.
Organisms are not collected entire, as they are very long; only the anterior end is usually collected. Avoid collecting organisms during the reproductive period (usually during summer months [27, 37]).
-
10.
Animals can stand up to 2 h in transport buckets. The tubes could be complemented with macroalgae to maintain the organisms up to 6 h in the buckets.
-
11.
It is important to remove the organisms from their tubes because their tubes usually have attached pieces of algae and other materials in the vicinity of the tube that will decompose and contaminate the clean sand. Organisms without tube will construct a new tube with the sand in a few hours.
-
12.
Sampled specimens that show signs of undergoing regeneration will not be used in the experiment. They can be distinguished by the lighter color and/or the narrower regenerating chaetigers compared to the rest of the body (Fig. 2c).
-
13.
In dead or dying organisms, the anterior end (antennae and some segments) usually remains outside the tube. To check their vitality, touch them in the portion located outside of the tube. If the polychaete runs into the tube, it means that it is alive. However, if it does not run into the tube, it means that it is dying. In this situation, remove the organism from the aquarium with its tube. Dead organisms should be immediately removed from the aquarium because they begin to decompose very quickly and contaminate water and sediment.
-
14.
If needed, animals can be fed every 2 days.
-
15.
Since organisms are very long, they cannot be harvested as a whole; consequently, it is necessary to ensure that their integrity is reestablished. This period is critical to understand if the organisms have already started to heal the posterior end. Healthy organisms should have at least healed the damaged part after 1 week. Do not use specimens that have not healed after these 2 weeks.
-
16.
Diopatra can be maintained in culture for several months. Healthy organisms will heal and completely regenerate the posterior end in 2 months [38]. In this case, organisms should be changed for larger aquaria, with 20 cm of sediment (height).
-
17.
We advise to prepare at least three aquariums per condition.
-
18.
Organisms take about 15 to 20 min to become anesthetized. Do not maintain organisms anesthetized longer than 1 h because they may not recover.
-
19.
The width of the tenth chaetiger is commonly used as the unit of size among Diopatra species as it is challenging to capture entire Diopatra animals [39, 40].
-
20.
Organisms can differ by a margin of about 2 mm; for example, choose organisms with the width of the tenth chaetigers between 6 and 8 mm.
-
21.
Studies conducted by Pires et al. [5] further revealed that, under laboratory conditions simulating environmental conditions, D. neapolitana specimens are able to regenerate the anterior body part only when organisms are amputated up to the 15th chaetiger, where the posterior end can regenerate the missing anterior part. Polychaetes, when amputated at chaetiger 3, 10 and 15 have a survival capacity of 87.5%, 75% and 50%, respectively and regenerated the anterior end. Individuals amputated around chaetiger 20 cannot regenerate and do not survive. D. neapolitana organisms amputated at chaetiger 25 and beyond only regenerated the posterior part. Individuals amputated between the 25th chaetiger, 40th and after branchial region (around 60th chaetiger) are able to regenerate and present a survival capacity ranging from 50%, 81.3% and 100%, respectively [5]. Considering these results, we suggest to amputate the animals at chaetiger 60 for all organisms to survive the procedure.
-
22.
On the first week, the regenerated portion does not form individualized segments; therefore, it is not possible to count the chaetigers.
-
23.
Full regeneration as evidenced by the same width between the older and the newly formed chaetigers (Fig. 2d) is observed for D. neapolitana organisms (not exposed to stressful conditions) between day 50 and 60 after amputation [38]. The regenerated portion appears lighter than the original segments (Fig. 2d).
-
24.
Shorter experiments could be conducted for 28 days only, but regeneration speed will not be measurable.
References
Bely AE (2014) Early events in annelid regeneration: a cellular perspective. Integr Comp Biol 54(4):688–699. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icu109
Zattara EE, Bely AE (2016) Phylogenetic distribution of regeneration and asexual reproduction in Annelida: regeneration is ancestral and fission evolves in regenerative clades. Invertebr Biol 135(4):400–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-142X.2010.00458.x
Bely AE (2006) Distribution of segment regeneration ability in the Annelida. Integr Comp Biol 46(4):508–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icj051
Berke SK, Mahon AR, Lima FP, Halanych KM, Wethey DS, Woodin SA (2010) Range shifts and species diversity in marine ecosystem engineers: patterns and predictions for European sedimentary habitats. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 19(2):223–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1466-8238.2009.00509.x
Pires A, Freitas R, Quintino V, Rodrigues AM (2012) Can Diopatra neapolitana (Annelida: Onuphidae) regenerate body damage caused by bait digging or predation? Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 110:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.12.039
Pires A, Quintino V, Gentil F, Freitas R, Rodrigues AM (2012) Reproductive biology of a brooding Diopatra species: Diopatra marocensis Paxton et al., 1995. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 110:85–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2011.00463.x
Zajac RN (1985) The effects of sublethal predation on reproduction in the spionid polychaete Polydora ligni Webster. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 88(1):1–19
Lindsay SM (2010) Frequency of injury and the ecology of regeneration in marine benthic invertebrates. Integr Comp Biol 50(4):479–493. https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/icq099
Nusetti O, Zapata-Vívenes E, Esclapés MM, Rojas A (2005) Antioxidant enzymes and tissue regeneration in Eurythoe complanata (Polychaeta: Amphinomidae) exposed to used vehicle crankcase oil. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 48(4):509–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00244-004-0041-0
Carregosa V, Velez C, Pires A, Soares AMVM, Figueira E, Freitas R (2014) Physiological and biochemical responses of the Polychaete Diopatra neapolitana to organic matter enrichment. Aquat Toxicol 155:32–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2014.05.029
Coppola F, Pires A, Velez C, Soares AMVM, Pereira E, Figueira E et al (2016) Biochemical and physiological alterations induced in Diopatra neapolitana after a long-term exposure to arsenic. Comp Biochem Physiol Pt C Toxicol Pharmacol 189:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpc.2016.06.006
Pires A, Almeida Â, Correia J, Calisto V, Schneider RJ, Esteves VI et al (2016) Long-term exposure to caffeine and carbamazepine: impacts on the regenerative capacity of the polychaete Diopatra neapolitana. Chemosphere 146:565–573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.035
Pires A, Velez C, Figueira E, Soares AMVM, Freitas R (2017) Effects of sediment contamination on physiological and biochemical responses of the polychaete Diopatra neapolitana, an exploited natural resource. Mar Pollut Bull 119(1):119–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.03.014
Silva MSS, Oliveira M, Lopéz D, Martins M, Figueira E, Pires A (2020) Do nanoplastics impact the ability of the polychaeta Hediste diversicolor to regenerate? Ecol Indic 110(September 2019):105921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105921
Leung J, Chan KYK (2018) Microplastics reduced posterior segment regeneration rate of the polychaete Perinereis aibuhitensis. Mar Pollut Bull 129(2):782–786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.10.072
De Marchi L, Neto V, Pretti C, Figueira E, Chiellini F, Soares AMVM et al (2017) Physiological and biochemical responses of two keystone polychaete species: Diopatra neapolitana and Hediste diversicolor to multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Environ Res 154(December 2016):126–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.12.018
Pires A, Figueira E, Moreira A, Soares AMVM, Freitas R (2015) The effects of water acidification, temperature and salinity on the regenerative capacity of the polychaete Diopatra neapolitana. Mar Environ Res 106(1):30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2015.03.002
Freitas R, Coelho D, Pires A, Soares AMVM, Figueira E, Nunes B (2015) Preliminary evaluation of Diopatra neapolitana regenerative capacity as a biomarker for paracetamol exposure. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22(17):13382–13392. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-015-4589-1
Moreira SM, Lima I, Ribeiro R, Guilhermino L (2006) Effects of estuarine sediment contamination on feeding and on key physiological functions of the polychaete Hediste diversicolor: laboratory and in situ assays. Aquat Toxicol 78(2):186–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2006.03.001
Solé M, Kopecka-Pilarczyk J, Blasco J (2009) Pollution biomarkers in two estuarine invertebrates, Nereis diversicolor and Scrobicularia plana, from a marsh ecosystem in SW Spain. Environ Int 35(3):523–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2008.09.013
Gomes T, Gonzalez-Rey M, Rodríguez-Romero A, Trombini C, Riba I, Blasco J et al (2013) Biomarkers in Nereis diversicolor (Polychaeta: Nereididae) as management tools for environmental assessment on the southwest Iberian coast. Sci Mar 77(S1):69–78. https://doi.org/10.3989/scimar.03731.27F
Silva MSS, Pires A, Almeida M, Oliveira M (2020) The use of Hediste diversicolor in the study of emerging contaminants. Mar Environ Res 159:105013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marenvres.2020.105013
Silva MSS, Oliveira M, Valente P, Figueira E, Martins M, Pires A (2020) Behavior and biochemical responses of the polychaeta Hediste diversicolor to polystyrene nanoplastics. Sci Total Environ 707:134434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134434
Berke SK, Cruz V, Osman RW (2009) Sublethal predation and regeneration in two onuphid polychaetes: patterns and implications. Biol Bull 217(3):242–252
Wehe T, Fiege D (2002) Annotated checklist of the polychaete species of the seas surrounding the Arabian peninsula: Red Sea, Gulf of Aden, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Oman. Arab Gulf Fauna Arab 19:7–238
Arvanitides C (2000) Polychaete fauna of the Aegean Sea: inventory and new information. Bull Mar Sci 66:73–96
Daǧli E, Ergen Z, Çinar ME (2005 Sep) One-year observation on the population structure of Diopatra neapolitana Delle Chiaje (Polychaeta: Onuphidae) in Izmir Bay (Aegean Sea, eastern Mediterranean). Mar Ecol 26(3–4):265–272. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2005.00055.x
Gambi M, Giangrande A (1986) Distribution of soft-bottom polychaetes in two coastal areas of the Tyrrhenian Sea (Italy): structural analysis. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 23:847–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7714(86)90076-4
Fauvel P (1923) Polychétes errantes. In: Fauna de France V, vol 5. Le Chevalier, Paris, 488 p
Lourido A, Cacabelos E, Troncoso JS (2008) Patterns of distribution of the polychaete fauna in subtidal soft sediments of the Ría de Aldán (North-Western Spain). J Mar Biol Assoc 88(2):263–275. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315408000696
Cunha T, Hall A, Queiroga H (2005) Estimation of the Diopatra neapolitana annual harvest resulting from digging activity in canal de Mira, Ria de Aveiro. Fish Res 76(1):56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2005.05.008
Bailey-Brock JH (1984) Ecology of the tube-building polychaete Diopatra leuckarti Kinberg, 1865 (Onuphidae) in Hawaii: community structure, and sediment stabilizing properties. Zool J Linn Soc 80(2–3):191–199. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1984.tb01972.x
Thomsen MS, McGlathery K (2005) Facilitation of macroalgae by the sedimentary tube forming polychaete Diopatra cuprea. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 62(1–2):63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2004.08.007
Gambi MC, Castelli A, Giangrande A, Lanera P, Prevedelli D, Vandini RZ (1994) Polychaetes of commercial and applied interest in Italy: an overview. Mèmoires du Musèum Natl dHistoire Nat 162(July):593–603
Conti MF (1998) Experienze de allavamento del polichete Diopatra neapolitana Delle Chiaje, 1841 nella Laguna di S. Gilla (Sardegna Meridionale). Biol Mar Mediterr 5:1473–1480
Soneja A, Drews M, Malinski T (2005) Role of nitric oxide, nitroxidative and oxidative stress in wound healing. Pharmacol Rep 57:108–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2013.04.024
Pires A, Gentil F, Quintino V, Rodrigues AM (2012) Reproductive biology of Diopatra neapolitana (Annelida, Onuphidae), an exploited natural resource in ria de Aveiro (northwestern Portugal). Mar Ecol 33(1):56–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0485.2011.00463.x
Pires A, Freitas R, Quintino V, Rodrigues AM (2012) Can Diopatra neapolitana (Annelida: Onuphidae) regenerate body damage caused by bait digging or predation? Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 110:36–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2011.12.039
Arias A, Paxton H (2015) The cryptogenic bait worm Diopatra biscayensis Fauchald et al., 2012 (Annelida: Onuphidae)—Revisiting its history, biology and ecology. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 163(PB):22–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2015.05.033
Pires A, Paxton H, Quintino V, Rodrigues AM (2010) Diopatra (Annelida: Onuphidae) diversity in European waters with the description of Diopatra micrura, new species. Zootaxa 2395:17–33
Acknowledgments
Thanks to FCT/MCTES for the financial support to CESAM (UIDP/50017/2020+UIDB/50017/2020+ LA/P/0094/2020) through national funds. This work was also financially supported by the project BIOGEOCLIM—PTDC/CTA-GQU/29185/2017 (POCI-01-0145-FEDER-029185) funded by FEDER, through COMPETE2020—Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI), and by national funds (OE), through FCT/MCTES. Adília Pires was contracted by national funds (OE), through FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P., in the scope of the framework contract foreseen in the numbers 4, 5, and 6 of the article 23, of the Decree-Law 57/2016, of August 29, changed by Law 57/2017, of July 19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s)
About this protocol
Cite this protocol
Pires, A. (2022). Studying Annelida Body Regeneration Under Environmental Stress in Diopatra neapolitana . In: Blanchoud, S., Galliot, B. (eds) Whole-Body Regeneration. Methods in Molecular Biology, vol 2450. Humana, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2172-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2172-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Humana, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-0716-2171-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-0716-2172-1
eBook Packages: Springer Protocols