| Literature DB >> 24494054 |
Lizabeth O Southworth1, Michael F Holick2, Tai C Chen2, Thomas H Kunz1.
Abstract
It has long been accepted that most vertebrate animals meet their vitamin D requirements from exposure of skin to UV-B (UV-B) radiation. Many factors affect this endogenous synthesis of vitamin D, including season, latitude, time of day, age, presence of hair, and degree of skin pigmentation. Most bats roost in dark places by day and forage at night, and thus have little or no potential for sunlight exposure. Notwithstanding, some tropical species are diurnal and are known to roost in the canopy of trees where they may be exposed to sunlight for up to 12 h each day. In this study, two species of captive tropical bats (both species are active at night but one, Rousettus aegyptiacus, roosts in caves, tombs, and buildings, whereas the other, Pteropus hypomelanus, roosts in trees) were evaluated for their ability to endogenously synthesize vitamin D. Following timed periods of sunlight exposure, blood plasma was analyzed using a competitive protein binding assay (CPBA) to determine concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D], the major circulating vitamin D metabolite. The ability to photoconvert provitamin D (7-dehydrocholesterol, 7-DHC) in the sub-tropical winter was determined using sunlight exposed borosilicate samples of 7-DHC in hourly increments. Finally, both species were evaluated in their preference for a roost site by the release of individuals into sunlight or shade in timed trials. OUR RESULTS SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESES: (1) when exposed to natural sunlight, both species exhibited an ability to endogenously synthesize vitamin D, although significant differences were found between the two, (2) photoconversion of 7-DHC to previtamin D3 is possible during the mid-day hours of a sub-tropical winter day and (3) captive, cave roosting R. aegyptiacus will choose shaded roost sites while captive P. hypomelanus will show no preference for either shade or sun.Entities:
Keywords: Chiroptera; UV-B radiation; bats; calcium; sunlight; vitamin D
Year: 2013 PMID: 24494054 PMCID: PMC3897589 DOI: 10.4161/derm.24020
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dermatoendocrinol ISSN: 1938-1972
Table 1. Comparison of circulating 25(OH)D after 5 h daily sun exposure in 2 species of Old World fruit bats
| 25(OH)D (without sunlight, ng/ml) | 25(OH)D (with sunlight, ng/ml) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 30 d | 60 Days | 90 Days | 0 | 30 d | 60 Days | 90 Days | ||||
| 1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 1 | 7.0 | 24.0 | 48.0 | 36.0 | ||
| 2 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 2 | 5.8 | 40.0 | 68.0 | 94.0 | ||
| 3 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 3 | 6.8 | 17.0 | ND1 | 74.0 | ||
| 4 | 8.6 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 4 | 5.6 | 11.0 | 35.0 | 54.0 | ||
| 5 | ND1 | ND1 | ND | ND1 | 5 | 6.8 | 50.0 | 100.0 | 105.0 | ||
| 0 | 30 d | 60 Days | 90 Days | 0 | 30 d | 60 Days | 90 Days | ||||
| 1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 1 | ND1 | 7.8 | ND1 | 7.8 | ||
| 2 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 2 | ND1 | 10.5 | 10.0 | 18.5 | ||
| 3 | 23.5 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 3 | 7.8 | 13.5 | 10.5 | 12.3 | ||
| 4 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 4 | 9.0 | 5.5 | 9.0 | 13.3 | ||
| 5 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | ND1 | 5 | 11.3 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 17.0 | ||
1ND, Not Detectable (< 5.0 ng/mL).

Figure 1. Comparison of circulating 25(OH)D after 5 h daily sun exposure in 2 species of old world fruit bats. ▲ R. aegyptiacus (with sunlight), △ R. aegyptiacus (without sunlight), ■ P. hypomelanus (with sunlight), □ P. hypomelanus (without sunlight). The data shown is the mean +/− the standard deviation of 5 test animals. At 90 d the difference is significant at p = 0.008 for bats exposed to sunlight vs. those not exposed to sunlight.

Figure 2. Percent conversion of provitamin D to previtamin D and its photoproducts on a clear sunny day in January in ● Gainesville, FL. and ■ Boston, MA.
Table 2. Preference for sun or shade in two species of Old World fruit bats when released into the sun or shade Released into the Sun
| LAC1 | 5 min | LAC1 | 5 min | ||
| 1 | 11.58 s | Shade | 1 | 2.95 s | Shade |
| 2 | none | Sun | 2 | 1.67 s | Shade |
| 3 | none | Sun | 3 | 1.75 s | Shade |
| 4 | 4 min 23.00 s | Shade | 4 | 1.82 s2 | Shade |
| 5 | 22.54 s | Shade | 5 | 2.17 s2 | Shade |
| 6 | 28.22 s | Shade | 6 | 0.96 s | Shade |
| 7 | none | Sun | 7 | 2.40 s | Shade |
| 8 | none | Sun | 8 | 9.94 s | Shade |
| 9 | none | Sun | 9 | 0.98 s2 | Shade |
| 10 | none | Sun | 10 | 1.47 s | Shade |
| 11 | 0.74 s2 | Shade |
1LAC, Latency to Alternate Condition. 2Indicates brief, usually 2–3s flight into and out of alternate condition, sometimes more than once and in one case for 17s. However, the bat always returned to the shade.
Table 3. Preference for sun or shade in two species of Old World fruit bats at different times of the day
| Time of day | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | n | 10:00 | 11:00 | 12:00 | 13:00 | 14:00 | 15:00 |
| 9 | |||||||
| Sun | 9 | 9 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 7 | |
| Shade | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
| 11 | |||||||
| Sun | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Shade | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | |