| Literature DB >> 27955686 |
Stanko Skugor1, Helle Jodaa Holm2, Anne Kari Bjelland3, Jorge Pino4, Øystein Evensen2, Aleksei Krasnov5, Simon Wadsworth4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduction of Lepeophtheirus salmonis infection in Atlantic salmon achieved by glucosinolates (GLs) from Brassica plants was recently reported. However, wider application of functional feeds based on GLs requires better knowledge of their positive and adverse effects.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidant; Atlantic salmon; Detoxification; Functional feeds; Glucosinolates; Iron; Lepeophtheirus salmonis; Salmo salar; Salmon louse
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27955686 PMCID: PMC5153675 DOI: 10.1186/s13071-016-1921-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Parasit Vectors ISSN: 1756-3305 Impact factor: 3.876
Mean weight ± standard deviation (SD) and mean condition factor ± SD in not infected fish exposed to 0% of the GLs-containing raw ingredient (NI-C) and 13% (NI-13) in Trial 1. Data was analyzed by t-test
| Trial 1 | NI-C ( | NI-13 ( |
|---|---|---|
| Weighta (g) | 825.6 ± 117.5 | 805 ± 139 |
| CFb | 1.52 ± 0.08 | 1.56 ± 0.08 |
at-test: t(34) = 0.49, P = 0.62
bCondition factor was calculated by the formula (weight*100/length3) for each individual fish. t-test: t(34) = 1.37, P = 0.18
Mean weight ± standard deviation (SD) and condition factor ± SD in L. salmonis-infected fish exposed to 0% of the GLs-containing raw ingredient (I-C), 3.6% (I-3.6) and 13% (I-13) in Trial 2. Data were analyzed by One-way ANOVA
| Trial 2 | I-C ( | I-3.6 ( | I-13 ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Weighta (g) | 871 ± 127 | 751 ± 121**** | 726 ± 113**** |
| CFb | 1.43 ± 0.13 | 1.54 ± 0.16**** | 1.52 ± 0.13*** |
***P < 0.001, **** P < 0.0001: significant differences in comparisons with control
aANOVA: F (2,177) = 24.86, I-C vs I-3.6 P < 0.0001, I-C vs I-13 P < 0.0001
bCondition factor was calculated by the formula (weight*100/length3) for each individual fish. ANOVA: F (2,177) = 11.37, I-C vs I-3.6 P < 0.0001, I-C vs I-13 P < 0.001
Mean weight ± SD and condition factor ± SD in L. salmonis-infected fish exposed to 0% of the GLs-containing raw ingredient (I-C), 0.5% (I-0.5), 1% (I-1) and 2% (I-2) in Trial 3
| Trial 3 | I-C ( | I-0.5 ( | I-1 ( | I-2 ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weighta | 540 ± 110 | 554 ± 103 | 540 ± 119 | 553 ± 103 |
| CFb | 1.2 ± 0.08 | 1.2 ± 0.08 | 1.2 ± 0.07 | 1.2 ± 0.05 |
aANOVA: F (3,292) = 0.4, P = 0.75
bCondition factor was calculated by the formula (weight*100/length3) for each individual fish. ANOVA: F (3,291) = 1.85, P = 0.14
Fig. 1Blood plasma levels (mean ± SEM) of total bilirubin (a), cholesterol (b), alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (c), aspartate aminotransferase (AST) (d), creatine kinase (CK) (e) and sodium (Na+) to potassium (K+) ratio (Na/K) (f) in not infected (NI) fish exposed to 0% of GLs (NI-C) and an extreme dose of GLs (NI-13) and infected fish (I) fed feed with 0% of GLs-containing raw ingredient (I-C), 3.6% (I-3.6) and 13% (I-13). Blood plasma profiling was performed on 15 individuals from NI-C and 16 individuals from NI-13 in Trial 1, and 9 fish from each of the groups in Trial 2. Asterisks shown between NI and I groups refer to statistical differences of NI-C and NI-13 as one group vs I-C, I-3.6 and I-13 as the other group. Asterisks shown above bars denote significant differences between two groups. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01
Fig. 2a Scoring of liver steatosis by light microscopy in Trial 1, 2 and 3. Liver sections from Trial 1 (NI-C and NI-13), Trial 2 (I-C, I-3.6 and I-13) and Trial 3 (NI- C, I-C and I-2) were scored from 0 to 5 [88], based on the degree of vacuolization in the cytoplasm and the degree of distribution of the vacuolated hepatocytes (Additional file 1: Table S2). 4–6 fish in each group were analyzed. Solid black line shows the mean score ± SEM in each group, and black dots show the individual fish scores. b-d Exemplary images of livers showing different level of steatosis. b Micrograph of a fish from group I-3.6 fish (Trial 2) with a score of 0. c Micrograph of a fish from group NI-C fish from Trial 3 with a score of 1. d Micrograph of a fish from group I-C fish from Trial 2 with a score of 3. Scale-bars: 100 μm
Fig. 3Organ indices (mean ± SEM) in lice infected fish (I) fed inclusion levels of 0% (I-C), 0.5% (I-0.5), 1% (I-1) and 2% (I-2) of GLs. a Hepato-somatic indices (HSI). b Intestinal-somatic indices (ISI). Number of fish in each group is 10. Asterisks denote level of significance between groups: **P < 0.01. ISI data was analyzed by One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparisons test, while HSI data was analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by the post-hoc Dunn’s test
Near infrared spectroscopy (NIR) of Norwegian quality cut (NQC) samples from Trial 3
| Trial 3 | 14:0a | 16:0b | 18:1c | 22:6n-3d |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ( | ( | ( | ( | |
| I-0.5 | 3.23 ± 0.05** | 15.85 ± 0.37** | 29.18 ± 0.38 | 7.52 ± 0.20** |
| I-1 | 3.31 ± 0.07 | 14.94 ± 0.47 | 29.49 ± 0.76 | 7.80 ± 0.20 |
| I-2 | 3.37 ± 0.06 | 15.82 ± 0.32** | 28.01 ± 0.65* | 7.78 ± 0.21* |
| I-C | 5.78 ± 1.55 | 12.67 ± 1.34 | 23.47 ± 2.66 | 8.64 ± 0.28 |
Values are shown as mean ± SEM.
*P < 0.05, ** P < 0.01: significant differences in comparison with control
a14:0 Kruskal-Wallis H-test: χ 2 = 7.8, df = 3, P = 0.01
b16:0 Kruskal-Wallis H-test: χ 2 = 7.8, df = 3, P = 0.027; I-0.5 vs I-C P = 0.0096; I-2 vs I-C P = 0.009
c18:1 Kruskal-Wallis H-test: χ 2 = 7.8, df = 3, P = 0.03
d22:6n-3 ANOVA: F (3,34) = 4.5; I-0.5 vs I-C P = 0.0064; I-2 vs I-C P = 0.05)
Lice infected (I) fish were fed inclusion levels of 0% GLs-containing raw ingredient (I-C), 0.5% (I-0.5), 1% (I-1) and 2% (I-2). Levels of 14:0, 16:0, 18:1, 22:6n-3 are shown, as they were the only parameters that were significantly different in the One-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test
Differentially expressed genes in the liver of not infected (NI) salmon fed an extreme dose of GLs-containing raw ingredient (NI-13) in comparison to NI salmon fed 0% dietary GLs (NI-C). Data are log2-ER
| log2-ER | |
|---|---|
| Negative regulation of proliferation | |
|
| 1.82 |
|
| 1.66 |
|
| 1.61 |
|
| 1.42 |
|
| 1.01 |
|
| 0.90 |
| Positive regulation of proliferation | |
|
| -1.17 |
|
| -1.20 |
|
| -1.21 |
|
| -1.23 |
|
| -1.29 |
|
| -1.47 |
|
| -1.62 |
| Chromatide segregation and chromosome organization | |
|
| -1.03 |
|
| -1.20 |
|
| -1.65 |
| DNA replication | |
|
| -1.03 |
| Chromatin regulation | |
|
| -1.00 |
|
| -1.06 |
|
| -1.21 |
|
| -1.56 |
| DNA damage and repair | |
|
| -1.06 |
|
| -1.18 |
| Biotransformation/detoxification | |
|
| 1.51 |
|
| 1.51 |
|
| 1.38 |
|
| 1.25 |
|
| 1.00 |
|
| 0.93 |
|
| 0.85 |
|
| 0.92 |
|
| 0.81 |
| Liver function | |
|
| 2.00 |
|
| 1.54 |
|
| 1.34 |
|
| -1.08 |
|
| -1.60 |
| Iron metabolism | |
|
| 1.60 |
|
| 1.29 |
|
| -0.98 |
|
| -0.92 |
| Complement immune response | |
|
| 1.33 |
|
| 1.04 |
|
| 0.94 |
|
| 0.88 |
Differentially expressed genes in distal kidney of not infected (NI) salmon fed an extreme dose of GLs-containing raw ingredient (NI-13) in comparison to NI salmon fed 0% dietary GLs (NI-C). Data are log2-ER
| log2-ER | |
|---|---|
| Biotransformation, detoxification | |
|
| 1.41 |
|
| 1.26 |
|
| 1.24 |
|
| 0.95 |
|
| -0.90 |
| Oxidation-reduction processes | |
|
| 1.11 |
|
| 1.02 |
|
| -0.94 |
| Regulation of fibrosis and kidney stone formation, protection from injury | |
|
| 2.43 |
|
| 1.32 |
|
| 1.22 |
|
| 1.05 |
|
| 1.03 |
|
| 0.99 |
|
| 0.97 |
|
| -1.08 |
|
| -1.15 |
|
| -1.17 |
|
| -2.01 |
| Extracellular matrix components and regulation | |
|
| 1.07 |
|
| 1.06 |
|
| 0.98 |
|
| 0.86 |
|
| -1.02 |
|
| -1.14 |
| Proteolysis | |
|
| 1.15 |
|
| 0.90 |
|
| 0.86 |
|
| 0.83 |
|
| -0.92 |
|
| -1.01 |
|
| -0.88 |
| Iron homeostasis | |
|
| 0.89 |
|
| 0.84 |
|
| 0.83 |
Differentially expressed genes in the muscle of not infected (NI) salmon fed an extreme dose of GLs-containing raw ingredient (NI-13) in comparison to NI salmon fed 0% dietary GLs (NI-C). Data are log2-ER
| log2-ER | |
|---|---|
| Positive regulation of proliferation | |
|
| 1.13 |
|
| 0.98 |
|
| -1.08 |
| Negative regulation of proliferation, apoptosis | |
|
| 1.35 |
|
| 1.26 |
|
| 1.21 |
|
| 0.88 |
|
| 0.86 |
|
| 0.82 |
|
| -0.84 |
| DNA replication | |
|
| 1.31 |
|
| -0.83 |
|
| -1.11 |
| DNA damage and repair | |
|
| -0.88 |
|
| -0.89 |
|
| -1.00 |
|
| -1.43 |
| Nucleotide metabolism | |
|
| -0.98 |
|
| -1.22 |
| Muscle metabolism, myogenesis | |
|
| 1.26 |
|
| 1.17 |
|
| 1.07 |
|
| 1.03 |
|
| 1.00 |
|
| 0.84 |
|
| -0.81 |
|
| -0.85 |
|
| -1.03 |
|
| -1.45 |
|
| -1.93 |
| Negative regulation of myogenesis | |
|
| 1.29 |
|
| 1.03 |
|
| -1.66 |
| Biotranformation, detoxification | |
|
| 1.21 |
|
| 1.10 |
|
| 1.01 |
|
| 0.84 |
|
| -0.86 |
|
| -0.86 |
| Iron metabolism | |
|
| 1.69 |
|
| 1.29 |
|
| 0.94 |
|
| 0.84 |
|
| -0.96 |
|
| -1.17 |
Fig. 4Hepatic gene expression of ary1, cyp24a1 and pdk2 with roles in metabolic adaptation to nutrient availability, complement regulator cfh, complement components c3 and c5, and complement regulator c1qbp measured by qPCR and shown as mean -ΔΔCt ± SEM. The first bar for each gene shows the logER value measured by microarray in not infected (NI) fish (n = 5) fed 13% of the GLs-containing raw ingredient (NI-13). Gene expression in infected (I) fish fed increasing levels of GLs-containing raw ingredient, 0% (I-C), 3.6% (I-3.6) and 13% (I-13), were measured by qPCR. The zero is set to NI fish fed 0% dietary GLs (NI-C). Number of fish in each group is 9. The letter “a” denotes significant expression difference to NI-C, “aaa” when P < 0.001, “aa” when P < 0.01 and “a” when P < 0.05
Fig. 5Renal gene expression of hpd from the tyrosine breakdown pathway, anti-fibrotic ifnγ, slc13a3 involved in the maintenance of citrate levels, pro-fibrotic leptin, the DNA damage response gene ints7, and abhd6 with functions in the regulation of lipogenesis in kidney, measured by qPCR and shown as mean -ΔΔCt ± SEM. The first bar for each gene shows the logER value measured by microarray in not infected (NI) fish (n = 5) fed feed with 13% inclusion level of GLs-containing raw ingredient (NI-13). Gene expression in infected (I) fish fed increasing levels of GLs-containing raw ingredient, 0% (I-C), 3.6% (I-3.6) and 13% (I-13), were measured by qPCR. The zero is set to NI fish fed 0% dietary GLs (NI-C). Number of fish samples in each group is 9. The letter “a” denotes significant expression difference to NI-C, and “b” denotes significant expression difference to I-C, “aaa” when P < 0.001, “aa/bb” when P < 0.01 and “a/b” when P < 0.05
Fig. 6Experimental setup of Trial 1 and Trial 2 (modified from [17]). Trial 1. Feed study. To study responses of the feed (without infection), Atlantic salmon were fed control feed and high level (13%) of GLs-containing raw ingredient. All fish received control feed for 30 days during the acclimation period. Sampling of tissues and weighing of the fish from two groups [not-infected control group (NI-C) and not-infected 13% group (NI-13)] were performed 17–18 days after feeding experimental feeds. Trial 2. Feed intake and lice challenge study. Atlantic salmon were exposed to feeds containing 0, 3.6 and 13% of GLs for 21 days. Control feed was then fed for 10 days during the acclimation period. The trial continued with fish exposed to control, and 3.6 and 13% GLs feeds for 12 days (pre-infection period). The tissue sampling, weighing and lice counting from the three dietary groups [infected fish fed control feed (I-C), infected fish fed 3.6% GLs feed (I-3.6) and infected fish fed 13% GLs feed (I-13)] challenged with L. salmonis (50 copepodids per fish) were accomplished after 31–35 days of infection (post-infection period)