| Literature DB >> 33349911 |
Reka Svigruha1,2, Istvan Fodor2, Judit Padisak1, Zsolt Pirger3.
Abstract
The presence of oral contraceptives (basically applying estrogens and/or progestogens) poses a challenge to animals living in aquatic ecosystems and reflects a rapidly growing concern worldwide. However, there is still a lack in knowledge about the behavioural effects induced by progestogens on the non-target species including molluscs. In the present study, environmental progestogen concentrations were summarised. Knowing this data, we exposed a well-established invertebrate model species, the great pond snail (Lymnaea stagnalis) to relevant equi-concentrations (1, 10, 100, and 500 ng L-1) of mixtures of four progestogens (progesterone, drospirenone, gestodene, levonorgestrel) for 21 days. Significant alterations were observed in the embryonic development time, heart rate, feeding, and gliding activities of the embryos as well as in the feeding and locomotion activity of the adult specimens. All of the mixtures accelerated the embryonic development time and the gliding activity. Furthermore, the 10, 100, and 500 ng L-1 mixtures increased the heart rate and feeding activity of the embryos. The 10, 100, and 500 ng L-1 mixtures affected the feeding activity as well as the 1, 10, and 100 ng L-1 mixtures influenced the locomotion of the adult specimens. The differences of these adult behaviours showed a biphasic response to the progestogen exposure; however, they changed approximately in the opposite way. In case of feeding activity, this dose-response phenomenon can be identified as a hormesis response. Based on the authors' best knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the non-reproductive effects of progestogens occurring also in the environment on molluscan species. Our findings contribute to the global understanding of the effects of human progestogens, as these potential disruptors can influence the behavioural activities of non-target aquatic species. Future research should aim to understand the potential mechanisms (e.g., receptors, signal pathways) of progestogens induced behavioural alterations.Entities:
Keywords: Developmental changes; Feeding activity; Heartbeat; Locomotion; Lymnaea stagnalis; Progestogen exposure
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33349911 PMCID: PMC8542004 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-020-12094-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 1Embryonic development and hatching rate during the progestogen exposure. Dotted line indicates control. *P < 0.05, between control and treated groups. Error bars in the figures indicate mean ± s.e. n = 10 embryos/group/well/replicates
Fig. 2Relative heart rate of embryos from the 6th embryonic day. Number of heartbeats in the 2-min test period is shown. Interrupted line indicates control. Within a single observation day, *P < 0.05 between control and treated groups. Error bars in the figures indicate mean ± s.e. n = 10 embryos/group/well/replicates
Fig. 3Gliding activity of embryos in different experimental groups. Cumulative number of circles performed by gliding embryos during 4-min time window is shown. The white column represents the control while the greys the treated groups. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 between control and progestoge-treated groups. Error bars in the figures indicate mean ± s.e. n = 10 embryos/group/well/replicates
Fig. 4Feeding activity alterations of embryos observed on the different developmental days. Mean numbers of radula protrusion counted for 2 min are shown. Interrupted line indicates control. Within a single observation day, *P < 0.05 between control and treated groups. Error bars in the figures indicate mean ± s.e. n = 10 embryos/group/well/replicates
Fig. 5Locomotor activity in adult snails of experimental groups. Mean distances covered by snails during the 4-min test period are presented. The white column represents the control while the greys the treated groups. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 between control and progestogen-treated groups. Error bars in the figures indicate mean ± s.e. n = 12 adults/group/tank/replicates
Fig. 6Feeding activity in adult snails of experimental groups. Mean numbers of rasp counted for 2 min are shown. The white column represents the control while the greys the treated groups. *P < 0.05 between control and progestogen-treated groups. Error bars in the figures indicate mean ± s.e. n = 12 adults/group/tank/replicates
Measured environmental concentration (MEC) and summarized concentration range (italic values) of different progestogen residues in water samples. PRG progesterone, LNG levonorgestrel, GES gestodene, DRO drospirenone, HPLC-MS/MS high-performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, UHPLC-MS/MS ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, RRLC-MS/MS rapid resolution liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, SFC-MS/MS supercritical fluid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, GC-MS gas chromatography-mass spectrometry, ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay
| Progestogens | Watercourse name | MEC ng L−1 | Analytical methods | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PRG | Catchment area of Lake Balaton, Hungary | 0.23–13.67 | HPLC-MS/MS | Avar et al. |
| Catchment area of Lake Balaton, Hungary | 0.60–2.30 | SFC-MS/MS | Maasz et al. | |
| Surface water, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil | 0.51–47.20 | LC-MS/MS | Kuster et al. | |
| River Lee, Ireland | 6.00 | GC-MS | Aherne et al. | |
| Paper mill effluent, Fenholloway River, USA | < 10.00 | HPLC-MS/MS | Jenkins et al. | |
| Urban Rivers, Bejing, China | 26.00 | LC-MS/MS | Chang et al. | |
| Snowmelt runoff, Wisconsin, USA | 375.00 | HPLC-MS/MS | DeQuattro et al. | |
| Grazing Rangeland surface water, California, USA | 27.00 | GC-MS/MS | Kolodziej and Sedlak | |
| Surface water of agricultural, Pennsylvania, USA | 7.35–11.81 | GC-MS | Velicu and Suri | |
| River Llobregat and drinking water, Barcelona, Spain | ≤ 1.39 | LC-MS/MS | Kuster et al. | |
| Surface and ground water, French | 1.70–4.10 | LC-MS/MS (ESI) | Vulliet et al. | |
| Surface and drinking water, Japan | 0.06–0.09 | LC–MS/MS | Chang et al. | |
| Surface and drinking water, Conghua, China | 1.20–2.50 | UHPLC-MS/MS) | Liu et al. | |
| Surface and drinking water, Baden, Switzerland | 4.00–10.00 | LC-MS/MS | Ammann et al. | |
| River Danshui upstream Guandong, China | 0.50 ± 0.10 | RRLC–MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| River Danshui downstream, Guandong, China | 2.50 ± 0.10 | RRLC–MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| River Piracicaba, Brazil | 0.58 | LC-ESI-MS/MS | Torres et al. | |
| Surface water, USA | 0.199 | GC-MS | Kolpin et al. | |
| Domestic WWTP effluent, Belgium | 2.50 ± 0.70 | GC-MS/MS | Pauwels et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, Japan | 0.31–0.37 | LC–MS/MS | Chang et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, Bohai, China | 0.80–2.30 | RRLC-MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| WWTP effluent | 2.90 | LC-MS/MS | Yost et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, Beijing, China | 6.00 | UPLC-MS/MS | Fan et al. | |
| Domestic WWTP influent, Belgium | 4.80–33.00 | GC-MS/MS | Pauwels et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Japan | 3.10–10.00 | LC–MS/MS | Chang et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Bejing, China | 66.00 ± 36.00 | LC–MS/MS | Chang et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Huiyang, Guangdong, China | 6.10 ± 0.30 | RRLC–MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Meihu, Guangdong, China | 5.40 ± 0.60 | RRLC–MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Bohai, China | 38.00–108.00 | RRLC-MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| WWTP influent | 10.10 | LC-MS/MS | Yost et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Beijing, China | 57.00 | UPLC-MS/MS | Fan et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Baden, Switzerland | 4.15 | LC-MS/MS | Ammann et al. | |
| Animal farm waste water, Bohai lagoons, China | 56.70–2470.00 | RRLC-MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| Animal farm waste water, lagoons, China | 29.00–11.90 | RRLC-MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| Animal farm waste water, lagoons, Jiangmen, China | 5024.00 | UHPLC-MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| Animal farm waste water, lagoons | 186.00–1430.00 | LC-MS/MS | Yost et al. | |
| Animal farm waste water, lagoons, Colorado, Denver | < 7.00–98.90 | GC-MS/MS | Yang et al. | |
| Animal farm (A) waste water, lagoons, China | 1.70–9330.00 | UHPLC-MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| Animal farm (B) waste water, lagoons, China | 2.31–5402.00 | UHPLC-MS/MS | Liu et al. | |
| Concentration range of PRG: | ||||
| LNG | Catchment area of Lake Balaton, Hungary | 0.85–3.40 | HPLC-MS/MS | Avar et al. |
| Catchment area of Lake Balaton, Hungary | 1.90–49.40 | SFC-MS/MS | Maasz et al. | |
| Surface and ground water, French | 5.30–11.00 | LC-MS/MS | Vulliet et al. | |
| Mean surface waters, Rhône-Alpes region, French | 3.60 | LC-MS/MS | Vulliet and Cren-Olivé | |
| River water, Malaysia | 38.00 | LC-MS/MS | Al-Odaini et al. | |
| Rivers Anoia and Cardener, Catalonia, Spain | < 0.20–4.00 | LC-MS | Petrovic et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, Catalonia, Spain | < 0.20–4.00 | LC-DAD-MS | Lopez de Alda et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, River Seine, French | < 2.50–7.20 | GC-MS | Labadie and Budzinski | |
| WWTP effluent, River Jalle d'Eysines, French | < 2.00–5.00 | GC-MS | Labadie and Budzinski | |
| WWTP effluent, area of Lyon, French | 0.90–17.90 | LC-MS | Vulliet et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, China | 1.10 | HPLC | Pu et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, China | 1.30 | ELISA | Pu et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, Montreal,Canada | 30.00 | LC-MS/MS | Viglino et al. | |
| WWTP effluent, River Funan Chengdu, China | 8.10 | HPLC | Qiao et al. | |
| WWTP influent, River Funan Chengdu, China | 74.30 | HPLC | Qiao et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Montreal,Canada | 150.00–170.00 | LC-MS/MS | Viglino et al. | |
| WWTP influent, China | 6.50 | ELISA | Pu et al. | |
| WWTP influent, China | 5.60 | HPLC | Pu et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Spain | < 0.20–16.10 | LC-MS | Petrovic et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Catalonia, Spain | < 0.20–16.00 | LC-DAD-MS | Lopez de Alda et al. | |
| WWTP influent, Bejing, China | 4.90 ± 1.20 | LC-MS/MS | Chang et al. | |
| Concentration range of LNG | ||||
| GES | River Danube, Hungary | 3.60 | LC-MS/MS | Neale et al. |
| WWTP effluent, Beijing, China | 0.61–8.30 | UHPLC-MS/MS | Shen et al. | |
| Concentration range of GES | ||||
| DRO | Catchment area of Lake Balaton, Hungary | HPLC-MS/MS | Avar et al. | |