Sex biased effect of acute heat shock on the antioxidant system of non-native round goby Neogobius melanostomus.

Monitoring oxidative stress biomarkers has become a powerful and common tool to estimate organismal condition and response to endogenous and environmental factors. In the present study, we used round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) from non-native European populations, as a model species to test sex differences in oxidative stress biomarkers. Considering sex differences in reproductive investment, we hypothesized that males would display lower resistance to abiotic stress. Fish were exposed to a heat shock (temperature elevated by 10°C) for 1h, 6h, and 12h and catalase activity (CAT), reduced glutathione (GSH), total antioxidant capacity (TAC) and lipid peroxidation (LPO) were measured in liver and muscle tissues. Liver of males was significantly more responsive compared to liver of females in all tested parameters. GSH was found to be the most responsive to heat stress exposure in both sexes. The results supported our hypothesis that male reproductive investment (territoriality, courtship, and brood care) and likelihood of only a single spawning period in their lifetime influenced on higher sensitivity of their antioxidant defence. On the other hand, for females antioxidant defence is considered more important to survive the environmental changes and successfully reproduce in the next season. Our experiments exposed fish to acute thermal stress. Further research should determine the effects of exposure to chronic thermal stress to corroborate our understanding on sex differences in antioxidant defence in the round goby.

1. Introduction

Temperature is one of the key environmental factors affecting an organism’s physiological processes, especially in ectotherms, which adjust their metabolism to the ambient temperature. Although aquatic organisms are acclimated to daily and seasonal variations in temperature [1], sudden and unexpected increase can substantially influence their overall performance [2, 3]. This includes long-term challenges arising from climate change but also from human-mediated thermal pollution, such as cooling water in thermal plant stations [4]. Forecasted global warming will result in a temperature increase at 1.5 °C between 2030 and 2052, however, not all regions will be faced with the same heat [5]. The temperature increase due to anthropogenic global warming is a constant, progressive process estimated to enhance the air temperature at 0.2 °C per decade [5]. In contrast, extreme unpredictable events such as heat waves, can modify the thermal regime significantly at short term and persist for approximately 8–11 days [6]. The intensity, duration, and frequency of such events are expected to increase [6]. Freshwater ecosystems vary in their susceptibility to temperature fluctuations, which is generally related to their size and depth. Alterations of the river’s temperature regime due to thermal pollution and global warming impact both native and non-native species, with non-native species having higher potential to benefit from such changes [7]. In this regard, freshwater ecosystems, among all waterbodies [8], are one of the most vulnerable to climate change at all latitudes [7, 9, 10].

Exposure of aerobic organisms to environmental changes elicits responses to maintain homeostasis and biological functions. Adjustments at different stages are involved (e.g., genetic, physiological), however, before they reach an observable level (e.g., behavioural, morphological), they can be sensed within the cell. From the set of various environmental stressors, changes in temperature levels are considered substantial stress factor influencing metabolic rate and leading to oxidative stress [e.g., 11, 12]. The imbalance between antioxidants and oxidants, in favour of the latter (oxidative stress), may influence cellular constituents’ modification and disturbance of cellular metabolism [13]. Organisms respond to such a situation and develop efficient defence comprising of low and high molecular mass antioxidants as well as antioxidant enzymes [14]. Although most of them are well known, their level and activity (in the case of enzymes) are usually species-specific, may differ between populations, ontogenetic stages, or gender [14, 15]. In recent years, monitoring of oxidative stress parameters became a powerful tool enabling the evaluation of organism condition, including fish [16]. However, Rudneva & Skuratouskaya [17] suggested that there was little attention paid to the physiological and natural factors in contrast to anthropogenic factors in biomonitoring and environmental studies. While some of them are easily mitigated, e.g., by collecting samples at the same time of the season, others (such as sex and age) require further studies [17].

In accordance with the increase of temperature in Europe in the last decades, the expansion of non-native gobiids was observed (e.g., in the Danube River; [18]). These fish species, originating from the Ponto-Caspian region, evolved in the harsh continental climate, which has most likely shaped their wide tolerance to various environmental factors [7] and contributed to their rapid dispersion through European waters as well as North America [19]. Among them, the round goby Neogobius melanostomus was included in the 100 worst invaders in Europe [20] as well as is regarded as one of the most wide-ranging invasive fish on Earth [19]. Its success results from many features as it displays wide tolerance to abiotic factors, opportunistic diet, aggressive behaviour, and effective reproductive strategy [19]. Given many studies conducted on its successful establishment in different waterbodies within Europe and North America makes the species an attractive model to study [19]. Kovyrshina and Rudneva [21-23] previously demonstrated that round goby displays an adaptive response to oxidative stress caused by various factors connected with anthropogenic load and seasonality.

In our study, we investigated the acute thermal shock influence on round goby to test intersexual differences in the effectiveness of antioxidant defence. Many oxidative stress studies conducted on fish have not considered ‘sex’ factor [24-27]. Some studies have not indicated any differences [e.g., 17], while others have confirmed that it is an important factor affecting oxidative stress parameters [e.g., 28, 29]. The spawning cycle of the round goby is well known and was documented under laboratory conditions [30]. In the pre-spawning period, male searches for a suitable place for reproduction, guards it, and starts building the nest, while females appear later to lay eggs [31]. Egg inspection and ventilation, as well as aggressive chasing of intruders, are the main activities of a male until the eggs hatch. During the breeding season, males usually do not forage [19, 30] and spawn more frequently compared to females (i.e., more reproductive acts per individual) [32]. Considering the reproductive activities displayed by males (territoriality, courtship, and brood care), the burden affecting males during the long breeding period may be higher than the expenditure of females [32]. It was suggested that males usually die after their first reproductive season [31]. Thus, we hypothesised that high and extended reproductive investment of round goby males should translate into weaker defence mechanisms associated with oxidative stress compared to females. We used elevated temperature as a stressor, because this factor has high probability to affect gobies due to both warming climate [7], especially heat waves, and thermal pollution [4]. The 10 °C increase was used to ensure heat shock, which may reflect thermal pollution associated with the release of cooling water from thermal plant stations [4] or extreme heat waves [33] hitting more often due to climate warming.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Fish

Round goby specimens were collected using electrofishing (type EFGI 650, BES Bretschneider Spezialelektornik, Germany) in September 2018 in the Radunia River in Pruszcz Gdański (permission obtained from water tenant—Polish Angling Association in Gdańsk L.Dz.611/19), Poland (54°16‘50“N, 18°38‘22“E). Mature individuals, ranged between 89–144 mm in total length and weighed 8.14–33.17 g, of both sexes (gender determination is easy to conduct in the field based on the shape of urogenital papillae, [31]) were collected. Sampled fish were transported in aerated tanks to the laboratory, and after 24 h of acclimation, they were divided by sex, placed in 70 L aquaria (4–5 individuals) equipped with halves of PVC pipes to provide shelter (5 cm long, exceeding the number of fish to avoid competition). To ensure proper living conditions, all aquaria were connected in a flow-through system (the same volume exchanged constantly). The light regime was set 12 d:12 n to reflect natural conditions. The temperature in the laboratory room was maintained at 18–19 °C. Fish were fed every second day with frozen chironomid larvae and kept in such conditions for 4 weeks, which enabled fish to acclimate to laboratory conditions and level the condition of both sexes after reproduction. For all procedures, permission from the Local Ethics Committee was obtained (41/LB102/2018).

2.2. Experimental setup and protocol

Fish were tested in 45 L non-transparent, mildly aerated tanks equipped with a single shelter (similar to those used in stocking aquaria) and aquarium heater. Before the experimental trials, each individual was kept for 24 h separately in the tank to acclimate to the experimental conditions (water temperature 18–19 °C). Such conditions were also used as a separate, control treatment (KC; N = 12 → 6 females and 6 males). After this period, fish were moved to similar tanks with heated water (29–30 °C) for 1 h, 6 h, or 12 h (KT1, KT2, KT3, respectively—three separate treatments; in each N = 12 → 6 females and 6 males) to mimic acute heat stress. According to Lee & Johnson [34], the upper thermal limit for the species was established to be around 29 °C, with a critical temperature above 33 °C (reviewed in Kornis et al. [19]). Then, fish were killed by spinal cord rupture, liver and muscle tissues, which are commonly used and easy to obtain in relatively high amount, were removed and immediately frozen in a temperature below -80 °C for further analyses.

2.3. Biochemical analysis

Sampled tissues (liver, muscle) were homogenised using a X-120 knife homogeniser (CAT Ingenieurbüro GmbH, Germany) in 100 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4, 100 mM KCl, 1 mM Na2-EDTA) with 100 μM PMSF dissolved in ethanol (98%). Homogenization was performed on ice at 3500 rpm for 4 min, and the homogenates were then centrifuged at 4 °C for 10 min (15 000 rpm). Then, the supernatants were removed for the following estimations. The total protein determination was based on Lowry et al. [35] method. For each sample, three technical replicate measurements were taken.

To assess the antioxidant defence, we measured the level of reduced glutathione (GSH) and the activity of catalase (CAT). To determine the level of GSH, we performed the modified Ellman’s method [36], where we added 20% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) to the homogenates (final concentration 2%) and centrifuged the samples (15 000 rpm, 10 min). To the obtained supernatant, we added 10 mM DTNB ((5,5’-dithiobis (2-nitrobenzoic acid)) and 500 mM sodium phosphate buffer. After 20 min of incubation in darkness, due to the formation of yellow 5-thio-2-nitrobenzoate ion corresponding to the GSH concentration, the absorbance of this ion was measured at 412 nm, calculated and expressed as a μmol GSH/mg protein in homogenate. Molar absorption coefficient (ε) for DTNB is 13.6 x 103 M-1cm-1. The CAT activity was determined based on the enzyme ability to decompose H2O2 [37]. Homogenates were added to the solution consisting of 54 mM H2O2 in 50 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.00). The degradation of hydrogen peroxide was measured during 1 min at 240 nm. As one unit of CAT activity, the amount of enzyme is taken, which decomposes 1 μmol of hydrogen peroxide during 1 min. CAT activity in homogenates was calculated in μmol H2O2/min/mg protein in the homogenate.

The general activity of the antioxidant mechanism was measured using total antioxidant capacity (TAC), a method based on the reduction of 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline-6-sulphonic acid) (ABTS) [38]. Measurements were performed at 414 nm, and TAC was expressed in one-electron equivalents of Trolox. Considering that one Trolox molecule reacts with two ABTS+ molecules, the calculated values were multiplied by two (units per μmol of Trolox equivalent L–1). Molar absorption coefficient (ε) for ABTS is 36 x 103 M-1 cm-1.

To evaluate the oxidative damage, the concentration of the end product of lipid peroxidation, malondialdehyde (MDA), was measured [39]. Homogenate was added to the solution of 20% TCA, 0,6% thiobarbituric acid (TBA) in HCl (36–38%), shaken, and then centrifuged (3000 rpm, 5 min). The supernatant was heated in 100 °C for 15 min, cooled, mixed with n-buthanol, and centrifuged (3000 rpm, 5 min). The spectrophotometric measurements of MDA levels were performed in the buthanol phase at 532 nm, expressed as nmol MDA/mg protein in the homogenate. Molar absorption coefficient (ε) for MDA is 1.56 x 105 M-1 cm-1.

2.4. Statistics

The obtained data were calculated per total protein concentration. The outliers were determined using +/- two standard deviations and removed, which in some cases decreased the number of replicates from six to three. Differences in oxidative stress parameters between tissue, treatment and sex were examined by permutational univariate analysis of variance (PERANOVA) using PERMANOVA+ v.1.0.1 for PRIMER version 6.1.11 (PRIMER-E LTD, Plymouth, UK). Data analysis was based on a three-way (fully-crossed) design, which included the fixed factors (Tissue, Treatment, and Sex). Using an Euclidean distance measure following normalisation of the data, these were used to obtain a distance matrix, which was subjected to 9,999 permutations of the raw data and tested for significance, with a posteriori pairwise comparisons evaluated at α = 0.05. Briefly, the advantage of PERANOVA compared with traditional parametric analysis of variance is that the stringent assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity in the data, which prove very often unrealistic when dealing with ecological datasets, are significantly relaxed [40], and has widely been used in several previous similarly designed studies [41-43].

3. Results

3.1. GSH

Significant Tissue × Treatment × Sex interaction (F# = 4.7906, P# = 0.0052; # = permutational value) indicated differences in the level of GSH between sexes depending on tissue and treatment. In liver, along with the time of heat exposure, the GSH level in male tissues increased up to 6h with sharp reduction in the 12h treatment (KT2 > KC; t# = 5.9168, P# = 0.0016 and KT2 < KT3; t# = 4.022, P# = 0.0085; Fig 1). GSH levels in female livers were similar in all heat shock treatments. Comparison of sex showed that after 6 and 12 hours of heat exposure, GSH level in male livers was significantly higher compared to females (t# = 10.233, P# = 0.0002 and t# = 3.8682, P# = 0.0084, respectively). The opposite pattern was observed in muscle where differences between sexes were recorded after 1h and 6h of heat exposure (t# = 3.3204, P# = 0.0197 and t# = 6.838, P# = 0.0003, respectively; Fig 1). On the contrary to the pattern observed in the liver, male muscle tissues showed that it decreased from KC to KT2 (t# = 6.7964, P = 0.0004) and from KT1 to KT2 (t# = 4.5692, P# = 0.0035) with a sudden increase in value in the 12h treatment (KT3 > KT2, t# = 4.9291, P# = 0.0017). Female muscles were more responsive to heat shock than liver. After a sharp decrease of GSH level from KC to KT1 (t# = 4.7978, P# = 0.0016), GSH increased in the subsequent treatments KT2 and KT3 (KT1 < KT2, t# = 5.59, P# = 0.001; KT1 < KT3, t# = 6.0002, P# = 0.0005).

Fig 1

Levels of reduced glutathione GSH (mean +/- SE) measured in tissues of males and females of round goby exposed to heat shock (+10°C) for 1h, 6h and 12h (N = 3–6).

Significant differences between males and females within the same tissues were marked with letters (a-d) and significant differences between treatments were marked with numbers (1–8) (p < 0. 005).

3.2. CAT

The level of CAT differed between sexes in Tissue × Sex interaction (F# = 35.932, P# = 0.0001) but only in the liver (t# = 5.493, P# = 0.0001; Fig 2).

Fig 2

Levels of catalase activity CAT (mean +/- SE) measured in tissues of males and females of round goby exposed to heat shock (+10°C) for 1h, 6h and 12h (N = 4–6).

Groups with CAT levels significantly different are marked (p < 0. 005).

3.3. TAC

Significant Tissue × Treatment and Tissue × Sex interaction (F# = 3.0272, P# = 0.0358; F# = 34.815, P# = 0.0001; respectively) indicated differences in total antioxidant capacity between sexes and treatments depending on the tissue. Posteriori pairwise comparisons confirmed differences between sexes in the liver (t# = 4.9432, P# = 0.0001), but not in the muscle (t# = 1.2298, P# = 0.2209). In the male liver, the level of TAC increased just after 1h, was kept high up to 6h, then sharply decreased after 12h of heat exposure. However, this pattern was not statistically significant (Fig 3). The general differences among treatments in liver tissue were significant in comparison with KC versus KT2 (t# = 2.4265, P# = 0.0328) and KT2 versus KT3 (t# = 2.6342, P# = 0.0226).

Fig 3

Levels of total antioxidant capacity TAC (mean +/- SE) measured in tissues of males and females of round goby exposed to heat shock (+10°C) for 1h, 6h and 12h (N = 4–6).

Groups with TAC levels significantly different are marked (p < 0.005).

3.4. Oxidative damage—Lipid peroxidation

The oxidative damage was also different between sexes, demonstrated by significant Tissue × Sex and Treatment × Sex interaction (F# = 25.647, P# = 0.0001, F# = 3.2654; P# = 0.0288; respectively). These differences were significant in posteriori pairwise comparisons between males and females in the liver (t# = 4.5762, P# = 0.0001), but not in the muscle (t# = 1.8475, P# = 0.0767). Lipid peroxidation in the liver was on a constant level in all heat shock treatments, whereas in males, the level of LPO increased up to 6h and returned below the control value after 12h of heat exposure (Fig 4). In the Treatment × Sex interaction posteriori pairwise test, sex comparisons were significant in the treatment KC (t# = 3.2625, P# = 0.0049) and KT2 (t# = 3.0896, P# = 0.0082) only.

Fig 4

Levels of lipid peroxidation LPO (mean +/- SE) measured in tissues of males and females of round goby exposed to heat shock (+10°C) for 1h, 6h and 12h (N = 3–6).

Groups with LPO levels significantly different are marked (p < 0. 005).

The general pattern indicated that after 12h of heat exposure, measured antioxidant parameters returned to the initial (control) stage.

4. Discussion

The present study suggests diverse responses of males and females of round goby to the oxidative insult evoked by a heat shock. In all tested parameters (CAT, LPO, GSH, TAC), liver of males displayed greater responsiveness compared to females, which did not exhibit substantial changes during the whole experimental procedure. The oxidative defence was measured via catalase activity and reduced glutathione levels, commonly used oxidative stress biomarkers (reviewed in Birnie-Gauvin et al. [15]). Although the fluctuation of CAT activity in females in both tested tissues was recorded, the differences among different times of heat exposure were not significant. Similar situation was indicated for males, despite even up to two-fold increase (after 1 h in liver) or decrease (after 6 h in muscle) of catalase activity in heated water. Bagnyukova et al. [25] suggested high sensitivity and thermoinactivation of catalase in Perccottus glenii Amur sleeper (in liver tissue), but the results of our study showed activity of the enzyme, which did not decrease more than 15% below the control level. Due to the high metabolic rate of the liver, it could be expected that CAT activity would be enhanced, especially considering that the enzyme is the most effective, dealing with oxidative stress, when the level of H2O2 is highly elevated [44]. Other studies, where fish were exposed to the temperature beyond their thermal optimum evidenced the significant effect on catalase activity [e.g., 45, 46]. However, small concentrations of H2O2 are supposed to be controlled by glutathione peroxidases [44], a group of enzymes which use reduced glutathione as a substrate to decompose hydrogen peroxide and display a higher affinity for H2O2 [47]. In our study, GSH level turned out to be the most responsive to heat stress exposure. The main supplier of GSH is liver [44, 47], which in this case showed an enhanced value, however, not significant in females. Increase in GSH in the liver as a response to heat shock corresponded with the decrease of this parameter in muscle tissue (both sexes). It is possible that via the transport network GSH demands in muscle were met by liver supply, which can be evidenced in males by the increased values of GSH in 12 h treatment in muscle with a simultaneous decrease in liver. Female round goby tissues responded in a different pattern with enhanced values observed after 6 h of heat exposure (muscle); however, without substantial changes in GSH level in liver. The reduced glutathione level is also the first line in ROS inactivation, involved in the detoxification of many endogenous compounds and xenobiotics [47]. This feature enables conjugation with GSH, which may be frequent in accelerated metabolism due to elevated temperature. Total antioxidant capacity was used as a general parameter, exhibiting the antioxidant potential of homogenates. It also confirmed the higher sensitivity of male’s liver to thermal stress compared to females, while muscles of both sexes did not show any substantial changes. All antioxidant defences measured returned close to the basal level, which suggests enhanced tolerance of the species to thermal stress [11, 26].

To assess the oxidative damage, MDA content was determined, despite many objections, a method commonly used and relevant in lipid peroxidation evaluation (Hermes-Lima 2004). Again, sex differences were observed in the liver with male tissues being more sensitive compared to females. The muscles of both sexes responded in a similar pattern, a decrease in LPO in the first hour of heat exposure and then an increase in the following treatments. The applied experimental procedure was inspired by the work of Lushchak & Bagnyukowa [48] and Bagnyukowa et al. [25], who tested other fish species also displaying wide tolerance to environmental factors: goldfish Carassius auratus and invasive Amur sleeper. In both cases, TBARS levels expressing lipid peroxidation, measured in the liver increased. Muscle tissue showed different pattern in goldfish and Amur sleeper, where in the former increase in TBARS was observed and in the latter enhance after the first hour of heat exposure with a decrease below the control level in the following treatments. In mentioned studies, sex was not determined [25, 48]. Liver of round goby males showed a similar pattern to goldfish and Amur sleeper, while muscles of both sexes exhibited the opposite one. Other studies, where fish species were exposed to gradual increasing water temperature indicate general enhance in LPO, when temperature rose by 10°C [27, 49].

The aim of our study was to confirm that the male antioxidant mechanisms are less efficient compared to females in round goby. We conducted the experiments at the end of the reproductive period to avoid the direct impact of spawning on oxidative stress parameters. Additionally, the acclimation time was long enough to compensate the reproductive effort and balance condition of both sexes. Conducted studies confirmed our hypothesis that males of round goby will display higher sensitivity to oxidative stress. It is not obvious which sex carries the heavier burden of reproductive effort. In the pre-spawning period, females most of the energy invest in ovaries and oocyte development. The energy expenditure for egg production increases with female age from 20% in the first year up to 50% in the third [31]. Although reproductive activity requires high resources allocation, after laying their eggs, females return to deeper waters, e.g., to avoid predation [19]. Testes and all the associated structures represent much smaller proportion of male body weight compared to female ovaries; however, the secondary reproductive effort could be greater than the primary one in gobies [32]. Round goby males precede females in moving into shallow waters to seek for and prepare the nest, where they remain and guard it throughout the reproductive season [19, 31]. They also display a higher growth rate (with even 1.5 times greater increments than females) leading to sexual dimorphism [31, 32]. Males’ investment in the secondary characters such as visual (body colouration), auditory, and olfactory cues, is greater than females and is linked to territoriality, courtship, and brood care [32]. The number of spawning during the lifetime may be of key importance. It is suggested that males’ high expenditures during reproduction contribute to their mortality after the first reproductive season [31, 32], while females reproduce approximately over three years [32]. This could partially explain the difference in both sex response to environmental stress, which in the case of this study was elevated temperature (heat shock). Long activity in most of the year, starting in early spring when males migrate to nearshore waters and finishing in mid-autumn, as well as food deprivation for most males is fatal. Thus, additional investment in oxidative defence might be of low importance and had limited effects on male reproductive success. The opposite refers to females, which enhance their energy expenditure with age and reproduce more than once [32].

5. Conclusions

The efficiency of handling oxidative stress is critical for a range of key life-history traits, including reproduction, because the associated physiological processes lead to reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation [50]. The adequate response to an oxidative insult might turn out to be crucial for survival under environmental changes such as seasonality or food availability. Results of our study have ecological relevance from the viewpoint of stress tolerance, which appears to be greater in females. However, we acknowledge that in our study we measured only a part of commonly used oxidative stress parameters (reviewed in Brine-Gauvin et al. [15]) and exposed fish only to acute but not chronic stress. Superoxide dismutase (SOD), glutathione peroxidase (GPX), and glutathione reductase (GR), DNA damage, or protein carbonyl measurements, along with measurement of responses to chronic stress, could substantially enrich our understanding of the complexity of the response to environmental stresses in round goby.

Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

15 Sep 2021

PONE-D-21-22718Sex biased effect of acute heat shock on the antioxidant system of non-native round goby Neogobius melanostomusPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Blonska,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.It is crucial a full revision of statistics and to follow most recommendations of referees.

Please submit your revised manuscript within 40 days. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Marcelo Hermes-Lima, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 1、The authors hypothesized that extended reproductive investment of males should translate into weaker defense mechanisms associated with oxidative stress compared with females. In this case, a comparation of antioxidant systems between mature and juvenile fish for both genders are particularly necessary in the experiment design.

2、I have noticed that only the tissues of muscle and live were included in the experiment, why not use the whole blood or blood serum in your experiment design?

3、Instead of only including a single group of control samples, the control treatment samples should also be collected and examined at 1h, 6h and 12h respectively.

4、Statistical methods for the analysis and presentation of the results does not seem to be correct.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript number: PONE-D-21-22718

Article type: Research Article

Full title: Sex biased effect of acute heat shock on the antioxidant system of non native Round Goby, Neogobiusmelanostomus

Short title: Sex biased response of Round Goby to acute heat shock

Corresponding author: Dagmara Blonska

University of Lodz, Faculty of biology and environmental protection, Lodz, Poland

Keyword: Oxidative stress, Invasive species, Thermal stress, Reproductive effort, Gender differences.

Reviewer Comments

This paper investigates an interesting aspects of redox physiology regarding sex biased effect of acute heat shock in Round Goby. However its current state leaves much to be desired. Antioxidant status in females has been reported to be significantly lower than the males which are not as per the previous findings in many animals. Reproductive investment by males has been told to be more than the female which needs more evidence in its support. Some graphs need symbols clarifying the difference between different groups with appropriate level of significance. While the paper is well written, it needs more explanations about the findings citing more references.

Major concerns:

1. Authors have mentioned “Male reproductive investment and likelihood of only single spawning period in their lifetime does not enable them to develop efficient antioxidant defence”, in the abstract section. However from the graph it seems males to be with higher level of GSH, Catalase and TAC in control condition than the female counter parts. This contradiction should be explained.

2. It has been reported in many animals regarding higher antioxidant levels in females than males. Even sex hormone estrogen shows its antioxidant activity. Here authors have reported an opposite result which should be explained and should be supported with more evidences considering other antioxidant enzymes and non enzymatic antioxidant.

3. Regarding reproductive investment, it was told that the female Round Goby’s reproductive investment is less than the male. It should also be explained with appropriate reason and citation. Usually females invest a lot than the male for reproduction.

4. Authors have shown in the graph regarding higher responses in changes of antioxidant level by male Goby than the female. However no explanation regarding increase, decrease or coming down to the control level have been given with respect to pro-oxidant (MDA) and antioxidant after heat treatment.

5. In Discussion section (246-248) it was told ..........”It is possible that via the transport network GSH demands in muscle were met by liver supply, which can be evidenced in males by the increased value of GSH in 6h treatment in muscle with a simultaneous decrease in liver”. However graph showing GSH data is different i.e. GSH in 6h treatment in muscle of male is decreasing and GSH in 6h treatment in liver of male is increasing. Likewise in the line 253-256 it was told that increase in GSH level after 12h treatment, Coincides with a decrease in MDA levels (but not significant). However graph shows no decrease in MDA level in muscle tissue after 12h treatment.

6. Results as represented in graphs have not been explained considering variations in data due to heat treatment and sex biasedness.

Minor Concerns

1. Abbreviations used in graphs for Significant differences among different group should be clearly mentioned in the caption.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr. Debadas Sahoo

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: reviewer Comments.docx

Click here for additional data file.

7 Oct 2021

Reviewer Comments

Reviewer #1:

1、The authors hypothesized that extended reproductive investment of males should translate into weaker defense mechanisms associated with oxidative stress compared with females. In this case, a comparation of antioxidant systems between mature and juvenile fish for both genders are particularly necessary in the experiment design.

RESPONSE: Reported maturation of round goby was at 2 yr for females and 3 yr for males in their native range (e.g. Marsden et al. 1996). However, in the non-native area round gobies were observed to spawn earlier, with females with developed gonads already at age of 1 (MacInnis & Corkum 2000, Tomczak & Sapota 2006). In the juvenile specimens it is not possible to distinguish between sexes visually (contrary to mature individuals), so it could be difficult to conduct similar studies using juveniles. Comparing juveniles and mature individuals will also be misleading because of the potential age differences (Birnie-Gauvin et al. 2017).

Marsden, J. E., Charlebois, P., Wolfe, K., Jude, D. J., & Rudnicka, S. (1996). The round goby (Neogobius melanostomus): a review of European and North American literature. INHS Center for Aquatic Ecology 1996 (10).

MacInnis, A. J., & Corkum, L. D. (2000). Fecundity and reproductive season of the round goby Neogobius melanostomus in the upper Detroit River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 129(1), 136-144.

Tomczak, M. T., & Sapota, M. R. (2006). The fecundity and gonad development cycle of the round goby (Neogobius melanostomus Pallas 1811) from the Gulf of Gdańsk. Oceanological and Hydrobiological Studies, 35(4), 353-367.

Birnie‐Gauvin K, Costantini D, Cooke SJ, Willmore WG. A comparative and evolutionary approach to oxidative stress in fish: a review. Fish and Fish. 2017; 18: 928-942. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12215

2、I have noticed that only the tissues of muscle and live were included in the experiment, why not use the whole blood or blood serum in your experiment design?

RESPONSE: Among different tissues sampled for assessment of oxidative stress parameters, liver and muscle are most often taken and display response to oxidative insult (e.g. Luschak & Bagnyukowa 2006, Bagnyukowa et al. 2007, Venagre et al. 2012, Madeira et al. 2013). The study was inspired by works of Bagnyukowa and Lushchak (2006), where they used various tissues, including liver and muscle, to analyze oxidative stress parameters. To be able to compare obtained results with other studies (close to ours considering the design), we decided to use similar tissues, as the level of particular antioxidants is tissue specific. Additionally, these tissues are possible to be easily collected in relatively high amount, while blood sample would be very limited (it is possible that the amount would be insufficient for all the analysis) and requires much higher precision (included in the MS; lines 137-138).

3、Instead of only including a single group of control samples, the control treatment samples should also be collected and examined at 1h, 6h and 12h respectively.

RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer that this would be a nice complement to our work. However, in this case, we used control group as a source of basic information on oxidative stress parameters in round goby, without exposition to additional factors. Both sexes were exposed to the same treatment, which enabled us to perform comparison between them.

4、Statistical methods for the analysis and presentation of the results does not seem to be correct.

RESPONSE: We are not sure why the reviewer thought this way (mainly because the reviewer did not raise any particular flaws of the statistical approach used and direct us what should be the right way to do it), as the statistical methods and presentation are all widely used and accepted, evidenced in many previous papers. Nevertheless, we have provided further explanations why this methodology is appropriate and how commonly used before with proper examples (lines 186-189).

Reviewer #2

This paper investigates an interesting aspect of redox physiology regarding sex biased effect of acute heat shock in Round Goby. However its current state leaves much to be desired. Antioxidant status in females has been reported to be significantly lower than the males which are not as per the previous findings in many animals. Reproductive investment by males has been told to be more than the female which needs more evidence in its support. Some graphs need symbols clarifying the difference between different groups with appropriate level of significance. While the paper is well written, it needs more explanations about the findings citing more references.

Major concerns:

1. Authors have mentioned “Male reproductive investment and likelihood of only single spawning period in their lifetime does not enable them to develop efficient antioxidant defence”, in the abstract section. However from the graph it seems males to be with higher level of GSH, Catalase and TAC in control condition than the female counter parts. This contradiction should be explained.

RESPONSE: We have reconsidered this statement and changed it (see lines 27-28). We have tried to highlight higher sensitivity of male’s antioxidant response than females, which we believe is connected with their reproductive strategy. Differences in the basic level of tested parameters are not significant. Although we see that the level of particular parameters is higher in males, at this stage we cannot explain them. It could be possible that males display higher steady-state of ROS concentration than females.

2. It has been reported in many animals regarding higher antioxidant levels in females than males. Even sex hormone estrogen shows its antioxidant activity. Here authors have reported an opposite result which should be explained and should be supported with more evidences considering other antioxidant enzymes and non enzymatic antioxidant.

RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer. In many animals, females are also more burden considering reproductive investment than males and display higher antioxidant level. However, in case of gobies, their specific reproductive strategy is recognized with its own name “tokology”, which include both the mechanics and the profitability of reproduction (Miller 1984), i.e. due to high costs for both genders. Although females transfer energy into egg development, which occur 2-3 times during the spawning (batch spawners), in the meantime they retreat into deeper waters to avoid predation and develop next batch of oocytes. They invest less into growth, as their body increments are 1.5 less than males (Charlebois et al. 1997). As we mentioned in the manuscript, testes of males involve less energy investment, however all secondary activities are highly energy consuming (lines 316-318). They also constantly protect the nest and eggs for a couple of months, deprived of food, which most probably cause their mortality after first spawning (lines 318-326). A negative correlation of oxidative stress resistance and parental care was shown e.g., in smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu (Wilson et al. 2012).

In our study we indicated higher sensitivity of goby male antioxidant system in response to acute stress. Although basic (control) levels of tested parameters were higher in males (especially in liver), these particular differences were not significant. Explaining this discrepancy is beyond us without additional research. We agree that more evidence would complete our study, however, there are several approaches of analysing of oxidative stress as well as various enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidants to test. We decided for one of the most commonly used.

Wilson, S. M., Gravel, M., Mackie, T. A., Willmore, W. G., & Cooke, S. J. (2012). Oxidative stress associated with paternal care in smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology Part A, 162, 212–218.

3. Regarding reproductive investment, it was told that the female Round Goby’s reproductive investment is less than the male. It should also be explained with appropriate reason and citation. Usually females invest a lot than the male for reproduction.

RESPONSE: We tried to explain comprehensively the differences in reproduction of males and females in round goby, both in the introduction (93-102) and discussion (lines 311-327). In case of gobies, Miller (1984) distinguished two kinds of reproductive effort. The primary one is connected with biosynthesis and storage within the gametes, which is most noticeable in oocyte size and number. The secondary is divided into “(a) the anabolism of secondary sexual characters, including dimorphism in growth, body proportions, finnage, colouration, and perhaps in pheromone output, and (b) the catabolism of reproductive behaviour, involving the work done in territoriality, nidification, courtship, spawning and brood care, as well as any preliminary migration to breeding areas”. Considering the great involvement of males into the second sector of the reproductive effort (e.g., greater body increments, dark colouration, courtship, active and aggressive defence of the nest, constant egg ventilation) and the duration of spawning (pre-spawning migration, seeking and holding the nest, eggs protection, several spawning events with different females), it is not obvious that female’s investment is higher than males, which we mentioned in the discussion. We believe also that possibility for multiple spawning in females contrary to single spawning in males is crucial for the antioxidant mechanisms both sexes display.

4. Authors have shown in the graph regarding higher responses in changes of antioxidant level by male Goby than the female. However no explanation regarding increase, decrease or coming down to the control level have been given with respect to pro-oxidant (MDA) and antioxidant after heat treatment.

RESPONSE: We indeed highlighted at the end of the result that the general pattern was returning to the initial (control) level all tested parameters (lines 233-234) as well as in the discussion (283-285).

5. In Discussion section (246-248) it was told ..........”It is possible that via the transport network GSH demands in muscle were met by liver supply, which can be evidenced in males by the increased value of GSH in 6h treatment in muscle with a simultaneous decrease in liver”. However graph showing GSH data is different i.e. GSH in 6h treatment in muscle of male is decreasing and GSH in 6h treatment in liver of male is increasing. Likewise in the line 253-256 it was told that increase in GSH level after 12h treatment, Coincides with a decrease in MDA levels (but not significant). However graph shows no decrease in MDA level in muscle tissue after 12h treatment.

RESPONSE: We agree with the reviewer and thank for these remarks. In the cited fragment of the text should be 12 h treatment, not 6 h, and we have changed that in the MS (lines 260-261). According to the second comment, we have removed this sentence.

6. Results as represented in graphs have not been explained considering variations in data due to heat treatment and sex biasedness.

RESPONSE: Apologies if we have misunderstood this comment but results represented in the graphs are already explained in the text (in the Results section) – they are all connected.

Minor Concerns

1. Abbreviations used in graphs for Significant differences among different group should be clearly mentioned in the caption.

RESPONSE: OK, we have made sure that ‘significant’ are mentioned in the figure captions.

Submitted filename: reviewer Comments_PLOS.docx

Click here for additional data file.

15 Nov 2021

Sex biased effect of acute heat shock on the antioxidant system of non-native round goby Neogobius melanostomus

PONE-D-21-22718R1

Dear Dr. Blonska,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Marcelo Hermes-Lima, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have no further comments to the authors. The authors seem to have addressed the comments, so I recommend the manuscript to be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: Authors have modified the manuscript at desired key points as instructed. However responses from male and female towards heat treatment with respect to oxidative stress should summarised from different angles prior to writing breif conclusion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

7 Dec 2021

PONE-D-21-22718R1

Sex biased effect of acute heat shock on the antioxidant system of non-native round goby Neogobius melanostomus

Dear Dr. Błońska:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Marcelo Hermes-Lima

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE