4.5 Article

Rapid phenotypic changes in Caenorhabditis elegans under uranium exposure

Journal

ECOTOXICOLOGY
Volume 22, Issue 5, Pages 862-868

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10646-013-1090-9

Keywords

Caenorhabditis elegans; Chronic exposure; Experimental evolution; Phenotypic changes; Uranium

Funding

  1. NIH National Center for Research Resources (NCRR)
  2. Institute for Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Pollutants can induce selection pressures on populations, and the effects may be concentration-dependant. The main ways to respond to the stress are acclimation (i.e. plastic changes) and adaptation (i.e. genetic changes). Acclimation provides a short-term response to environmental changes and adaptation can have longer-term implications on the future of the population. One way of studying these responses is to conduct studies on the phenotypic changes occurring across generations in populations experimentally subjected to a selective factor (i.e. multigenerational test). To our knowledge, such studies have not been performed with uranium (U). Here, the phenotypic changes were explored across three generations in experimental Caenorhabditis elegans populations exposed to different U-concentrations. Significant negative effects of U were detected on survival, generation time, brood size, body length and body bend. At lower U-concentrations, the negative effects were reduced in the second or the third generation, indicating an improvement by acclimation. In contrast, at higher U-concentrations, the negative effects on brood size were amplified across generations. Consequently, under high U-concentrations acclimation may not be sufficient, and adaptation of individuals would be required, to permit the population to avoid extinction. The results highlight the need to consider changes across generations to enhance environmental risk assessment related to U pollution.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available