Is substrate choice an overlooked variable in ecotoxicology experiments?

It is crucial to understand the effects caused by experimental parameters such as temperature, light, and food type on lab and field-based ecotoxicology experiments, as these variables, and combinations thereof, can affect results. The type of substrate used in exposure experiments, however, is gene...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Environmental monitoring and assessment 2023-02, Vol.195 (2), p.344-344, Article 344
Main Authors: Sinclair, Georgia M., Di Giannantonio, Michela, Jones, Oliver A. H., Long, Sara M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Amphipoda
Animals
Aquatic crustaceans
Atmospheric Protection/Air Quality Control/Air Pollution
Cellulose
Contaminants
Crustaceans
Disaccharides
Earth and Environmental Science
Ecology
Ecotoxicology
Environment
Environmental Management
Environmental Monitoring
Environmental science
Experiments
Fatty acids
Food
Foods
Fresh Water
Freshwater
Freshwater crustaceans
Gauze
Hazardous Substances
Inland water environment
Intermediates
Juveniles
Metabolic response
Metabolism
Metabolites
Metabolomics
Monitoring/Environmental Analysis
Monosaccharides
Substrate preferences
Substrates
Survival
Temperature
Toilet paper
Toxicants
Toxicity
Tricarboxylic acid cycle
Water Pollutants, Chemical - toxicity
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:It is crucial to understand the effects caused by experimental parameters such as temperature, light, and food type on lab and field-based ecotoxicology experiments, as these variables, and combinations thereof, can affect results. The type of substrate used in exposure experiments, however, is generally assumed to have no effect. This may not always be correct. The metabolic changes in the freshwater crustacean,  Austrochiltonia subtenuis  exposed to copper, using three common substrates, gauze; toilet paper; and cellulose were investigated. Substrate alone did not affect survival, but each substrate elicited a different metabolic response and adult and juvenile amphipods had different substrate preferences. Several classes of metabolites were shown to change in response to different substrates and toxicant. These included disaccharides, monosaccharides, fatty acids, and tricarboxylic acid cycle intermediates. The results illustrate that metabolomic responses can differ in response to experimental factors that were previously thought not to be significant. In fact, our data indicate that substrate should be viewed as an experimental factor as important to control for as more well-known confounders such as temperature or food, thus challenging the current paradigm. Assuming substrate type has no effect on the experiment could potentially lead to errors in contaminant toxicity assessments. We propose that ideal good practise would be that all experimental factors should be evaluated for their potential influence on metabolomic profiles prior to contaminant response experiments being undertaken.
ISSN:0167-6369
1573-2959
DOI:10.1007/s10661-023-10935-1