Biotransformation, stress and genotoxic effects of 17β-estradiol in juvenile sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2005.11.006Get rights and content

Abstract

The effects of 17β-estradiol (E2) on fish became a matter of concern, since significant levels of this hormone were detected in the aquatic environment released mainly by domestic sewage treatment plants. In this perspective, the current study was focused on E2 effects upon biotransformation, stress and genotoxic responses of juvenile Dicentrarchus labrax L. (sea bass). Fish were exposed to E2 during 10 days in two different ways: water diluted (200 ng/L or 2000 ng/L) and i.p. injected (0.5 mg/kg or 5 mg/kg). A battery of biological responses was evaluated: liver ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) and alanine transaminase (ALT) activities, liver somatic index (LSI), plasma cortisol, glucose and lactate concentrations, as well as erythrocytic nuclear abnormalities (ENA).

All the exposure conditions induced endocrine disruption, measured as plasma cortisol decrease, and genotoxicity, measured as ENA increase. Thus, no differences were detected either between different exposure routes or tested concentrations. Concerning liver EROD and ALT activities, as well as plasma glucose and lactate concentrations no differences were found between treated and control groups. LSI was the only parameter to respond differently in the two exposure routes, as only E2 water diluted induced a significant increase in this hepatic indicator.

Introduction

Natural female estrogens are excreted via bile and urine mainly as water-soluble glucuronides, sulfates or, to a minor extent, in its free form (Fürhacker et al., 1999). Before conjugation, estrogens undergo hydroxylation, reduction, methylation or oxidation predominantly in the liver. 17β-Estradiol (E2), the most effective estrogen secreted by the ovaries, can be oxidized to estrone and further converted into estriol. Polar metabolites like 16-hydroxyestrone, 4-hydroxyestradiol, 16-ketoestrone and/or 16-epiestriol are formed and can also be found in urine and faeces (Ying et al., 2002).

Estrogens and E2 in particular reach aquatic environments mainly through domestic effluents. Previous measurements of human estrogen excretion estimated that females were excreting 2.3–259 μg/person/day and males 1.6 μg/person/day of E2 through urine (Johnson et al., 2000). Two other important sources of E2 are livestock waste (Ying et al., 2002) and agriculture runoff (Céspedes et al., 2004). For example, in poultry waste a concentration ranging from 14 to 533 ng/g dry waste for E2 was reported by Shore et al. (1995). The E2 concentration in urine of cattle was found to be 13 ng/L on average (Erb et al., 1977). Recent studies have shown that the utilization of animal manure to agricultural land can lead to movement of E2 into surface and ground water (Peterson et al., 2001). E2 has been found mobile and detected in runoff from a pastural land in an average concentration of 3500 ng/L (Nichols et al., 1998). Therefore, in environmental waters E2 concentration range is between the detection limit up to ng/L (Spengler et al., 2001).

Although E2 conjugates released into aquatic environments do not possess a direct biological activity, they can act as precursor hormone reservoirs able to be reconverted by bacteria to free E2. Moreover, this cleavage is particularly relevant in both raw and treated sewages (Baronti et al., 2000).

Taking into consideration the scenario previously described, E2 has been increasingly reported as an environmental contaminant (Ying et al., 2002, Imai et al., 2005), being also regarded by Dorabawila and Gupta (2005) as “the most potent of all xenoestrogens”, able to affect aquatic organisms, namely fish. Furthermore, E2 is among the most potent endocrine disrupting chemicals having the potential to exert effects at extremely low concentrations (Bowman et al., 2002).

Studies regarding E2 effects on fish have been focused on endocrine aspects, mainly reproduction. It is known that it may alter gonadosomatic index in males, reduce egg production in females, induce vitellogenesis in males and juveniles as well as decrease fertility (Mills et al., 2001, Kang et al., 2002). However, there is now ample evidence that non-reproductive endocrine events can be disrupted by E2, namely the response to stress. Glucocorticoids, such as cortisol, are important for stress responses in fish, particularly in metabolic adjustments by the regulation of energy production, hydro-mineral balance, oxygen uptake and immune competence (Hontela, 1997). Nevertheless, only a few studies have been carried out on E2 effects on plasma cortisol, leading to non-coincident results (Pottinger et al., 1996, Teles et al., 2005). Similarly, the effects of E2 on fish secondary stress responses, such as alterations on plasma glucose and lactate concentrations, are still poorly understood (Petersen et al., 1983, Teles et al., 2005).

In the field of non-endocrine E2 effects on fish, special attention has been paid on regulation of CYP1A expression; hence, several authors observed the suppression of CYP1A-associated 7-ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) activity, in both maturing females Scophthalmus maximus L. and juvenile Sparus aurata L. treated experimentally with E2 (Arukwe and Goksøyr, 1997, Teles et al., 2005). Moreover, several mammal studies indicated that E2 is genotoxic (Liehr, 2000, Joosten et al., 2004). Thus, the ecotoxicological relevance of E2 genotoxicity on fish is worthwhile to study since little is known about this subject.

The present study was undertaken to assess E2 effects on Dicentrarchus labrax L. (sea bass) at different levels: CYP1A expression, measured as liver EROD activity, genotoxicity, measured as erythrocytic nuclear abnormalities (ENA), as well as stress responses, namely plasma cortisol, glucose and lactate levels. Hepatic indicators, such as liver somatic index (LSI) and alanine transaminase (ALT) activity were also measured. Furthermore, the previous responses were evaluated under two different E2 exposure routes, i.e., either water diluted or intraperitoneally (i.p.) injected, in order to clarify the influence of the exposure route.

Section snippets

Chemicals

17β-Estradiol was purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Germany), marine salt from Sera Premium (France). The kit for cortisol determination was obtained from Diametra (Italy). All the other chemicals were of analytical grade obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Germany) and E. Merck-Darmstadt (Germany).

Test animals

The experiment was carried out with juvenile D. labrax specimens purchased from a local fish farm, Materaqua, Ílhavo, Portugal. Fish weighing 21.80 ± 1.32 g and measuring 12.4 ± 3 cm were transported in aerated

Results

D. labrax liver EROD (Fig. 1) and ALT (Fig. 2A) activities showed no statistically significant changes for both water diluted (WD) and intraperitoneal injection (IP) experiments, comparing to the respective control groups.

LSI (Fig. 2B) increased significantly in D. labrax exposed to water diluted E2 in both tested concentrations, displaying a less pronounced rise for the highest concentration—72% increment for 200 ng/L vs. 25% for 2000 ng/L. On the other hand, no significant alterations were

Discussion

Hormonal steroids have always been present in the aquatic environment. However, their occurrence in natural waters strongly increased in the last decades due to its growing use in human medicine and livestock farming release, becoming a matter of concern and an interesting research topic for ecotoxicology.

The highest concentration (2000 ng/L) employed in the current WD experiment was chosen to mimic endogenous levels of circulating estrogen in fish spawning females, whereas the lowest

Conclusions

  • The comparison between the responses to the different E2 exposure routes revealed no differences for all the assessed parameters, excluding LSI. Thus, it may be suggested that E2 distribution and/or elimination processes seem not to be affected.

  • E2 decreased plasma cortisol levels, revealing its endocrine disruptive role affecting fish stress responsiveness. This alteration was confirmed as a possible response pattern to xenobiotics short-term exposures.

  • E2, considered an aquatic contaminant,

Acknowledgements

The authors express their appreciation for the financial support provided by the Aveiro University Research Institute (CESAM) and by the “Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia” (FCT, Grant No. SFRH/BD/6607/2001).

References (60)

  • H.F. Joosten et al.

    Genotoxicity of hormonal steroids

    Toxicol Lett

    (2004)
  • I.J. Kang et al.

    Effect of 17β-estradiol on the reproduction of Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes)

    Chemosphere

    (2002)
  • S.D. McCormick et al.

    Endocrine disruption of parr–smolt transportation and seawater tolerance of Atlantic salmon by 4-nonylphenol and 17β-estradiol

    Gen Comp Endocrinol

    (2005)
  • H.J. McQuillan et al.

    Effects of sex steroids, sex, and sexual maturity on cortisol production: an in vitro comparison of Chinook salmon and rainbow trout interrenals

    Gen Comp Endocrinol

    (2003)
  • L.J. Mills et al.

    Effects of estrogenic (o,p′-DDT; octylphenol) and anti-androgenic (p,p′-DDE) chemicals on indicators of endocrine status in juvenile male summer flounder (Paralichthys dentatus)

    Aquat Toxicol

    (2001)
  • J.M. Navas et al.

    Modulation of trout 7-ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) activity by estradiol and octylphenol

    Mar Environ Res

    (2000)
  • J.M. Navas et al.

    Estrogen-mediated suppression of cytochrome P4501A (CYP1A) expression in rainbow trout hepatocytes: role of estrogen receptor

    Chem Biol Interact

    (2001)
  • M. Pacheco et al.

    Induction of liver EROD and erythrocytic nuclear abnormalities by cyclophosphamide and PAHs in Anguilla anguilla L

    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf

    (1998)
  • M. Pacheco et al.

    Biotransformation, endocrine, and genetic responses of Anguilla anguilla L. to petroleum distillate products and environmentally contaminated waters

    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf

    (2001)
  • A.S. Pait et al.

    Vitellogenesis in male Fundulus heteroclitus (killifish) induced by selected estrogenic compounds

    Aquat Toxicol

    (2003)
  • I.M. Petersen et al.

    A time course study of the effect of repetitive doses of estradiol-17 beta on serum glucose and lipids, liver glycogen and some carbohydrate metabolizing enzymes in liver of male flounder (Platichtys flesus L.)

    Comp Biochem Physiol B

    (1983)
  • T.G. Pottinger et al.

    Testosterone, 11-ketotestosterone, and estradiol-17 beta modify baseline and stress-induced interrenal and corticotropic activity in trout

    Gen Comp Endocrinol

    (1996)
  • D. Roy et al.

    Estrogen, DNA damage and mutations

    Mutat Res

    (1999)
  • M.A. Santos et al.

    Anguilla anguilla L. stress biomarkers recovery in clean water and secondary-treated pulp mill effluent

    Ecotoxicol Environ Saf

    (1996)
  • I.R. Smith

    Erythrocytic micronuclei in wild fish from Lakes Superior and Ontario that have pollution-associated neoplasia

    J Great Lakes Res

    (1990)
  • E.A. Snowberger et al.

    Patterns and regulation of estradiol metabolism by hepatic microsomes from two species of marine teleosts

    Gen Comp Endocrinol

    (1987)
  • J.E. Stein et al.

    Effects of exposure to a contaminated-sediment extract on the metabolism and disposition of 17β-estradiol in English sole (Parophrys vetulus)

    Comp Biochem Physiol C

    (1991)
  • M. Teles et al.

    Juvenile sea bass biotransformation, genotoxic and endocrine responses to β-naphthoflavone, 4-nonylphenol and 17 β-estradiol individual and combined exposures

    Chemosphere

    (2004)
  • M. Teles et al.

    Sparus aurata L. liver EROD and GST activities, plasma cortisol, lactate, glucose and erythrocytic nuclear anomalies following short-term exposure either to 17β-estradiol (E2) or E2 combined with 4-nonylphenol

    Sci Total Environ

    (2005)
  • T. Verslycke et al.

    Induction of vitellogenesis in 17α-ethynylestradiol-exposed rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): a method comparison

    Comp Biochem Physiol C

    (2002)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text