Differences in activation of aryl hydrocarbon receptors of white sturgeon relative to lake sturgeon are predicted by identities of key amino acids in the ligand binding domain.

Dioxin-like compounds (DLCs) are pollutants of global environmental concern. DLCs elicit their adverse outcomes through activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR). However, there is limited understanding of the mechanisms that result in differences in sensitivity to DLCs among different species of fishes. Understanding these mechanisms is critical for protection of the diversity of fishes exposed to DLCs, including endangered species. This study investigated specific mechanisms that drive responses of two endangered fishes, white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens) to DLCs. It determined whether differences in sensitivity to activation of AhRs (AhR1 and AhR2) can be predicted based on identities of key amino acids in the ligand binding domain (LBD). White sturgeon were 3- to 30-fold more sensitive than lake sturgeon to exposure to 5 different DLCs based on activation of AhR2. There were no differences in sensitivity between white sturgeon and lake sturgeon based on activation of AhR1. Adverse outcomes as a result of exposure to DLCs have been shown to be mediated through activation of AhR2, but not AhR1, in all fishes studied to date. This indicates that white sturgeon are likely to have greater sensitivity in vivo relative to lake sturgeon. Homology modeling and in silico mutagenesis suggests that differences in sensitivity to activation of AhR2 result from differences in key amino acids at position 388 in the LBD of AhR2 of white sturgeon (Ala-388) and lake sturgeon (Thr-388). This indicates that identities of key amino acids in the LBD of AhR2 could be predictive of both in vitro activation by DLCs and in vivo sensitivity to DLCs in these, and potentially other, fishes.

[1]  Bo Zhang,et al.  Malformations of the endangered Chinese sturgeon, Acipenser sinensis, and its causal agent , 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[2]  D. Macdonald,et al.  Contaminants in white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) from the upper Fraser River, British Columbia, Canada , 1997 .

[3]  B. Koop,et al.  Toxicogenomic responses in rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) hepatocytes exposed to model chemicals and a synthetic mixture. , 2007, Aquatic toxicology.

[4]  M. E. Hahn,et al.  Identification and functional characterization of two highly divergent aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AHR1 and AHR2) in the teleost Fundulus heteroclitus. Evidence for a novel subfamily of ligand-binding basic helix loop helix-Per-ARNT-Sim (bHLH-PAS) factors. , 1999, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[5]  Effects of dioxin isomers on induction of AhRs and CYP1A1 in early developmental stage embryos of medaka (Oryzias latipes). , 2010, Chemosphere.

[6]  W. Heideman,et al.  2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor/aryl hydrocarbon receptor nuclear translocator pathway causes developmental toxicity through a CYP1A-independent mechanism in zebrafish. , 2004, Molecular pharmacology.

[7]  S. Kennedy,et al.  The molecular basis for differential dioxin sensitivity in birds: role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[8]  R. Peterson,et al.  2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) Toxicity during Early Life Stage Development of Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush) , 1991 .

[9]  D. Tillitt,et al.  2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin induces apoptotic cell death and cytochrome P4501A expression in developing Fundulus heteroclitus embryos. , 2001, Aquatic toxicology.

[10]  Y. Fujii‐Kuriyama,et al.  Cytochrome P450 gene regulation and physiological functions mediated by the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. , 2007, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[11]  R. T. Giulio,et al.  AHR2 knockdown prevents PAH-mediated cardiac toxicity and XRE- and ARE-associated gene induction in zebrafish (Danio rerio). , 2011 .

[12]  K. Hensel,et al.  Past and current status of sturgeons in the upper and middle Danube River , 1997, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[13]  S. Kennedy,et al.  A luciferase reporter gene assay and aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 genotype predict the LD50 of polychlorinated biphenyls in avian species. , 2012, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[14]  M. Denison,et al.  Comparison of recombinant cell bioassays for the detection of Ah receptor agonists , 2004, BioFactors.

[15]  J. Thornton,et al.  PROCHECK: a program to check the stereochemical quality of protein structures , 1993 .

[16]  Manfred J. Sippl,et al.  Thirty years of environmental health research--and growing. , 1996, Nucleic Acids Res..

[17]  Bhusan K. Kuntal,et al.  EasyModeller: A graphical interface to MODELLER , 2010, BMC Research Notes.

[18]  Dawoon Jung,et al.  AHR2 mediates cardiac teratogenesis of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and PCB-126 in Atlantic killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus). , 2010, Aquatic toxicology.

[19]  M. Denison,et al.  The silencing mediator of retinoic acid and thyroid hormone receptors can interact with the aryl hydrocarbon (Ah) receptor but fails to repress Ah receptor-dependent gene expression. , 2002, Archives of biochemistry and biophysics.

[20]  Alessandro Pandini,et al.  Detection of the TCDD binding-fingerprint within the Ah receptor ligand binding domain by structurally driven mutagenesis and functional analysis. , 2009, Biochemistry.

[21]  C. Tohyama,et al.  The 2005 World Health Organization reevaluation of human and Mammalian toxic equivalency factors for dioxins and dioxin-like compounds. , 2006, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[22]  Safe,et al.  Toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for PCBs, PCDDs, PCDFs for humans and wildlife. , 1998, Environmental health perspectives.

[23]  T. Zacharewski,et al.  Comparison of TCDD-elicited genome-wide hepatic gene expression in Sprague-Dawley rats and C57BL/6 mice. , 2013, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[24]  Philip M. Cook,et al.  Comparative toxicity of 2,3,7,8‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxin to seven freshwater fish species during early life‐stage development , 1998 .

[25]  R. D. Di Giulio,et al.  AHR2 knockdown prevents PAH-mediated cardiac toxicity and XRE- and ARE-associated gene induction in zebrafish (Danio rerio). , 2011, Toxicology and applied pharmacology.

[26]  O. Hankinson The aryl hydrocarbon receptor complex. , 1995, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[27]  J. Giesy,et al.  Identification and expression of aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR1 and AhR2) provide insight in an evolutionary context regarding sensitivity of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) to dioxin-like compounds. , 2014, Aquatic toxicology.

[28]  N. K. Roy,et al.  Toxic effects of PCB126 and TCDD on shortnose sturgeon and Atlantic sturgeon , 2012, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[29]  T. N. Bhat,et al.  The Protein Data Bank , 2000, Nucleic Acids Res..

[30]  Alessandro Pandini,et al.  Structural and functional characterization of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligand binding domain by homology modeling and mutational analysis. , 2007, Biochemistry.

[31]  Andrey Alexeyenko,et al.  Dynamic Zebrafish Interactome Reveals Transcriptional Mechanisms of Dioxin Toxicity , 2010, PloS one.

[32]  J. Giesy,et al.  Tissue specificity of aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) mediated responses and relative sensitivity of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) to an AhR agonist. , 2012, Aquatic toxicology.

[33]  W. Delano The PyMOL Molecular Graphics System , 2002 .

[34]  Daniel L Villeneuve,et al.  Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment , 2010, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[35]  Christopher A Bradfield,et al.  The search for endogenous activators of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. , 2008, Chemical research in toxicology.

[36]  R. P. Khodorevskaya,et al.  Present status of commercial stocks of sturgeons in the Caspian Sea basin , 1997, Environmental Biology of Fishes.

[37]  Jie Liang,et al.  CASTp: computed atlas of surface topography of proteins with structural and topographical mapping of functionally annotated residues , 2006, Nucleic Acids Res..

[38]  Ann L Linnum,et al.  Toxicity of 2, 3, 7, 8‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxin to early life stage brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) following parental dietary exposure , 1998 .

[39]  J. Giesy,et al.  Functionality of aryl hydrocarbon receptors (AhR1 and AhR2) of white sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) and implications for the risk assessment of dioxin-like compounds. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[40]  A. Pandini,et al.  Comparative Analysis of Homology Models of the Ah Receptor Ligand Binding Domain: Verification of Structure-function Predictions by Site-directed Mutagenesis of a Non-functional Ahr † Nih Public Access , 2022 .

[41]  A. Okey An aryl hydrocarbon receptor odyssey to the shores of toxicology: the Deichmann Lecture, International Congress of Toxicology-XI. , 2007, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[42]  Richard E Peterson,et al.  Aryl hydrocarbon receptor 2 mediates 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin developmental toxicity in zebrafish. , 2003, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[43]  G. Perdew,et al.  The aryl hydrocarbon receptor complex and the control of gene expression. , 2008, Critical reviews in eukaryotic gene expression.

[44]  S. Kennedy,et al.  Key amino acids in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor predict dioxin sensitivity in avian species. , 2008, Environmental science & technology.

[45]  Y Fujii-Kuriyama,et al.  Dioxin binding activities of polymorphic forms of mouse and human arylhydrocarbon receptors. , 1994, The Journal of biological chemistry.

[46]  I. Jarić,et al.  Assessment of Extinction Risk and Reasons for Decline in Sturgeon , 2006, Biodiversity & Conservation.

[47]  D. Tillitt,et al.  Sensitivity of shovelnose sturgeon (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) and pallid sturgeon (S. albus) early life stages to 3,3′,4,4′,5‐pentachlorobiphenyl and 2,3,7,8‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐P‐dioxin exposure , 2015, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[48]  Steve Wiseman,et al.  Predicting the sensitivity of fishes to dioxin-like compounds: possible role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligand binding domain , 2013, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[49]  Ruben Abagyan,et al.  Modeling of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) ligand binding domain and its utility in virtual ligand screening to predict new AhR ligands. , 2009, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[50]  Eun-Young Kim,et al.  Potencies of red seabream AHR1- and AHR2-mediated transactivation by dioxins: implication of both AHRs in dioxin toxicity. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[51]  M. E. Hahn,et al.  Specific ligand binding domain residues confer low dioxin responsiveness to AHR1β of Xenopus laevis. , 2013, Biochemistry.

[52]  Dongmei Wu,et al.  Amino acid sequence of the ligand-binding domain of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor 1 predicts sensitivity of wild birds to effects of dioxin-like compounds. , 2013, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[53]  M. Dadswell A Review of the Status of Atlantic Sturgeon in Canada, with Comparisons to Populations in the United States and Europe , 2006 .

[54]  Eun-Young Kim,et al.  Toxic effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) in developing red seabream (Pagrus major) embryo: an association of morphological deformities with AHR1, AHR2 and CYP1A expressions. , 2006, Aquatic toxicology.