Pfiesteria piscicida

Taxobox | color = khaki
name = "Pfiesteria piscicida"


image_size =
image_caption =
regnum = Protista
phylum = Dinoflagellata
classis = Dinophyceae
ordo = Phytodiniales
familia = Pfiesteriaceae
genus = "Pfiesteria"
species = "P. piscicida"
binomial = "Pfiesteria piscicida"
binomial_authority = Steidinger & Burkholder

"Pfiesteria piscicida" is a dinoflagellate species of the genus "Pfiesteria" that some researchers claim is responsible for many harmful algal blooms in the 1980s and 1990s on the coast of North Carolina and Maryland. The species name "piscicida" means "fish-killer."

Life Cycle

Early research suggested a very complex life cycle of "Pfiesteria piscicida" with up to 24 different stages, spanning from cyst to several amoeboid forms with toxic zoospores. Transformations from one stage to another depend on environmental conditions such as the availability of food.cite journal |author=Burkholder JM, Glasgow HB |title=Trophic controls on stage transformations of a toxic ambush-predator dinoflagellate |journal=J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. |volume=44 |issue=3 |pages=200–5 |year=1997 |pmid=9183706|doi=10.1111/j.1550-7408.1997.tb05700.x] However these results have become controversial as additional research has found only a simple haplontic life cycle with no toxic amoeboid stagescite journal |author=Litaker RW, Vandersea MW, Kibler SR, Madden VJ, Noga EJ, Tester PA |title=Life cycle of the heterotrophic dinoflagellate Pfiesteria piscicida (Dinophyceae) |journal=Journal of Phycology |volume=38 |issue=3 |pages=442–463 |year=2002|doi=10.1046/j.1529-8817.2002.t01-1-01242.x] and amoeba present on attacked fish may represent an unrelated species of protist.cite journal |author=Peglar MT, Nerad TA, Anderson OR, Gillevet PM |title=Identification of amoebae implicated in the life cycle of Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-like dinoflagellates |journal=J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. |volume=51 |issue=5 |pages=542–52 |year=2004 |pmid=15537089|doi=10.1111/j.1550-7408.2004.tb00290.x] cite web |url=http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=study-casts-doubt-on-cell |title=Study casts doubt on Cell from Hell's role in fish kills |accessdate=2008-01-06 |format= |work=]

Toxicity

"Pfiesteria" presumably kills fish via releasing a toxin into the water to paralyze its prey. This hypothesis has been questioned as no toxin could be isolated and no toxicity was observed in some experiments. However, toxicity appears to depend on the strains and assays used.cite journal |author=Burkholder JM, Gordon AS, Moeller PD, "et al" |title=Demonstration of toxicity to fish and to mammalian cells by Pfiesteria species: comparison of assay methods and strains |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume=102 |issue=9 |pages=3471–6 |year=2005 |pmid=15728353 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0500168102] Polymerase chain reaction-analyses suggested that the organism lacks the DNA genes for polyketide synthesis, the type of toxins associated with most toxic dinoflagellates.cite journal |author=Berry JP, Reece KS, Rein KS, "et al" |title=Are Pfiesteria species toxicogenic? Evidence against production of ichthyotoxins by Pfiesteria shumwayae |journal=Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. |volume=99 |issue=17 |pages=10970–5 |year=2002 |pmid=12163648 |doi=10.1073/pnas.172221699] Researchers from the NOAA National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Medical University of South Carolina, and the College of Charleston (S.C.) have formally isolated and characterized the toxin in the estuarine dinoflagellete "Pfiesteria piscicida" as a metal complex and free radical toxin and also have identified how the organism transforms from a non-toxic to toxic state.cite journal |author=Moeller PD, Beauchesne KR, Huncik KM, Davis WC, Christopher SJ, Riggs-Gelasco P, Gelasco AK |title=Metal complexes and free radical toxins produced by Pfiesteria piscicida |journal=Environ. Sci. Technol. |volume=41 |issue=4 |pages=1166–72 |year=2007 |pmid=17598275 |doi=10.1021/es0617993] cite web |url=http://pubs.acs.org/subscribe/journals/esthag-w/2007/jan/science/ee_pfiesteria.html |title=ES&T Online News: New Pfiesteria toxin identified |accessdate=2008-01-06 |format= |work=] cite web |url=http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/531575.html |title=Fish study backs N.C. scientist |accessdate=2008-01-06 |format= |work=] cite web |url=http://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/advisories/adv137.html |title=Pfiesteria toxin breakthrough subject of teleconference briefing |accessdate=2008-01-06 |format= |work=]

Human Health

Very little research on the human health effects of Pfiesteria toxins has been conducted. At a multi-state workshop at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta, Georgia, at the end of September 1997, attendees agreed on clinical symptoms that characterize the adverse health consequences of exposure to Pfiesteria toxins. These clinical features include:

*memory loss
*confusion
*acute skin burning (on direct contact with water); or
*three or more of an additional set of conditions (headaches, skin rash, eye irritation, upper respiratory irritation, muscle cramps, and gastrointestinal complaints (i.e., nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and/or abdominal cramps).

With these criteria and environmental qualifiers (e.g., 20% of a 50-fish sample, all of the same species, have lesions caused by a toxin), it is likely that Pfiesteria-related surveillance data can better track potential illnesses.

Pfiesteria toxins have been blamed for causing adverse health effects in people who have come in close contact with waters where this organism is abundant. Since June 1997, the Maryland Department of Health and Hygiene has been collecting data from Maryland physicians through a state-wide surveillance system on illnesses suspected of being caused by Pfiesteria toxin. As of late October 1997, illness was reported by 146 persons who had been exposed to diseased fish or to waters that were the site of suspected Pfiesteria activity. Many of these persons are watermen and commercial fishermen.

The strongest evidence of adverse human health effects so far comes from case studies of two research scientists who were both overcome in their North Carolina laboratory in 1993. They still complain of adverse effects on their cognitive abilities, particularly after exercising. Duke University Medical Center researchers conducted experiments on rats, which showed that the toxin appeared to slow learning but did not affect memory. [http://www.ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/marine/mar-23.cfm Report on Pfiesteria and Related Harmful Blooms:Natural Resource and Human Health Concerns, Congressional Research Service]

References

External links

* [http://www.nal.usda.gov/wqic/pfiest.html US Department of Agriculture]
* [http://www.enr.state.nc.us/files/pfies.htm North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources]