Prozac in the Water Makes Fighting Fish More Mellow (What?!?!?!)

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/inkfish/2016/03/23/prozac-water-makes-fighting-fish-mellow/#.VvXXTYwrLpA

Siamese Fighting Fish

Prozac in the Water Makes Fighting Fish More Mellow

By Elizabeth Preston | March 23, 2016 2:00 pm 156

Had Teresa Dzieweczynski chosen to publish her recent findings as an updated children’s classic, rather than as a research paper, she could have titled it If You Give a Fish an Antidepressant. The book would probably be less charming than If You Give a Mouse a Cookie. But it would also be, unfortunately, more realistic. Our pharmaceuticals are steadily trickling into the homes of fish and other animals. And—as the hero of the original book could have told us, his house in disarray after fulfilling the whims of a hungry rodent—there are consequences.

Dzieweczynski, a psychologist at the University of New England, looked at just one of the drugs that’s crept into American waterways: fluoxetine, better known as Prozac. It’s an antidepressant that makes the hormone serotonin linger in the brain for a longer time. Antidepressants of this type are commonly prescribed, and they commonly get into the water as a result. They’ve turned up in wastewater, drinking water, and other aquatic environments.

She tested fluoxetine on male Siamese fighting fish, or Betta splendens. No one knows how much Prozac is in the water in Thailand, where these fish live naturally. But they make a good model, Dzieweczynski explains, because scientists already understand a lot about their brains, behavior and hormones.

Dzieweczynski and her coauthors put the fighting fish into three different lab environments. Some of the fish swam in tanks with clean water. Others swam in water with a low concentration of fluoxetine—0.5 micrograms per liter, which is at the higher end of what’s been found in U.S. waterways. The third group of fish swam in a stronger dose of fluoxetine, 5 micrograms per liter.

The researchers gave the fish behavioral tests to see how bold they were. In one test, they put a fish into a big empty tank and watched how far it roamed. In another test, they dropped a fish into a tank with rocks and artificial plants it had never seen before, and observed it again. How much did the fish explore? Was it curious about its new environment, or cautious and still? Finally, researchers put a fish into a clear tank adjacent to one that held three other fighting fish. Did the subject approach the strangers, or stay at the opposite end of its tank?

After getting baseline behavioral scores for all their fish, the researchers started dosing them with fluoxetine. They retested the fish after a day of drug exposure. After a week of drug exposure, they tested them again. Then they put all the fish into clean water for a week and tested them a final time.

Across all the behavioral tests, fish exposed to the antidepressant were less bold. They stayed in one place, explored their environment less, and were more hesitant to approach other fish. Their behavior was also more erratic. A higher dose of the drug caused a more dramatic effect.

“Perhaps most importantly and alarmingly,” the authors write, they could still see these effects after the fluoxetine was gone. Even after a week of swimming in clean water, drugged fish behaved less boldly than normal.

In an earlier study, Dzieweczynski drugged female fighting fish with fluoxetine and saw similar results. The effect was a bit stronger in male fish, she says—maybe because they have higher levels of serotonin or testosterone to begin with.

Dzieweczynski didn’t test her “fighting” fish to see how much they actually fought each other. She says other studies have shown that fluoxetine makes them less aggressive. When the fish in this study approached strange fish from across their tank, they may have been seeking a fight, a potential mate, or just safety in numbers.

But no matter what the fishes’ intentions, acting less boldly could hurt their odds of survival in the wild. If fish are less eager to explore their environments, they might have trouble searching for food. Shyer behavior could also make it harder for fish to defend their environments, migrate, or escape predators.

That means letting our drugs get into the water could have a cascade of consequences throughout an ecosystem. And if even temporary drug exposures can have lasting effects, it might be hard to turn the story back to page one. (Can someone bring that mouse back now?

2 thoughts on “Prozac in the Water Makes Fighting Fish More Mellow (What?!?!?!)

  1. An interesting article that backs up other research studies I have read. One problem is that for many years in the U.S. (and I am sure other places as well) people were told to dispose of old medications by flushing them. Now we know that was a bad idea. Wastewater treatment plants do not have any processes to remove pharmaceuticals from the wastewater stream resulting in higher than expected levels of hormones, antidepressants, and antibiotics in the receiving waters. Currently, EPA regulations on water quality for wastewater treatment plant effluent covers many areas (suspended solids, biological oxygen demand, pH, and in some cases even water temperature) but says nothing about pharmaceuticals in the water. It has only been relatively recently that the risks posed by these chemicals in receiving waters was even known. The EPA is studying regulations covering this, but there are a few problems. First, in wastewater treatment the things you are specifically trying to get out of the water you can never get all of. There will always be a certain amount left in the water. This means that you have to decide what a safe level is. In the case of pharmaceuticals, while research is being done we still don’t know what a safe level is. The second problem is that even if you know what a safe level is and write the regulation, nobody can meet the regulations because the technology does not exist yet to separate those chemicals from water. There are a number of companies in the U.S. and in Europe that are doing research into solving this problem. The research is expensive, but the first company to come up with a reasonably priced way of doing this will make a lot of money very quickly.

    As a side note, wastewater treatment would be much simpler and cost less if people would not send stuff down the drain that they shouldn’t. The human factor causes clogged sewer lines and damaged equipment in lift stations. Finally, the first stage of wastewater treatment (head works and screening) is there just to remove stuff that should not have made its way into the sewer system to begin with.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Wow what a detailed analysis and comment of this problem, I think you should write a post about it! I never thought much about this problem, and erroneously assumed that the filtration systems would take care of it 😦 How many different types of drugs must there be in the water and how many types of filters must be needed to remove these chemicals, ugh! My sister drinks only Fiji water, I was telling her plastic bottles just end up in the ocean and that’s a very bad thing! But with all these chemicals and drugs we are getting, and in combinations that might have what effects, Fiji is sounding pretty good!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s