Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byIsabel Dixon Modified over 11 years ago
1
Sex Reversal of Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon Bill Gale, Matt Mesa, & Alec Maule WFRC, Columbia River Research Lab Jim Nagler University of Idaho Rusty Rodriguez Western Fisheries Research Center Principal Investigators
2
Nagler et al. 2001. Environ. Health Perspect. 109: 67-69. 1999 study of fall chinook spawning in Hanford Reach 84% of phenotypic females were genotypic males None at Priest Rapids or Dworshak hatcheries
3
Male-specific genetic marker Nagler et al. 2001 Male Female FemalePhenotype:
4
Possible explanations Contamination by sperm (unlikely) Chromosome translocation in wild, but not hatchery Sex-reversal –Temperature (unlikely) –Contaminant
5
Objectives 1.Determine E 2 -specific biomarkers & physiological indicators of contaminants 2.Determine incidence of intersexuality 3.Determine phenotypic sex ratios 4.Determine genotypic sex ratios
6
Tasks 1a – 1b; 2a Collect 200 Hanford and 200 Lt. White Salmon NFH juveniles. α = 0.05, β = 0.10 Check for female-specific plasma proteins vitellogenin (Vg) & zona radiata (zrp) Check for incidence of intersexuality (male & female gametes in same individual)
7
Vitellogenin: Col. R. male sturgeon G. Feist, C. Schreck, OSU
8
Intersex gonad – fathead minnow E 2 -treated fathead minnow Dr. Reynaldo Patiño, Texas Tech U.
9
Intersex sturgeon – Bonneville Pool 2000 M. Webb, G. Feist, C Schreck. OSU
10
Tasks 1c & 1d (livers; juveniles--Task 1a) Cytochrome P-450 monooxygenase system--detoxify and eliminate many pollutants EROD polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) Malondialdehyde byproduct of cell membrane breakdown PCBs, DDT, mercury, and cadmium
11
Task 3a, 3b, 3c Collect & raise 750 Hanford & 750 LWS NFH juveniles Hanford 120mm 10% difference: α = 0.05, β = 0.10 Determine phenotypic sex – visual
12
Phenotypic sex Dr. M. Fitzpatrick, ODEQ 6-month old coho - female
13
Task 4a Determine genotypic sex of Hanford & LWS NFH juveniles from Task 1a OTY1 (Devlin et al. 1994; Nagler et al. 2001) GH pseudogene (Du et al. 1993) OT24 (Clifton & Rodriquez 1997)
14
Clifton & Rodriquez 1997 Quantitative marker MFMFFM 1:10, 1:100, 1:1,000 DNA dilutions
15
Conclusions 1.Confirm or refute Nagler et al. 2001 2.If confirmed, offer possible causes 3.Evidence of estrogenic compounds in Hanford Reach? 4.Establish protocol for examining similar questions in the future
16
CRRL - Physiological Ecology Section Alec G. Maule, Leader
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.