Palytoxin Lit Search (PubMed)

[MrAnderson]

well all i can say is, "whatever"...

 

Of course it isn't a conclusion, it is an observation.

 

you've observed that there is no palytoxin in captive corals? lol ok.

 

What I am saying (blah blah blah) is that none of the aforementioend events are singly important but all are necessary and sufficient to make efficacious palytoxin on the corals part.

 

you just made this up (lol); the natural molecular pathway of palytoxin production, and it's regulation, if any, is unknown.

 

As a matter of fact, the free, non-symbiotic form of Ostreopsis makes palytoxin (just like the form of Ostreopsis found in corals). Molecular signaling with a coral host is actually unnecessary for palytoxin production.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...l=pubmed_docsum

 

Some say it from a few species off the coast of Hawaii but others have reported a similar toxin in other corals and marine invertebrates. Is it all Palythoa and Zoanthid species - don't think so. Geographic distribution seems to be a factor as well as species localiztion.

 

OMG dude, there's plenty of peer reviewed literature on this, you don't have to keep making stuff up. At least I provide citations for what I say (I'm not even venturing past the data lol). "reported a similar toxin"? Strangely, only bradarmi from nano-reef.com, doesn't believe the results of antibody-ablation experiments. It's usually pretty definitive for most biochemists.

 

 

As far as cofactors (vitamins and minerals) not being reported as the rate-limiting step of any protein production - where have you been?

 

i specified the context of marine aquaculture in relation to a desired bioactive product. can you cite an example?

 

This "palytoxin poisoning" that people talk about is none other than a histamine-based immune reaction to a xenobiotic, non-peptide compound.

 

lol again, allergies don't cause neurological disturbances, unless you count death from anaphylaxis as a "neurological disturbance".

 

Again, I seem to be the only person in this conversation providing peer-reviewed literature specifically on the subject at hand, palytoxin. Everything else I've seen is extrapolation of unrelated phenomena and theoretical conjecture. Put your money where your mouth is and provide some data that challenges the data I provided. Heck, even provide some data that connects any of the stuff you've been talking about with palytoxin...

 

Doesn't anybody have any directly-related data to discuss? There's a ton of primary scientific literature on palytoxin, specifically.

[Chupacabras]

It's a fact: Eggs over medium are superior to scrambled eggs.

 

I have no data to back my assertion, it's just so.

[icenine]

Should someone make lgreen eat a zoanthoid in the truth or dare tread: Y/N?

 

That's really the only question we need answered here.

[Matty1124]

Chupacabras you are wrong scrambled are far superior to all other kinds of eggs

[bradarmi]

I didn't know I was talking to the world's expert on palytoxin

 

Where to begin....

 

In your first post you stated three findings:

 

) Palytoxin has a wide geographic distribution.

2) The source is a symbiotic dinoflagellate which lives in corals. The palytoxin-containing corals can then be eaten by fish and the toxin sequestered in tissue.

3) Palytoxin can be isolated from a variety of fishes as well as various corals.

 

So, you remove the coral from its native environment with a particular dinoflagellate and you still think that polyp and all subsequent polyps will have the same concentration of palytoxin. Removing the coral is stressful and possibly (only hypothesis, no one I know has tested this, don't get excited) the coral purges the toxin from its tissues. A common defense mechanism of many animals. What I proposed was a likely series of mechanisms that could potentially explain what we currently do not know. Do you, Mr. A, know for a fact that there is palytoxin in these corals? I was being hypothetical, not factorial. Thats the problem with forums, you cannot detect sarcasm or hypothetical discussion.

 

It makes sense, if the dinoflagellate is the causative agent of palytoxin production, and the coral is no longer eating it/and or forming a symbiotic relationship with it, does that coral retain the toxin?..Probably so, but does that coral's offspring retain the toxin...at least in concentrations equal to that of the parent? How about the F7 generation, ...I like to ask the questions that aren't in Pub Med because if you base all your experiments on someone else...what will you do when they retire? The crux of the arguement is actually whether or not captive-bred cnidarians have the ability to retain their toxic profile. I will argue that if the dinoflagellate is not there then ..NO. I am not "making this up", I am proposing likely scenarios to explain observations (or in this case, lack of them). I thought that is what scientists do, or am I wrong?

 

 

As a matter of fact, the free, non-symbiotic form of Ostreopsis makes palytoxin (just like the form of Ostreopsis found in corals). Molecular signaling with a coral host is actually unnecessary for palytoxin production

 

I don't care about the non-symbiont plankton that also contain palytoxin, I am talking about the zoanthid and palythoa corals, and when they loose the relationship with these dinoflagelites ...what happens? Highly toxic compounds like that must be maintained and sequestered so it does not harm the organism in vivo. As I hinted at earlier, cofactors and active enzymes are sometimes responsible for a chaperoning effect to maintain these toxins in an inactive form so as not to harm the organism containing it. Case in point, aside from palytoxin effects on ion permeability, and protein translation, it can also act as a mutagen. So if palytoxin was not somehow seqeuestered by a cofactor or chemical, I would expect palytoxin-infected/containing corals and other life forms to be riddled with tumors, or at least show some ill effects. See below: "palytoxin_skin_tumors"

 

OMG dude, there's plenty of peer reviewed literature on this, you don't have to keep making stuff up. At least I provide citations for what I say (I'm not even venturing past the data lol). "reported a similar toxin"? Strangely, only bradarmi from nano-reef.com, doesn't believe the results of antibody-ablation experiments. It's usually pretty definitive for most biochemists.

 

"Reported a similar toxin" refers to the fact that palytoxin is large and minor changes may render it a different chemical with distinct biological function, this is not voodoo - it is drug discovery #101.

 

From Ostreopsis ovata algal blooms affecting human health in Genova, Italy, 2005 and 2006

C Brescianini1, C Grillo1, N Melchiorre1, R Bertolotto1, A Ferrari2, B Vivaldi2, G Icardi3, L Gramaccioni4, E Funari5, S Scardala5

 

O. ovata is a marine dinoflagellate species which lives on red and brown macroalgae on the sea bed. This species is usually found in protected, inshore areas in tropical and subtropical regions, but in recent years has been found more and more frequently in the Mediterranean. The blooms occur when water temperature and barometric pressure are high and hydrodynamism is low. Some Ostreopsis strains produce a highly toxic compound known as palytoxin and analogues which can accumulate in fish and are implicated clupeotoxism associated with eating clupeoid fish. Environmental conditions and factors promoting palytoxin production are still largely unknown.

 

 

Which begs the question, do all strains of this dinoflagellate manufacture this toxin, or is it in crisis situations, cues from environment, (the signalling pathways we have been talking about). That implies that environmental changes cue the dinoflagellate production of this toxin. Why can't these changes cue incorporation or expulsion of the toxin from the cnidarian? We know that weather changes can influence algal blooms - I want to know what else.

 

See also attached "paly_analogs "

 

As far as antibodies, I know they are sensitive and specific and great at detecting foreign substances, but not all palytoxin reports are the same molecule. You saw how big it is, if you change a methyl group it is no longer is "classic palytoxin" but an analog with minor chemical changes.... if the antibodies' epitope was binding to that area, a methyl group can seriously alter affinity if it is changed with a larger, more steric, substituted R group. Do I need to find a reference or do agree on at least that much? I would think of palytoxin as the "base molecule" and all subsequent modifications from whatever the cause second and third generation moeities. Besides, there is both the innate and adaptive immune system mechanisms at play here.

 

lol again, allergies don't cause neurological disturbances, unless you count death from anaphylaxis as a "neurological disturbance".

 

 

Again, point missed. I was refering to the rash many people refer to as palytoxin poisinong is not specifically palytoxin-related, but just a foreign substance. In reality, the mechanism of action is not consistant with a rash, but rather neurological impairment, cardiac insufficiency, and even translational protein changes. The toxin most likely has to be injected into the skin - as a result of a sting - not from touching water containing zoas.

cnidarian_endocrine_signallg.pdf

Palytoxin_skin_tumors.pdf

paly_analogs.pdf

[tinyreef]

i wonder if either mra and brad realize that nobody really reads beyond the first four lines on the internet. that's one of the reasons why i usually break up my own posts with multiple carriage-returns. otherwise the type just starts blending together and getting fuzzy like college days. kinda like a background buzzing noise that blah blah blah blah blah.

[Tangman1218]

i wonder if either mra and brad realize that nobody really reads beyond the first four lines of... blah blah blah blah blah.

 

 

I swear I was gunna say the same dang thing

 

Tang

[Caesar777]

Fascinating stuff. Nice info, MrA; cool to see this thread brought up again since my post in the lounge (forgot this post had existed, read the opening line and figured you meant my most recent palytoxin post, lol).

 

Nice debate, folks, but frankly, you're both drawing conclusions farther than has been found to date: MrA that they all have the potential to be toxic to humans, and Brad that none or few are toxic to humans. The latter seems to be a more dangerous assumption, on the side of "if there's no proof or it hasn't been found, then it doesn't exist", which may be quite unsafe. No doubt many of the reactions that people have had are allergic reactions--I'd go so far as to say all, despite your arguments, simply because of the level of toxicity of PPX (e.g. deadliest neurotoxin on Earth), and because of most, if not all, of the symptoms being those of allergic reactions: localized swelling, rash, increased heartbeat, not reported as I've seen but surely anaphylactic shock, and surely that would lead to death were it treated as such but actually poisoning. But, again, no proof, and only a few posts on reef forums, many of which are biased because of the "victim" having the forethought of the possible toxicity in mind, e.g. psychosomatic symptoms. But you've already heard my thoughts on that many-a-time; I've yet to see proof on that, and I'd like to. (Hurry up and study more, scientists! )

 

Now, more in my mind: how about the animals that eat the animals that eat the toxic corals? How do fish, which have a true nervous system, not succumb to the potent neurotoxin themselves? (Note, even if they "don't feel pain", as the American Veterinary Medical Association and others believe, they still have a central nervous system.) Humans eat butterfly fish (including Chaetodon species and other zoa-/paly-eaters, I'm sure), as well as many types of angels, which eat sponges and various corals (note the section mentioning animals living up against the toxic polyps also being toxic)... It's been found, according to one of the references in the OP, that the fish that eat these corals have a high concentration of the toxin in their tissues. So:

 

Why isn't Palytoxin hurting the fish that eat the zoanthids?--Or, if not known, any speculations, MrA?

 

And, would it harm a human to eat the flesh of said fish, or only certain organs? Is it only toxic in certain states/forms, maybe?

[MrAnderson]

I didn't know I was talking to the world's expert on palytoxin

 

Do you, Mr. A, know for a fact that there is palytoxin in these corals?

 

Anything I said was very limited in scope, I chose my words carefully. I cited findings and let people draw their own conclusions.

 

I merely posted that palytoxin is naturally found in a wide variety of corals, something which I found interesting and contrary to dogma. If some would like to assume it might still be there after a period of captivity, fine. If others like yourself would like to use hypothetical gymnastics to rationalize that it's not likely to not be present after a period in captivity, that's fine too. I do not claim that to know whether it is retained, for how long, etc..

 

All the conjecture you've presented (still no data! really unbelievable) is a waste of time in my opinion. If you enjoy it as a mental exercise that's one thing, but I'm not debating anything in the theoretical realm. Molecular biology is extremely empirical, the level of "what if" that you are pursuing not only makes very little sense to me in technical and logical terms, but also makes me uncomfortable given this context.

 

Why? I'd rather not leave the impression in this thread that eating a Zoa polyp for the "Truth or Dare" thread might be harmless, truth be told. Given the seriousness of the toxin, and the fact that nobody except us are reading or understanding what we write, all that many need to see in this thread is that there's debate, no matter how silly or theoretical, to disregard the risk.

[Helfrichs Chick]

don't care about the non-symbiont plankton that also contain palytoxin, I am talking about the zoanthid and palythoa corals, and when they loose the relationship with these dinoflagelites ...what happens?

 

Palytoxin for thought: While this is pretty unrelated, I have bred poison arrow frogs for a few years, and while I HAVE bought very toxic wild caught specimens, the captive raised ones do not contain the toxins. I also would think that a coral, when deprived of the relationship between dinoflagelites, they would also loose their toxicity, much like the dart frogs that also get their toxins from their environment. Now palytoxin and pumiliotoxins, (or other classes of frog toxins) are not the same make up, but I just wonder if this is the came thing that could happen to our Zoas and Palys in our home reefs. Now I am no scientist, but from all that I have gathered, you are not likely to survive more than 5 minuets if your actually poisoned with palytoxin. Not to mention it takes such tiny amount. And I believe it is no longer active when diluted in salt water. I dont think this debate will ever really be solved, I think it would take someone doing HUGE numbers of tests, in HUGE numbers of wild caught and captive raised zoas. My .02

[MrAnderson]

Why isn't Palytoxin hurting the fish that eat the zoanthids?--Or, if not known, any speculations, MrA?

 

And, would it harm a human to eat the flesh of said fish, or only certain organs? Is it only toxic in certain states/forms, maybe?

 

I don't think the mechanism of palytoxin resistance in fish that eat corals containing it is known. At least it wasn't known in 1998. There are numerous possible explanations for this mechanism, all of which are complicated, but more importantly, would be thread-killingly boring to 99.99% of NR-ers.

 

And yes, palytoxin poisoning from eating parrotfish has been widely reported. Analysis has shown levels that are equal in both organs and flesh.

 

from one of my citations dated 1998:

 

Animals may acquire toxicity by absorbing toxic compounds from their food, e.g. from plants or other animals. Sequestration and accumulation of toxins may provide protection from predators, which learn to avoid this prey because of unpleasant experiences such as bitter taste. This is a common phenomenon in marine as well as in terrestrial ecosystems. Moreover, toxins may enter food chains where they accumulate reaching high, often lethal concentrations. Palytoxin which had been primarily detected in marine zoanthids (Palythoa sp.), occurs also in a wide range of other animals, e.g. in sponges, corals, shellfish, polychaetes and crustaceans, but also in fish, which feed on crustaceans and zoanthids as well. These animals exhibit a high resistance to the toxin's action. The mechanisms which protect the Na+, K+-ATPase of their cell membranes, the primary target of palytoxin, is unknown. Sequestration of the toxin by other animals may cause health problems due to food poisoning.

[Caesar777]

Cool, thanks for the answers, MrA.

[MrAnderson]

this deserves a bump. i've been seeing a lot of sweeping statements here on NR regarding palytoxin lately.

[jeremai]

I was killed by touching a zoanthid polyp yesterday.

 

True story.

[MrAnderson]

what we need to really sort this out... is a volunteer.