Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 Apr 26;19(4):e0292415. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292415

The effect of common paralytic agents used for fluorescence imaging on redox tone and ATP levels in Caenorhabditis elegans

Katherine S Morton 1,#, Ashlyn K Wahl 1,#, Joel N Meyer 1,*
Editor: Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez2
PMCID: PMC11051652  PMID: 38669260

Abstract

One aspect of Caenorhabditis elegans that makes it a highly valuable model organism is the ease of use of in vivo genetic reporters, facilitated by its transparent cuticle and highly tractable genetics. Despite the rapid advancement of these technologies, worms must be paralyzed for most imaging applications, and few investigations have characterized the impacts of common chemical anesthetic methods on the parameters measured, in particular biochemical measurements such as cellular energetics and redox tone. Using two dynamic reporters, QUEEN-2m for relative ATP levels and reduction-oxidation sensitive GFP (roGFP) for redox tone, we assess the impact of commonly used chemical paralytics. We report that no chemical anesthetic is entirely effective at doses required for full paralysis without altering redox tone or ATP levels, and that anesthetic use alters the detected outcome of rotenone exposure on relative ATP levels and redox tone. We also assess the use of cold shock, commonly used in combination with physical restraint methods, and find that cold shock does not alter either ATP levels or redox tone. In addition to informing which paralytics are most appropriate for research in these topics, we highlight the need for tailoring the use of anesthetics to different endpoints and experimental questions. Further, we reinforce the need for developing less disruptive paralytic methods for optimal imaging of dynamic in vivo reporters.

Introduction

Caenorhabditis elegans is a powerful model organism widely used by researchers to study developmental biology, neurobiology, metabolism, and human diseases such as cancer, metabolic disorders, and neurodegeneration [1,2]. Worms reach adulthood in just 3 days, are highly genetically tractable, and are inexpensive to maintain. Of particular utility for C. elegans researchers is their transparency, making them ideal for microscopy-based investigations. Ranging from assessing localization and morphology, to gene expression via production of gene-specific promoter-driven fluorescent “reporter” proteins, to dynamic real time read-outs of biochemical endpoints such as Ca2+ dynamics, redox tone, and ATP levels, light microscopy is at the forefront of methods used in C. elegans research [3]. The generation of real-time in vivo reporters that allow for fluorescent readouts of biochemical endpoints offers large advantages over traditional biochemical assessments, including cell-specific measurements, but their utility may be limited if the chemical paralytics typically used for imaging alter the biochemical endpoints being measured. Unlike transcriptional reporter strains, these sensors respond rapidly to intracellular conditions, including changes that may be introduced by anesthetics. Two areas of sensor development that have driven significant advancement aim to assess reactive oxygen species or redox tone and ATP levels.

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are various products of the reduction of oxygen from the addition of electrons; they serve necessary signaling roles at basal levels, but at high levels they can oxidize DNA, proteins, and lipids resulting in cellular damage [4]. In most cells, mitochondria are the primary producers of ROS via the electron transport chain [4]. Historically, detecting alterations to reactive oxygen species production in C. elegans has been achieved through quantification of GFP driven by promoters of antioxidant genes, quantifying byproducts of oxidation (oxidized lipids, DNA damage), or the use of dyes [5]. However, these methods can lack specificity and sensitivity, are difficult to quantify in individual compartments, or are not dynamic enough to demonstrate rapid changes in redox tone. More recently, fluorescent sensors such as Hyper and reduction:oxidation sensitive GFP (roGFP) have allowed for compartment-specific expression and assessment of response in real time [6].

Similarly, cellular regulation of ATP levels can now be dynamically monitored in vivo through reporters such as PercevalHR and QUEEN-2m [7,8]. Produced through glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation, ATP levels and ATP:ADP ratio supply valuable insight into bioenergetic function and can indicate differences in metabolite availability, TCA cycle and glycolytic function, and overall cellular bioenergetic homeostasis. In the absence of in vivo reporters, ATP must be measured quantitatively at the whole worm level, or after cell sorting. Dynamic by design, ATP levels change rapidly rendering analyses that require more invasive methods less accurate. The use of fluorescent reporters bypasses this issue at the cost of requiring paralysis or immobilization for effective imaging.

Though critical to accurate reporting and interpretation of these dynamic fluorescent sensors, no document currently exists that comprehensively reports the effects of common anesthetics on C. elegans cellular redox tone and ATP levels. Whether mounted on slides or imaged in multiwell plates, most common imaging techniques require the full paralysis of nematodes to be effective. Historically, and most commonly today, this is conducted with chemical paralytic agents. As each anesthetic has a discrete mechanism by which paralysis is induced, we evaluated 5 different chemical paralytic agents as well as cold shock.

Likely the most common paralytic, sodium azide is a well-established inhibitor of mitochondrial respiration that blocks cytochrome c oxidase (electron transport chain Complex IV) by binding to the oxygen reduction site [9,10]. Paralysis from exposure to sodium azide is generally ascribed to the rapid depletion of ATP necessary for movement. Azide also inhibits ATP hydrolysis by F1-ATPases, leading to stimulation of potassium channels in bovine in vitro models [9]. ATP-gated potassium channels are essential for coupling cellular ATP levels to membrane excitability and represent a potential contribution to both paralysis and off-target effects [11]. Sodium azide use in C. elegans was previously not found to induce the stress response pathways associated with hif-1, TMEM-135, hsp-4, hsp-16.2, or gcs-1 [12]. It has been used as a paralytic agent for a wide range of studies, including neurotoxicology, gravitaxis and oxidative stress [1316].

Levamisole HCl has long been used as an anti-helminthic and is used in C. elegans not only as a paralytic, but to examine anthelminthic resistance. Levamisole binds to and activates L-type acetylcholine receptors leading to sustained Ca2+ flux into neurons and muscles, ultimately inducing spastic paralysis [1719].

2,3-Butanedione monoxime (2,3-BDM) is an inhibitor of skeletal muscle myosin II, that specifically inhibits the myosin ATPase activity. This inhibition causes a decrease in muscle force production [20]. A recent investigation of the contribution of the reproductive system to oxygen consumption in C. elegans utilized 2,3-BDM, stating that this method of inhibition is “not increasing ATP synthesis or mitochondrial oxygen consumption” [21]; however, to our knowledge, no studies have empirically tested the effect of 2,3-BDM on ATP levels. 2,3-BDM induces flaccid paralysis, such that muscles are not contracted during imaging, but this effect appears to be relatively slow; previous work often allows the worms a full hour to paralyze prior to imaging [2123].

The exact mechanism of action of 1-phenoxy-2-propanol (1P2P) remains unknown, but it has been shown to eliminate action potentials in neurons subsequently resulting in reduced muscle contraction [24]. Despite lack of a clear mechanism, 1P2P exposure induces ATP depletion in C. elegans, and both ATP depletion and collapse of mitochondrial membrane potential in Neuro2a cells [25]. Despite limited evidence, these data suggest mitochondria as a target for the mechanism of 1P2P. Mammalian toxicology evaluations find no risk of skin irritation and low levels of mucosal irritation suggesting low overt toxicity in mammalian models; however, mitochondrial endpoints were not evaluated [26].

Finally, cold shock is used in combination with physical impediments to movement such as polystyrene beads. Exposure to cold temperature slows metabolic processes in the worm, reducing movement. Cold shock at 2 C was only lethal after 12-hour exposures or longer, though cold shocked worms show decreased gonad size, loss of pigmentation, and increased vulval abnormalities after recovery [23]. Cold shock at 4 oC for 16 hours is capable of inducing blebbing of dopaminergic neurons, suggesting it may induce dopaminergic neurodegeneration [27]. As most paralytic uses of cold shock are far shorter in duration, it is unclear whether these effects occur in this timeframe.

Previous work has reviewed the time required to induce paralysis, recovery from paralysis, and induction of a number of stress-responsive genes via GFP reporter constructs after exposure to 1P2P, sodium azide, levamisole HCl, and cold shock [12]. However, the real-time impacts of these and additional paralytics on more dynamic reporters have not been assessed.

Here, we investigate how quickly the common anesthetics sodium azide, levamisole HCl, 1P2P, 2,3-butadione monoxime (2,3-BDM), and 4 oC cold shock induce paralysis, how quickly the worms can recover from exposure, and the effects of the treatments on two key biochemical parameters measured by fluorescent reporters: cellular redox tone, in this case assessed as the oxidation status of the glutathione pool of all cells (roGFP) [28] and relative ATP levels in muscle cells (QUEEN-2m) [8,29]. We report that all chemical paralytics, though not acute cold shock, induce changes to either redox tone or ATP levels at high doses typically used for effective paralysis and imaging, and highlight the need for tailoring anesthetic use to the experimental questions being used, or developing more viable non-chemical alternatives.

Methods

C. elegans strains and culturing

C. elegans were grown and maintained at 20 C on 10 cm K-agar plates seeded with OP50 Escherichia coli [30]. To synchronize worms’ growth and development for experiments, adult worms were transferred to a fresh plate and allowed to lay eggs for two hours. After this time, all worms were rinsed from the plate until only the eggs remained. Eggs were allowed to mature for 72 hours before use in experiments (day 1 of adulthood). Strains used in this study were JV2 expressing a ribosomal promoter-driven cytosolic roGFP expressed in most or all cells; GA2001, expressing a myosin promoter-driven cytosolic Queen-2m expressed in muscle cells; and N2 Bristol (wild-type); all of which were obtained from the C. elegans Genome Center.

Drugs and concentrations

All paralytics were prepared in K-medium [30] at the following concentrations: 10mM, 100mM, and 500mM sodium azide, 50 mM, 100mM, 200 mMand 300mM 2,3-butanedione monoxime, 0.5 mM, 1mM, 2 mM, and 3mM levamisole HCl, and 0.1%, 0.25%, 0.5% and 1.0% 1-phenoxy-2-propanol. The cold shock temperature was 4°C. Concentrations were selected based on commonly used doses in cited C. elegans literature. If only one dose is commonly used, such as 1% for 1P2P, a half dose was examined to provide a wider scope of evaluation for levels without off target effects.

Assessment of paralysis

To assess paralysis, ten 20 μL drops of the given drug and concentration were placed in a small petri dish. One N2 worm was transferred into each drop by flame sterilized platinum pick. The time it was placed was noted, and the worm was checked every 60 seconds for the first five minutes, and then every five minutes until the worm was paralyzed, or until thirty minutes had passed. Paralysis was defined as no movement when the worm was touched with a pick. The time between when the worm was first placed in the drug droplet and when it reached paralysis was recorded. Time to 50% paralysis was determined by performing a Cumulative Gaussian non-linear fit in GraphPad Prism 9.3.0. The mean and standard deviation provided are best-fit values. The number of biological replicates for each treatment is as follows: Control = 6, 0.5 mM Levamisole = 3, 1 mM Levamisole = 6, 2 mM Levamisole = 3, 3 mM Levamisole = 6, 10 mM Sodium azide = 3, 100 mM Sodium Azide = 3, 500 mM sodium azide = 3, 0.1% 1P2P = 3, 0.25% 1P2P = 3, 0.5% 1P2P = 6, 1% 1P2P = 6. 50 mM 2,3-BDM = 3, 100mM 2,3-BDM = 6, 200 mM 2,3-BDM = 3, 300 mM 2,3 BDM = 6, 4°C cold shock = 3.

Assessment of recovery from paralysis

To quantify recovery of the worms from paralysis by each agent, twenty worms were transferred into a 1.5 mL Eppendorf tube containing 400 μL of the given drug and concentration. After a 30-minute exposure, the drug was aspirated from the tube, and the worms were rinsed with K-medium three times. The worms were centrifuged for thirty seconds at 2200 rpm between each rinse to minimize loss of worms. In the event the worms stuck to the sides of the tube, 10 μL of 0.1% triton were added to the solution before rinsing.

After washing, exposed worms were placed onto a 10 cm K-agar plate seeded with OP50 E. coli. The worms were then observed every fifteen minutes for two hours. With each observation, the number of worms that moved when touched with a pick, or were moving on their own, was recorded. The number of biological replicates for each treatment is as follows: Control = 6, 0.5 mM Levamisole = 4, 1 mM Levamisole = 7, 2 mM Levamisole = 4, 3mM Levamisole = 7, 10 mM Sodium azide = 3, 100 mM Sodium Azide = 3, 500 mM sodium azide = 3, 0.1% 1P2P = 4, 0.25% 1P2P = 4, 0.5% 1P2P = 7,1% 1P2P = 7, 50 mM 2,3-BDM = 4, 100mM 2,3-BDM = 7, 200 mM 2,3-BDM = 4, 300 mM 2,3 BDM = 7, 4°C cold shock = 3.

Assessment of cytosolic redox tone and ATP levels

Synchronized adult JV2 or GA2001 worms were assessed using a FLUOstar Omega microplate reader (BMG Labtech) with each well containing 1000 worms suspended in 100 uL of K-medium. Just before insertion into the plate reader, 100 μL of K-medium (control), 2X anesthetic, or H2O2 was added to the wells (final concentration of 1X). Fluorescence was recorded every 5 minutes for 35 minutes at 405 nm and 485 nm excitation wavelengths with a 520 nm emission wavelength.

To analyze the data, the average fluorescence of blank wells corresponding to each treatment was subtracted from the fluorescence of each corresponding well containing worms at each wavelength, which could then be converted to ratios of one excitation wavelength to another. This process was completed for each time point and each treatment group. For JV2 (roGFP) ratios are reported as oxidized: reduced, representing 485 nm excitation:405 nm excitation. For GA2001 (Queen-2m) ratios are reported as 405 nm:485 nm, representing ATP-bound:unbound protein. All experiments conducted with GA2001 worms (Queen-2m) were measured at ambient room temperature (25–26 C). Three biological replicates were assessed for redox tone for each treatment, with a final N for each groups as follows: Control = 7, 1 mM Levamisole = 13, 3mM Levamisole = 13, 10 mM Sodium azide = 13, 100 mM Sodium Azide = 13, 500 mM sodium azide = 12, 0.5% 1P2P = 9,1% 1P2P = 9, 100mM 2,3-BDM = 12, 300 mM 2,3 BDM = 12, 4°C cold shock = 9, H2O2 = 14. Three biological replicates were assessed for relative ATP level for each treatment, with a final N for each groups as follows: Control = 8, 1 mM Levamisole = 16, 3mM Levamisole = 16, 10 mM Sodium azide = 12, 100 mM Sodium Azide = 8, 500 mM sodium azide = 10, 0.5% 1P2P = 12, 1% 1P2P = 13, 100mM 2,3-BDM = 12, 300 mM 2,3 BDM = 12, 4°C cold shock = 9.

Rotenone exposure

Synchronized adult JV2 or GA2001 worms were transferred to a 50 mL conical containing 1% DMSO (vehicle) or 20 uM Rotenone and OP50 E. coli in K+ medium and shaken on an orbital shaker for 1 hour. Worms were rinsed 3 times with K-medium, transferred to a 96 well plate, and assessed for cellular redox tone or relative ATP levels as described above. Three biological replicates were assessed for redox tone for each treatment, with n = 3 per replicate for a final n = 9 for each treatment group.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis for all data was completed with GraphPad Prism 9.3.0. All data were assessed by a Shapiro-Wilks Normality test, followed by a 2-way Kruskal-Wallis as no data were normally distributed. Post-hoc tests consisted of Dunnett’s multiple comparisons tests. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant, and all error bars reflected the standard error of the mean. Key statistical comparisons are described in the Results section, and full statistical analysis p-values are listed in S1S4 Tables.

Results

Sodium azide rapid paralyzes while decreasing both ATP levels and redox tone

In this study we examined sodium azide at three concentrations: 10 mM, 100 mM, and 500 mM, and report that all sodium azide concentrations induce 50% population paralysis in less than a minute, and 100% by 30 minutes (Fig 1A). Though 10 mM and 100 mM exposures are 76.6% and 85.0% recoverable within 2 hours, this decreases dramatically to 1.8% at 500 mM (Fig 1A). All concentrations of sodium azide result in a rapid depletion of ATP in muscle cells that remains stable for at least 30 minutes (Fig 1B), consistent with the role of azide as an inhibitor of oxidative phosphorylation [9,31]. Similarly, all concentrations of sodium azide cause a temporary decrease in cytosolic redox tone (i.e., more reduced state) of the glutathione pool (Fig 1C).

Fig 1. Sodium azide induces rapid paralysis, ATP depletion, and briefly decreases glutathione pool oxidation.

Fig 1

(A) The time required for 10 mM, 100 mM, and 500 mM sodium azide to induce paralysis, the maximum percentage of worms paralyzed and the percentage that recover within 2 hours was determined.(B) Relative total muscle cell ATP levels were quantified for 35 minutes using the fluorescent reporter pmyo-3::Queen-2m after exposure to 10 mM, 100 mM, and 500 mM sodium azide respectively. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc. (C) Redox tone of the cytosolic glutathione pool was assessed through a reduction:oxidation sensitive GFP every 5 minutes for 35 minutes after exposure to 10 mM, 100 mM, and 500 mM sodium azide respectively. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc.

Levamisole HCl induces paralysis and ATP depletion without alteration to cellular redox tone

Levamisole HCl is slightly slower to paralyze than sodium azide, requiring 3.04 and 1.92 minutes to achieve 50% population paralysis at 1 mM and 3 mM respectively (Fig 2A). It was also efficient as 88.77% and 93.33% of the population was paralyzed within 30 minutes. No individuals recovered within 2 hours, in agreement with previous reports stating that over 4 hours are required for recovery [12]. To ensure the lack of recovery did not represent lethality, recovery was assessed at 24 hours as well. At the highest dose recovery was 83.17%, with all other doses within a standard deviation of 100% (Fig 2A). Despite inducing ATP depletion, unlike azide, levamisole did not modify cytosolic redox tone (Fig 2B and 2C).

Fig 2. Levamisole HCl induces paralysis and mild ATP depletion, without altering glutathione pool oxidation.

Fig 2

(A) The time required for 1 mM and 3 mM Levamisole HCl to induce paralysis, the maximum percentage of worms paralyzed and the percentage that recover within 2 hours was determined. (B) Relative total muscle cell ATP levels were quantified for 35 minutes using the fluorescent reporter pmyo-3::Queen-2m after exposure to 1 mM and 3 mM Levamisole HCl respectively. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc. (C) Redox tone of the cytosolic glutathione pool was assessed through a reduction:oxidation sensitive GFP every 5 minutes for 35 minutes after exposure to 1 mM and 3 mM Levamisole HCl respectively. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc.

1P2P exposure causes high oxidative stress and ATP depletion

1P2P, at 0.5% and 1.0%, rapidly paralyzes worms in less than 7 and 4 minutes and achieves 98.49 and 100% paralysis respectively (Fig 3A). However, it induces ATP depletion that progressively increases over time, and high elevation of the cytosolic redox tone, indicating an increasingly oxidative cellular environment (Fig 3A and 3B). Notably, 73.47% and 45.00% of the nematodes tested recover within 2 hours at 0.5% and 1.0% doses; only 76.30 and 57.84% recovery at 24 hours suggesting that worms that do not recover within 2-hours are likely dead (Fig 3A).

Fig 3. 1-Phenoxy-2-propanol exposure results in rapid paralysis, severe ATP depletion, and swift oxidation of the glutathione pool.

Fig 3

(A) The time required for 0.5% and 1.0% 1-phenoxy-2-propanol to induce paralysis, the maximum percentage of worms paralyzed and the percentage that recover within 2 hours was determined. (B) Relative total muscle cell ATP levels were quantified for 35 minutes using the fluorescent reporter pmyo-3::Queen-2m after exposure to 0.5% and 1.0% 1-phenoxy-2-propanol respectively. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc. (C) Redox tone of the cytosolic glutathione pool was assessed through a reduction:oxidation sensitive GFP every 5 minutes for 35 minutes after exposure to 0.5% and 1.0% 1-phenoxy-2-propanol respectively. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc.

2,3-BDM is effective without clear toxicity at 100 mM, but lethal at 300 mM

2,3-BDM shows divergence between the examined concentrations. 100 mM results in slow paralysis of 75.91% of the population, with the majority recovering at 24 hours (75.00%, Fig 4A) and no significant effect on ATP levels or redox tone (Fig 4). Conversely, 300 mM 2,3-BDM rapidly depletes ATP levels and increases redox tone as it paralyzes 50% of the population in less than 4 minutes (Fig 4B and 4C). The increase in redox tone at 300 mM appears to be nearly as severe as treatment with 3% hydrogen peroxide, a dose lethal within 1 hour, although the rate of oxidation is slower. The 300 mM dose is also largely lethal, with only 27.50% of worms surviving 24-hours after a 1-hour exposure (Fig 4A).

Fig 4. 2,3-Butadione monoxime treatment results in dose dependent paralysis, ATP depletion, and oxidation of the glutathione pool.

Fig 4

(A) The time required for 100 mM and 300 mM 2,3-butadione monoxime to induce paralysis, the maximum percentage of worms paralyzed and the percentage that recover within 2 hours was determined. (B) Relative total muscle cell ATP levels were quantified for 35 minutes using the fluorescent reporter pmyo-3::Queen-2m after exposure to 100 mM and 300 mM 2,3-butadione monoxime respectively. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc. (C) Redox tone of the cytosolic glutathione pool was assessed through a reduction:oxidation sensitive GFP every 5 minutes for 35 minutes after exposure to 100 mM and 300 mM 2,3-butadione monoxime respectively. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc.

Acute cold shock does not paralyze, alter ATP levels, or change redox tone in worms

Finally, 30-minute 4°C cold shock alone is insufficient to paralyze more than 15% of the population (Fig 5A). This is anticipated as cold shock is typically utilized in combination with physical barriers or microfluidics. Importantly, cold shock did not detectably alter either muscular ATP levels or cytosolic glutathione pool redox tone, supporting its use over chemical paralytics from the perspective of disturbing these parameters (Fig 5A and 5B).

Fig 5. 4°C Cold shock does not paralyze worms, alter muscular ATP level, or glutathione pool redox tone.

Fig 5

(A) The time required for 4°C cold shock to induce paralysis, the maximum percentage of worms paralyzed and the percentage that recover within 2 hours was determined. (B) Relative total muscle cell ATP levels were quantified for 35 minutes using the fluorescent reporter pmyo-3::Queen-2m after exposure to 4°C cold shock. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc. (C) Redox tone of the cytosolic glutathione pool was assessed through a reduction:oxidation sensitive GFP every 5 minutes for 35 minutes after exposure to 4°C cold shock. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc.

Combined comparison of all methods

To facilitate direct comparison of all paralytic methods tested, we present graphs combining all replicates of all time-to-paralysis results (Fig 6A), time to recovery results (Fig 6B), effects on ATP (Fig 6C), and effects on redox state (Fig 6D).

Fig 6. No common chemical C. elegans anesthetic results in greater than 50% population paralysis without alteration to muscular ATP levels or cytosolic redox tone.

Fig 6

(A) The percentage of worms paralyzed over time after exposure to an anesthetic (B) The percentage of worms recovered from anesthetic exposure across a 2-hour monitoring window. (C) The evaluation of common anesthetics and doses to alter intra-muscular ATP levels was quantified every 5 minutes for 35 minutes with a pmyo-3::Queen-2m fluorescent reporter. All anesthetics and doses were compared to non-treated controls at each time point through a 2-way Kruskal-Wallis with Dunnett’s post hoc. (D) Redox tone of the cytosolic glutathione pool was assessed through a reduction:oxidation sensitive GFP every 5 minutes for 35 minutes after injection of common anesthetics. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way Kruskal-Wallis, with Dunnett’s post-hoc. Each dose of each anesthetic was compared to controls at each timepoint.

Levamisole and 1P2P induced paralysis modify detection of redox tone changes induced by rotenone exposure

To investigate how the use of the aforementioned paralytic agents could alter experimental outcomes, we examined the influence of paralytics on the outcome of a one-hour exposure to rotenone. One drug and dose each was selected as an agent that altered or did not alter redox tone in isolation. 3 mM levamisole HCl was selected for its lack of impact on redox tone and common use whereas 1% 1P2P was selected to determine if the rapid increase in oxidation would impact experimental conditions. One hour exposure to rotenone, in absence of a paralytic, results in a nearly 2-fold increase in the oxidized:reduced ratio of glutathione (Fig 7A–7C). When 3 mM levamisole is utilized as a paralytic, despite resulting in no difference on redox tone independently, it increases the magnitude of difference between vehicle and rotenone treated worms, largely driven by a more reduced redox tone in vehicle treated worms (Fig 7A, 7B and 7D). Similarly, and surprisingly, 1% 1P2P shows greater reduction in redox tone in both the vehicle and rotenone treated groups (Fig 7A, 7B and 7E). For both paralytics, rotenone exposure induces an increase in cellular redox tone with a relatively stable signal over the 30-minute measurement duration.

Fig 7. Quantification of the impact of 3 mM levamisole and 1% 1P2P anesthetics on detection of rotenone induced alterations to cytosolic redox tone.

Fig 7

JV2 worms expressing cytosolic roGFP were exposed to 20 uM rotenone or 1% DMSO for 1-hour prior to assessment of redox tone. (A) The ratios of oxidized:reduced roGFP are reported with and without rotenone and anesthetic treatment. (B) To more clearly display how different anesthetics impact the detection of rotenone induced changes to cytosolic redox tone, the fold change between vehicle and rotenone treated worms is segregated by anesthetic. Fold change was quantified as the rotenone oxidized:reduced ratio divided by the average vehicle oxidized:reduced ratio at the same timepoint. The results of the raw ratios are also shown separately for (C) non-anesthetized worms, (D) 3 mM levamisole treated worms, and (E) 1% 1P2P treated worms.

2,3-BDM and 1P2P alter the magnitude of change in relative ATP levels induced by rotenone exposure and produce an unstable signal over time

To investigate the impact of paralytics on experimental outcomes quantifying relative ATP levels, 100 mM 2,3-BDM was used for its lack of impact alone, whereas 1% 1P2P was selected for its rapid depletion of ATP. In absence of a paralytic, rotenone exposure induced a stable, very small increase in relative ATP levels (Fig 8A–8C). Paralysis via 2,3-BDM resulted in a highly variable magnitude of change induced by rotenone over the 30-minute measurement period (Fig 8B), as well as a large decrease in both vehicle and rotenone treated groups over time (Fig 8C). Similarly, though to a lesser degree, 1P2P treatment resulted in a gradual decrease in the magnitude of rotenone’s effect (Fig 8B) and relative ATP levels in both vehicle and treated groups (Fig 8D).

Fig 8. Quantification of the impact of 100 mM 2,3-BDM and 1% 1P2P anesthetics on detection of rotenone induced alterations to relative ATP level.

Fig 8

GA2001 worms expressing QUEEN2-M in body wall muscle cells were exposed to 20 uM rotenone or 1% DMSO for 1-hour prior to assessment of relative ATP levels. (A) The raw ratios of ATP bound:unbound QUEEN2-M are reported with and without rotenone and anesthetic treatment. (B) To more clearly display how different anesthetics impact the detection of rotenone induced changes to relative ATP levels, the fold change between vehicle and rotenone treated worms is segregated by anesthetic. Fold change was quantified as the rotenone ATP bound:unbound ratio divided by the average vehicle ATP bound:unbound ratio at the same timepoint. The results of the raw ratios are also shown separately for (C) non-anesthetized worms, (D) 100 mM 2,3-BDM treated worms, and (E) 1% 1P2P treated worms.

Discussion

In this work, we report the impact of 4 chemical anesthetics and a 4°C cold shock on intramuscular cytosolic ATP levels and cytosolic redox tone of the glutathione pool (in all cells) using the dynamic in vivo reporters roGFP and QUEEN-2m in C. elegans. Assuming that equilibrium is rapidly reached between mitochondria and the cytosol for adenylate nucleotides and that glutathione oxidation in response to these anesthetics is similar in the cytosol and mitochondria, these cytosolic reporters allow insight into the impact of common anesthetics on mitochondrial function [32,33]. Investigating how long it took for worms to paralyze for each treatment revealed that all treatments studied, besides cold shock, lead to statistically significant paralysis in five minutes or less. 10 mM, 100 mM, and 500 mM sodium azide,1% 1-phenoxy-2-propanol, and 3 mM levamisole resulted in paralysis the fastest; however, 3 mM levamisole resulted in less ATP depletion and much less redox stress, making it the more appealing paralytic for rapid paralysis. Sodium azide still decreased redox tone and decreased ATP levels albeit less than 1P2P, though it remains an imperfect paralytic for mitochondrial or redox related endpoints. The only chemical paralytic agent that, in isolation, does not decrease ATP or alter cytosolic redox tone is levels is 100 mM 2,3-BDM. However, it requires more than 15 minutes to achieve 50% population paralysis, decreasing its utility for measurements that need to be taken rapidly. Further, these results do not attest to precisely how an anesthetic may alter experimental outcomes.

The effects of many of these paralytics on ATP might have been anticipated based on their mechanisms of action, as described in the Introduction (although we again highlight that not all mechanisms of action are especially well understood). The effects on redox tone were not as predictable. Sodium azide may have resulted in a slightly more reduced redox state by hampering cellular utilization of reducing equivalents via oxidative phosphorylation, potentially resulting in a more reduced state of both the NAD+/NADH and NADP+/NADPH pools. Given minimal information regarding the mechanism of action of 1P2P, it is difficult to propose how this chemical might alter the cellular redox state, although we note that the result is consistent with previous reports of daf-16 activation [12] and loss of mitochondrial membrane potential [25] which could result from inhibition of oxidative phosphorylation and subsequent increased mitochondrial ROS production by mitochondrial electron leakage [33]. As suggested above, we hypothesize that the increased oxidation at 300 mM 2,3-BDM may reflect organismal death.

We cannot address the impact of every experimental design. However, to demonstrate the potential outcomes, we assessed how levamisole and 1P2P impacted detection of redox tone alterations induced by rotenone exposure. While an experiment performed with either paralytic would still demonstrate an increase in redox tone induced by rotenone, the magnitude or difference and baseline measurements would be altered. Worse, when assessing 2,3-BDM and 1P2P impact on relative ATP levels in response to rotenone exposure, two major issues become apparent. First, neither paralytic results in a stable signal over time. Thus, in an experiment, if two treatment groups were paralyzed at the same time but imaged one after another, dramatically different results would be obtained solely as a result of the ATP depletion over time caused by 100 mM 2,3-BDM. As this change occurred within 30 minutes, this would also likely contribute to high individual variability within a treatment group. Second, the magnitude of difference between control and rotenone treated worms was inconsistent over time. This would result in decreased likelihood of detecting this small difference when the magnitude decreases or over-estimating it when the magnitude increases. The differences induced by 3 mM levamisole are small in magnitude, leading to the possibility that a lower dose may be safer. However, the lower dose of 1 mM levamisole induced a nearly identical decrease in muscle ATP levels within 5 minutes (Fig 2B) suggesting it would act in a similar manner to 3 mM. This, again, underscores how critical it is that individual researchers validate both their anesthetic of choice and dose within each unique experimental paradigm.

Notably, in the case of both ATP and redox tone, the paralytic agent selected for its lack of impact resulted in significant differences from un-paralyzed controls. Critically, the impact of a paralytic independently is not predictive of its impact on an experiment with a different experimental design. For example, it is surprising that 1P2P yielded a stable signal over time, however given the established impact of exercise on stress responses [34], it is likely the hour of swimming during rotenone exposure modified the response compared to worms that have not exercised as in the experiments quantifying the impact of the paralytics alone. As every experiment will have different pre-treatments, genetic backgrounds, etc., it is impossible to predict exactly how these agents will interact in each scenario. Rather, we argue that it is critical for researchers to determine how a chosen paralytic method impacts their own scenario and account for this independently.

We also provide the first assessment of lethality induced by 1P2P, levamisole HCl, and 2,3-BDM. In the case of levamisole HCl, no paralyzed worms recover within 2 hours at doses higher than 0.5 mM. Conversely, 1P2P and 2,3-BDM were assessed for lethality to the combined high levels of ATP depletion and increased redox tone consistent with conditions observed during death. Notably, both 1P2P and 2,3-BDM induce high lethality at their highest doses. Considering that prior evaluations utilizing doses between 295–300 mM 2,3-BDM report required 30 minutes to a full hour before assessing their respective endpoint [21,22,35], it is possible the worms utilized in these assessments were dead or near death during assessment. Especially given the lack of mechanistic explanation for the lethality of 300 mM 2,3-BDM, we also assessed 3 lower doses, with lethality decreasing in a dose-responsive manner. Unfortunately, the dose at which no lethality was observed, 50 mM, is nearly useless as an anesthetic, paralyzing less than 6% of worms after 30 minutes. The lethality of an anesthetic that has been widely used highlights the need for pursuit of more ideal anesthetics or alternative methods.

The desire to pursue non-chemical anesthetics has led to a boom in the development of microfluidic devices, physical barriers such as polystyrene beads, and polymers that can be hardened after the addition of worms, such as BIO-133. As these methods rely on friction that the worms cannot overcome to move [36], loading the worms into narrow channels [37], or manipulation with acoustic waves [38,39], we predict that they are less likely to alter bioenergetics and redox tone. The ultraviolet (365 nm) light curable polymer BIO-133 [40,41] would be expected to induce DNA damage, though to our knowledge this has not been investigated. The use of methods that do not require hands-on dosing have also been employed in “lab-on-a chip” models to produce high-throughput readouts, pushing forward the ability to use C. elegans for chemical screening without anesthetic interference [42].

The lethality of 300 mM 2,3-BDM, as well as the impacts of other anesthetics on roGFP and Queen-2m readout, demonstrate the critical need to tailor anesthetic use to experimental methods and goals. Beyond on our evaluation, the impacts of the examined anesthetics may vary based on variation in exposure method, size of exposure groups (worms per amount of toxicant), and exposure conditions (liquid vs solid media), as shown in our evaluation of anesthetic impact on rotenone exposure read out in which the seemingly ideal 100 mM 2,3-BDM dramatically altered the outcome over time. Additionally, uptake of the drugs likely varies depending on life stage as the protective cuticle of the worm thickens with age, altering the amount of drug that can penetrate [43]. This was not an exhaustive study of all possible mitochondrial parameters, and the potential that the mitochondria are being impaired by the chemical in ways that the roGFP and Queen-2m assays are not sensitive to should be considered. However, our findings lay the groundwork for understanding which anesthetics are acceptable for bioenergetic and redox related endpoints and underscore the fact that anesthetics must be assessed within a given experimental design to ensure they will not influence the outcome.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Statistical analysis for time required to paralyze by each anesthetic P-values resulting from a two-way Kruskal Wallis test with Dunnet’s post-hoc are reported for percent paralysis when compared to the control over time.

Green shading indicates a statically significant p-value, while blue shading indicates a non-statistically significant p-value.

(DOCX)

pone.0292415.s001.docx (13.4KB, docx)
S2 Table. Statistical analysis results for percent recovery from paralytic exposure.

P-values resulting from a two-way Kruskal Wallis test with Dunnet’s post-hoc are reported for percent recovery when compared to the control over time. Green shading indicates a statically significant p-value, while blue shading indicates a non-statistically significant p-value.

(DOCX)

pone.0292415.s002.docx (13.3KB, docx)
S3 Table. Statistical analysis of redox tone changes induced by each paralytic over time A two-way Kruskal-Wallis test performed provided p-values for oxidation state when compared to the control over time.

Green shading indicates a statically significant p-value, while blue shading indicates a non-statistically significant p-value.

(DOCX)

pone.0292415.s003.docx (13.5KB, docx)
S4 Table. Statistical analysis of changes to relative muscle ATP levels over time A two-way Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s Post-hoc provided p-values for relative ATP levels when compared to the control over time.

Green shading indicates a statically significant p-value, while blue shading indicates a non-statistically significant p-value.

(DOCX)

pone.0292415.s004.docx (13.3KB, docx)
S1 File

(CSV)

pone.0292415.s005.csv (11.7KB, csv)
S2 File

(CSV)

pone.0292415.s006.csv (4.4KB, csv)
S3 File

(CSV)

pone.0292415.s007.csv (5.1KB, csv)
S4 File

(CSV)

pone.0292415.s008.csv (13.5KB, csv)
S5 File

(CSV)

pone.0292415.s009.csv (4.4KB, csv)
S6 File

(CSV)

pone.0292415.s010.csv (6.2KB, csv)

Acknowledgments

We deeply appreciate the efforts of Sarah Seay for her maintenance of the laboratory supplies and facilities necessary to conduct the research presented here-in.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This study was funded by the National Intitutes for Health (https://www.nih.gov/; JM-P42ES010356, R01ES034270,2R44OD024963, P40 OD010440, and T32ES021432). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Corsi A.K. WB, and Chalfie M. A Transparent window into biology: A primer on Caenorhabditis elegans. In: Community TCeR, editor. WormBook. WormBook2015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Brenner S. The genetics of Caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 1974;77(1):71–94. doi: 10.1093/genetics/77.1.71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Breimann L, Preusser F, Preibisch S. Light-microscopy methods in C. elegans research. Current Opinion in Systems Biology. 2019;13:82–92. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hernansanz-Agustín P, Enríquez JA. Generation of Reactive Oxygen Species by Mitochondria. Antioxidants. 2021;10(3). doi: 10.3390/antiox10030415 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Labuschagne CF, Brenkman AB. Current methods in quantifying ROS and oxidative damage in Caenorhabditis elegans and other model organism of aging. Ageing Research Reviews. 2013;12(4):918–30. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2013.09.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Braeckman BP, Smolders A, Back P, De Henau S. In Vivo Detection of Reactive Oxygen Species and Redox Status in Caenorhabditis elegans. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling. 2016;25(10):577–92. doi: 10.1089/ars.2016.6751 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Tantama M, Martínez-François JR, Mongeon R, Yellen G. Imaging energy status in live cells with a fluorescent biosensor of the intracellular ATP-to-ADP ratio. Nat Commun. 2013;4:2550. doi: 10.1038/ncomms3550 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Yaginuma H, Kawai S, Tabata KV, Tomiyama K, Kakizuka A, Komatsuzaki T, et al. Diversity in ATP concentrations in a single bacterial cell population revealed by quantitative single-cell imaging. Scientific Reports. 2014;4(1):6522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Noumi T, Maeda M, Futai M. Mode of inhibition of sodium azide on H+-ATPase of Escherichia coli. FEBS Lett. 1987;213(2):381–4. doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(87)81526-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Stannard JN, Horecker BL. THE IN VITRO INHIBITION OF CYTOCHROME OXIDASE BY AZIDE AND CYANIDE. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1948;172(2):599–608. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tinker A, Aziz Q, Thomas A. The role of ATP-sensitive potassium channels in cellular function and protection in the cardiovascular system. Br J Pharmacol. 2014;171(1):12–23. doi: 10.1111/bph.12407 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Manjarrez JR, Mailler R. Stress and timing associated with Caenorhabditis elegans immobilization methods. Heliyon. 2020;6(7):e04263. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04263 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Podbilewicz B, Gruenbaum Y. Live Imaging of Caenorhabditis elegans: preparation of samples. CSH Protoc. 2006;2006(6). doi: 10.1101/pdb.prot4601 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tu S, Li J, Zhang K, Chen J, Yang W. Characterizing Three Azides for Their Potential Use as C. elegans Anesthetics. MicroPubl Biol. 2023;2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Chen W-L, Ko H, Chuang H-S, Raizen DM, Bau HH. Caenorhabditis elegans exhibits positive gravitaxis. BMC Biology. 2021;19(1):186. doi: 10.1186/s12915-021-01119-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Morton KS, Hartman JH, Heffernan N, Ryde IT, Kenny-Ganzert IW, Meng L, et al. Chronic high-sugar diet in adulthood protects Caenorhabditis elegans from 6-OHDA-induced dopaminergic neurodegeneration. BMC Biology. 2023;21(1):252. doi: 10.1186/s12915-023-01733-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Martin RJ, Robertson AP, Buxton SK, Beech RN, Charvet CL, Neveu C. Levamisole receptors: a second awakening. Trends Parasitol. 2012;28(7):289–96. doi: 10.1016/j.pt.2012.04.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Martin RJ, Verma S, Levandoski M, Clark CL, Qian H, Stewart M, et al. Drug resistance and neurotransmitter receptors of nematodes: recent studies on the mode of action of levamisole. Parasitology. 2005;131(S1):S71–S84. doi: 10.1017/S0031182005008668 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lewis JA, Fleming JT, McLafferty S, Murphy H, Wu C. The levamisole receptor, a cholinergic receptor of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Molecular Pharmacology. 1987;31(2):185–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Ostap EM. 2,3-Butanedione monoxime (BDM) as a myosin inhibitor. J Muscle Res Cell Motil. 2002;23(4):305–8. doi: 10.1023/a:1022047102064 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Santos CS, Macedo F, Kowaltowski AJ, Bertotti M, Unwin PR, Marques da Cunha F, et al. Unveiling the contribution of the reproductive system of individual Caenorhabditis elegans on oxygen consumption by single-point scanning electrochemical microscopy measurements. Anal Chim Acta. 2021;1146:88–97. doi: 10.1016/j.aca.2020.12.030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Liu Y, Martinez-Martinez D, Essmann CL, Cruz MR, Cabreiro F, Garsin DA. Transcriptome analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans lacking heme peroxidase SKPO-1 reveals an altered response to Enterococcus faecalis. G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics. 2020;11(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Robinson JD, Powell JR. Long-term recovery from acute cold shock in Caenorhabditis elegans. BMC Cell Biol. 2016;17:2. doi: 10.1186/s12860-015-0079-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wyeth RC, Croll RP, Willows AOD, Spencer AN. 1-Phenoxy-2-propanol is a useful anaesthetic for gastropods used in neurophysiology. Journal of Neuroscience Methods. 2009;176(2):121–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jneumeth.2008.08.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kishikawa J-i, Inoue Y, Fujikawa M, Nishimura K, Nakanishi A, Tanabe T, et al. General anesthetics cause mitochondrial dysfunction and reduction of intracellular ATP levels. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0190213. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190213 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lee JD, Kim J-y, Jang HJ, Lee B-M, Kim K-B. Percutaneous permeability of 1-phenoxy-2-propanol, a preservative in cosmetics. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2019;103:56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Clark AS, Kalmanson Z, Morton K, Hartman J, Meyer J, San-Miguel A. An unbiased, automated platform for scoring dopaminergic neurodegeneration in C. elegans. bioRxiv. 2023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Back P, De Vos WH, Depuydt GG, Matthijssens F, Vanfleteren JR, Braeckman BP. Exploring real-time in vivo redox biology of developing and aging Caenorhabditis elegans. Free Radic Biol Med. 2012;52(5):850–9. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2011.11.037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Galimov ER, Pryor RE, Poole SE, Benedetto A, Pincus Z, Gems D. Coupling of Rigor Mortis and Intestinal Necrosis during C. elegans Organismal Death. Cell Reports. 2018;22(10):2730–41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Boyd WA, Smith MV, Freedman JH. Caenorhabditis elegans as a model in developmental toxicology. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;889:15–24. doi: 10.1007/978-1-61779-867-2_3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Luz AL, Smith LL, Rooney JP, Meyer JN. Seahorse Xfe 24 Extracellular Flux Analyzer-Based Analysis of Cellular Respiration in Caenorhabditis elegans. Curr Protoc Toxicol. 2015;66:25.7.1–.7.15. doi: 10.1002/0471140856.tx2507s66 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wilson DF, Matschinsky FM. Integration of Eukaryotic Energy Metabolism: The Intramitochondrial and Cytosolic Energy States ([ATP]f/[ADP]f[Pi]). International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2022;23(10):5550. doi: 10.3390/ijms23105550 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Marí M, Morales A, Colell A, García-Ruiz C, Fernández-Checa JC. Mitochondrial glutathione, a key survival antioxidant. Antioxid Redox Signal. 2009;11(11):2685–700. doi: 10.1089/ARS.2009.2695 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Laranjeiro R, Harinath G, Burke D, Braeckman BP, Driscoll M. Single swim sessions in C. elegans induce key features of mammalian exercise. BMC Biology. 2017;15(1):30. doi: 10.1186/s12915-017-0368-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Edwards SL, Charlie NK, Richmond JE, Hegermann J, Eimer S, Miller KG. Impaired dense core vesicle maturation in Caenorhabditis elegans mutants lacking Rab2. J Cell Biol. 2009;186(6):881–95. doi: 10.1083/jcb.200902095 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Niwa S. Immobilization of Caenorhabditis elegans to Analyze Intracellular Transport in Neurons. J Vis Exp. 2017(128). doi: 10.3791/56690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Mondal S, Hegarty E, Martin C, Gökçe SK, Ghorashian N, Ben-Yakar A. Large-scale microfluidics providing high-resolution and high-throughput screening of Caenorhabditis elegans poly-glutamine aggregation model. Nature Communications. 2016;7(1):13023. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zhang J, Hartman JH, Chen C, Yang S, Li Q, Tian Z, et al. Fluorescence-based sorting of Caenorhabditis elegans via acoustofluidics. Lab on a Chip. 2020;20(10):1729–39. doi: 10.1039/d0lc00051e [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Zhang J, Yang S, Chen C, Hartman JH, Huang P-H, Wang L, et al. Surface acoustic waves enable rotational manipulation of Caenorhabditis elegans. Lab on a Chip. 2019;19(6):984–92. doi: 10.1039/c8lc01012a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Han X, Su Y, White H, O’Neill KM, Morgan NY, Christensen R, et al. A polymer index-matched to water enables diverse applications in fluorescence microscopy. Lab on a Chip. 2021;21(8):1549–62. doi: 10.1039/d0lc01233e [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Rastogi RP, Richa Kumar A, Tyagi MB, Sinha RP. Molecular mechanisms of ultraviolet radiation-induced DNA damage and repair. J Nucleic Acids. 2010;2010:592980. doi: 10.4061/2010/592980 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Cho Y, Oakland DN, Lee SA, Schafer WR, Lu H. On-chip functional neuroimaging with mechanical stimulation in Caenorhabditis elegans larvae for studying development and neural circuits. Lab on a Chip. 2018;18(4):601–9. doi: 10.1039/c7lc01201b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hartman JH, Widmayer SJ, Bergemann CM, King DE, Morton KS, Romersi RF, et al. Xenobiotic metabolism and transport in Caenorhabditis elegans. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B. 2021;24(2):51–94. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2021.1884921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

13 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-30523The effect of common paralytic agents used for fluorescence imaging on redox tone and ATP levels in Caenorhabditis elegansPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Morton,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 28 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“Some strains were provided by the Caenorhabditis Genetics Center, which is funded by NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (P40 OD010440). This work was supported by National Institute of Health (P42ES010356, R01ES034270, 2R44OD024963, and T32ES021432).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“This study was funded by the National Intitutes for Health (https://www.nih.gov/; JM-P42ES010356, R01ES034270,2R44OD024963, P40 OD010440, and T32ES021432). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please amend your list of authors on the manuscript to ensure that each author is linked to an affiliation. Authors’ affiliations should reflect the institution where the work was done (if authors moved subsequently, you can also list the new affiliation stating “current affiliation:….” as necessary).

4. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments

Caenorhabditis elegans is a well-established model for molecular biological and genetic experiments in vivo. The authors examined the effects of commonly used anesthetic methods on biochemical measurements such as cellular energetics and redox tone. Finally, the authors suggested that cold shock could be the best way when physical barriers were used in combination. Other anesthetic chemicals have merits and weak points regarding the lag time before the complete paralysis appears, the recovery time after the anesthesia, and energetics and redox in C. elegans. The findings are very informative for researchers who use worms as model animals. However, the authors provided only the nematodes' relative ATP levels and redox tone under the influence of each anesthetic method.

Usually, the experimental data are collected from the treated group and the control for the comparison, but both groups should be anesthetized similarly. For validation, this reviewer recommends the experiment where a representative chemical influencer to energetics or redox condition was administered to worms that received each one of ideal and inadequate anesthesia. Otherwise, the readers could think that significant differences should appear between the experimental and control groups, even under the worst anesthetic chemicals.

Specific comments

1. Lines 206-208. Please describe in detail. Fig 1C shows only one asterisk. Is this for the datum of 500 mM at 5 min or the data of total groups?

2. Line 243. “Fig 2A, 2B” should be corrected as “Fig 3B, 3C”, shouldn’t it?

3. Line 261. “Fig 4A” should be moved to just behind “(85.84%)”, shouldn’t it?

4. Line 263. “Fig 4B” should be moved as “Fig 4B, 4C” to just behind “3 minutes” on line 262, shouldn’t it?

5. Lines 262- 264. This reviewer cannot find the data to support this description in the manuscript.

6. Discussion. This reviewer is wondering if the authors briefly explain the pharmacological mechanisms of each anesthetic method from the viewpoints of total ATP, redox tone, and the paralytic effects.

Reviewer #2: Morton and colleagues test how commonly used paralytic agents, namely sodium azide, levamisole, 1-phenoxy-2-propanol, 2,3-BDM, and cold shock, affect time-to-paralysis, recovery, ATP levels, and redox tone in C. elegans. Importantly, the authors find that paralyzing treatments needed to achieve greater than 50% paralysis alter both redox tone and intramuscular cytosolic ATP levels. This work cautions experimenters to check the effects of paralyzing agents on final endpoints and optimize paralysis modes to avoid confounding results. Additionally, this work serves as a comparative resource for C. elegans biologists when choosing the appropriate paralytic agent and conditions for their specific question. While the data constitute a rather small minimal publishing unit, overall, the manuscript is scientifically valid and well-written. As PLOS ONE emphasizes scientific validity and rigor over perceived significance, I recommend that the manuscript be accepted with minor revisions.

Major Criticisms

• The paper could be improved through addition of positive controls for the ATP and redox experiments, especially done in the same plate as levamisole where only minor changes were seen. Other ATP reducers such as oligomycin or orthogonal methods such as starvation could be used as positive controls. The authors mention the use of H2O2 as a control for redox experiments, but those data are not plotted anywhere and are missing values in the Supporting Information roGFP.csv file.

• While we understand the authors do not intend to be exhaustive and picked the concentrations used from the literature, it might be relatively easy and informative to do paralysis and recovery curves for multiple doses of each chemical (especially in cases where only two concentrations were tested). It would be interesting to see, for a given exposure time, if there is a certain threshold concentration (no worms paralyzed vs. 100% worms paralyzed) or if greater concentrations lead to greater percentages of paralyzed worms. It would also boost the utility of this paper as a resource for the worm community, for example, scientists looking for a faster than 15-minute half-maximal paralysis rate achieved with 100 mM 2,3 BDM but a greater recovery rate than that achieved with 300 mM 2,3-BDM.

• Similar to the point above, data in Figure 5 could be elevated if different time exposures to cold shock or if some combinations of cold shock and chemical agent (as the authors point out is a commonly used approach) were tested.

• Overall, greater detail in either the Methods or the Figure Legends of the data being presented would be good, for example, number of total independent replicates done, if one or more replicates are represented in the heat maps, the temperatures for ATP experiments given the temperature-dependence of the QUEEN-2m sensor. Some replicate information is presented in the Supporting Information, but would be more accessible to the reader if also stated in the text.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 26;19(4):e0292415. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292415.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Feb 2024

Dear PLoS One:

We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and have made every effort to respond thoroughly to each comment. Substantial additions to the manuscript are that we quantified how the redox tone and relative ATP level change as a result of rotenone exposure would be altered by anesthetics that do and do not have an impact independently. Both experiments significantly strengthen our conclusion, and we thank reviewers for improving this manuscript. Our point-by-point responses are in bold below, and we have uploaded both tracked-change and clean versions of the manuscript.

Thank you,

Katherine Morton, Ashlyn Wahl, and Joel Meyer

Point-by-point response:

“For validation, this reviewer recommends the experiment where a representative chemical influencer to energetics or redox condition was administered to worms that received each one of ideal and inadequate anesthesia. Otherwise, the readers could think that significant differences should appear between the experimental and control groups, even under the worst anesthetic chemicals.”

We have added two experiments to address this concern. As shown in Figures 7 and 8, we performed a rotenone exposure and examined how relative ATP and redox tone results compared when assessed with and without two anesthetics each. We demonstrate that even anesthetics not anticipated to have an impact would modulate the outcome of these experiments, with impacts ranging from alteration to the magnitude of difference between rotenone exposed and vehicle worms to unstable change over time in both treatment groups. While this does not comprehensively assess every anesthetic examined within the manuscript, we note that it is impossible to predict how each anesthetic would interact with all experimental designs and protocols. Rather, we aim to make the point that investigators must assess this outcome in their own experiments, and in the newly-added Figures 7 and 8 provide a proof of concept for what could happen.

1. Lines 206-208. Please describe in detail. Fig 1C shows only one asterisk. Is this for the datum of 500 mM at 5 min or the data of total groups?

Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity. This asterisk was removed as it was from an earlier version of the statistics that did not include the cold shock. In the updated statistics, the point in question is not statistically significant. Due to the close overlap in groups within the same graph, we opted to include the statistical comparisons for these data within the supplement, as referenced in line 190.

2. Line 243. “Fig 2A, 2B” should be corrected as “Fig 3B, 3C”, shouldn’t it?

3. Line 261. “Fig 4A” should be moved to just behind “(85.84%)”, shouldn’t it?

4. Line 263. “Fig 4B” should be moved as “Fig 4B, 4C” to just behind “3 minutes” on line 262, shouldn’t it?

Thank you, these adjustments have been made as needed.

5. Lines 262- 264. This reviewer cannot find the data to support this description in the manuscript.

Experimental data and explanation has been added to support this information in Figure 4.

6. Discussion. This reviewer is wondering if the authors briefly explain the pharmacological mechanisms of each anesthetic method from the viewpoints of total ATP, redox tone, and the paralytic effects.

We have described what is known about the mechanisms of action of each of these with regard to paralysis and possible bioenergetic alterations in the Introduction. We have added a small section to the Discussion regarding possible mechanisms of altered redox state.

The paper could be improved through addition of positive controls for the ATP and redox experiments, especially done in the same plate as levamisole where only minor changes were seen. Other ATP reducers such as oligomycin or orthogonal methods such as starvation could be used as positive controls. The authors mention the use of H2O2 as a control for redox experiments, but those data are not plotted anywhere and are missing values in the Supporting Information roGFP.csv file.

We apologize for the lack of clarity for the use of positive controls. For the redox data for each paralytic, the positive H2O2 control has been added to the graph. For the ATP data, we respectfully suggest that the results in Figure 1 for sodium azide provide a sufficient positive control.

While we understand the authors do not intend to be exhaustive and picked the concentrations used from the literature, it might be relatively easy and informative to do paralysis and recovery curves for multiple doses of each chemical (especially in cases where only two concentrations were tested). It would be interesting to see, for a given exposure time, if there is a certain threshold concentration (no worms paralyzed vs. 100% worms paralyzed) or if greater concentrations lead to greater percentages of paralyzed worms. It would also boost the utility of this paper as a resource for the worm community, for example, scientists looking for a faster than 15-minute half-maximal paralysis rate achieved with 100 mM 2,3 BDM but a greater recovery rate than that achieved with 300 mM 2,3-BDM.

We have added doses such that all drugs have at least 3 doses assessed for paralysis and recovery. ATP and redox measurements were not always tested in as many concentrations. In particular, if lower concentrations resulted in large departure from the controls, it seemed unnecessary to test the higher concentrations.

Similar to the point above, data in Figure 5 could be elevated if different time exposures to cold shock or if some combinations of cold shock and chemical agent (as the authors point out is a commonly used approach) were tested.

While we recognize the desire to examine a wider utility of cold shock, it is experimentally used with a wider variety in methods than we can reasonably examine. Rather, we include it here to demonstrate that independently it does not induce impacts, but this would need to be verified in other experimental designs.

Overall, greater detail in either the Methods or the Figure Legends of the data being presented would be good, for example, number of total independent replicates done, if one or more replicates are represented in the heat maps, the temperatures for ATP experiments given the temperature-dependence of the QUEEN-2m sensor. Some replicate information is presented in the Supporting Information, but would be more accessible to the reader if also stated in the text.

We have added the number of biological replicates for each experiment and the temperature for Queen-2m measurements within the methods section.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0292415.s011.docx (20.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

27 Feb 2024

PONE-D-23-30523R1The effect of common paralytic agents used for fluorescence imaging on redox tone and ATP levels in Caenorhabditis elegansPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Morton,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. There is still a minor clarification that need to be done in order to continue with the review process. Please, respond point by point or argue why does not apply in this particular case.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 12 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: General comments

The authors addressed well to the previous comments, adding new data and figures. However, this reviewer still has several queries below.

Specific comments

1. Line 210. What does this “d 100% by 30 minutesan” mean?

2. Line 213. The authors use “minutes” instead of “min” in other parts of this manuscript.

3. Lines 325-346. This reviewer cannot understand why the authors chose the 3 mM levamisole despite the fact that 2 mM of levamisole worked efficiently enough and showed fewer side effects in Figure 2.

4. Figures 7 and 8. The authors added these new informative figures, considering the previous comments. Unfortunately, this reviewer could find no description of how the authors calculated the fold changes of the Y-axis in panels B of both figures, reading the figure legend or “Materials and methods.”

5. Line 394. Please insert a space between “(12)” and “and.”

6. Lines 453-457. This reviewer admires the scientific manner of the authors and the modest description. However, this reviewer still needs to wonder why the authors hesitate to describe the conclusion. The data in Figures 2 and 6 likely indicate that 1- or 2-mM levamisole would be the first choice, subject to the authors providing the revised Figure 7, where 1- or 2-mM levamisole should be examined. Although 100 mM BDM looked like another suitable method in Figures 4 and 6, the new Figure 8 did not accept it. Cold shock looks safe and ideal but needs more time to get even the incomplete paralysis.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yoshikazu Nishikawa

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 Apr 26;19(4):e0292415. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292415.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Mar 2024

Dear PLoS One:

We greatly appreciate the reviewers’ comments and have made every effort to respond thoroughly to each comment. We have corrected previous grammatical and editing errors, and have added more clear explanations for our selection of doses in rotenone challenge experiments. Our point-by-point responses are in bold below, and we have uploaded both tracked-change and clean versions of the manuscript.

Thank you,

Katherine Morton, Ashlyn Wahl, and Joel Meyer

1. Line 210. What does this “d 100% by 30 minutesan” mean?

This was an editing error and has been corrected.

2. Line 213. The authors use “minutes” instead of “min” in other parts of this manuscript.

We have corrected all use of “min” to “minutes” throughout the manuscript.

3. Lines 325-346. This reviewer cannot understand why the authors chose the 3 mM levamisole despite the fact that 2 mM of levamisole worked efficiently enough and showed fewer side effects in Figure 2.

Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity for the choice of the 3 mM dose. A range of doses for levamisole are explored in the literature ranging up to 5 mM depending on the circumstances of the investigation. We selected 3 mM as a dose closer to those commonly used in experiments, and because the impact on relative muscle ATP levels is nearly identical to the 1 mM dose, demonstrating that 1 mM levamisole would likely still result in impacts. We note that while it may appear at first glance that 2 mM is a “Goldilocks” concentration given fast, 100% paralysis, we suspect it is not actually as perfect as it might appear. It would be very surprising if it were to work so significantly better than both 1 and 3 mM in terms of paralysis; we think a more conservative and likely true interpretation of the full dose-response data set is that all three concentrations behave similarly, and the apparently superior paralytic effect at 2 mM is a random result.

We emphasize that our goal is not to supply the perfect dose and anesthetic. Rather, we aim to demonstrate the potential impacts of a commonly used anesthetic and dose to underscore the requirement for researchers to validate their use of any chemical anesthetic in the future.

We have added sentences (lines 419-424) to clarify these points.

Thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity for dose selection.

4. Figures 7 and 8. The authors added these new informative figures, considering the previous comments. Unfortunately, this reviewer could find no description of how the authors calculated the fold changes of the Y-axis in panels B of both figures, reading the figure legend or “Materials and methods.”

Thank you for pointing out this lack of description. We have added the method used to calculate fold change into the figure description of both Figures 7 and 8.

5. Line 394. Please insert a space between “(12)” and “and.”

Thank you, we have corrected this.

6. Lines 453-457. This reviewer admires the scientific manner of the authors and the modest description. However, this reviewer still needs to wonder why the authors hesitate to describe the conclusion. The data in Figures 2 and 6 likely indicate that 1- or 2-mM levamisole would be the first choice, subject to the authors providing the revised Figure 7, where 1- or 2-mM levamisole should be examined. Although 100 mM BDM looked like another suitable method in Figures 4 and 6, the new Figure 8 did not accept it. Cold shock looks safe and ideal but needs more time to get even the incomplete paralysis.

Thank you, we deeply appreciate your compliment. We believe we have addressed the concerns regarding levamisole above. We have also added two sentences (lines 464-466 and 472-474) to more clearly describe our conclusions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Resub 2_Response to Reviewer Comments_02.docx

pone.0292415.s012.docx (15.1KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

1 Apr 2024

The effect of common paralytic agents used for fluorescence imaging on redox tone and ATP levels in Caenorhabditis elegans

PONE-D-23-30523R2

Dear Dr. Morton,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Agustín Guerrero-Hernandez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Yoshikazu Nishikawa

**********

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Statistical analysis for time required to paralyze by each anesthetic P-values resulting from a two-way Kruskal Wallis test with Dunnet’s post-hoc are reported for percent paralysis when compared to the control over time.

    Green shading indicates a statically significant p-value, while blue shading indicates a non-statistically significant p-value.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0292415.s001.docx (13.4KB, docx)
    S2 Table. Statistical analysis results for percent recovery from paralytic exposure.

    P-values resulting from a two-way Kruskal Wallis test with Dunnet’s post-hoc are reported for percent recovery when compared to the control over time. Green shading indicates a statically significant p-value, while blue shading indicates a non-statistically significant p-value.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0292415.s002.docx (13.3KB, docx)
    S3 Table. Statistical analysis of redox tone changes induced by each paralytic over time A two-way Kruskal-Wallis test performed provided p-values for oxidation state when compared to the control over time.

    Green shading indicates a statically significant p-value, while blue shading indicates a non-statistically significant p-value.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0292415.s003.docx (13.5KB, docx)
    S4 Table. Statistical analysis of changes to relative muscle ATP levels over time A two-way Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn’s Post-hoc provided p-values for relative ATP levels when compared to the control over time.

    Green shading indicates a statically significant p-value, while blue shading indicates a non-statistically significant p-value.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0292415.s004.docx (13.3KB, docx)
    S1 File

    (CSV)

    pone.0292415.s005.csv (11.7KB, csv)
    S2 File

    (CSV)

    pone.0292415.s006.csv (4.4KB, csv)
    S3 File

    (CSV)

    pone.0292415.s007.csv (5.1KB, csv)
    S4 File

    (CSV)

    pone.0292415.s008.csv (13.5KB, csv)
    S5 File

    (CSV)

    pone.0292415.s009.csv (4.4KB, csv)
    S6 File

    (CSV)

    pone.0292415.s010.csv (6.2KB, csv)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0292415.s011.docx (20.1KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Resub 2_Response to Reviewer Comments_02.docx

    pone.0292415.s012.docx (15.1KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES