Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Mar 2;15(3):e0229468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229468

Triploidy in zebrafish larvae: Effects on gene expression, cell size and cell number, growth, development and swimming performance

Iris L E van de Pol 1,*, Gert Flik 1, Wilco C E P Verberk 1
Editor: Harold A Burgess2
PMCID: PMC7051096  PMID: 32119699

Abstract

There is renewed interest in the regulation and consequences of cell size adaptations in studies on understanding the ecophysiology of ectotherms. Here we test if induction of triploidy, which increases cell size in zebrafish (Danio rerio), makes for a good model system to study consequences of cell size. Ideally, diploid and triploid zebrafish should differ in cell size, but should otherwise be comparable in order to be suitable as a model. We induced triploidy by cold shock and compared diploid and triploid zebrafish larvae under standard rearing conditions for differences in genome size, cell size and cell number, development, growth and swimming performance and expression of housekeeping genes and hsp70.1. Triploid zebrafish have larger but fewer cells, and the increase in cell size matched the increase in genome size (+ 50%). Under standard conditions, patterns in gene expression, ontogenetic development and larval growth were near identical between triploids and diploids. However, under demanding conditions (i.e. the maximum swimming velocity during an escape response), triploid larvae performed poorer than their diploid counterparts, especially after repeated stimuli to induce swimming. This result is consistent with the idea that larger cells have less capacity to generate energy, which becomes manifest during repeated physical exertion resulting in increased fatigue. Triploidy induction in zebrafish appears a valid method to increase specifically cell size and this provides a model system to test for consequences of cell size adaptation for the energy budget and swimming performance of this ectothermic vertebrate.

Introduction

In studies on the ecophysiology of ectotherms, a field gaining more and more interest deals with the regulation and consequences of cell size [1]. For ectotherms, patterns in cell size across thermal clines associated with latitude and altitude have been documented, where animals are generally composed of larger cells in the cold [24]. In addition, when ambient temperatures are experimentally lowered while rearing ectotherms, cell size tends to increase and this holds for phyla as diverse as nematodes (Caenorhabditis elegans; [5]), arthropods (Daphnia magna; [6]) and chordates (the edible frog Pelophylax esculentus; [7]). This at least suggests that ectotherms can adaptively change cell size in response to environmental temperature. Understanding the mechanisms and consequences of cell size adaptations can therefore help to better understand the thermal biology of ectotherms. Importantly, cell size may be a determining factor for body size: ectotherms generally grow to a larger body size when reared at low temperatures. This pattern, known as the “temperature-size rule” (TSR), is not fully understood, but more in-depth knowledge of the regulation of cell size may be key to eventually solve this life-history puzzle [1,5,810].

An important correlate of cell size is genome size. This correlation between cell size and genome size is generally recognised as fundamental, as it is found in all major animal groups [1113], yet the underlying mechanisms remain obscure [14]. In general, larger nuclei are required to accommodate a larger genome, and because the nucleocytoplasmic ratio is conserved [11,15], this results in larger cells [15,16]. Interestingly, interspecific differences in DNA content do not predict organismal complexity, the now abandoned C-value paradox [17]. Rather, variation in DNA content reflects varying amounts of non-coding DNA. The possibility thus arises that cell size rather than genome size may be the target of selection [1]. The greatest diversity in genome sizes in vertebrates (and thus cell sizes), is found in fish, by far the most speciose group of the chordate phylum [11].

Before the radiation of teleostean fishes, two rounds of whole genome duplication events occurred in the earliest vertebrates more than 450 million years ago (mya) [18]. This resulted in an ancestral teleost which is predicted to have had 11–13 chromosomes in its haploid set. Around ~ 350 mya another (teleost-specific) whole genome duplication took place [19], explaining why most extant fish have a haploid chromosome number of 24 or 25 [20,21]. In both the salmonid lineage and in part of the cyprinid lineage further polyploidization occurred (examples are the tetraploid common carp and goldfish, which possess a total number of 100 chromosomes). Also, in the ancestral lineage of Acipenceriformes, repeated rounds of whole genome duplication events lead to an impressive hexaploid genome with approximately 368 chromosomes in some extant sturgeons (Acipenser baerii) [22,23].

The consecutive whole genome duplications did not result in an exponential increase in genome size (C-value) in fish: increases in genome size must have been balanced by subsequent genome size reduction, possibly because cell size is under stabilizing selection [24]. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) are Cyprinidae, but did not undergo the whole genome duplication seen in other cyprinids and have 48 chromosomes. While duplicates of several genes are found in the zebrafish genome (see for example [25]), these are derived from the teleost specific whole genome duplication. As the teleost specific whole genome duplication was followed by gene (sub-) functionalisation and genome reduction, zebrafish are considered to be diploid animals, setting them apart from tetraploid cyprinids [26].

Cell size has direct consequences for energy metabolism: larger cells have lower metabolic rates on a per mass basis [15]. One of the main reasons for this is the lower membrane surface area relative to cellular volume in larger cells. A larger cell has lower energetic costs for maintaining electrochemical gradients across its plasma membrane, a process that may take up to 30% of the total energy budget of the cell [27]. In other words, large cells are more energy efficient with a smaller plasma membrane compartment to sustain. The flip side is that large cells have a lower capacity for transmembrane transport of resources such as nutrients and oxygen, and longer intracellular diffusion distances, potentially making them more susceptible to oxygen limitation. In this respect, smaller cells could provide the advantage of greater performance. Thus, cell size affects the balance between resource uptake and costs for maintaining ionic gradients [2830].

Ploidy can be artificially increased in zebrafish, either by inducing triploidy [3133], or tetraploidy, although tetraploid zebrafish do not to survive beyond 50 days of age [34]. This is surprising in the light of the tetraploidy of the closely related common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Triploid zebrafish, however, survive easily well up to adult age (> 1 year, personal observations), although they all develop into males [35]. Artificial triploidy induction is a common practice in aquaculture, usually performed to achieve sterility in populations of fish, mainly salmonids [36]. Benefits of anthropogenic triploidy are prevention of precocious maturation, which may lead to a larger body size as there is no major investment in gametes (mature ovaries may take a large volume of the body weight and is often not commercially appreciated), as well as avoidance of genome fouling of wild populations when cultured fish escape and hybridize with natural populations [37]. However, triploid fish have been reported to be more susceptible to stressors such as high temperatures and hypoxia [38,39]. It has been suggested that this susceptibility is mainly caused by issues with oxygen delivery [40]; indeed, a combination of both high temperatures and hypoxia significantly increased mortality in triploid Atlantic salmon, compared to solely high temperatures [41].

Here we report on triploidy induction in zebrafish to enlarge its cells to study the consequences of cell size adaptations for whole-organism performance. For this model to function properly, triploid zebrafish should ideally only differ from wildtype diploids in cell size, when reared under standard conditions. We compared diploid and triploid zebrafish larvae at three levels of biological organisation, i.e. the genomic, single cell and whole-organism level. Triploid zebrafish have been used for studies in fields as diverse as toxicology and theriogenology [3133,35], but to the best of our knowledge this is a novel, more in-depth comparison between diploid and triploid zebrafish focused on the characterisation of triploid zebrafish in the embryonic and larval stage. We hypothesised and confirm that under non- demanding (i.e. standard rearing) conditions, diploid and triploid zebrafish larvae are highly comparable in expression levels of housekeeping genes, growth, development and morphology. In an escape response trial, where maximum performance of the fish is required, we predict that triploids will be outperformed by diploids based on a lower capacity of larger cells to generate energy.

Materials and methods

Zebrafish husbandry

Breeding stock of adult zebrafish from the AB strain (wild-type strain supplied by ZIRC, ZFIN ID: ZDB-GENO-960809-7, bred for maximum three successive generations at the Radboud Zebrafish Facility, Nijmegen, The Netherlands) were kept in 4-L tanks with recirculating tap water (pH 7.5 –pH 8) at a density of approximately 30 fish per tank. Zebrafish stock was fed twice a day with Gemma Micro 300 Zf (5% of bodyweight per day; Nutreco N.V., Amersfoort, The Netherlands), with addition of Artemia once a day, and were maintained at a continuous cycle of 14 hours light and 10 hours darkness at a temperature of 27°C.

All experiments were carried out in accordance with the Dutch Animals Act (https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0003081/2019-01-01), the European guidelines for animal experiments (Directive 2010/63/EU; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32010L0063) and institutional regulations.

Egg collection and triploidy induction

The obtained eggs were fertilised in vitro to accurately determine the timing of fertilisation, which is crucial for triploidy induction. Males and females were separated the day before in vitro fertilisation (ivf). The following morning, ivf was performed as described in the protocol of ‘The Zebrafish Book’ [42]. Males were anaesthetised in 0.05% v/v 2- phenoxyethanol and blotted damp-dry. Sperm was collected by use of a P-10 pipette fitted with a plastic micro-10 tip (Greiner Bio-One, Kremsmünster, Austria), and applying gentle suction at the opening of the cloaca while stroking the sides of the fish. The quality of the sperm was assessed by colour; sperm was only used when its appearance was milky white and not watery. The sperm of 8–10 males was pooled in isotonic Hank’s saline solution (137 mM NaCl, 5.4 mM KCl, 0.25 mM Na2HPO4, 0.44 mM KH2PO4, 1.3 mM CaCl2, 1.0 mM MgSO4, 4.2 mM NaHCO3) using 50 μL to dilute sperm from one male.

The pooled sperm sample was kept on ice while proceeding with females. They anaesthetised similarly to the males, but were placed in a petri dish (with no water) to collect the eggs following gentle pressure on the belly. The quality of the eggs was assessed by colour and shape; we only used eggs that appeared yellowish and translucent, with a regular round shape. Immediately after egg collection, 50 μL of the sperm solution was added followed by the addition of E2 embryo medium (5 mM NaCl, 0.17 mM KCl, 0.33 mM CaCl2, 0.33 mM MgSO4). Meiosis II is initiated when eggs come into contact with a hypotonic solution such as water or E2 medium. To maximize fertilisation, first we enveloped only the egg mass with E2 medium, and after 30 seconds the petri dish was filled up.

A cold shock to inhibit meiosis II was applied 3 minutes after the addition of E2 to induce triploidy, as the second polar body is then retained within the nucleus of the diploid egg. The cold shock was given by incubation of the eggs (contained in a plastic tea strainer) in a water bath at 4°C for 20 minutes; next the eggs were allowed to warm up in a water bath at 28°C for 5 minutes, and then transferred to the experimental setup. Starting with good quality eggs and sperm, shock temperature, duration of the exposure and timing post fertilisation are the critical variables that influence the efficiency of triploidy induction. To ensure a high induction efficiency, we tested a variety of conditions, listed in S1 Table. We initially used heat as a temperature shock to induce triploidy in zebrafish as described by Kavumpurath and Pandian (1990) [32]; however, we obtained better and more consistent results with a cold shock. This seems conflicting with the results of others [31,43], although in these studies slightly different conditions were applied. Especially timing post fertilisation seems to be a major factor affecting survival rates and triploidy efficiency; Franek et al., (2019) [31] tested with initiation of the temperature shock up to 2 minutes post fertilisation and Hou et al., (2015) [43] immediately (within 10 seconds) applied a cold shock to the fertilised eggs, whereas we achieved optimal results with applying the cold shock 3 minutes post fertilisation, when the eggs have sufficiently swelled in room temperature E2 medium.

Throughout the manuscript, embryos that received a cold shock to induce triploidy are referred to as cold shocked embryos (as triploidy could only be verified at the end of the experiments, we chose not to refer a priori to these individuals as triploids).

Larval maintenance

Within an hour after fertilisation, diploid and cold shocked embryos were transferred to a 48- wells plate (three embryos per well; Greiner Bio-One, Kremsmünster, Austria) with a mesh bottom, permeable to water, placed in a breeding tank with E3 medium (E2 medium with addition of 10–5% methylene blue). The breeding tank was transferred as a whole to a water bath to maintain a constant temperature of 26.5°C (+/- 0.2°C) and constant aeration of E3 medium was provided (setup based on Khaliullina-Skultety et al. (2017) [44]). Larvae were maintained up until 5 dpf.

Growth and development

Embryos were staged at fixed time points according to Kimmel et al. (1995) [45] using a Leica MZ FLIII stereomicroscope (Leica microsystems, Wetzlar, Germany). Staging was based on clearly distinguishable features, i.e. 6 hours post fertilization (hpf, embryonic shield), 24 hpf (heart beat and early pigmentation), 30 hpf (weak circulation), 48 hpf (tapering yolk extension) and 72 hpf (protruding mouth). At each time point 5 embryos were staged from the diploid and cold shocked groups. At 5 dpf, length in mm (to the nearest 0.01 mm) was assessed from pictures of living larvae taken with a Leica MZ FLIII stereomicroscope and the segmented line tool in the ImageJ program (https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/).

qPCR

At 24, 48, 72, 96 and 120 hpf embryos and larvae were collected in 2 mL Eppendorf tubes and instantly frozen in liquid nitrogen for qPCR analysis. At each time point, three individuals were pooled in one sample and three replicate samples (a total of 9 larvae) were obtained from both the diploid and cold shocked groups. All samples were stored at -80°C until further use.

Total RNA was isolated with TRIzol (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) according to the manufacturer’s instruction with minor changes. Samples were homogenized in 400 μL TRIzol with a 3 mm glass grinding bead using a mixer mill (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) for 30 seconds at 20 Hz. An extra ethanol precipitation was performed and RNA pellets were dissolved in 15 μL diethyl pyrocarbonate (DEPC) H2O.

To obtain equal amounts of RNA, concentrations were measured by nanodrop spectrophotometry (ND-1000; Isogen Life Science B.V., De Meern, The Netherlands). For DNase I (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) treatment and cDNA synthesis 500 ng total RNA was used. Synthesis of cDNA was carried out with Superscript Reverse Transcriptase II enzyme (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) according to manufacturer’s instructions. The obtained cDNA was diluted 10x in DEPC H2O for qPCR. A total PCR volume of 20 μL was used, including 4 μL cDNA and 10 μL iQ SYBR Green Supermix (Bio-rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Cycling parameters were: 3 minutes at 95°C, 40 PCR cycles of 15 seconds at 90°C and 60 seconds at 60°C and finally a melt curve procedure from 65°C to 95°C (ΔT +0.5°C/cycle).

In total the expression levels of six housekeeping genes were analysed: ribosomal protein L13a (rpl13a), eukaryotic translation elongation factor 1 alpha1, like 1 (eef1a1l1), actin, beta 1 (actb1), polymerase (RNA) II (DNA directed) polypeptide D (polr2d), ribosomal protein S11 (rps11, previously known as 40S) and TATA box binding protein (tbp). These genes are involved in a range of basic cellular processes and therefore frequently used to normalize gene expression levels of other genes (Table 1). To ensure a non-biased interpretation of the expression values, the relative normalized expression for each housekeeping gene was calculated using a combined index of the relative quantity from the other five housekeeping genes [46,47]. In addition, the expression of heat shock protein 70 (hsp70.1) was analysed, as an indicator of potential thermally induced stress in triploids [48,49] (Table 1).

Table 1. Primer sequences for qPCR.

Gene Source Process Fw primer sequence (5’-3’) Rv primer sequence (5’-3’)
rpl13a NM_212784.1 Translation TCTGGAGGACTGTAAGAGGTATGC AGACGCACAATCTTGAGAGCAG
eef1a1l1 NM_131263.1 Cell cycle CTGGAGGCCAGCTCAAACAT TCAAGAAGAGTAGTACCGCTAGCATTAC
actb1 NM_131031.1 Cytoskeleton integrity CTTGCTCCTTCCACCATGAA CTGCTTGCTGATCCACATCT
polr2d NM_001002317.2 Transcription CCAGATTCAGCCGCTTCAAG CAAACTGGGAATGAGGGCTT
rps11 NM_213377.1 Translation GCTTCAAAACCCCCAGAGAA TCAGGACGTTGAACCTCACA
tbp NM_200096.1 Transcription CTTACCCACCAGCAGTTTAGCAG CCTTGGCACCTGTGAGTACGACTTTG
hsp70.1 NM_001362359.1 Cellular stress response GACATCGACGCCAACGGG GCAGAAATCTTCTCTCTCTGC

Genome and cell size

At 5 dpf, cold shocked larvae were collected to verify triploidy induction by analysis of the amount of nuclear DNA. An individual cold shocked larva was pooled with a diploid control of the same age to serve as an internal control. For qPCR it was not possible to analyse ploidy level of individuals, because whole larvae were used for RNA isolation. In this case, other larvae from the same batch were used to calculate the efficiency of triploidy induction.

One cold shocked and one diploid control larva were pooled in 1.5 mL Eppendorf tubes, chilled ice-cooled E3 medium was added and the larvae were left on ice for 20 minutes to be euthanized. After removing E3 medium, larvae were pre-treated with 150 μL lysis buffer (0.1% sodium citrate, 0.1% Triton X-100 in PBS) and they were immediately frozen in buffer at -20°C until further processing (storage up to two weeks did not affect downstream processing).

Samples were thawed and placed on ice before mechanical dissociation. Larvae were slowly passed through a 25Gx1”/0.5x25 mm needle fitted to a 1 mL syringe (Henke Sass Wolf, Tuttlingen), which was repeated 10 times. The homogenate was filtered with a 70 μm mesh cell strainer (pluriSelect Life Science, Leipzig, Germany) topped on a 1.5 mL Eppendorf tube to obtain single nuclei. After allowing the nuclei to flow through for 10 minutes, samples were centrifuged for 4 minutes at 1000 rpm at 4°C. The supernatant was carefully removed, leaving a small drop of liquid on the invisible pellet. Finally, samples were incubated overnight with 300 μL freshly prepared propidium iodide (PI) staining buffer (0.1% w/v sodium citrate solution, 20 μg/ml PI (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), 0.1 mg/ml RNAse A (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) and 0.1% Triton X –100), keeping the samples on ice and in the fridge shielded from light. The next morning, samples were transferred to 5 mL test tubes and kept on ice until analysis with a FC500 5-color Flow Cytometer (Beckman Coulter Life Science, Indianapolis, IN, USA).

To verify triploidy, the R package {flowPloidy} by Smith et al. (2018) [50] was used. All samples consist of two pooled larvae; one diploid larva that serves as an internal control and one cold shocked larva for which ploidy status is to be established. Including an internal control with known genome size is a standard practice to relate fluorescent intensities of peaks in the obtained DNA histograms to the corresponding nuclear DNA content [51,52]. In Fig 1, two exemplary DNA histograms are shown for triploidy identification. The first peak represents G1 phase cells of the diploid control larva. This peak is annotated as the standard peak with a genome size of 1.44 pg, the genome size of zebrafish [53]. These cells have a 2n DNA content. When both larvae are diploid (Fig 1A), there are two main peaks; in addition to the G1 phase cells there is a second peak showing G2 phase cells with a 4n DNA content. When the sample included a triploid cold shocked larva in addition to the internal control diploid larvae, we observe G1 phase cells with a 2n and a 3n DNA content (the first two peaks), with the peak for triploid larvae being displaced such that the genome size corresponds to a 50% increase. A similar shift is observed for the G2 phase cells. Thus, the fourth peak shows G2 phase cells of the triploid larva, which have a 6n DNA content. Using the annotation tools of the {flowPloidy} R package, a model was fitted over the raw FCM data. FlowPloidy analysis incorporates the continuous aggregate model to correct for the presence of doublets, triplets and quadruplets in 4n, 6n and 8n peaks, and a residual Chi-Square (RCS) value was calculated, which is a rough goodness-of-fit value [54].

Fig 1. Assessment of triploidy induction.

Fig 1

A) Exemplary DNA histogram of two diploid larvae pooled in one sample. Standard size G1-peak = 1.44 pg, estimated size G2-peak = 2.85 pg, ratio G2 / G1 = 1.98, RCS value = 6.96. B) Exemplary DNA histogram of one diploid and one triploid larva pooled in one sample. Standard size G1-peak 2n = 1.44 pg, estimated size G1-peak 3n = 2.15 pg, ratio G1-3n / G1-2n = 1.49, RCS value = 2.11. In both A) and B) the dashed grey line is the initial model estimate and the red line is the fitted model. Colored circles represent matching cell cycle phases derived from a diploid or triploid larva. Peaks C, D, and E represent endopolyploid cell populations.

The obtained DNA histograms were used to calculate the number of cells of diploid and triploid larvae in pooled samples. These are not the absolute cell numbers that compose a larva, but as we consistently used a diploid larva as internal control we can calculate the relative difference in cell numbers between diploids and triploids. We discriminated between G2 phase cells of triploid larvae and endopolyploid cells of diploid larvae which have an overlapping peak at 6n, by calculating the proportion of 6n cells derived from diploid larvae based on the proportion of 6n cells in diploid control samples. We also measured the numbers of cells in the G1 and G2 phase (presented as ratio G2/G1); this ratio is an indicator of the dividing potential of the cells.

Cell size was analysed in erythrocytes of adult (>1.5 years old) diploid and triploid zebrafish. Blood was obtained from zebrafish euthanized with an overdose of 0.1% v/v 2-phenoxyethanol and a standard H&E staining was performed on blood smears. Pictures were taken with a Leica DM RBE microscope and cell area was measured by using automatic particle analysis of the program ImageJ (https://imagej.nih.gov/ij/). In each picture the cell area was obtained for 20 cells. We took care to only obtain area measurements for cells that were not touching other cells. Cell areas were converted to cell volumes as follows:

Cell volume=Cell area3/2

Swimming performance

Maximum swimming velocity of diploid and cold shocked larvae was assessed using a DanioVision system (Noldus Information Technology B.V., Wageningen, The Netherlands). At 5 dpf, larvae were transferred to a 24-wells (Greiner Bio-One, Kremsmünster, Austria) plate containing 1 mL of E3 medium in each well. Care was taken to avoid using larvae with visual morphological abnormalities (i.e. a curved body axis, pericardial oedema and underdeveloped head and eyes). The 24-well plates were filled with a combination of cold shocked and diploid larvae. They were placed individually in a well and were acclimated for 10 minutes in the setup at 26.5°C before the start of the experiment. All experiments were performed in the afternoon, as activity levels of larvae are most stable during this time of day [55]. Larvae were subjected to a startle protocol as described in van den Bos et al. (2017) [56]. After 10 minutes, 10 tap stimuli were presented with an interval of 20 seconds. This protocol was chosen as previous studies showed no habituation in the startle response of zebrafish larvae to repeated stimuli with a 20 seconds inter-stimulus interval [5759]. The maximum velocity during the startle response was measured in mm/s. Subsequent analysis were performed only with larvae that at least once exhibited a response higher then 15 mm/s.

Statistical analyses

All analyses were performed using RStudio version 1.1.383; a significance threshold of α = 0.05 was respected. Length measurements for diploid and triploid larvae were compared using a two sample t-test, as an F-test confirmed equal variances. Developmental rates of diploids and triploids were compared using a general linear model, for which we visually checked the frequency distribution of the residuals as being normally distributed. With a subsequent ANOVA we tested for the effects of ploidy and hpf on developmental stages and the interaction thereof. Gene expression data was analysed for each gene separately, using a general linear model (again the residuals were visually checked for normality) and subsequent ANOVA to test for differences between ploidy levels and the interaction with dpf. Post hoc Tukey’s test was performed to find differences between ploidies at specific days. To compare cell numbers between diploid and triploid larvae we used a paired t-test, as each sample pooled a diploid and a triploid larva. For comparing the ratio of cells in the G1 and G2 phase between diploids and triploids, we used Welch’s two sample t-test, as an F- test revealed unequal variances. The estimates of cell volumes of diploid and triploid erythrocytes were compared using a two sample t-test, as an F-test confirmed equal variances. For analysis of the swimming performance data, we only included responsive larvae (they at least once showed a response higher than 15 mm/s). Pearson’s χ2-test revealed that the proportion of non-responsive larvae was higher in triploids (χ2 = 16.41, df = 1, p < 0.001, see also Table 2). We tested for the effect of ploidy level on maximum swimming velocity separately for startle 1, startle 2 and startle 3–10 with ANOVA, using a linear mixed effects model [60] which included trial as a random factor. In addition, given the bimodality in responses observed, we compared the proportion of larvae that responded to a stimulus separately for startle 1, startle 2 and startle 3–10 using Pearson’s χ2-tests. From those measurements where larvae surpassed the threshold swimming speed of 15 mm/s, we also compared the maximum swimming velocity between diploids and triploids using a two sample t-test, as an F-test confirmed equal variances.

Table 2. Numbers of responsive and non-responsive larvae in the startle protocol.

Ploidy level \ Response type Responsive Non-responsive Total
# 2n larvae 71 2 73
# 3n larvae 53 21 74
Total 124 23

Results

Triploidy induction and cellular architecture

The efficiency of triploidy induction was on average just over 98% (S1 Table). Survival rates at 24 hpf did not significantly differ between cold shocked and control embryos (70.8% ± 5.4 s.d. and 77.2% ± 5.8 s.d., respectively; df = 7, p = 0.13). Ploidy level could be reliably verified with flow cytometry, by assessing the fluorescence intensity of the second peak in the DNA histogram compared to the standard peak of the internal diploid control (Fig 1). Triploid larvae showed a 50.8% (± 0.9 s.d., n = 51) increase in DNA content, matching the expected increase in genome size by a factor of 1.5. Strikingly, the DNA histograms for diploid and triploid samples showed, apart from the peaks representing the G1 and G2 phase, other small peaks with polyploid 6n and 8n cells for diploid larvae and 9n cells for triploid larvae (Fig 1).

As we used a diploid larva as an internal control, we could also compare relative cell counts between diploid and triploid larvae on a per sample basis, showing that on average the cell count is 1.72 (± 0.70 s.d.) times lower in triploids compared to diploids (Fig 2A, df = 49, p < 0.001). The ratio of G2 to G1 phase cells is larger in triploid larvae (Fig 2B, df = 82.025, p < 0.001), indicating that more cells are in the process of dividing in triploids than in diploids. As diploid and triploid zebrafish larvae did not differ in length (see below, Fig 6), triploid larvae can be inferred to consist of larger but fewer cells, compared to their diploid counterparts. The 1.72 (± 0.70 s.d.) times lower cell count in triploids agrees well with the expected 1.5 times increase in cell size, as genome size increased by the same factor [11]. We confirmed the increase in cell size in erythrocytes from adult diploid and triploid zebrafish, demonstrating that the estimated cell volumes of triploid erythrocytes are on average 1.64 (± 0.18 s.d.) times larger than diploid erythrocytes (Fig 3).

Fig 2. Cell count and G2/G1 ratio of diploid and triploid larvae.

Fig 2

A) Cell number of diploid and triploid larvae in pooled FCM samples. Paired t-test, *** p < 0.001, n = 50. B) Ratio of cells in G1 and G2 phase, calculated as G2/G1*100 for each diploid and triploid larva. Welch’s t-test, *** p < 0.001, n = 50.

Fig 6. Body length and morphology of diploid and triploid larvae.

Fig 6

A) Body length of diploid and triploid larvae. Two sample t-test, p = 0.96, n = 128. B) Representative picture of diploid larva at 5 dpf. C) Representative picture of triploid larva at 5 dpf.

Fig 3. Diploid and triploid erythrocytes and estimated cell volumes.

Fig 3

A) Microscopic picture of diploid erythrocytes (40x). B) Microscopic picture of triploid erythrocytes (40x). C) Zoomed in version of picture A, showing automatic cell area detection of diploid cells. D) Zoomed in version of picture B, showing automatic cell area detection of triploid cells. Note that only non-touching cells are analysed. E) Estimated cell volumes of diploid and triploid erythrocytes. Two sample t-test, *** p < 0.001, n = 40.

Expression of housekeeping genes

Expression levels of the housekeeping genes rps11, actb1 and eef1a1l1 were the same for diploid and triploid larvae during development (Fig 4A, 4B and 4C). For the other three genes, the ontogenetic changes in gene expression levels followed the same trajectory, although here expression levels of rpl13a were slightly lower in triploid larvae compared to diploids (Fig 4E, F1,20 = 7.00, p = 0.016), whereas tbp expression was slightly higher in triploid larvae (Fig 4F, F1,20 = 5.36, p = 0.031). Expression of polr2d through time varied with ploidy level (the interaction between ploidy and dpf was significant: Fig 4D, F4,20 = 3.72, p = 0.020). A Tukey’s post-hoc test revealed that polr2d gene expression was significantly higher at 1 dpf (p = 0.038) and 2 dpf (p = 0.037) in diploid larvae, but later in development the expression values of diploids and triploids converged (Fig 4D). There was no significant difference in the expression levels of hsp70.1 between diploid and triploid larvae (Fig 5, F1,20 = 0.77, p = 0.39). Note that hsp70.1 expression levels were normalized using the housekeeping genes eef1a1l1 and actb1, as these genes are expressed most stably during development and they are similarly expressed in diploids and triploids.

Fig 4. Relative expression values of housekeeping genes in diploid and triploid larvae during development.

Fig 4

A) rps11, ribosomal protein S11. B) actb1, actin, beta 1. C) eef1a1l1, eukaryotic translation elongation factor 1 alpha 1, like 1. D) polr2d, polymerase (RNA) II (DNA directed) polypeptide D. E) rpl13a, ribosomal protein L13a. F) tbp, TATA box binding protein. Expression values for each gene are normalized using a combined index of the relative quantity of the other five housekeeping genes. Values are presented as means with standard deviations. Asterisks in titles indicate a significant difference in expression levels without an interaction with dpf. ANOVA, * p < 0.05, n = 3x3 larvae per ploidy level per day.

Fig 5. Relative expression values of hsp70.1 in diploid and triploid larvae during development.

Fig 5

Expression values are normalized using a combined index of the relative quantity of the housekeeping genes eef1a1l1 and actb1. Values are presented as means with standard deviations. ANOVA, p = 0.39, n = 3x3 larvae per ploidy level per day.

Growth and development

Diploid and triploid zebrafish larvae are morphologically indistinguishable at 5 dpf (Fig 6B and 6C). The average length for diploids is 3.97 mm (± 0.15 s.d., n = 66) and for triploids 3.97 mm (± 0.19 s.d., n = 62) (Fig 6A; t1, 126 = -0.051, p = 0.959). In addition, the timing of developmental landmarks did not change with ploidy (Fig 7, F1,133 = 0.519, p = 0.473). There were two larvae within the triploid group that lagged behind in their development and could therefore be considered outliers; however, analyses that excluded them produced the same results.

Fig 7. Development of diploid and triploid larvae up to 72 hpf.

Fig 7

A) Development of diploid larvae, n = 82. B) Development of triploid larvae, n = 55. In both A) and B) the dashed grey line is the reference x = y. Solid grey lines are the hours post fertilization at which the embryos and larvae were staged, namely: 6, 24, 30, 48 and 72 hours. ANOVA, p = 0.47.

Swimming performance

During the startle protocol, most larvae increased swimming velocity at least once (responsive larvae), although some did never (non-responsive larvae). Within the responsive larvae (124 out of 147 individuals), maximum swimming velocity of triploid zebrafish larvae was lower relative to diploids at the first startle stimulus (Fig 8A, F1,122 = 12.1, p < 0.001), and further decreased at subsequent stimuli (Fig 8B and 8C; F1,122 = 15.0, p < 0.001 and F1,122 = 31.4, p < 0.001, respectively). There was a clear bimodality in the swimming velocity: either larvae reacted or did not and the threshold value demarcating the two groups was at 15 mm/s. When only considering the swimming velocities above this threshold value, there was no significant difference in the average maximum velocity between diploids and triploids (startle 1: t = 0.54, df = 108, p = 0.59, startle 2: t = -1.1624, df = 77, p = 0.25, startle 3–10: t = 0.93, df = 414, p = 0.35). Thus, the decline in swimming velocity in triploids with repeated trials is driven by triploids becoming increasingly unresponsive (for analysis see S1 Appendix).

Fig 8. Startle response of diploid and triploid larvae.

Fig 8

A) Swimming velocity of diploid and triploid larvae at the first startle stimulus. B) Swimming velocity of diploid and triploid larvae at the second startle stimulus. C) Swimming velocity of diploid and triploid larvae at the third to tenth startle stimulus. ANOVA, *** p < 0.001, n = 124.

Discussion

To investigate how differences in cell size affect performance at the whole-organism level, a comparison is required between individuals that differ in cell size only, being similar in other respects. Our results demonstrate that triploid zebrafish could be a suitable model system. Triploidy in zebrafish leads to larvae with larger, but fewer cells than in their diploid counterparts. DNA content increased by a factor of 1.5, with concomitant effects on nuclear size and cell size [1,11,14,61], whereas cell number decreased by roughly the same factor. The increase in cell size following triploidy induction was confirmed in erythrocytes from adult diploid and triploid zebrafish. The cold shock protocol established for this research reliably induces triploidy (>98%). Also, mortality rates of triploids were not different from diploid controls (S1 Table). Possible timing irregularities could explain our variable results when applying heat shocks (41°C), as initially the timing of fertilisation was determined by visually assessing egg release from females during natural fertilisation. As females do not always release all eggs simultaneously, timing irregularities up to 10 seconds could occur. These small differences in timing could have a larger effect during heat shocks than during cold shocks, as the rate of cellular processes increases with temperature. By using in vitro fertilisation, the timing of fertilisation could be controlled more accurately. When reared at the same standard temperature, diploid and triploid larvae showed similar growth, development, and expression levels for six housekeeping genes; minor differences in gene expression were transient and confined to the first two days directly following cold shock. Based on the similar expression values of hsp70.1 in diploids and triploids, it seems that the cold shock did not induce a thermal stress response in triploid larvae.

Triploid and diploid larvae had the same growth trajectories and reached the same length at 5 dpf. As triploid larvae were composed of fewer, yet larger cells, triploids should have a lower rate of cell division. Although the G2/G1 ratio is often interpreted as a measure of growth rate, with higher ratios indicating faster rates of cell division, we observed a higher G2/G1 ratio in triploids (16.27 ± 5.27 s.d.) than in diploids (10.95 ± 3.17 s.d.). Possibly, the G2 phase is lengthened in triploids and hence we find relatively more cells in the G2 phase in triploids. In this case, the higher ratio in triploids actually indicates a slower rate of cell division. A slower replication of larger genomes has indeed been noted before [62]. Species that have undergone genome enlargements in their recent evolutionary history can compensate for the slower replication with an increased rDNA copy number [63,64]. However, in our study, we induced triploidy artificially in our zebrafish, so there was no compensation in the number of rDNA copy numbers relative to the total genome. This absence of compensatory changes to shorten the cell cycle may explain why there were potentially fewer cell divisions and a higher G2/G1 ratio in triploids.

Interestingly, we observed a small fraction of polyploid cells in both diploid (6n an 8n DNA content) and triploid (9n DNA content) larvae. These cells are originally mononucleated cells, as we measured the DNA content in individual nuclei with flow cytometry. Therefore, it is unlikely that these polyploid cell populations represent muscle cells. While muscle cells have a higher DNA content, the DNA is packaged in multiple nuclei as muscle cells arise from cell fusion of myoblasts [65,66]. Instead, this indicates somatic polyploidy in organogenesis in developing zebrafish. Polyploidization of cells can be a growth strategy to control organ size and morphology [66] and it has been proposed as a way to promote rapid growth, by increasing cell volume without a mitotic division [67].

The observed expression levels of housekeeping genes were very similar for diploid and triploid larvae up until 5 dpf. At first glance, one would predict higher expression values in triploids for all housekeeping genes, as there is simply more DNA available for transcription. However, we need to consider that triploid larvae are made up of fewer cells compared to diploids, and the cDNA used for qPCR is synthesized based on the total amount of RNA. Ribosomal RNA makes up about 50% of the cell’s total RNA [68] and the proportions of ribosomal RNA and messenger RNA may change with increasing ploidy. Indeed, gene expression values were lower in triploids for rpl13a and polr2d, of which the protein products (ribosomal protein L13a and RNA polymerase II subunit D) are involved in the processes of translation and transcription, respectively. Like polr2d, tbp is important in transcription, coding for the TATA box binding protein [69], but in contrast to polr2d, tbp is expressed more in triploids, likely to compensate for lower transcription rates and inherently slower cell cycles in triploids.

A larger cell size is hypothesized to have consequences for oxygen transport across the plasma membranes to the mitochondria. Larger cells have relatively less membrane surface to transport oxygen into the cells [10,70], which could lower their aerobic energy budget. Temperature changes the balance between oxygen demand and oxygen supply [71,72]. Therefore, triploid zebrafish could be a suitable vertebrate model to study the energetic and respiratory consequences of cell size in thermal biology. Our results on larval swimming performance are consistent with the hypothesis that a triploid larva composed of larger cells has a lower capacity for oxygen provisioning to the mitochondria and might become prone to oxygen shortage upon exercise. The lower maximum swimming velocity in triploids, especially after multiple stimulations suggests that larvae and especially triploids, indeed run out of energy. In adult fish, short burst activity is known to be fuelled predominantly by anaerobic, glycogenic fast muscle metabolism [73,74]. However, El-Fiky et al. (1987) [75] argue that in larval fish jerky and erratic movements are fuelled almost entirely by aerobic metabolism, based on the high activity of aerobic enzymes like cytochrome oxidase and citrate synthase in whole-body and muscle homogenates of young larvae. These markers decrease upon progression through the juvenile stage, and markers for glycolytic enzymes increase [75,76], indicating that the onset of anaerobic power develops later in ontogeny. Although the sensorimotor pathway of the startle response in larval zebrafish is well understood [77,78], the energy source for this response has not been thoroughly investigated. If the energy is predominantly generated aerobically, oxygen limitation could be a reason why triploids show a decreased response after multiple stimuli. Given the all or nothing type of escape response, the lower flux of oxygen in triploids could mean they need longer to ‘recharge’ before initiating another burst response.

In our study triploid larvae failed to maintain a high swimming activity throughout the trial. It is unlikely that some other defect, such as a sensory blockade or a reduced muscle innervation, is the cause of this, because our analysis only included diploid and triploid larvae that exhibited a startle response. In addition, triploid and diploid larvae did not differ in body length and morphology at 5 dpf, ruling out the possibility that a delayed development caused the reduced swimming performance in triploids. Still, we did not perform a full transcriptome wide analysis and therefore we cannot exclude differential gene expression of genes related to swimming performance (e.g. citrate synthase, lactate dehydrogenases and other metabolic genes).

In summary, our results show that triploidy induction alters cellular architecture and energy metabolism in zebrafish larvae. In other respects, diploid and triploid zebrafish larvae are largely similar, including gene expression at 5 dpf, development, and growth. As these larvae are not dependent yet on gills for breathing or external food, they make for an excellent model to study regulation of cell size and its consequences for animal performance.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Triploidy induction efficiency.

(DOCX)

S1 Appendix. Analysis of responders per startle.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank professor H. Komen from Wageningen University & Research (department of Animal Sciences) for the suggestion to use cold shocks to induce triploidy in zebrafish. We are also thankful to Mr. T. Spanings for husbandry of the zebrafish in our fish facility. For the experimental work, we are grateful to Mr. J. Zethof who assisted meticulously in molecular work. We would also like to thank Mr. R. Woestenenk from the Radboud University Medical Center for his help in operating the flow cytometer, and Dr. T. Smith from Carleton University and Mr. P. Kron from the University of Guelph, Canada, for their help in analysing and interpreting the flow cytometry data. The DanioVision experiments were facilitated by Dr. E. van Wijk and Dr. E. de Vrieze (both Radboud University Medical Center, department of Otorhinolaryngology), and we would like to thank Dr. R. van den Bos (department of Animal Ecology and Physiology) for his help in analysing DanioVision data. Finally, we are thankful to Dr. A. Hermaniuk (University of Bialystok, Institute of Biology) for his help in staging the embryos.

Data Availability

All data files are available from the DANS EASY archive (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xbp-hbxc).

Funding Statement

Financial Disclosure: This work was supported by The Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (W.C.E.P.V., NWO-VIDI grant no. 016.161.321). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hessen DO, Daufresne M, Leinaas HP. Temperature-size relations from the cellular-genomic perspective. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2013;88: 476–89. 10.1111/brv.12006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Alfsnes K, Leinaas HP, Hessen DO. Genome size in arthropods; different roles of phylogeny, habitat and life history in insects and crustaceans. Ecol Evol. 2017;7: 5939–47. 10.1002/ece3.3163 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Dufresne F, Jeffery N. A guided tour of large genome size in animals: what we know and where we are heading. Chromosome Res. 2011;19: 925–38. 10.1007/s10577-011-9248-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Lorch S, Zeuss D, Brandl R, Brändle M. Chromosome numbers in three species groups of freshwater flatworms increase with increasing latitude. Ecol Evol. 2016;6: 1420–9. 10.1002/ece3.1969 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Van Voorhies WA. Bergmann size clines: a simple explanation for their occurrence in ectotherms. Evolution. 1996;50: 1259–64. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1996.tb02366.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Jalal M, Wojewodzic MW, Laane CMM, Hessen DO. Larger Daphnia at lower temperature: a role for cell size and genome configuration? Genome 2013;56: 511–9. 10.1139/gen-2013-0004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Hermaniuk A, Rybacki M, Taylor JRE. Low Temperature and Polyploidy Result in Larger Cell and Body Size in an Ectothermic Vertebrate. Physiol Biochem Zool. 2016;89: 118–29. 10.1086/684974 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Angilletta MJ, Steury TD, Sears MW. Temperature, growth rate, and body size in ectotherms: fitting pieces of a life-history puzzle. Integr Comp Biol. 2004;44: 498–509. 10.1093/icb/44.6.498 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Atkinson D. Temperature and organism size: a biological law for ectotherms? Adv Ecol Res. 1994;25: 1–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Atkinson D, Morley SA, Hughes RN. From cells to colonies: at what levels of body organization does the “temperature‐size rule” apply? Evol Dev. 2006;8: 202–14. 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00090.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Gregory TR. The Bigger the C-Value, the Larger the Cell: Genome Size and Red Blood Cell Size in Vertebrates. Blood Cells Mol Dis. 2001;27: 830–43. 10.1006/bcmd.2001.0457 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gregory TR. Genome size and developmental complexity. Genetica. 2002;115: 131–46. 10.1023/a:1016032400147 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Horner HA, Macgregor HC. C value and cell volume: their significance in the evolution and development of amphibians. J Cell Sci. 1983;63: 135–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cavalier-Smith T. Economy, speed and size matter: evolutionary forces driving nuclear genome miniaturization and expansion. Ann Bot. 2005;95: 147–75. 10.1093/aob/mci010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Szarski H. Cell Size and Nuclear DNA Content in Vertebrates. Int Rev Cytol. 1976;44: 93–111. 10.1016/s0074-7696(08)61648-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chipman AD, Khaner O, Haas A, Tchernov E. The evolution of genome size: What can be learned from anuran development? J Exp Zool. 2001;291: 365–74. 10.1002/jez.1135 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ohno S. An argument for the genetic simplicity of man and other mammals. J Hum Evol. 1972;1: 651–62. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Dehal P, Boore JL. Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral vertebrate. PLoS Biol. 2005;3: e314 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030314 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Glasauer SMK, Neuhauss SCF. Whole-genome duplication in teleost fishes and its evolutionary consequences. Mol Genet Genomics 2014;289: 1045–60. 10.1007/s00438-014-0889-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jaillon O, Aury J-M, Brunet F, Petit J-L, Stange-Thomann N, Mauceli E, et al. Genome duplication in the teleost fish Tetraodon nigroviridis reveals the early vertebrate proto-karyotype. Nature 2004;431: 946–57. 10.1038/nature03025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Postlethwait JH, Woods IG, Ngo-Hazelett P, Yan YL, Kelly PD, Chu F, et al. Zebrafish comparative genomics and the origins of vertebrate chromosomes. Genome Res. 2000;10: 1890–902. 10.1101/gr.164800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Havelka M, Hulák M, Ráb P, Rábová M, Lieckfeldt D, Ludwig A, et al. Fertility of a spontaneous hexaploid male Siberian sturgeon, Acipenser baerii. BMC Genetics 2014;15: 5 10.1186/1471-2156-15-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Havelka M, Bytyutskyy D, Symonová R, Ráb P, Flajšhans M. The second highest chromosome count among vertebrates is observed in cultured sturgeon and is associated with genome plasticity. Genet Sel Evol 2016;48: 1–9. 10.1186/s12711-015-0181-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mueller RL. Genome Biology and the Evolution of Cell-Size Diversity. Perspect Biol. 2015;7: a019125. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Gorissen M, Bernier NJ, Nabuurs SB, Flik G, Huising MO. Two divergent leptin paralogues in zebrafish (Danio rerio) that originate early in teleostean evolution. J Endocrinol. 2009;201: 329–39. 10.1677/JOE-09-0034 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Woods IG, Wilson C, Friedlander B, Chang P, Reyes DK, Nix R, et al. The zebrafish gene map defines ancestral vertebrate chromosomes. Genome Res. 2005;15: 1307–14. 10.1101/gr.4134305 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hulbert AJ, Else PL. Mechanisms underlying the cost of living in animals. Annu Rev Physiol. 2000;62: 207–35. 10.1146/annurev.physiol.62.1.207 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Kozłowski J, Konarzewski M, Gawelczyk AT. Cell size as a link between noncoding DNA and metabolic rate scaling. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2003;100: 14080–5. 10.1073/pnas.2334605100 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Szarski H. Cell size and the concept of wasteful and frugal evolutionary strategies. J Theor Biol 1983;105: 201–9. 10.1016/s0022-5193(83)80002-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Czarnoleski M, Ejsmont-Karabin J, Angilletta MJ, Kozlowski J. Colder rotifers grow larger but only in oxygenated waters. Ecosphere 2015;6: 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Franěk R, Tichopád T, Fučíková M, Steinbach C, Pšenička M. Production and use of triploid zebrafish for surrogate reproduction. Theriogenology 2019;140: 33–43. 10.1016/j.theriogenology.2019.08.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Kavumpurath S, Pandian TJ. Induction of triploidy in the zebrafish, Brachydanio rerio (Hamilton). Aquacult Fish Manage. 1990;21: 299–306. [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mizgireuv IV, Majorova IG, Gorodinskaya VM, Khudoley VV, Revskoy SY. Carcinogenic effect of N-nitrosodimethylamine on diploid and triploid zebrafish (Danio rerio). Toxicol Pathol 2004;32: 514–8. 10.1080/01926230490496311 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Verma PJ. The zebrafish Danio rerio: a piscine model for biotechnology [dissertation]. Adelaide: University of Adelaide; 1995.
  • 35.Delomas TA, Dabrowski K. Why are triploid zebrafish all male? Mol Reprod Dev. 2018;85: 612–21. 10.1002/mrd.22998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Benfey TJ. The Physiology and Behavior of Triploid Fishes. Rev Fish Sci. 2010;7: 39–67. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Fraser TWK, Fjelldal PG, Hansen T, Mayer I. Welfare Considerations of Triploid Fish. Rev Fish Sci. 2012;20: 192–211. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Myers JM, Hershberger WK. Early growth and survival of heat-shocked and tetraploid-derived triploid rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Aquaculture. 1991;96: 97–107. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Ojolick EJ, Cusack R, Benfey TJ, Kerr SR. Survival and growth of all-female diploid and triploid rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) reared at chronic high temperature. Aquaculture. 1995;131: 177–87. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bernier NJ, Brauner CJ, Heath JW, Randall DJ. Oxygen and carbon dioxide transport during sustained exercise in diploid and triploid chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Can J Fish Aquat Sci. 2011;61: 1797–805. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Hansen TJ, Olsen RE, Stien L, Oppedal F, Torgersen T, Breck O, et al. Effect of water oxygen level on performance of diploid and triploid Atlantic salmon post-smolts reared at high temperature. Aquaculture. 2015;435: 354–60. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Westerfield M. The zebrafish book. A guide for the laboratory use of zebrafish (Danio rerio). Eugene (OR): University of Oregon Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hou J, Fujimoto T, Saito T, Yamaha E, Arai K. Generation of clonal zebrafish line by androgenesis without egg irradiation. Sci Rep 2015;5: 13346 10.1038/srep13346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Khaliullina-Skultety H, Chao NZ, Harris WA. Induction of Hypoxia in Living Frog and Zebrafish Embryos. J Vis Exp. 2017;124: e55710. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Kimmel CB, Ballard WW, Kimmel SR, Ullmann B, Schilling TF. Stages of embryonic development of the zebrafish. Dev. Dyn. 1995;203: 253–310. 10.1002/aja.1002030302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pfaffl MP. A new mathematical model for relative quantification in real-time RT–PCR. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29: e45 10.1093/nar/29.9.e45 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Vandesompele J, De Preter K, Pattyn F, Poppe B, Van Roy N, De Paepe A, et al. Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. 2002;3: research0034.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Airaksinen S, Jokilehto T, Råbergh CMI, Nikinmaa M. Heat- and cold-inducible regulation of HSP70 expression in zebrafish ZF4 cells. Comp Biochem Physiol B. 2003;136: 275–82. 10.1016/s1096-4959(03)00205-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Long Y, Li L, Li Q, He X, Cui Z. Transcriptomic characterization of temperature stress responses in larval zebrafish. PLoS One. 2012;7: e37209 10.1371/journal.pone.0037209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Smith TW, Kron P, Martin SL. flowPloidy: An R package for genome size and ploidy assessment of flow cytometry data. Appl Plant Sci. 2018;6: e01164 10.1002/aps3.1164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Ellis LL, Huang W, Quinn AM, Ahuja A, Alfrejd B, Gomez FE, et al. Intrapopulation genome size variation in D. melanogaster reflects life history variation and plasticity. PLoS Genet. 2014;10: e1004522 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004522 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hare EE, Johnston JS. Genome size determination using flow cytometry of propidium iodide-stained nuclei. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011;772: 3–12. 10.1007/978-1-61779-228-1_1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Howe K, Clark MD, Torroja CF, Torrance J, Berthelot C, Muffato M, et al. The zebrafish reference genome sequence and its relationship to the human genome. Nature 2013;496: 498–503. 10.1038/nature12111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Bagwell CB, Adams EG. Fluorescence spectral overlap compensation for any number of flow cytometry parameters. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;677:167–84. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb38775.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.MacPhail RC, Brooks J, Hunter DL, Padnos B, Irons TD, Padilla S. Locomotion in larval zebrafish: Influence of time of day, lighting and ethanol. Neurotoxicology 2009;30: 52–8. 10.1016/j.neuro.2008.09.011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.van den Bos R, Mes W, Galligani Pietro, Heil A, Zethof J, Flik G, et al. Further characterisation of differences between TL and AB zebrafish (Danio rerio): Gene expression, physiology and behaviour at day 5 of the larval stage. PLoS One. 2017;12: e0175420 10.1371/journal.pone.0175420 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Wolman MA, Jain RA, Liss L, Granato M. Chemical modulation of memory formation in larval zebrafish. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108: 15468–73. 10.1073/pnas.1107156108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Best JD, Berghmans S, Hunt JJFG, Clarke SC, Fleming A, Goldsmith P, et al. Non-associative learning in larval zebrafish. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2008;33: 1206–15. 10.1038/sj.npp.1301489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Wolman MA, Jain RA, Marsden KC, Bell H, Skinner J, Hayer KE, et al. A Genome-wide Screen Identifies PAPP-AA-Mediated IGFR Signaling as a Novel Regulator of Habituation Learning. Neuron. 2015;85: 1200–11. 10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D, R Core Team. nlme: Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. R package version 3.1–141. 2019.
  • 61.Maciak S, Janko K, Kotusz J, Choleva L, Boroń A, Juchno D, et al. Standard Metabolic Rate (SMR) is inversely related to erythrocyte and genome size in allopolyploid fish of the Cobitis taenia hybrid complex. Funct Ecol. 2011;25: 1072–8. [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Van't Hof J, Sparrow AH. A relationship between DNA content, nuclear volume, and minimum mitotic cycle time. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1963;49: 897–902. 10.1073/pnas.49.6.897 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Prokopowich CD, Gregory TR, Crease TJ. The correlation between rDNA copy number and genome size in eukaryotes. Genome. 2003;46: 48–50. 10.1139/g02-103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.White MM, McLaren IA. Copepod development rates in relation to genome size and 18S rDNA copy number. Genome 2000;43: 750–5. 10.1139/g00-048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Baas D, Caussanel-Boude S, Guiraud A, Calhabeu F, Delaune E, Pilot F, et al. CKIP-1 regulates mammalian and zebrafish myoblast fusion. J Cell Sci. 2012;125: 3790–800. 10.1242/jcs.101048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Orr-Weaver TL. When bigger is better: the role of polyploidy in organogenesis. Trends Genet. 2015;31: 307–15. 10.1016/j.tig.2015.03.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Lee HO, Davidson JM, Duronio RJ. Endoreplication: polyploidy with purpose. Genes Dev. 2009;23: 2461–77. 10.1101/gad.1829209 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Russell J, Zomerdijk JCBM. The RNA polymerase I transcription machinery. Biochem Soc Symp. 2006;73: 203–16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Vannini A, Cramer P. Conservation between the RNA polymerase I, II, and III transcription initiation machineries. Mol Cell. 2012;45: 439–46. 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.01.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Woods HA. Egg-mass size and cell size: effects of temperature on oxygen distribution. Int Comp Biol. 1999;39: 244–252. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Pörtner HO. Oxygen- and capacity-limitation of thermal tolerance: a matrix for integrating climate-related stressor effects in marine ecosystems. J Exp Biol. 2010;213: 881–93. 10.1242/jeb.037523 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Verberk WCEP, Bilton DT, Calosi P, Spicer JI. Oxygen supply in aquatic ectotherms: partial pressure and solubility together explain biodiversity and size patterns. Ecology. 2011;92: 1565–72. 10.1890/10-2369.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Domenici P, Blake R. The kinematics and performance of fish fast-start swimming. J Exp Biol. 1997;200: 1165–78. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Killen SS, Reid D, Marras S, Domenici P. The interplay between aerobic metabolism and antipredator performance: vigilance is related to recovery rate after exercise. Front Physiol. 2015;6: 249 10.3389/fphys.2015.00249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.El-Fiky N, Hinterleitner S, Wieser W. Differentiation of swimming muscles and gills, and development of anaerobic power in the larvae of cyprinid fish (Pisces, Teleostei). Zoomorphology. 1987;107: 126–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Hinterleitner S, Platzer U, Wieser W. Development of the activities of oxidative, glycolytic and muscle enzymes during early larval life in three families of freshwater fish. J Fish Biol. 1987;30: 315–26. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Burgess HA, Granato M. Sensorimotor Gating in Larval Zebrafish. J Neurosci. 2007;27: 4984–94. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0615-07.2007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Kimmel CB, Patterson J, Kimmel RO. The development and behavioral characteristics of the startle response in the zebra fish. Dev Psychobiol. 1974;7: 47–60. 10.1002/dev.420070109 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Harold A Burgess

9 Dec 2019

PONE-D-19-30794

Triploidy in zebrafish larvae: effects on gene expression, cell size and number, growth, development and swimming performance.

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. van de Pol,

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.

Both reviewers found the study interesting with potential to provide a valuable system for testing effects of cell size on physiology. The only major concern, mentioned by both reviewers, is the lack of direct evidence to support the key conclusion of a difference in cells size. It will be important to provide a direct measurement of cell size as part of a revised submission. I also strongly recommend that you provide additional evidence that the FACs method accurately assesses ploidy as the conclusions rely heavily on the successful induction of triploidy. The reviewers raised a number of other points that can be addressed by clarifying the text, adding caveats or making minor corrections.

Finally, I was also fascinated by this study and have two minor comments for you to optionally consider. (1) Is it possible that the fraction of cells in normal zebrafish that are polyploid are simply muscle cells? If so, perhaps its worth mentioning briefly. (2) Fig 7 is not entirely persuasive regarding greater fatigue, rather than habituation, which may not refelect an energy deficit. Based on the threshold of 15 mm/s mentioned in the Methods, it appears that Fig 7 shows both responders and non-responders. Perhaps I am mistaken but it appears that with repeated trials the triploids tend to become non-responders (habituation) rather than show a decrease in velocity (fatigue) - or perhaps both effects are present. As such it would be useful to provide a figure that contrasted the mean/SEM only for responders.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 23 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Harold A. Burgess, Ph.D.

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 http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

[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: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: No

**********

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: This is an original study that provides new information characterizing triploid vs diploid zebrafish during the larval period. This is useful information that is generally appropriately collected and reported. While the authors do not observe changes in body size or expression of housekeeping genes between diploids and triploids, they observe reduced cell numbers in otherwise normal appearing zebrafish and a diminished startle response.

My main concern is that some of the data may be over interpreted, and that the manuscript may be improved by focusing on the differences observed between diploids and triploids, reserving implied conclusions for the discussion. For example

The authors don’t directly measure cell size, so without additional data, this is an inference that shouldn’t really be stated as a fact in the title. The authors report of a modest but significant reduction in cell number in triploids compared to diploids without a change in body length is consistent with their inference. Therefore, it is reasonable to state this in the text. However, weight isn’t reported, which could significantly impact this inference.

There are also likely to be gene expression changes in triploid vs diploid larvae. Without RNAseq to rule out this possibility, the authors should be more careful about

attributing phenotypes to cell size and they should acknowledge this caveat more strongly when discussing triploid zebrafish as a model of increased cell size.

Additional minor comments:

For better transparency, length measurements should ideally be presented in a way that includes individual data points rather than the aggregate data in a bar graph

Scale bars are needed on larval images

The writing in the section below is confusing. The first sentence seems to say triploid zebrafish die around 50 days, while the last suggests they live up to a year?

Ploidy can be artificially increased in zebrafish, either by inducing triploidy [29-31], or tetraploidy, although these fish do not to survive beyond 50 days of age [32]. This is surprising in the light of the tetraploidy of the closely related common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Triploid zebrafish, however, survive easily well up to adult age (> 1 year, personal

110 observations), although they all develop into males [33].

Reviewer #2: Review: Triploidy in zebrafish larvae: effects on gene expression, cell size and number, growth, development and swimming performance

The manuscript describes the use of triploid zebrafish as a model to study the consequences of cell size. The manuscript is interesting. However, it is missing some key experiments to support the conclusions drawn. Mainly, these zebrafish are to be used as a model to study the consequences of cell size adaptation on energy; however cell size and the effect of cell size on energy was not directly analyzed. There were also some inconsistencies in the data that should be clarified (please see comments below). Furthermore, the manuscript should be revised to correct the grammatical errors, errors in gene names, and clarify some statements (please see comments below).

Comments:

1. Please provide the full gene names when first used and please use the correct and current gene names. For example ef1a should be (eef1a1l1).

2. Line 53-65: The introduction talks about the effect of temperature on cell size. Although the authors rear their fish at a consistent temperature, they did not test the effect of temperature on cell size. It is suggested that the authors remove this from the text or add in some data regarding the effect of temperature on cell size in diploid and triploid cell size in zebrafish.

3. Line 193 – In the S1 Table triploidy induction at 41 degrees was performed using natural fertilization. Could the authors provide data using ivf or indicate a consistent timepoint used to determine fertilization? Furthermore, considering the authors compare the efficiency of their method to other conflicting published methods, they should mention the effect of potential timing irregularities and the potential effects of using natural fertilization as opposed to ivf with regards to the efficiency of their results.

4. Line 366-381 – The authors confirm triploidy through flow cytometry, with triploids showing a shift in peaks so that a new peak is formed between the G1 and G2 peaks. While I agree the data likely confirms the induction of triploidy, it is suggested that the authors add references to past publications that successfully use this method to confirm triploidy or further discuss the accuracy of the additional peak between G1 and G2 in determining triploidy in zebrafish. Alternatively, it is suggested that the authors confirm the accuracy of this method through the addition of previous published methods (i.e. Giemsa stain on blood smears). Furthermore, on line 377 - the authors state they expected “a factor of 1.5”. Could the authors provide more details/clarify why they expected a factor of 1.5 or provide a reference.

5. Line 376 – The authors state that the average cell count is 1.72 times lower in triploids compared to diploids and that since the diploid and triploid larvae were of the same cell length, triploid larvae can be “inferred to consist of larger but fewer cells compared to the diploid counterparts”. Considering the authors are suggesting the use of these triploids as “a model system to test for the consequences of cell size adaptation”, it is suggested that the authors provide quantitative data demonstrating the size differences between the diploids and triploids. For example: the authors could perform immunohistochemistry for a cell membrane marker followed by confocal microscopy to measure cell size at consistent locations on the embryo/larvae.

6. Line 390 – the authors state that there were “similar patterns of expression for the other three genes”. Could the authors please reword to remove “patterns of expression” when referring to qRT-PCR data as it infers expression in particular regions/tissues (i.e. in situ hybridizations). Furthermore, could the authors specify which “three genes” they are referring too as there are significant differences in the graphs on Figure 3.

7. Line 391-393: The authors should write the full and correct name of the genes of interest. Furthermore, it would benefit the article to explain why these genes were chosen prior to the discussion.

8. Figure 3: It is suggested that the authors indicate where the significant increase in rpl13 and decrease in tbp is on the graphs as it is shown in the polr2d graph. Furthermore, it is suggested that the authors remove the asterisks in the titles for consistency. Furthermore, it appears as though there may be a significant difference 4dpf for b-actin. Could the authors please clarify?

9. Line 398 – The authors indicate there was no significant difference in hsp70l expression. In the discussion the authors state that the absence of an increase in hsp70l expression indicates a lack of thermal stress. However, could it be that hsp70l in zebrafish is only expressed in response to heat instead of cold? Could the authors provide references that indicate hsp70l is expressed specifically in response to cold induced thermal stress in zebrafish?

10. Line 407 – The authors state that the qRT-PCR was normalized using five housekeeping genes, however, the text states only 2 housekeeping genes were used. Could the authors please clarify. Similarly, in the discussion on line 472 – the authors state the “expression pattern for six housekeeping genes” were similar. Please clarify which genes are being referred to and how they are similar as it is unclear as written.

11. Line 477 – The authors state that the larvae reached the same “body size at 5dpf”. Please change to length as it was the only factor measured.

12. Line 496 – The authors use the term “Similar expression patterns” for qRT-PCR. As mentioned previously, please reword. Furthermore, please reword “throughout their development” as expression was only observed until 5dpf.

13. Line 478/480 – The authors state that “Although the G2/G1….in triploids”. Could the authors provide the G2/G1 ratio for the triploids?

14. Line 482- Should “growth rate” be changed to “rate of cell division”. The provided data indicates that the growth rate between the triploids and diploids is similar. However, the authors indicate the rate of cell division may be slower based on flow cytometry data.

15. Line 488 – Please add “potentially” before fewer cell divisions as that data has not been shown, but inferred.

16. Line 496-508 - the authors suggest that there are a large variety of changes that are happening with regards to ribosomal and messenger RNA. Some examples of these changes include changes in the expression of transcription and translation factors such as rpl13, polr2d and tbp. I agree that these results indicate there are potentially changes in transcription and translation. However, I am not sure that these results indicate that transcription/translation rates are decreased or that tpb is compensating for the decreased transcription/translation as a result of polr2d and rpl13. Could the authors please either clarify/expand this statement or provide further evidence to show changes in transcription rate and compensation by tbp.

17. Line 515 – The authors state that “our results on swimming performance are consistent with the hypothesis that a triploid larva composed of larger cells has a lower capacity for oxygen provisioning to the mitochondria and might become prone to oxygen shortage upon exercise.” Considering the intended use of the model and the above statement the publication would benefit from additional data (for example, a seahorse assay, or FACS followed by ATP assay following the treatments) to confirm their hypothesis with regards to the triploid cells possessing a lower capacity to generate energy.

**********

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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 2;15(3):e0229468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229468.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


20 Jan 2020

Dear Editor,

We thank you for providing us the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript.

We feel that the feedback and constructive advice from both reviewers and yourself helped us to further improve our manuscript.

We added a direct measurement of cell size on erythrocytes of diploid and triploid zebrafish, showing that cell volumes are increased by a factor of 1.64 (± 0.18 s.d.) in triploid zebrafish, which closely agrees with the predicted factor of 1.5 based on their larger genome. We also explained in more detail the flow cytometry method we use to determine ploidy levels of zebrafish larvae, which is based on standard practice protocols (references have now been added) for assessment of ploidy levels in different organisms. Lastly, we corrected grammatical inconsistencies and reworded some phrases to clarify our findings.

We feel we were able to address and incorporate the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers and yourself. A detailed description of the specific changes made can be found below.

Best wishes, also on behalf of the co-authors,

Iris van de Pol

ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR

Academic Editor

Comments to the author:

Both reviewers found the study interesting with potential to provide a valuable system for testing effects of cell size on physiology. The only major concern, mentioned by both reviewers, is the lack of direct evidence to support the key conclusion of a difference in cells size. It will be important to provide a direct measurement of cell size as part of a revised submission. The reviewers raised a number of other points that can be addressed by clarifying the text, adding caveats or making minor corrections.

Reply: We thank you and the reviewers for your appreciation of our manuscript. We have addressed all concerns of the reviewers, adding a direct measurement of cell size and adding extra evidence to support the validity of our flow cytometry method to assess ploidy levels (see below for a detailed response).

I also strongly recommend that you provide additional evidence that the FACs method accurately assesses ploidy as the conclusions rely heavily on the successful induction of triploidy.

Reply: We have added appropriate references to inform the reader on our procedure to assess ploidy level using flow cytometry (line 293). Adding an internal control with known ploidy level is a common procedure that makes it possible to relate fluorescent intensities of the peaks in the obtained DNA histograms to the corresponding genome sizes. Although our method is new in its application to zebrafish larvae, the basic idea behind it is not. Therefore, we are confident that triploidy induction can be verified unambiguously with this method.

Finally, I was also fascinated by this study and have two minor comments for you to optionally consider.

(1) Is it possible that the fraction of cells in normal zebrafish that are polyploid are simply muscle cells? If so, perhaps it’s worth mentioning briefly.

Reply: We have thought of this, but skeletal muscle cells in vertebrates arise form cell fusion, giving rise to a syncytium; a large multinucleated cell. Hence, the individual nuclei of such muscle cells are still of the same ploidy. As we measured DNA content in individual nuclei, our finding of polyploid nuclei cannot be nuclei derived from multinucleated muscle cells. We have added this consideration in the Discussion section (lines 543-545).

(2) Fig 7 is not entirely persuasive regarding greater fatigue, rather than habituation, which may not reflect an energy deficit. Based on the threshold of 15 mm/s mentioned in the Methods, it appears that Fig 7 shows both responders and non-responders. Perhaps I am mistaken but it appears that with repeated trials the triploids tend to become non-responders (habituation) rather than show a decrease in velocity (fatigue) - or perhaps both effects are present. As such it would be useful to provide a figure that contrasted the mean/SEM only for responders.

Reply: We agree that it is difficult to distinguish between fatigue and habituation. However, we have chosen this startle protocol with a 20 s interval between stimuli as previous studies showed that no habituation takes place with this time interval. We have added this information including references in the M&M section (lines 349-351). Therefore, it is unlikely that habituation is the cause of the lower responsiveness of triploids after multiple stimuli.

With regard to Fig 7, we clarified our definition of responders and non-responders in the M&M section. Fig 7 only includes responders, defined as larvae that at least once show a response higher than 15 mm/s during the startle protocol. This means they are physically able to respond to a stimulus, although they might not have responded to all 10 stimuli. Thus, Fig 7 also included larvae that did not respond to a given stimulus. There is indeed a bimodality in responses: larvae either respond to a stimulus or they do not. Therefore, we performed a χ2 test to determine the proportion of larvae that responded to a stimulus per startle, and we calculated the average maximum swimming velocity of the larvae that responded to a stimulus. Although the number of triploids that responded to a stimulus was lower for all startles, when they did respond their maximum swimming velocity did not differ from that of diploids. This indicates an all or nothing escape response, and the decreased responsiveness of triploids after subsequent stimuli is driving this pattern. As mentioned above, habituation is unlikely as a cause, but given the all-or nothing escape response, triploid larvae could need more time to ‘recharge’ to initiate another burst activity response. We have added the new results of the χ2 test and clarified our interpretation of the results (lines 479-485).

REVIEWER’S COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR

Reviewer 1

Comments to the author:

The authors don’t directly measure cell size, so without additional data, this is an inference that shouldn’t really be stated as a fact in the title. The authors report of a modest but significant reduction in cell number in triploids compared to diploids without a change in body length is consistent with their inference. Therefore, it is reasonable to state this in the text. However, weight isn’t reported, which could significantly impact this inference.

Reply: We agree that a direct measurement of cells size strengthens our conclusion that triploid larvae are made up of fewer, but larger cells. Therefore, we added a measurement of cell size of erythrocytes of adult diploid and triploid zebrafish, showing that triploidy induction indeed leads to larger cells. With regard to reporting weight; we have tried to determine dry mass of individual larvae but the results were not reliable as their weight is very low (<0.1 mg). We would also like to point out that both diploid and triploid larvae arise from eggs which were harvested from the same population of (diploid) females. Thus, egg mass and yolk content were similar at the start and as the larvae do not feed up until 5 dpf, this provides an additional reason why it is unlikely that diploids and triploids would differ in weight.

There are also likely to be gene expression changes in triploid vs diploid larvae. Without RNAseq to rule out this possibility, the authors should be more careful about

attributing phenotypes to cell size and they should acknowledge this caveat more strongly when discussing triploid zebrafish as a model of increased cell size.

Reply: We followed the suggestion of the reviewer and added a caveat in the discussion where we included a statement acknowledging the fact that we did not analyse the entire transcriptome (lines 590-593).

Additional minor comments:

For better transparency, length measurements should ideally be presented in a way that includes individual data points rather than the aggregate data in a bar graph

Reply: Done.

Scale bars are needed on larval images

Reply: Done.

The writing in the section below is confusing. The first sentence seems to say triploid zebrafish die around 50 days, while the last suggests they live up to a year?

Ploidy can be artificially increased in zebrafish, either by inducing triploidy [29-31], or tetraploidy, although these fish do not to survive beyond 50 days of age [32]. This is surprising in the light of the tetraploidy of the closely related common carp (Cyprinus carpio). Triploid zebrafish, however, survive easily well up to adult age (> 1 year, personal

110 observations), although they all develop into males [33].

Reply: We apologise for the confusion and have now clarified in the text that we meant only tetraploid zebrafish have been reported to live up to 50 days (line 108).

Reviewer 2

Comments to the author:

The manuscript describes the use of triploid zebrafish as a model to study the consequences of cell size. The manuscript is interesting. However, it is missing some key experiments to support the conclusions drawn. Mainly, these zebrafish are to be used as a model to study the consequences of cell size adaptation on energy; however, cell size and the effect of cell size on energy was not directly analyzed.

Reply: Indeed, we did not measure cell size directly in the first version of our manuscript. As stated above, we agree that direct measurements of cell size strengthen our study. Therefore, we added measurements of erythrocytes from adult diploid and triploid zebrafish. The results show that triploidy induction is indeed followed by an increase in cell size.

The consequences of enlarged cells for energy budgeting in zebrafish larvae remain to be elucidated. We have shown a greater fatigue in triploid larvae after repeated stimuli in a startle protocol, which aligns with the hypothesis that larger cells result in a lower capacity for performance. In follow-up studies we will address the physiological mechanisms behind the observed response of a decreased swimming performance in triploids.

1. Please provide the full gene names when first used and please use the correct and current gene names. For example ef1a should be (eef1a1l1).

Reply: Done.

2. Line 53-65: The introduction talks about the effect of temperature on cell size. Although the authors rear their fish at a consistent temperature, they did not test the effect of temperature on cell size. It is suggested that the authors remove this from the text or add in some data regarding the effect of temperature on cell size in diploid and triploid cell size in zebrafish.

Reply: To the best of our abilities, we provide information in the introduction that supports the relevance of our study. Our primary motivation to create a zebrafish model with larger cells is to eventually use this model to study the role of cell size in mediating temperature and oxygen effects. Such a model does not exist yet, and we feel that the approach we take in the introduction, by starting off from an ecophysiology perspective, justifies the need to create a model to study the consequences of cell size adaptations. As such, we would like to keep this information in the introduction.

3. Line 193 – In the S1 Table triploidy induction at 41 degrees was performed using natural fertilization. Could the authors provide data using ivf or indicate a consistent timepoint used to determine fertilization? Furthermore, considering the authors compare the efficiency of their method to other conflicting published methods, they should mention the effect of potential timing irregularities and the potential effects of using natural fertilization as opposed to ivf with regards to the efficiency of their results.

Reply: We have now included that we visually assessed the timing of egg release by the female during natural fertilization (S1 Table). We then started a timer, but sometimes small timing irregularities could indeed occur. In the discussion section we added that small timing irregularities probably have larger effects during heat shocks than during cold shocks, as the rate of cellular processes increases with high temperatures (lines 517-520).

4. Line 366-381 – The authors confirm triploidy through flow cytometry, with triploids showing a shift in peaks so that a new peak is formed between the G1 and G2 peaks. While I agree the data likely confirms the induction of triploidy, it is suggested that the authors add references to past publications that successfully use this method to confirm triploidy or further discuss the accuracy of the additional peak between G1 and G2 in determining triploidy in zebrafish. Alternatively, it is suggested that the authors confirm the accuracy of this method through the addition of previous published methods (i.e. Giemsa stain on blood smears). Furthermore, on line 377 - the authors state they expected “a factor of 1.5”. Could the authors provide more details/clarify why they expected a factor of 1.5 or provide a reference.

Reply: We have added the desired reference (line 406). As stated above, it is a standard practice to add an internal control with known ploidy level when using flow cytometry. This is necessary to be able to relate fluorescent intensities of the peaks in the obtained DNA histograms to the corresponding genome sizes.

We predict an increase factor of 1.5 in cell size because the genome size was increased by the same factor and multiple studies (references have been added in line 70) have demonstrated a positive relationship between genome size, nucleus size and cell size.

5. Line 376 – The authors state that the average cell count is 1.72 times lower in triploids compared to diploids and that since the diploid and triploid larvae were of the same cell length, triploid larvae can be “inferred to consist of larger but fewer cells compared to the diploid counterparts”. Considering the authors are suggesting the use of these triploids as “a model system to test for the consequences of cell size adaptation”, it is suggested that the authors provide quantitative data demonstrating the size differences between the diploids and triploids. For example: the authors could perform immunohistochemistry for a cell membrane marker followed by confocal microscopy to measure cell size at consistent locations on the embryo/larvae.

Reply: We agree that direct measurements of cell size in larvae would be ideal. We have tried to stain cell membranes in whole larvae and image them with a confocal microscope. However, we had some trouble with the penetration of the stain into the larvae; some parts were overstained, while others (deeper in the larvae) were not stained at all. It was also difficult to standardize a region to measure cell size between larvae, as specific organ structures are hard to identify. Therefore, we chose to measure cell size in blood smears form adult diploid and triploid zebrafish.

6. Line 390 – the authors state that there were “similar patterns of expression for the other three genes”. Could the authors please reword to remove “patterns of expression” when referring to qRT-PCR data as it infers expression in particular regions/tissues (i.e. in situ hybridizations). Furthermore, could the authors specify which “three genes” they are referring too as there are significant differences in the graphs on Figure 3.

Reply: We have reworded “patterns of expression” to “levels of expression” throughout the manuscript. Indeed, there are significant differences in three genes (rpl13a, tbp and polr2d) but the trajectory of ontogenetic changes in expression levels are very similar for these genes. We have now rephrased this in the manuscript (line 427).

7. Line 391-393: The authors should write the full and correct name of the genes of interest. Furthermore, it would benefit the article to explain why these genes were chosen prior to the discussion.

Reply: We followed this advice and now provide the full names for the chosen genes in the methods section (lines 248-252). We also explain that the reason for choosing these genes is because they are involved in a range of cellular processes, and therefore they are also frequently used to normalize gene expression levels of other genes (lines 252-253).

8. Figure 3: It is suggested that the authors indicate where the significant increase in rpl13 and decrease in tbp is on the graphs as it is shown in the polr2d graph. Furthermore, it is suggested that the authors remove the asterisks in the titles for consistency. Furthermore, it appears as though there may be a significant difference 4dpf for b-actin. Could the authors please clarify?

Reply: For rpl13a and tbp there was a significant difference in gene expression between diploids and triploids, but the interaction with dpf was not significant. Therefore, we did not include the asterisks in the graph as for polr2d. We clarified this in the figure legend. We agree that actb1 levels appear to be different at 4 dpf, but in the overall analysis there was no significant interaction and therefore these additional posthoc tests were not warranted. Note that when we still (inappropriately) contrasted diploids and triploids there was a significant difference at day 4 (p=0.014).

9. Line 398 – The authors indicate there was no significant difference in hsp70l expression. In the discussion the authors state that the absence of an increase in hsp70l expression indicates a lack of thermal stress. However, could it be that hsp70l in zebrafish is only expressed in response to heat instead of cold? Could the authors provide references that indicate hsp70l is expressed specifically in response to cold induced thermal stress in zebrafish?

Reply: We added references that show that hsp70.1 can be activated upon cold stress in zebrafish (line 258).

10. Line 407 – The authors state that the qRT-PCR was normalized using five housekeeping genes, however, the text states only 2 housekeeping genes were used. Could the authors please clarify. Similarly, in the discussion on line 472 – the authors state the “expression pattern for six housekeeping genes” were similar. Please clarify which genes are being referred to and how they are similar as it is unclear as written.

Reply: The expression levels of the six housekeeping genes tested were indeed normalized for each gene by using the relative quantity of the other five housekeeping genes. Two housekeeping genes (eef1a1l1 and actb1) were only used to normalize the expression of hsp70.1, as these were most stably expressed during development and similar for diploids and triploids. We now clarified this in the text (lines 436-438).

11. Line 477 – The authors state that the larvae reached the same “body size at 5dpf”. Please change to length as it was the only factor measured.

Reply: Done.

12. Line 496 – The authors use the term “Similar expression patterns” for qRT-PCR. As mentioned previously, please reword. Furthermore, please reword “throughout their development” as expression was only observed until 5dpf.

Reply: Done.

13. Line 478/480 – The authors state that “Although the G2/G1….in triploids”. Could the authors provide the G2/G1 ratio for the triploids?

Reply: Done.

14. Line 482- Should “growth rate” be changed to “rate of cell division”. The provided data indicates that the growth rate between the triploids and diploids is similar. However, the authors indicate the rate of cell division may be slower based on flow cytometry data.

Reply: Thank you for this suggestion. Indeed, rate of cell division is a better way to put it.

15. Line 488 – Please add “potentially” before fewer cell divisions as that data has not been shown, but inferred.

Reply: Done.

16. Line 496-508 - the authors suggest that there are a large variety of changes that are happening with regards to ribosomal and messenger RNA. Some examples of these changes include changes in the expression of transcription and translation factors such as rpl13, polr2d and tbp. I agree that these results indicate there are potentially changes in transcription and translation. However, I am not sure that these results indicate that transcription/translation rates are decreased or that tpb is compensating for the decreased transcription/translation as a result of polr2d and rpl13. Could the authors please either clarify/expand this statement or provide further evidence to show changes in transcription rate and compensation by tbp.

Reply: We agree that our data do not conclusively demonstrate changes in transcription rate and compensation by tbp. We did observe differences in the G1/G2 ratio, suggesting that the G2 phase in lengthened in triploids, and these are consistent with the observed differences in gene expression. We have tempered our wording (lines 530-539).

17. Line 515 – The authors state that “our results on swimming performance are consistent with the hypothesis that a triploid larva composed of larger cells has a lower capacity for oxygen provisioning to the mitochondria and might become prone to oxygen shortage upon exercise.” Considering the intended use of the model and the above statement the publication would benefit from additional data (for example, a seahorse assay, or FACS followed by ATP assay following the treatments) to confirm their hypothesis with regards to the triploid cells possessing a lower capacity to generate energy.

Reply: We agree that an exciting next step is to test the hypothesis that triploid cells have a lower capacity to generate energy. Such differences in capacity to generate energy are likely temperature dependent and therefore rigorous testing needs to study differences between diploids and triploids at different temperatures. We are pursuing this in our current work, but consider these beyond the aim of the present manuscript which is to present the diploid/triploid zebrafish larvae model system, noting the striking similarities under standard temperatures and under non-demanding conditions.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_20200116.docx

Decision Letter 1

Harold A Burgess

4 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-30794R1

Triploidy in zebrafish larvae: effects on gene expression, cell size and cell number, growth, development and swimming performance.

PLOS ONE

Dear Ms. van de Pol,

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 points raised during the review process.

The reviewer requested that the caveat attached to Table S1 should really appear in the main text somewhere. I think it would be fine to just move this text into the relevant part of the Discussion. This is a very minor point, but as some readers may never actually look a the supplemental table I agree its probably a good idea.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 20 2020 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

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). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Harold A. Burgess, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[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: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: (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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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)

Reviewer #2: The authors have satisfyingly responded to my specific comments, except for

one which is listed below and can be addressed through clarification in the text.

Table S1 – In response to a previous comment (comment #3) the authors added a disclaimer at the end of Table S1 that the timing of fertilization was determined by visually assessing egg release of females during natural fertilization and that this may result in timing irregularities. However, in the body of the text the authors suggest only that in “these studies slightly different conditions were applied”. Considering the authors compare the efficiency of their method to others for heat shock, it should be clearly mentioned in the text that natural fertilization was used for the heat shock studies and that this may result in some timing irregularities, which as they mention strongly affects the success of triploidy induction.

**********

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: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Mar 2;15(3):e0229468. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229468.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


5 Feb 2020

ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR

Academic Editor

Comments to the author:

The reviewer requested that the caveat attached to Table S1 should really appear in the main text somewhere. I think it would be fine to just move this text into the relevant part of the Discussion. This is a very minor point, but as some readers may never actually look a the supplemental table I agree its probably a good idea.

Reply: We thank you for this suggestion. We have now included this information in the Discussion section of the manuscript (line 518-523).

REVIEWER’S COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR

Reviewer 1

Comments to the author:

All comments have been addressed.

Reviewer 2

Comments to the author:

The authors have satisfyingly responded to my specific comments, except for

one which is listed below and can be addressed through clarification in the text.

Table S1 – In response to a previous comment (comment #3) the authors added a disclaimer at the end of Table S1 that the timing of fertilization was determined by visually assessing egg release of females during natural fertilization and that this may result in timing irregularities. However, in the body of the text the authors suggest only that in “these studies slightly different conditions were applied”. Considering the authors compare the efficiency of their method to others for heat shock, it should be clearly mentioned in the text that natural fertilization was used for the heat shock studies and that this may result in some timing irregularities, which as they mention strongly affects the success of triploidy induction.

Reply: Indeed, we agree we should mention this caveat in the main text. Therefore, we included this information to the Discussion section of the manuscript (line 518-523).

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_20200205.docx

Decision Letter 2

Harold A Burgess

7 Feb 2020

Triploidy in zebrafish larvae: effects on gene expression, cell size and cell number, growth, development and swimming performance.

PONE-D-19-30794R2

Dear Dr. van de Pol,

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

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, 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 enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Harold A. Burgess, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Harold A Burgess

18 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-30794R2

Triploidy in zebrafish larvae: effects on gene expression, cell size and cell number, growth, development and swimming performance.

Dear Dr. van de Pol:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Harold A. Burgess

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Table. Triploidy induction efficiency.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Appendix. Analysis of responders per startle.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_20200116.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers_20200205.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All data files are available from the DANS EASY archive (DOI: https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-xbp-hbxc).


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES