Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-29T03:16:55.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Knockdown of vitamin D receptor genes impairs touch-evoked escape behavior in zebrafish

Subject: Life Science and Biomedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 October 2021

Hye-Joo Kwon*
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, University of Utah Asia Campus, Incheon 21985, Korea
*
Corresponding author. Email: hyejoo.kwon@utah.edu

Abstract

Vitamin D is a steroid hormone well-known for its role in calcium homeostasis and bone health. Biological actions of vitamin D are mediated through the vitamin D receptor (VDR) present in various cells and tissues. Vitamin D has been implicated in multiple aspects of neuromuscular functions. This study aimed to investigate the role of VDR signaling during early stage of locomotor development utilizing a gene knockdown approach. Zebrafish larvae deficient in VDR showed severe motor impairment and no obvious response to touch. These results indicate that VDR signaling is indispensable for the correct neuromuscular development and touch-evoked escape swimming behavior in zebrafish.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Result type: Novel result, Supplementary result
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Knockdown of VDRs impairs touch-evoked behaviors. Video frames showing touch-evoked escape response at 40 hpf of wild-type control (a–e) but not of vdra/b MO-injected (f–j) embryos. The time of the frame is shown in the top right portion. The mechanosensory stimulation during the manual dechorionation causes control embryos to escape rapidly and exit the field of view (d and e). In contrast, vdra/b MO-injected embryos do not exhibit any escape response and fail to exit the field of view at the same time frames (i and j). Scale bar = 500 μm.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Loss-of-VDRs results in loss of touch-evoked escape swimming behaviors. Video frames showing touch-evoked response at 6 dpf of wild-type control (a–c) but not of vdra/b MO-injected (d–f) larvae. While the stimulation by forceps causes the wild-type larva to swim rapidly away and fully exit the field of view (c), vdra/b MO-injected larvae exhibit no touch-evoked response and remain in the same field of view (f). Scale bar = 500 μm.

Supplementary material: PDF

Kwon supplementary material

Kwon supplementary material

Download Kwon supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 194.7 KB
Reviewing editor:  Mariana Bexiga University of Coimbra Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, Coimbra, Portugal, 3004-504
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: Knockdown of vitamin D receptor (VDR) genes impairs touch-evoked escape behavior in zebrafish

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: This is a concise and interesting work. I watched the videos and they clearly shows the difference in the tactile response. The difference is dramatic. I think this would be a beneficial finding for zebrafish researchers.

Presentation

Overall score 4 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
4 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
4 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
4 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
4 out of 5

Review 2: Knockdown of vitamin D receptor (VDR) genes impairs touch-evoked escape behavior in zebrafish

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Comments to the Author: The following study investigates what the absence of vitamin D can induce to the reaction to a touch stimulus in zebrafish embryos and larvae, using morphants. It is a simple well-written study that relates the lack of vitamin D and locomotor impairment, which have been described in mammals. Thus, in the conclusion, the author should highlight the contribution of the experiment, that this mechanism involving vitamin D is conserved. In addition, the authors need to clarify some methodological parts: how many embryos and larvae were used in each group (add to methodology); make it clear that the touch response of 40hpf is the manually dechorionation of embryos, as the way it is, it seems that the touch is going to be performed afterward; clarify what was the part of the larvae body that received the touch, as this needs to be standardized. At the results, the authors need to provide the percentage of animals that respond to the stimulus in each group, and the ones which responded weakly in both embryos and larvae experiments. The videos are a good addition to the paper, and I wonder if the 6 dpf morphants swim at all, so they can eat and survive, do you have that information?

Some sentences on the results should have been put in the discussion, such as page 3 line 1-3, and line 8-10 (starting in “which” until Carmean et al 2010), so the authors can consider re-writing the discussion to include these literature ideas.

Presentation

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
5 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
4 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
4 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
5 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.2 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
3 out of 5