Do Fishes Have Nociceptors? Evidence for the Evolution of a Vertebrate Sensory System
07 Jun 2003-Proceedings of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (The Royal Society)-Vol. 270, Iss: 1520, pp 1115-1121
TL;DR: This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort.
Abstract: Nociception is the detection of a noxious tissue-damaging stimulus and is sometimes accompanied by a reflex response such as withdrawal. Pain perception, as distinct from nociception, has been demonstrated in birds and mammals but has not been systematically studied in lower vertebrates. We assessed whether a fish possessed cutaneous nociceptors capable of detecting noxious stimuli and whether its behaviour was sufficiently adversely affected by the administration of a noxious stimulus. Electrophysiological recordings from trigeminal nerves identified polymodal nociceptors on the head of the trout with physiological properties similar to those described in higher vertebrates. These receptors responded to mechanical pressure, temperatures in the noxious range (more than 40 degrees C) and 1% acetic acid, a noxious substance. In higher vertebrates nociceptive nerves are either A-delta or C fibres with C fibres being the predominating fibre type. However, in the rainbow trout A-delta fibres were most common, and this offers insights into the evolution of nociceptive systems. Administration of noxious substances to the lips of the trout affected both the physiology and the behaviour of the animal and resulted in a significant increase in opercular beat rate and the time taken to resume feeding, as well as anomalous behaviours. This study provides significant evidence of nociception in teleost fishes and furthermore demonstrates that behaviour and physiology are affected over a prolonged period of time, suggesting discomfort.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 2013
TL;DR: The Council on Accreditation’s foremost concern, in all situations, is with humane technique, the goal of humane technique is to minimize pain, distress, and the negative effect to the animal.
Abstract: 1. Clarification: The 2013 Guidelines make a distinction between euthanasia, humane killing, and slaughter, and state that neither slaughter nor humane killing is covered in the document P.68, S6.1.1. Not included among the definitions of these terms are ending the lives of healthy animals or scientific collection of animals. For clarification, whatever the term used, classification of the method, or reason given for killing animals: euthanasia, humane killing, slaughter, harvest, depopulation, scientific collection, or research-related, the Council on Accreditation’s foremost concern, in all situations, is with humane technique. The goal of humane technique is to minimize pain, distress, and the negative effect to the animal. The technique employed should result in rapid loss of consciousness followed by cardiac or respiratory arrest and, ultimately, a loss of brain function. Although complete absence of pain and distress is preferred, it is understood that it cannot always be achieved P7.13.2.
1,198 citations
TL;DR: The scientific data that allows us to interpret the effects of disease, handling, transport, food deprivation, and slaughter technique on fish welfare are reviewed and caution should be taken when interpreting "abnormal" fish behaviour.
847 citations
Cites background from "Do Fishes Have Nociceptors? Evidenc..."
...…the potential to experience suffering in the form of pain and fear (for review see Braithwaite and Huntingford, 2004; Chandroo et al., 2004a,b; Ashley and Sneddon, in press; empirical studies include Portavella et al., 2003, 2004a,b; Sneddon, 2003; Sneddon et al., 2003a,b; Dunlop and Laming, 2005)....
[...]
TL;DR: This paper focuses on welfare as the absence of suffering in fish, arguing that complex animals with sophisticated behaviour, such as fish, probably have the capacity for suffer ing, though this may be different in degree and kind from the human experience of this state.
Abstract: Human beings may affect the welfare of fish through fisheries, aquaculture and a number of other activities. There is no agreement on just how to we igh the concern for welfare of fish against the hum an interests involved, but ethical frameworks exist th at suggest how this might be approached. Different definitions of animal welfare focus on an animal's condition, on its subjective experience o f that condition and/or on whether it can lead a natu ral life. These provide different, legitimate, pers pectives, but the approach taken in this paper is to focus on welfare as the absence of suffering. An unresolved and controversial issue in discussion s about animal welfare is whether non-human animals exposed to adverse experiences such as physical injury or confinement experience what humans would call suffering. The neocortex, which in huma ns is an important part of the neural mechanism tha t generates the subjective experience of suffering, i s lacking in fish and non-mammalian animals, and it has been argued that its absence in fish indicates that fish cannot suffer. However, a strong alternative view is that complex animals with sophisticated behaviour, such as fish, probably have the capacity for suffer ing, though this may be different in degree and kind fro m the human experience of this state. Recent empirical studies support this view and show that painful stimuli are, at least, strongly avers ive to fish. Consequently, injury or experience of othe r harmful conditions is a cause for concern in term s of welfare of individual fish. There is also growing e vidence that fish can experience fear-like states a nd that they avoid situations in which they have experience d adverse conditions.
690 citations
Cites background or result from "Do Fishes Have Nociceptors? Evidenc..."
..., 1993) and to tissue damage (for example, carp that are hooked in the mouth show rapid darting, spitting and shaking of the head (Verheijen & Buwalda, 1988) and rainbow trout injected with acetic acid in their lips rub their snouts against the substratum (Sneddon et al., 2003)....
[...]
...The fact that exposure to noxious stimuli interferes with the normal neophobic responses suggests that fish give a high priority to such stimul (Sneddon et al., 2003b)....
[...]
...…Oncorhynchus mykiss), however, anatomical and electrophysiological examination of the trigeminal erve (which is known to convey pain information from the head and mouth in terrestrial vertebrates) has identified two types of nociceptor, A-delta and C fibres (Sneddon, 2002; Sneddon et al., 2003a)....
[...]
...Similar studies have also sh wn that the adverse behaviour of fish under noxious Journal of Fish Biology by Wiley-Blackwell For more articles on animal ethics, see www.animalethics.net stimulation can be mitigated if an analgesic (morphine) is administered (Sneddon et al., 2003b)....
[...]
...In support of this point, recent behavioural experiments have demonstrated effects of noxious stimulations around the mouth of rainbow trout (Sneddon et al., 2003a)....
[...]
TL;DR: The VIth World Congress on Pain in Adelaide promises to be the largest world congress on pain so far held and the greatest number of scientific papers ever offered for the an IASP Congress.
Abstract: I am delighted to announce the exciting news that we have received just under 900 abstracts for presentation in the scientific program of the VIth World Congress on Pain in Adelaide, April l-6, 1990. This 1s about a 50% increase in the number of abstracts submitted for the 1987 Congress in Hamburg and it represents by far the greatest number of scientific papers ever offered for the an IASP Congress. This surely reflects the healthy state of IASP and is also a very encouraging indlcator of the high level of activity in basic and clinical research in the field of pain throughout the world. Based upon our previous experience with the ratio of congress delegates to scientific abstracts, the Adelaide Congresses promises to be the largest world congress on pain we have so far held.
627 citations
TL;DR: It is suggested that these two neuropeptide families may play different roles in the processes of social bonding in primates and non-primates, and that more experimental work will be needed to tease them apart.
624 citations
Cites background from "Do Fishes Have Nociceptors? Evidenc..."
...This endorphin-based pain-control mechanism has turned out to be extremely widespread among the vertebrates, having been identified not only in mammals but also in fish (Sneddon, 2003; Sneddon et al., 2003)....
[...]
References
More filters
Journal Article•
1,381 citations
TL;DR: The need to make direct measurement of poor welfare as well as to use sophisticated studies of animal preferences is emphasized and the uses of measures of responsiveness, stereotypies, and animal preferences in welfare assessment are discussed.
Abstract: The term “welfare” refers to the state of an individual in relation to its environment, and this can be measured. Both failure to cope with the environment and difficulty in coping are indicators of poor welfare. Suffering and poor welfare often occur together, but welfare can be poor without suffering and welfare should not be defined solely in terms of subjective experiences. The situations that result in poor welfare are reviewed in this study with special reference to those in which an hdividual lacks control over interactions with its environment. The indicators of poor welfare include the following: reduced life expectancy, impaired growth, impaired reproduction, body damage, disease, immunosup pression, adrenal activity, behavior anomalies, and self-narcotization. The uses of measures of responsiveness, stereotypies, and animal preferences in welfare assessment are discussed. The need to make direct measurement of poor welfare as well as to use sophisticated studies of animal preferences is emphasized.
837 citations
"Do Fishes Have Nociceptors? Evidenc..." refers background in this paper
...Assessing the subjective experiences of animals plays an increasingly large role in animal welfare (Broom 1991; Gentle 1992; Dawkins 1998; Bradshaw & Bateson 2000; Mason et al. 2001)....
[...]
...…responses to a potentially painful event are made and then we assess the evidence collected from the data, as is routinely done in welfare studies (Bateson 1991; Broom 1991; Gentle 1992; Gonyou 1994; Bradshaw & Bateson 2000; Mason et al. 2001; Roughan & Flecknell 2001; Molony et al. 2002)....
[...]
TL;DR: The VIth World Congress on Pain in Adelaide promises to be the largest world congress on pain so far held and the greatest number of scientific papers ever offered for the an IASP Congress.
Abstract: I am delighted to announce the exciting news that we have received just under 900 abstracts for presentation in the scientific program of the VIth World Congress on Pain in Adelaide, April l-6, 1990. This 1s about a 50% increase in the number of abstracts submitted for the 1987 Congress in Hamburg and it represents by far the greatest number of scientific papers ever offered for the an IASP Congress. This surely reflects the healthy state of IASP and is also a very encouraging indlcator of the high level of activity in basic and clinical research in the field of pain throughout the world. Based upon our previous experience with the ratio of congress delegates to scientific abstracts, the Adelaide Congresses promises to be the largest world congress on pain we have so far held.
627 citations
TL;DR: The results of experiments designed to determine whether pharmacologic treatments that selectively alter the activity of C‐fiber nociceptive afferents also produce selective effects on foot withdrawal responses to either high or low rates of noxious foot heating support the conclusion thatFoot withdrawal responses evoked by low skin heating rates are mediated by the activation of capsaicin‐sensitive C‐ fiber nOCiceptors.
Abstract: Behavioral nociceptive responses evoked by relatively high rates of noxious radiant skin heating appear to be mediated by A delta nociceptor activation, whereas responses evoked by low rates of skin heating appear to be mediated by the activation of C-fiber nociceptors. This hypothesis was confirmed by the results of single unit recordings of A delta and C nociceptive afferent fibers isolated from the saphenous nerves of pentobarbital anesthetized rats. Heating the hind paw skin of the rat at a relatively high rate of 6.5 degrees C/sec activated A delta units within 2 sec after the onset of the stimulus. This response latency is similar to the 2.5 sec latency of the foot withdrawal response to a similar stimulus. In contrast, C-fibers were only slightly activated at a longer latency of 5-6 sec. Conversely, heating the hind paw skin at a relatively low rate of 0.9 degrees C/sec activated C-fibers, but evoked only a few action potentials in A delta nociceptors. C-fibers began firing at a rate less than 1 Hz between 8 and 10 sec after the onset of heating and fired at a mean rate of 1.5 Hz between 10 and 12 sec, which corresponds to the latency of the foot withdrawal response. Topical application of capsaicin to the hind paw skin decreased the latency of C-fiber responses from control values of 8-12 sec to approximately 4 sec after topical capsaicin treatment. The mean latency of the foot withdrawal response to skin heating at the low rate is also reduced from control values of 12-14 sec to 4-5 sec after capsaicin treatment. In contrast, capsaicin treatment did not significantly affect the responses of A delta nociceptors. These results support the conclusion that nociceptive foot withdrawal responses to a low rate of skin heating are mediated predominantly by the activation of C-fiber nociceptors. These results provide direct evidence that, under the conditions of these experiments, nociceptive foot withdrawal responses evoked by high rates of skin heating are primarily mediated by A delta nociceptors, and foot withdrawal responses evoked by low rates of skin heating are primarily mediated by C-fiber nociceptors.
405 citations
TL;DR: Although it is implausible that fishes can experience pain or emotions, they display robust, nonconscious, neuroendocrine, and physiological stress responses to noxious stimuli and avoidance of potentially injurious stress responses is an important issue in considerations about the welfare of fishes.
Abstract: This review examines the neurobehavioral nature of fishes and addresses the question of whether fishes are capable of experiencing pain and suffering. The detrimental effects of anthropomorphic thinking and the importance of an evolutionary perspective for understanding the neurobehavioral differences between fishes and humans are discussed. The differences in central nervous system structure that underlie basic neurobehavioral differences between fishes and humans are described. The literature on the neural basis of consciousness and of pain is reviewed, showing that: (1) behavioral responses to noxious stimuli are separate from the psychological experience of pain, (2) awareness of pain in humans depends on functions of specific regions of cerebral cortex, and (3) fishes lack these essential brain regions or any functional equivalent, making it untenable that they can experience pain. Because the experience of fear, similar to pain, depends on cerebral cortical structures that are absent from fish brain...
387 citations