15
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The stability of fish populations: how changes in the environment may affect people with epilepsy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The association between fish consumption and low rates of cardiovascular disease was studied nearly 40 years ago in the seafood diets consumed by Greenland Eskimos, Alaskan Natives and Japanese people residing in fishing villages.[1 Omega‐3 fatty acids (from fatty fish in the human diet) also appear effective on the functioning of the brain.2 Furthermore, it is interesting to note that, of all organs in the human body excluding adipose tissue, the central nervous system (CNS) has the highest lipid content; for instance, approximately 50% of fatty acids are polyunsaturated in the gray matter, a third of which are of the omega‐3 family, and are thus dietary in origin.2 In humans, the intake of omega‐3 fatty acids, commonly found in fish and fish oil, not only contributes to CNS development but also plays a role in achieving optimal health and in the protection against certain adult CNS diseases.2 With respect to CNS disorders, epilepsy occupies a prominent place in this scenario. Epilepsy is considered one of the most prevalent neurological conditions and approximately 50 million people worldwide are affected.3 From an epidemiological point of view, it must be acknowledged that most patients who develop epilepsy will go into remission, whilst remaining patients continue to have seizures and are refractory to treatment with the currently available therapies.4 Despite great advances in pharmacological treatment of epilepsy, anti‐epileptic drugs are not completely effective in controlling seizures of patients with epilepsy. As such, dietary management, with particular emphasis on omega‐3 fatty acids, is often tried by neurologists to control seizures in patients with epilepsy. The results of the first randomized trial of omega‐3 fatty acids supplementation in patients with chronic epilepsy were encouraging, demonstrating a transient effect on seizure control.5 Although these results did not totally confirm that omega‐3 fatty acids supplementation reduced the frequency of epileptic seizures in patients with refractory epilepsy, they established the safety of omega‐3 fatty acids supplementation in people with epilepsy.5 From an experimental point of view, our research group was the first to demonstrate that chronic treatment with omega‐3 promotes neuroprotection and positive plastic changes in the brain of rats with epilepsy.6 Considering the potential health benefits of fish consumption and the positive effects of omega‐3 supplementation in various CNS diseases, an intriguing question arose: should neuroscientists be concerned with the changes in the structure and abundance of fish fauna? Yes, they should be. Why? Firstly, it is widely accepted that there is a severe problem with future global food supply and security.7 Fish consumption has increased substantially and, for this reason, several fish populations are being devastated and unable to produce their maximum sustainable yields.7 Unfortunately, illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing contributes to overexploitation of fish stocks and is a hindrance to the recovery of fish populations and of the whole ecosystem.7 Furthermore, it is also important to note that IUU has a direct impact on annual economic benefits ($10 bn and $23.5 bn annually, representing between 11 and 26 million tons).7 Secondly, according to the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 80% of all marine fish stocks for which assessment information is available are fully exploited or overexploited.8 According to Conover and colleagues, the evolutionary responses to commercial fishing might be causing genetic changes in the fish that swim in the ocean, reducing growth rate, age at maturation, body size and productivity.9 Importantly, the researchers demonstrated that taking too many large fish out of a population leads to the birth of smaller fish over time.9 Thirdly, although we are only at the early stage in the projected trends of global warming, ecological responses (e.g. fluctuations in marine fish populations) to recent climate change are already clearly visible.10 The Earth's climate has warmed by approximately 0.6°C over the past 100 years with 2 main periods of warming between 1910 and 1945 and from 1976 onwards, and it is now clear that these recent climatic changes have affected the abundance and diverse geographical distributions of marine fish.10 Unfortunately, the evidence described until now indicates that only 30 years of warmer temperatures at the end of twentieth century have affected the phenology (the time of seasonal activities of animals and plants) of the marine fish populations, the range and distribution of fish species, and the composition and dynamics of fish communities.10,11 Lastly, is quite clear that fish diets are extremely healthy for us all; however, some fish contain contaminants that we would rather not be eating. As we know, the major risk of fish consumption is mercury content. In general, mercury enters the atmosphere by combustion (mainly waste and coal) following which, it enters the oceans where it is converted to methylmercury by microorganisms and taken up by marine life and concentrated in fish tissues. As methylmercury is strongly neurotoxic and its consumption a risk to health: are we totally safe eating fish? As the concentration of methylmercury in fish is increased in predatory fish than non‐predatory fish, the best seafood choices are those with non‐predatory characteristic. Thus, we can say that anchovies, Atlantic herring, Atlantic mackerel wild salmon, sardines and trout have low levels of methylmercury, whereas tuna, shark, tilefish and swordfish have high levels of methylmercury.12-14 For individuals who want a diet with zero methylmercury but would like to enjoy the benefits of omega‐3 fatty acids, there are always fish oil supplements or other foods such as walnuts or oils (flax, canola and soybean).13,15 Taking all this into consideration, what have we really learned and what we do from now on? Modern science recognizes the positive health effects of fish diets. With regards to epilepsy, a number of different dietary modifications and nutritional supplements may help prevent seizures or improve other aspects of health in patients with epilepsy. In particular, our research group is quite convinced that omega‐3 fatty acids are very important for the normal functioning of the brain and is useful in the prevention and treatment of epilepsy. Most of all, in order to create conditions for the survival of finfish and shellfish species; we are sure that environmental political measures are necessary. Most importantly, we would bring together neuroscientists and ecologists to begin a translational science between the two fields in order to transform scientific studies into clinical applications to reduce the incidence of disease, morbidity and mortality in the human population worldwide. The connection between the two disciplines could begin linking health and ecology in the medical curriculum, which already has excellent acceptance and applicability in some universities around the world.16 We are totally in agreement with Zinsstag and colleagues warning us that time is short and that climate change and resource depletion will become visible at an accelerated pace.17 Like us, these authors also believe that solutions require all the possible intellectual imagination of science and technology and, at the same time, new and aggressive environmental political measures.

          Related collections

          Most cited references34

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The epidemiology of epilepsy revisited.

          Epidemiology is the study of the dynamics of a medical condition in a population. There are many shortcomings in the understanding of the epidemiology of epilepsy mostly caused by methodological problems. These include diagnostic accuracy, case ascertainment, and selection bias. In this article recent progress in this area is discussed and suggestions for future research are made. It is generally accepted that in developed countries the incidence is around 50/100 000/year. In resource-poor countries, the incidence is likely to be higher. Prevalence of active epilepsy is in the range of 5-10/1000 in most locations, although it might be higher in some isolates. Age-specific incidence rates have changed, with a decrease in younger age groups and an increase in persons above 60 years. The overall prognosis for seizure control is good and over 70% will enter remission. Epilepsy carries an increased risk of premature death particularly in patients with chronic epilepsy. Sudden unexpected death has been increasingly recognized as a major culprit for this increased mortality. There is geographic variation in the incidence of epileptic syndromes likely to be associated with genetic and environmental factors, although as yet causality has not been fully established. The complete range of aetiologies in the general population is not known. Few predictors of outcome are recognized and it is difficult to prognosticate in any individual case. Knowledge is patchy about the epidemiology of sudden unexpected death in epilepsy. Future epidemiological research needs to address these issues if we are to progress.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The natural history of epilepsy: an epidemiological view.

            Better information of the natural history of epilepsy has important implications for understanding the underlying neurobiology, evaluating treatment strategies, and planning healthcare resources. The traditional pessimistic view has been dispelled by results from modern community based prospective studies, showing that over 60% of newly diagnosed patients will enter remission upon treatment. Recent outcome studies suggest that medical intractability may be predicted after failure of two antiepileptic drugs. Poor prognostic factors include a high initial seizure density, symptomatic aetiology, and presence of structural cerebral abnormalities, all of which can be identified early on. Among patients who have entered remission, many will remain seizure-free after antiepileptic drug treatment is withdrawn, suggesting that the underlying seizure generating factor has remitted. Whether some of these patients have entered remission "spontaneously" is contentious because, with effective pharmacotherapy for epilepsy in use for over 100 years, the natural history of untreated epilepsy is largely unknown. Circumstantial evidence, mostly arising from resource poor countries where antiepileptic drug treatment is not readily available, indicates that spontaneous remission may occur in up to 30% of cases. Observations from these complementary sources suggest that, at the population level, prognosis of newly diagnosed epilepsy may be broadly categorised into three groups: remission without treatment, remission with treatment only, and persistent seizures despite treatment. As understanding of the prognostic factors improves, the potential of a "prognostic group specific" management approach should be explored so that effective treatments may be used in a more rational and targeted fashion.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reversal of evolutionary downsizing caused by selective harvest of large fish.

              Evolutionary responses to the long-term exploitation of individuals from a population may include reduced growth rate, age at maturation, body size and productivity. Theoretical models suggest that these genetic changes may be slow or impossible to reverse but rigorous empirical evidence is lacking. Here, we provide the first empirical demonstration of a genetically based reversal of fishing-induced evolution. We subjected six populations of silverside fish (Menidia menidia) to three forms of size-selective fishing for five generations, thereby generating twofold differences among populations in mean weight and yield (biomass) at harvest. This was followed by an additional five generations during which size-selective harvest was halted. We found that evolutionary changes were reversible. Populations evolving smaller body size when subjected to size-selective fishing displayed a slow but significant increase in size when fishing ceased. Neither phenotypic variance in size nor juvenile survival was reduced by the initial period of selective fishing, suggesting that sufficient genetic variation remained to allow recovery. By linear extrapolation, we predict full recovery in about 12 generations, although the rate of recovery may taper off near convergence. The recovery rate in any given wild population will also depend on other agents of selection determined by the specifics of life history and environment. By contrast, populations that in the first five generations evolved larger size and yield showed little evidence of reversal. These results show that populations have an intrinsic capacity to recover genetically from harmful evolutionary changes caused by fishing, even without extrinsic factors that reverse the selection gradient. However, harvested species typically have generation times of 3-7 years, so recovery may take decades. Hence, the need to account for evolution in managing fisheries remains.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Clinics (Sao Paulo)
                Clinics
                Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo
                1807-5932
                1980-5322
                January 2011
                : 66
                : 1
                : 1-2
                Affiliations
                [I ]Programa de Pós‐Graduação em Distúrbios do Desenvolvimento do Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde da Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie. SP, Brazil.
                [II ]Departamento de Fisiologia. Universidade Federal de São Paulo/Escola Paulista de Medicina (UNIFESP/EPM). São Paulo, Brazil.
                [III ]Centro de Cirurgia de Epilepsia (CIREP). Departamento de Neurociências e Ciências do Comportamento. Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo. Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
                [IV ]Disciplina de Neurologia Experimental. Universidade Federal de São Paulo/Escola Paulista de Medicina (UNIFESP/EPM). São Paulo, Brazil.
                Author notes
                E-mail: scorza.nexp@ 123456epm.br Tel.: 55 11 5549‐2064
                Article
                cln_66p1
                10.1590/S1807-59322011000100001
                3044571
                21437427
                7145b1f5-b45f-43ca-993b-05290d054976
                Copyright © 2011 Hospital das Clínicas da FMUSP

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Page count
                Pages: 2
                Categories
                Editorial

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article