Passive accumulation of alkaloids in non-toxic frogs challenges paradigms of the origins of acquired chemical defenses
Curation statements for this article:-
Curated by eLife
eLife assessment
This important study sheds light on how poison frogs gain their toxins, with surprising new data on low levels of toxins in previously non-toxic frogs. The authors propose a new theory for evolution of toxicity based on convincing evidence, but the manuscript needs restructuring to be clearer. While the manuscript will benefit from improved presentation, this research has the potential to greatly impact our understanding of animal defense mechanisms.
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (eLife)
Abstract
Understanding the origins of novel, complex phenotypes is a major goal in evolutionary biology. Poison frogs of the family Dendrobatidae have evolved the novel ability to acquire alkaloids from their diet for chemical defense at least three times. However, taxon sampling for alkaloids has been biased towards colorful species, without similar attention paid to inconspicuous ones that are often assumed to be undefended. As a result, our understanding of how chemical defense evolved in this group is incomplete. Here we provide new data showing that, in contrast to previous studies, species from each undefended poison frog clade have measurable yet low amounts of alkaloids. We confirm that undefended dendrobatids regularly consume mites and ants, which are known sources of alkaloids. Further, we confirm the presence of alkaloids in two putatively non-toxic frogs from other families. Our data suggest the existence of a phenotypic intermediate between toxin consumption and sequestration—passive accumulation—that differs from active sequestration in that it involves no derived forms of transport and storage mechanisms yet results in low levels of toxin accumulation. We discuss the concept of passive accumulation and its potential role in the origin of chemical defenses in poison frogs and other toxin-sequestering organisms.
Article activity feed
-
-
-
eLife assessment
This important study sheds light on how poison frogs gain their toxins, with surprising new data on low levels of toxins in previously non-toxic frogs. The authors propose a new theory for evolution of toxicity based on convincing evidence, but the manuscript needs restructuring to be clearer. While the manuscript will benefit from improved presentation, this research has the potential to greatly impact our understanding of animal defense mechanisms.
-
-
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This is a very relevant study, clearly with the potential of having a high impact on future research on the evolution of chemical defense mechanisms in animals. The authors present a substantial number of new and surprising experimental results, i.e., the presence in low quantities of alkaloids in amphibians previously deemed to lack these toxins. These data are then combined with literature data to weave the importance of passive accumulation mechanisms into a 4-phases scenario of the evolution of chemical defense in alkaloid-containing poison frogs.
In general, the new data presented in the manuscript are of high quality and high scientific interest, the suggested scenario compelling, and the discussion thorough. Also, the manuscript has been carefully prepared with a high quality of illustrations and very …
Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
This is a very relevant study, clearly with the potential of having a high impact on future research on the evolution of chemical defense mechanisms in animals. The authors present a substantial number of new and surprising experimental results, i.e., the presence in low quantities of alkaloids in amphibians previously deemed to lack these toxins. These data are then combined with literature data to weave the importance of passive accumulation mechanisms into a 4-phases scenario of the evolution of chemical defense in alkaloid-containing poison frogs.
In general, the new data presented in the manuscript are of high quality and high scientific interest, the suggested scenario compelling, and the discussion thorough. Also, the manuscript has been carefully prepared with a high quality of illustrations and very few typos in the text. Understanding that the majority of dendrobatid frogs, including species considered undefended, can contain low quantities of alkaloids in their skin provides an entirely new perspective to our understanding of how the amazing specializations of poison frogs evolved. Although only a few non-dendrobatids were included in the GCMS alkaloid screening, some of these also included minor quantities of alkaloids, and the capacity of passive alkaloid accumulation may therefore characterize numerous other frog clades, or even amphibians in general.
While the overall quality of the work is exceptional, major changes in the structure of the submitted manuscript are necessary to make it easier for readers to disentangle scope, hypotheses, evidence and newly developed theories.
-
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
This was a well-executed and well-written paper. The authors have provided important new datasets that expand on previous investigations substantially. The discovery that changes in diet are not so closely correlated with the presence of alkaloids (based on the expanded sampling of non-defended species) is important, in my opinion.
Strengths:
Provision of several new expanded datasets using cutting edge technology and sampling a wide range of species that had not been sampled previously. A conceptually important paper that provides evidence for the importance of intermediate stages in the evolution of chemical defense and aposematism.
Weaknesses:
There were some aspects of the paper that I thought could be revised. One thing I was struck by is the lack of discussion of the potentially negative …
Reviewer #2 (Public Review):
Summary:
This was a well-executed and well-written paper. The authors have provided important new datasets that expand on previous investigations substantially. The discovery that changes in diet are not so closely correlated with the presence of alkaloids (based on the expanded sampling of non-defended species) is important, in my opinion.
Strengths:
Provision of several new expanded datasets using cutting edge technology and sampling a wide range of species that had not been sampled previously. A conceptually important paper that provides evidence for the importance of intermediate stages in the evolution of chemical defense and aposematism.
Weaknesses:
There were some aspects of the paper that I thought could be revised. One thing I was struck by is the lack of discussion of the potentially negative effects of toxin accumulation, and how this might play out in terms of different levels of toxicity in different species. Further, are there aspects of ecology or evolutionary history that might make some species less vulnerable to the accumulation of toxins than others? This could be another factor that strongly influences the ultimate trajectory of a species in terms of being well-defended. I think the authors did a good job in terms of describing mechanistic factors that could affect toxicity (e.g. potential molecular mechanisms) but did not make much of an attempt to describe potential ecological factors that could impact trajectories of the evolution of toxicity. This may have been done on purpose (to avoid being too speculative), but I think it would be worth some consideration.
In the discussion, the authors make the claim that poison frogs don't (seem to) suffer from eating alkaloids. I don't think this claim has been properly tested (the cited references don't adequately address it). To do so would require an experimental approach, ideally obtained data on both lifespan and lifetime reproductive success.
-
-