August 5, 2012

UV Gives Fish Skin Cancer

Fifteen percent of a sample of 136 trout caught near the Great Barrier Reef showed evidence of melanoma, with UV exposure the likely culprit. Christopher Intagliata reports

SUBSCRIBE TO 60-Second Earth

Apple | Spotify | RSS

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Ultraviolet rays don't just bronze sunseekers on the beach. Underwater, they can give hammerhead sharks a suntan. And worse—give fish skin cancer. So says a study in the journal PLOS ONE. [Michael Sweet et al., Evidence of Melanoma in Wild Marine Fish Populations]

Researchers caught 136 coral trout in the southern Great Barrier Reef. Fifteen percent of them had black lesions on their skin: melanoma. Pathogens, toxic chemicals or UV rays can all cause melanoma. But DNA tests ruled out the presence of pathogens. And the fish were caught in the pristine waters of a marine sanctuary, so pollution wasn't to blame.

Turns out, the trout's cancer cells looked just like those of fish who'd been hit with UV radiation in the lab. So the researchers concluded that sunshine was the culprit. Makes sense, they say, because these trout live near the world's biggest hole in the ozone layer—meaning more exposure to UV rays.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Another recent study, this one in the journal Science, says the severe storms delivered by climate change could punch new holes in the ozone layer, upping our dose of radiation on land and at sea. And that's no fish story.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American