Innovators are full of questions.Nature has answers.


  • Strategy

Mucus coat protects from sea anemone: clownfish


Clownfish in anemone / Nemo's great.. / LicenseCC-by-nc-sa - Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike

The mucus coat of clownfish protects the fish from sea anemone's sting via innate or acquired immunity.

Clownfish and sea anemones have a complex and mutually beneficial relationship. Clownfish live in and are protected by some species of sea anemone; without this protection, they cannot survive in the wild. Anemone tentacles sting and kill other species of fish, but the clownfish is protected from the anemone’s sting.
It is believed that the clownfish is protected due to a mucus coat on the outside of its skin. Studies have suggested that the clownfish’s protection can be innate, acquired, or both, depending upon the species. It is suggested that some species of clownfish are innately protected from an anemone’s sting before ever coming into contact with the anemone. This is because the mucus coat they produce is sufficient to protect them from the anemone’s sting. Others, however, must acclimate to the host anemone before they can move freely among its tentacles without being stung. They do this by rubbing themselves on the anemone’s tentacles over and over again. Initially, the clownfish are stung by the tentacles, but over time, they appear to be unharmed.
Interestingly, even clownfish that are innately protected exhibit this “acclimation behavior.” After initial contact, they acquire antigens from the anemone they have encountered. It has been proposed that these antigens serve as a type of “chemical camouflage” for the fish. With the acquisition of these antigens, the anemone is no longer able to distinguish between itself and the clownfish. The result is that the anenome no longer reacts to the fish by stinging.

This summary was contributed by Alexis Dean.
Check out this related strategy:
"The mystery behind the clownfish and sea anemone relationship is how the clownfish avoids being stung and killed by its host anemone. Of the numerous theories that have been presented over the years to explain this relationship, the focus is now on a layer of mucus that coats the clownfish. 'The fish are not immune to being stung,' said [Daphne] Fautin. 'But their mucus coat protects them. The debate is the source of the mucus.' One theory holds that the fish produce the mucus themselves and that it contains chemicals that prevent the anemone nematocysts from stinging as they do other fish in the sea. The other theory is that the clownfish rub themselves against the anemone tentacles in elaborate dances, smearing anemone mucus over themselves. This coating tricks the anemone into confusing the fish for itself. 'There is evidence for both,' said Fautin. 'And since there is a wide variety of anemone hosts, and 28 species of fish, I am convinced these views present two ends of a spectrum, and a combination is probably true for many.'" (Roach 2003)
“This study indicates that naive anemonefishes [also known as clownfish] are innately protected from certain anemone species… Even though most of the naive anemonefishes examined in the present study were protected from anemones during the initial encounter, the fish still displayed the acclimation behaviors described by previous workers (e.g., Davenport and Norris, 1958; Mariscal, 1971; Schlichter,1976). These appear to be stereotyped behaviors that the fishes invariably exhibit upon initial contact with an anemone, whether or not the fishes are already protected.” (Elliot 1997: 287)
“Anemonefishes are known to have a protective mucous coat that allows them to contact the tentacles of their host anemone without being stung. There are two conflicting hypotheses as to the source and biochemical properties of this mucous coating. One hypothesis proposes that anemonefishes acquire anemone substances from their hosts during the behavioral process of acclimation, that protect the fish from being stung. Anemonefishes are considered to use anemone mucus as “chemical camouflage” or “macromolecular mimicry” to avoid recognition as “not-self” by the anemone, and possible subsequent stinging. Another hypothesis is that anemonefishes produce their own protective mucus coat, which lacks substances that elicit cnida (nematocyst and spirocyst) discharge by their hosts...ELISA (enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) tests showed that anemone mucus antigens were present in the mucous coating of associated anemonefish, but not naive fish. This showed that an innately protected A. clarkii does not produce a mucus coat that is biochemically similar to that of anemones, but that the same fish does acquire anemone substances in its mucus coat when it associates with anemones in aquaria.” (Elliot 1994)
About the inspiring organism
Med_21884162_df3f6442df_o Amphiprion
Common name: Clownfish

Learn more at
Organism/taxonomy data provided by:
Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2008 Annual Checklist

IUCN Red List Status: Unknown

Bioinspired products and application ideas

Application Ideas: Protective clothing or body coatings for use in cleaning up toxic spills or sites, chemical signal inhibitor to treat noxious weed or marine infestations, allergen inhibitor, anesthetic.

Industrial Sector(s) interested in this strategy: Remediation, land management, medical

Division of Invertebrate Biology
Daphne Fautin
University of Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center
John Roach. 2003. No Nemo: Anemones, Not Parents, Protect Clownfish. National Geographic News [Internet], Accessed August 27, 2007.
Learn More at Google Scholar Google Scholar  

Fautin, D. G. 1991. The anemonefish symbiosis: What is known and what is not. Symbiosis. 10(1): 23-46.
Learn More at Google Scholar Google Scholar  

Elliott, J.K.; Mariscal, R.N. 1997. Acclimation or Innate Protection of Anemonefishes from Sea Anemones?. Copeia. 1997(2): 284-289.
Learn More at Google Scholar Google Scholar  

Elliott, J.K.; Mariscal, R.N.; Roux, H.X. 1994. Do anemonefishes use molecular mimicry to avoid being stung by host anemones?. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 179(1): 99-113.
Learn More at Google Scholar Google Scholar  


Login to Post a Comment.

No comments found.