Affiliation:
1. Departamento de Neurociencias Integrativas y Computacionales, Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente Estable, Montevideo, Uruguay,Av. Italia 3318, Montevideo, Uruguay
Abstract
SUMMARY
This article shows that differences in the waveforms of the electric organ discharges (EODs) from two taxa are due to the different responsiveness of their electric organs (EOs) to their previous activity (auto-excitability). We compared Gymnotus omarorum endemic to Uruguay (35° South, near a big estuary), which has four components in the head to tail electric field(V1 to V4), with Gymnotus sp. endemic to the south of Brazil, Paraguay and Argentinean Mesopotamia (25° South, inland),which shows a fifth component in addition to the others (V5). We found that: (a) the innervation pattern of the electrocytes, (b) the three earlier, neurally driven, EOD components (V1 to V3), and(c) their remnants after curarisation were almost identical in the two taxa. The equivalent electromotive forces of late components (V4 and V5) increased consistently as a function of the external current associated with the preceding component and were abolished by partial curarisation in both taxa. Taken together these data suggest that these components are originated in the responses of the electrocytes to longitudinal currents through the EO. By using a differential load procedure we showed that V4 in G. omarorum responded to experimental changes in its excitation current with larger amplitude variations than V4 in Gymnotus sp. We conclude that the differences in the EOD phenotype of the two studied taxa are due to the different EO auto-excitability. This, in turn, is caused either by the different expression of a genetic repertoire of conductance in the electrocyte membrane or in the wall of the tubes forming the EO.
Publisher
The Company of Biologists
Subject
Insect Science,Molecular Biology,Animal Science and Zoology,Aquatic Science,Physiology,Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
Reference46 articles.
1. Albe-Fessard, D. and Buser, P. (1950).Étude de l'interaction par champú électrique entre deux fragments d'organe de torpille (Torpedo marmorata). J. Physiol. (Paris)42,528-529.
2. Albert, J. S. and Crampton, W. (2005). Diversity and phylogeny of neotropical electric fishes (Gymnotiformes). In Electroreception (ed. T. H. Bullock, C. D. Hopkins, A. N. Popper and R. R. Fay), pp. 360-409. New York:Springer.
3. Bass, A. H. (1986). Electric organs revisited:evolution of a vertebrate communication and orientation organ. In Electroreception (ed. T. H. Bullock and W. Heiligenberg), pp. 13-70. New York:Wiley.
4. Bass, A. H. and Hopkins, C. D. (1983). Hormonal control of sexual differentiation: changes in electric organ discharge waveform. Science220,971-974.
5. Bell, C. C., Bradbury, J. and Russell, C. J.(1976). The electric organ of a mormyrid as a current and voltage source. J. Comp. Physiol.110A,65-88.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献