Evidence for Growth Factors Which Control Cell Multiplication in Tetrahymena Thermophila
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NENCKI INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY VOLUME 31 NUMBER 4 WARSAWhttp://rcin.org.pl, POLAND 1992 ISSN 0065-1583 Polish Academy of Sciences Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology ACTA PROTOZOOLOGICA International Journal on Protistology Editor in Chief Stanisław L. KAZUBSKI Editors Jerzy SIKORA and Anna WASIK Managing Editor Małgorzata WORONOWICZ Editorial Board Andre ADOUTTE, Paris Stanisław L. KAZUBSKI, Warszawa Christian F. BARDELE, Tübingen Leszek KUZNICKI, Warszawa, Chairman Magdolna Cs. BERECZKY, Göd John J. LEE, New York Jacques BERGER, Toronto Jiri LOM, Ćeske Budejovice Y.-Z. CHEN, Beijing Pierangelo LUPORINI, Camerino Jean COHEN, Gif-Sur-Yvette Hans MACHEMER, Bochum John O.CORLISS, Albuquerque Jean-Pierre MIGNOT, Aubiere Gyorgy CSABA, Budapest Yutaka NAITOH, Tsukuba Isabelle DESPORTES-LIVAGE, Paris Eduardo ORIAS, Santa Barbara Stanisław DRYL, Warszawa Dimitrii V. OSSIPOV, St. Petersburg Tom FENCHEL, Helsing0r George I. POLIANSKY, St. Petersburg Wilhelm FOISSNER, Salsburg Igor B. RAIKOV, St. Petersburg Vassil GOLEMANSKY, Sofia Leif RASMUSSEN, Odense Andrzej GRĘBECKI, Warszawa, Vice-Chairman Jerzy SIKORA, Warszawa Lucyna GRĘBECKA, Warszawa Michael SLEIGHT, Southampton Donat-Peter HÄDER, Erlangen Ksenia M. SUKHANOVA, St. Petersburg Janina KACZANOWSKA, Warszawa Jiri VAVRA, Praha Witold KASPRZAK, Poznań Anna WASIK, Warszawa ACTA PROTOZOOLOGICA appears quarterly. Indexed in Current Contents in CABS and in Protozoological Abstracts. Front cover: Thigmocoma acuminata Kazubski. Acta Protozool. 1963, Vol. 1 fasc. 25 p. 239, Fig. 1 http://rcin.org.pl ACTA Acta Protozoologica (1992) 31: 185 - 214 PROTOZOOLOGICA Review article Gravireception and Graviresponses in Ciliates Hans MACHEMER and Richard BRÄUCKER Arbeitsgruppe Zelluläre Erregungsphysiologie, Fakultät für Biologie, Ruhr-Universität, Bochum, Federal Republic of Germany Summary. An account is given of approaches to gravireception, terminology, mechanisms of responses to gravity as investigated and documented in the literature, and sensorimotor coupling properties in ciliates. Current theories and methods are discussed, and previously published experimental data on graviresponses are reviewed. Key words. Gravireception, gravitaxis, gravikinesis, ciliates, electrophysiology, sensorimotor coupling CONTENTS 8.2 Implications of the Electrophysiological Model 8.2.1 Masking of the Graviresponse 1. Introduction 8.2.2 Effects of Cell Orientation 2. Approaches to Gravireception 8.3 Circumstantial Experimental Conditions 2.1 Energetic Considerations 8.3.1 Cell Cultures and Experimental Solutions 2.2 Structures Suitable for Gravireception 8.3.2 Equilibration Time 2.3 Behavioural Analysis 8.3.3 Proportions of Chamber 3. Terminology 8.3.4 Mechanical Disturbances 4. Mechanisms in Graviresponses 8.3.5 Temperature 4.1 Static Hypothesis (Gravity-Buoyancy Model) 8.3.6 Illumination 4.2 Hydrostatic Hypothesis 8.3.7 Aeration 4.3 General Statocyst Hypothesis 8.3.8 Determination of Sedimentation Rates 4.4 Resistance Hypothesis 8.3.9 Acquisition of Data 4.5 Hydrodynamic Hypothesis 8.3.10 Processing and Presentation of Data 4.6 Propulsion Hypothesis 8.3.10.1 Behavioural Variety 4.7 Lifting Force Hypothesis 8.3.10.2 Statistical Treatment 4.8 Special Statocyst Hypothesis (Electrophysiological 8.3.10.3 Circular Histograms Model) 8.3.10.4 Direction Coefficient (r-value) 4.9 Conclusions Regarding Various Hypotheses on 8.3.10.5 Orientation Coefficient Graviresponses 8.3.10.6 Taxis Coefficient 5. Ciliates as Excitable Cells 8.3.10.7 Kinesis Coefficient 6. Mechanoreception in Ciliates 8.4 Current Experiments 7. Electromotor Coupling 8.4.1 Experiments under Normal Gravity 8. Physiology of Gravistimulation and Response 8.4.1.1 Free Locomotion 8.1 Basic Mechanisms 8.4.1.2 Velocity-Dependence of Gravikinesis 8.1.1 Gravikinesis 8.4.1.3 Cells under Galvanotactic Alignment 8.1.2 Gravitaxis 8.4.1.4 Swimming in Solutions of Adjusted Density 8.4.1.5 Nonswimming Locomotion Address for correspondence: H. Machemer, Arbeitsgruppe 8.4.2 Microgravity Experiments Zell uläre Erregungsphysiologie, Fakultät für Biologie, Ruhr- 8.4.3 Hypergravity Experiments Universität, D-4630 Bochum 1, Federal Republic of Germany. 9. Conclusion and Perspective http://rcin.org.pl 186 H. Machemer and R. Braucker 1. INTRODUCTION 2. APPROACHES TO GRAVIRECEPTION 2.1 ENERGETIC CONSIDERATIONS Gravireception in protists is an area of so far limited knowledge and understanding. A wealth of A fundamental requirement for gravireception is that data, in particular of Paramecium, has been accumu- a minimal stimulus energy can be supplied to the lated in the past century, but there is not much organism in the gravitransduction process. This energy common agreement on the mechanisms of gravitaxis. (or work to be done) is approximated for a ciliate The reason for this is closely associated with the assuming a cylindrical body of 200 jam length and of 40 nature of gravity which rules the universe across jam diameter. With a volume of 2.5x107 cm3, and a billions of light years and affects small living things density of 1.04 g/cm3 (Paramecium: Koehler 1922, on Earth in a subtle manner. Experiments using Fetter 1926, Taneda 1987, Kuroda and Kamiya 1989), gravistimulation are difficult to design and to the cytoplasm exceeds the mass of fresh water by analyze because gravity is not easy to manipulate. 1.008x 10"8 g and exerts a force of 10"10 N (10 5 dyne) to Moreover, gravistimulation persists. Unlike a the lower membrane. In a vertically swimming mechanical stimulus, which induces sensory Paramecium, this force corresponds to an extra pressure transduction, in the first line, by changing intensity of about 0.1 Pa (8x10~4 N/cm:), which is reduced to (e.g., the magnitude of deformation of a structure), about 1/6 in a horizontally swimming cell due io the gravity maintains its amplitude under common cir- larger area of the lower membrane. Can this small value cumstances. Sensory structures in animals and in of pressure give rise to a biological response? Com- plants have evolved, which specialize in gravirecep- parison with gravitropic responses in plants shows that tion and guidance of gravity-related behaviour. this is possible. In the green alga Chara a pressure An archetype of a gravireceptor is the statocyst1 increment of 10"4 Pa (Hejnowicz et al. 1985» and (Markl 1974, Vinnikov 1974). In an extracellular gravity-induced changes in shear stress in the pasma cavity of this organ, a body of higher density, a membrane modulate cytoplasmic streaming (Sievers et statolith1, is surrounded by (ideally) a globular shell al. 1991), and a pressure difference of about 0.3 Pa of sensors, which may be represented by an thought to be exerted by starch grains (amyloplasts) in epithelium or by intracellular organelles. The the statocytes of roots in higher plants induces pcsitive statolith exerts a constant load on a "lower" (or gravitropic growth (Volkmann 1974). centrifugally placed) sensitive structure. Information Apart from comparison with other gravisersitive about the organism's orientation in space arises from systems, an adequate energy of a stimulus for gene'ation persistent stimulation and topology: the arrangement of a signal by the cell must exceed the energy le/el of of the statocyst inside the animal, and the site of thermal noise (2x1021 J). The minimal energy to hduce activation of the sensor via statolith inside the gravitransduction is estimated at 3x10211 J (Bjoikman statocyst. The present review, in analyzing recent 1988), corresponding to a force of 3x10'" N acting over experimental data on behavioural responses of a distance of 1 nm. In Paramecium, the cytoplasm-water ciliates to gravity, assumes that the statocyst prin- density difference allows the available force of 10"10 N ciple applies to gravisensation in protists, as it does to deform the "lower" membrane by an unknown in some algae and in the statocytes of roots in higher amount. If it is tentatively assumed that this force noves plants (for reviews see: Audus 1979, Bjorkman 1988, a gravity sensor over a path length of 1 nm, in analogy Sack 1991), although different signalling pathways to effective deformation of an insect mechanore(eptor may be employed in special cases. Comprehensive (Thurm et al. 1983), the work done will be 10 19 J and overviews of the effects of gravity on unicellular thus exceeds the energy of thermal noise by a facor of microorganisms have been published elsewhere 50. Larger displacements of a membrane-integrated (Haupt 1962, Roberts 1970, Machemer and de Peyer sensor give an even more favourable level of eiergy 1977, Sievers and Volkmann 1979, Bean 1984). available for transduction. 1 Definitions of "statolith" vary in the literature. In the field of Zoology, it designates an extracellular body and is synonynous to otolith (Eckert and Randall 1983). In Botany, statoliths designate sedimenting masses inside statocytes (Sievers et al. 199]). For protozoans, we use the term "statocyst-type organelle" (or statocystoid; Braucker et al. 1992) with respect to the common princple of function. http://rcin.org.pl Gravireception and Graviresponses in Ciliates 187 Energetic approximations show that gravirecep- a pendulum. Cell-orientation dependent positions of tion in cells involves highly sensitive receptor the statolith inside the Müller vesicle have been mechanisms. Amyloplasts, which act as statoliths documented. inside statocytes of higher plants, confer an energy Several arguments in support of a statocyst-type of 5 to lOxlO19 J to the receptor assuming an function