QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Withers, P. C. Articles by Guppy, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Withers, P. C. Articles by Guppy, M.

Journal of Experimental Biology, Vol 199, Issue 8 1809-1816, Copyright © 1996 by Company of Biologists

JOURNAL ARTICLES

Do Australian desert frogs co-accumulate counteracting solutes with urea during aestivation?

PC Withers and M Guppy
Center for Native Animal Research, University of Western Australia, Nedlands, Australia.

Australian desert frogs of the genera Neobatrachus, Cyclorana and Heleioporus experience significant dehydration, and iono- and osmoconcentration, during aestivation in the laboratory and accumulate substantial amounts of urea (100-200 mmol)(l-1). We expected a priori that aestivating frogs probably would not need to accumulate balancing osmolytes but would accumulate trimethylamine oxide (TMAO) or betaine as counteracting solutes to urea. These aestivating frogs did not co-accumulate a substantial quantity of any particular balancing osmolyte or counteracting solute, such as a methylamine [TMAO, trimethylamine amine (TMA), betaine, sarcosine, glycerophosphorylcholine (GPC)] or polyol (inositol, mannitol, sorbitol) in plasma or muscle relative to urea accumulation. However, for aestivating frogs, the total concentration of all measured methylamines and polyols (TMAO + TMA + betaine + sarcosine + GPC + inositol) in muscle was approximately 35-45 mmol kg-1, and so it is possible that all of these solutes have a combined counteracting osmolyte role in aestivating frogs at a ratio to urea of approximately 1:2.5, as has been described for elasmobranch fishes. Alternatively, the absence of substantial co-accumulation with urea of any particular solute suggests that aestivating frogs might not require any major extracellular or intracellular counteracting solutes (TMAO, betaine, GPC). The enzyme systems of these aestivating frogs may be insensitive to the perturbing effects of urea, or the perturbing effects of accumulated urea may be a mechanism for metabolic depression, during aestivation.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				V. A. Cartledge, P. C. Withers, K. A. McMaster, G. G. Thompson, and S. D. Bradshaw Water balance of field-excavated aestivating Australian desert frogs, the cocoon-forming Neobatrachus aquilonius and the non-cocooning Notaden nichollsi (Amphibia: Myobatrachidae) J. Exp. Biol., September 1, 2006; 209(17): 3309 - 3321. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. P. Costanzo and R. E. Lee Jr Cryoprotection by urea in a terrestrially hibernating frog J. Exp. Biol., November 1, 2005; 208(21): 4079 - 4089. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. E. Podrabsky, J. F. Carpenter, and S. C. Hand Survival of water stress in annual fish embryos: dehydration avoidance and egg envelope amyloid fibers Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, January 1, 2001; 280(1): R123 - R131. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]