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

First published online October 16, 2009
Journal of Experimental Biology 212, 3478-3489 (2009)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2009
doi: 10.1242/jeb.033217

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) 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 Google Scholar Articles by Rodríguez-Cattáneo, A. Articles by Caputi, A. A. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rodríguez-Cattáneo, A. Articles by Caputi, A. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Waveform diversity of electric organ discharges: the role of electric organ auto-excitability in Gymnotus spp.

Alejo Rodríguez-Cattáneo and Angel Ariel Caputi^*

Departamento de Neurociencias Integrativas y Computacionales, Instituto de Investigaciones Biológicas Clemente Estable, Montevideo, Uruguay, Av. Italia 3318, Montevideo, Uruguay

^* Author for correspondence (angel{at}iibce.edu.uy)

Accepted 28 July 2009

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.

Key words: electric organ, evolution, electrocyte, intrinsic properties, electric fish

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?