|
| |
|
|
|
|
||||
| Home Help Feedback Subscriptions Archive Search Table of Contents | ||||
First published online January 18, 2008
Journal of Experimental Biology 211, 292-299 (2008)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2008
doi: 10.1242/jeb.012864
Shadow response in the blind cavefish Astyanax reveals conservation of a functional pineal eye
Department of Biology, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA
* Author for correspondence (e-mail: yossy{at}umd.edu)
Accepted 6 November 2007
 |
Summary |
|---|
 TOP Summary INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Key words: pineal eye, shadow response, blind cavefish, behavior
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
). In
amphibians, teleosts and reptiles, the pineal gland functions to detect light
in larval or young animals before the development of acute vision. For
example, in young Xenopus laevis larvae swimming behavior is
controlled by the pineal gland (Roberts,
1978; Jamieson and Roberts,
2000). In mammals, the light sensing function of the pineal gland
appears to be absent. Another role of the pineal gland is entrainment of
circadian rhythms via secretion of melatonin
(Zachmann et al., 1992a). To
mediate its light-detecting function, teleost pineal photoreceptor cells
express the opsin-related photon-transducing pigments VA opsin, parapinopson
and ERrod-like opsin (reviewed in Foster
et al., 2006). Because of its important role in light detection,
particularly during ontogeny, the pineal gland is referred to as the third or
pineal eye in some vertebrates.
Cave animals are important models for studying the role of the environment
in generating evolutionary change because they are not usually exposed to
light, which is one of the most pervasive environmental cues. As a consequence
of evolution in complete darkness, many cave-adapted animals have lost or
reduced their eyes, visually based behaviors, pigmentation and other traits
that are essential for life in the surface environment
(Culver, 1982). The
evolutionary forces responsible for degeneration of the visual system are not
completely understood. The most likely mechanisms are neutral mutation, in
which eyes are thought to regress passively and gradually due to the
accumulation of hypomorphic mutations in eye forming genes, or natural
selection, in which the loss of eyes is mediated more rapidly by positive
selection (Culver, 1982).
Among the potential adaptive benefits of eye loss could be energy saving or
compensatory trade-offs with other sensory systems
(Jeffery et al., 2000;
Jeffery, 2005;
Protas et al., 2007).
We used the Mexican tetra Astyanax mexicanus to study the role of
the dark cave environment in promoting phenotypic changes during evolution.
Astyanax has two conspecific forms: an eyed epigean form (surface
fish) and an eyeless hypogean form (cavefish)
(
ado
lu, 1957;
Wilkens, 1988;
Jeffery, 2001). At least 29
different cavefish populations are present in Mexican limestone caves
(Mitchell et al., 1977), and
some of these are likely to have evolved independently from the same or
different surface fish ancestors (Dowling
et al., 2002; Strecker et al.,
2004). Cavefish embryos form an optic primordium consisting of a
lens and optic cup, which begin to differentiate and grow
(Cahn, 1958). During larval
development, however, the cavefish eye begins to degenerate, gradually sinks
into the orbit, and is covered by an overgrowth of epidermis and connective
tissue (Wilkens, 1988;
Langecker et al., 1993;
Jeffery and Martasian, 1998).
Although a few optic nerve fibers are formed, there is a substantial reduction
in the cavefish optic tectum (Soares et
al., 2004). Thus, vision does not develop, and cavefish instead
rely on other senses, including the lateral line
(Teyke, 1990;
Montgomery et al., 2001), the
gustatory system (Schemmel,
1967) and possibly olfaction
(Yamamoto et al., 2003), to
survive in the dark cave environment.
Astyanax surface fish have a pineal gland consisting of sensory
cells, nerve cells, supporting cells and a cell-type resembling phagocytes.
Despite degeneration and the loss of visual capacity in the bilateral eyes,
little or no morphological changes have occurred in the pineal eye between
surface fish and cavefish
(Grunewald-Lowenstein, 1956;
Omura, 1975;
Herwig, 1976;
Langecker, 1992). For example,
the photoreceptor segments of pineal sensory cells are still present in
cavefish. The morphological differences that have been seen in the two forms
of Astyanax appear to be quantitative rather than qualitative
(Langecker, 1992). In
addition, electrophysiological studies suggest the persistence of pineal
photosensory function in blind cavefish
(Tabata, 1982). As pointed out
by Wilkens (Wilkens, 1988),
however, the latter and other previous studies on pineal gland structure and
function are likely to be compromised by analysis of a hybrid cavefish
population. Thus, it is currently unknown whether the cavefish pineal gland
can function in light detection.
We describe here behavioral studies comparing the light detecting function
of the pineal gland in Astyanax surface fish and two divergent
cavefish populations (Pachón and Tinaja cavefish), which exhibit a
relatively high degree of eye degeneration and regression of surface-adapted
features. Despite the absent of light in the cave environment, we demonstrate
that both types of cavefish have retained the shadow response, a pineal
governed activity (Jamieson and Roberts,
2000). Pinealectomy experiments confirm that the shadow response
is controlled by the pineal eye in Astyanax. Consistent with light
detection, we also show that the cavefish pineal eye expresses a
rhodopsin-like antigen at similar levels to its surface fish counterpart. We
propose several reasons for the conservation of pineal eye function in blind
cavefish, which have evolved for a million or more years in complete
darkness.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
; Jeffery et al.,
2000). Embryos were obtained by natural spawning and raised at
22–25°C in the absence of light.
Shadow response assay
The shadow response was assayed in flat transparent plastic bottles (25 ml
EasYFlasksTM, NUNC, Rochester, NY, USA) that were cut at their shoulders
to make rectangular chambers (7.5x7.5x3.1 cm;
lengthxheightxwidth). Each chamber contained 100 ml of conditioned
water (conductivity approximately 600 µS) for normal larvae or zebrafish
ringer (ZFR: 1.77 mmol l–1 CaCl2, 116 mmol
l–1 NaCl, 2.9 mmol l–1 KCl, 10 mmol
l–1 Hepes, pH 7.2) for operated larvae (see below). Standard
32 W fluorescent room lights positioned 3 m above the assay chambers provided
even illumination. The assay chambers were shaded (light dimming) by insertion
of an opaque board between them and the light source.
To quantify the shadow response, 20 surface fish or cavefish larvae, raised from embryos kept in constant darkness, were transferred to each assay chamber. The larvae were accommodated with even illumination for at least 30 min at room temperature prior to the assays. For each assay, larvae were introduced to the assay chamber, exposed to constant illumination for 3 min, then the chamber was shaded, and the numbers of larvae that swam upward from the bottom of the chamber to half the distance to the water surface (2.0 cm from the bottom) were counted during a 5 s shading period. This procedure was repeated at least two times with the same group of 20 larvae and the results were averaged. There was an interval of at least 1 min between each assay. This sequence of assay steps was subsequently repeated with at least four groups of 20 surface fish or cavefish larvae (at least 80 larvae per assay).
Fish swimming movements were video recorded using an infrared light (BL1960 Black light, Advanced Illumination, Rochester, VT, USA) and were captured by an infrared CCD camera (QICAM IR, Qimaging, Surrey, Canada) equipped with StreamPix software (NorPix, Montreal, Canada) at a rate of 10 frames s–1. The public domain NIH ImageJ software (US National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) was used for video analyses. Statistical analysis was carried out by Student's unpaired t-test unless otherwise indicated.
Pinealectomy and eye removal
The procedure used for removing the pineal gland was modified from
operations designed previously for lens deletion and transplantation
(Yamamoto and Jeffery, 2000;
Yamamoto and Jeffery, 2002).
At 1.5 days post-fertilization (d.p.f.), surface fish and cavefish larvae
(raised as described above) were washed for 10 min in calcium-free zebrafish
ringer (CFZFR: 116 mmol l–1 NaCl, 2.9 mmol
l–1 KCl, 10 mmol l–1 Hepes, pH 7.2), rinsed
in CFZFR (40°C) containing 0.2% EDTA, and embedded in 1.2% agar in CFZFR
(40°C). After cooling to room temperature, the agar was cut into blocks
containing individual larvae. The operations were done with sharp tungsten
needles on larvae embedded in the agar blocks.
For pinealectomy, larvae were positioned on their side, a small opening was
made in the dorsal epidermis above the brain, and the pineal gland was
removed. Sham-operated control larvae had their dorsal epidermis opened but
the pineal gland was not removed. For removal of a single eye, larvae were
positioned on their side, the lens vesicle was deleted as previously described
(Yamamoto and Jeffery, 2000;
Yamamoto and Jeffery, 2002),
and then the optic cup was removed by applying gentle pressure to the
periocular area with the side of a tungsten needle. For removal of both eyes,
larvae were placed ventral side up, and one or both optic cups were removed by
the same procedure as described above. The experimental and control larvae
were allowed to recover in ZFR for 3 h before performing the behavioral assays
described above.
Rhodopsin immunocytochemistry
Surface fish and cavefish larvae were fixed with 4% paraformaldehyde in PBS
for 30 min at room temperature, washed with PBSTBSA (PBS plus 0.1%
Triton X-100 and 2 mg ml–1 of bovine serum albumin), and
stored in 100% methanol. Specimens were rehydrated with PBSTBSA,
incubated in blocking solution (2% bovine serum albumin, 10% goat serum in 100
mmol l–1 maleic acid, pH 7.5, and 150 mmol
l–1 NaCl) for 1 h, incubated overnight at 4°C in mouse
anti-rhodopsin monoclonal antibody (RET-P1; Sigma, St Louis, MO, USA) diluted
1:1000 in blocking solution. After antibody treatment, the specimens were
washed four times with the blocking solution and incubated in
rhodamine-conjugated anti-mouse antibody (Chemicon, Temecula, CA, USA) diluted
1:100 in blocking solution. After washing four times in PBSTBSA,
the specimens were viewed with a fluorescence microscope (Axioskop 2 with
Axiocam, Zeiss, Göttingen, Germany).
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
). In these experiments, 1.5 d.p.f. Pachón cavefish, Tinaja cavefish or surface fish larvae raised from eggs in complete darkness were placed in individual assay chambers and their swimming behavior was video recorded (Fig. 1; see supplementary material movies 1–3). During constant light or darkness, most cavefish and surface fish larvae remained at the bottom of the chambers (Fig. 1A,E,I). When the chambers were illuminated and then shaded from above, the larvae swam upward spirally from the bottom of the chamber in a synchronized manner and ceased swimming after they reached the water surface, where they often remained attached by their cement organs (Fig. 1B–D,F–H,J–L). Surface fish larvae usually reached the top of the chamber more quickly than either type of cavefish larvae. To quantify the shadow response, we counted the number of larvae that swam halfway to the water surface, which was indicative of them eventually reaching the top of the chamber. When quantified in this way, we found that about 50–70% of surface fish and both types of larvae exhibited a shadow response (Fig. 2, far left). Interestingly, at 1.5 d.p.f. more cavefish showed the shadow response than surface fish (P<0.01, N=180 for both Pachón and Tinaja cavefish compared to surface fish) (Fig. 1B,F,J). This difference was not observed at later developmental stages (Fig. 2). The results show that larvae of both cavefish and surface fish exhibit the shadow response.
|
Ontogeny of the shadow response
Prominence during early development and subsequent reduction is a
characteristic of the larval Xenopus shadow response
(Foster and Roberts, 1982).
Therefore, we conducted shading experiments at intervals between 1.5 and 7.5
d.p.f. to determine the ontogeny of the shadow response in surface fish and
cavefish. The results, quantified as described above, were similar to those
described previously for Xenopus larvae
(Foster and Roberts, 1982).
The Astyanax shadow response was strongest at 1.5 d.p.f., diminished
gradually at later stages, and was barely detectable by 6.5 or 7.5 d.p.f.
(Fig. 2). In contrast to the
results obtained at 1.5 d.p.f. (see above), at later developmental stages
there were no significant differences in the light dimming response between
cavefish and surface fish (F=0.13, P=0.88;
Kruskal–Wallis test). However, overall reduction in shadow response
intensity during ontogeny of surface fish and both types of cavefish was
highly significant (P<0.001; surface fish N=120,
Pachón cavefish N=120, Tinaja cavefish N=80) when
pooled larvae were compared at 1.5 d.p.f. and 7.5 d.p.f., respectively. The
results show that the ontogeny of the shadow response in Astyanax
larvae resembles that described in Xenopus larvae.
Pineal opsin expression
The Astyanax pineal eye has been suggested to have a single
photoreceptor type containing a unique opsin, potentially ERrod-opsin
(Parry et al., 2003;
Foster et al., 2006). Although
the structure of the cavefish larval pineal eye has been examined previously
and concluded to be remarkably similar to that of surface fish
(Langecker, 1992), the
cavefish pineal gland has not been shown to express opsin. To obtain this
information and to develop a general marker for the Astyanax pineal
eye, we used a mouse rhodopsin antibody to detect and compare opsin expression
between 1.5 and 4.5 d.p.f. in surface fish and Pachón and Tinaja
cavefish.
The pineal eyes of surface fish and both types of cavefish showed strong
rhodopsin-like immunoreactivity at developmental stages between 1.5 and 4.5
d.p.f. (Fig. 3). The
rhodopsin-like antigen was also observed in surface fish bilateral eyes
beginning at 2.5 d.p.f., but was later obscured by melanin deposition in the
developing retinal pigment epithelium (Fig.
3E–H). In contrast, despite the absence of melanin pigment,
the rhodopsin-like antigen was not detectable in the degenerating bilateral
eyes of Pachón or Tinaja cavefish
(Fig. 3I–X). This result
is consistent with previous studies showing downregulation of opsin expression
in the degenerating photoreceptor layer of the cavefish retina
(Langecker et al., 1993;
Yamamoto and Jeffery, 2000).
We conclude that the developing cavefish pineal gland shows a rhodopsin-like
antigen, which we then used as a pineal marker.
|
Role of the pineal eye in the shadow response
Pinealectomy experiments were conducted to determine whether the pineal eye
is responsible for the shadow response. In these experiments, pinealectomies
and control operations were done in 1.5 d.p.f. Pachón cavefish and
surface fish larvae. In some larvae, the pineal was removed, in others the
basic operation was conducted to remove the pineal but it was not excised
(sham-operated controls), and in others one or both bilateral eyes were
deleted instead of the pineal eye. After a recovery period of 3 h, the
pinealectomized larvae, sham-operated control larvae, larvae lacking one
bilateral eye, and larvae lacking both bilateral eyes (N=106, 103, 99
and 84, respectively) were assayed for the shadow response and video recorded
as described above. After the conclusion of the assays, examples of each the
four types of surface fish and cavefish larvae were fixed and processed for
rhodopsin immunocytochemistry to determine whether they contained a pineal
eye.
Fig. 4 shows video recordings of the shadow response in pinealectomized larvae, sham-operated control larvae, larvae lacking a single bilateral eye and larvae lacking both bilateral eyes. The sham-operated surface fish and cavefish larvae showed a shadow response similar to that described above (compare Fig. 4A,B with Fig. 1D,H). Likewise, larvae with one or both bilateral eyes removed also showed a shadow response resembling unoperated larvae and sham-operated controls (compare Fig. 4E–H with Fig. 1D,H). In contrast, the shadow response was abolished in most (but not all) pinealectomized surface fish and cavefish larvae (Fig. 4C,D). Quantification of these results confirmed that the shadow response in pinealectomized larvae was significantly reduced relative to sham-operated control larvae and larvae lacking one or both bilateral eyes (Fig. 5; P<0.01, N=205 surface fish and 187 cavefish).
|
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
;
Chakraborty and Nei, 1974;
Mitchell et al., 1977). In the
present study, we have investigated whether the pineal gland, another sensory
organ involved in light detection, is functional in cavefish. Using the
Astyanax mexicanus system, which consists of conspecific eyed surface
fish and blind cavefish (adolu, 1957;
Wilkens, 1988;
Jeffery, 2001), we show here
that the pineal eye of young cavefish larvae can sense light to mediate a
shadow response. To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of a
functional pineal eye in a blind cave vertebrate. In addition, our results
reveal a classic shadow response in teleost larva, which is similar in many
respects to the shadow responses of Xenopus
(Roberts, 1978) and ascidian
(Kajiwara and Yoshida, 1985)
tadpoles.
Astyanax larvae exhibit a classic shadow response
The shadow response has been studied most extensively in Xenopus
laevis tadpoles (Roberts,
1978). The present results demonstrate that Astyanax has
a shadow response that is strikingly similar to that of Xenopus
(Foster and Roberts, 1982;
Jamieson and Roberts, 2000;
Roberts, 1978). First and
foremost, the shadow response is controlled by the pineal eye in both species.
This conclusion is strongly supported by our pinealectomy results
demonstrating that Astyanax surface fish or cavefish larvae with a
complete or partial pineal eye exhibit a shadow response, whereas those
lacking the pineal gland do not show a shadow response. Second, the behavioral
components of the Astyanax shadow response resemble those of
Xenopus. After shading, surface fish and cavefish larvae swim upward
spirally and cease swimming after they reach the water surface, where they
often remain attached by their cement organs. Third, the shadow responses of
both species show similar kinetics. The Astyanax shadow response is
elicited immediately after shading and usually completed in less than 10 s in
surface fish, although there may be a longer response period in very young
cavefish larva. The latter is the only substantial difference that we have
noted in the surface fish and cavefish shadow responses. Fourth, the ontogeny
of the shadow response is similar in Astyanax and Xenopus.
In both species, the shadow response is strongest soon after hatching and then
gradually weakens prior to disappearance during subsequent larval development.
The eventual loss of the pineal-based shadow response appears to coincide with
the maturation of functional bilateral eyes.
Shadow-like responses have been described in larvae of other teleosts,
including flounder, sole and herring
(Blaxter, 1968;
Burke et al., 1995;
Champalbert et al., 1991). They
contrast with the effects of shading we have described in Astyanax in
that they culminate in downward, rather than upward, swimming in the water
column. Thus, predator avoidance behaviors may differ among teleosts, although
the stimulators and mediators, light shading and pineal sensory activity,
respectively, are probably the same.
The tadpoles of two ascidian species, Ciona intestinalis and
Ciona savignyi, also show a shadow response
(Inada et al., 2003;
Kajiwara and Yoshida, 1985;
Kusakabe et al., 2001). At
about 3.5 h after hatching, Ciona larvae attain the capacity to swim
upward after shading. The ascidian shadow response depends on expression of
Ci-opsin1, the Ciona opsin homologue, in the larval ocellus,
a potential homologue of the vertebrate pineal eye
(Kusakabe et al., 2001).
Therefore, shadow responses evoked by shading the pineal eye or a homologous
structure may have emerged early during chordate evolution, before the
appearance of bilateral eyes, and are conserved in basal vertebrates,
including teleosts.
The shadow response is conserved in cavefish
Because of their unusual environment, it was interesting to determine
whether a pineal-based shadow response is conserved in cavefish. Cavefish
normally live in absolute darkness. It would be predicted that the shading
response, which may be costly to maintain and useless in a dark environment,
would tend to be lost under these conditions. Contrary to this expectation,
however, morphological studies suggest that cavefish larvae and adults retain
a pineal gland with sensory cells containing normal appearing photoreceptor
segments (Langecker, 1992),
although prior to the present study there was no strong evidence that they are
functional in light detection. In striking contrast to the pineal eye,
although a few photoreceptor cells differentiate initially in the bilateral
eyes of cavefish larvae, they subsequently degenerate and are not replaced in
the vestigial eyes of adults (Langecker et
al., 1993; Yamamoto and
Jeffery, 2000; Strickler et
al., 2007).
The present results demonstrate that the larval shadow response is conserved in cavefish. The observations and experiments that support this conclusion are as follows. First, light shading of cavefish and surface fish larvae elicit almost identical upward swimming behaviors. The ontogeny of the shadow response, which is prominent during early development and gradually recedes, is identical in cavefish and surface fish. Finally, pinealectomy shows that the cavefish shadow response is specifically elicited by the pineal eye, which expresses similar levels of opsin as its surface fish counterpart. Therefore, despite the likely cost of developing light detecting ability, the results imply that the pineal gland is still able to sense light in blind cavefish.
The conservation of pineal eye function has important implications
regarding developmental and physiological interactions between the pineal and
bilateral eyes in basal vertebrates. In these animals, the disappearance of
light sensing ability in the pineal eye and the attainment of visual
sensitivity in the bilateral eyes are temporarily correlated, suggesting that
bilateral eye maturation might suppress pineal eye function. However, we have
shown that light detection by the pineal eye decreases with the same kinetics
during blind cavefish and sighted surface fish development. Thus, other
factors, such as increased opacity in the cranium that may impede light
penetration, may responsible for the diminishment of light detection by the
pineal eye. Alternatively, minimal development of an organized retina,
photoreceptor cells, and a ganglion layer with functional projections to the
optic tectum prior to subsequent degeneration
(Voneida and Sligar, 1976;
Yamamoto and Jeffery, 2000;
Soares et al., 2004), may be
sufficient to inhibit pineal eye function during development.
Role of the cavefish pineal eye
To elicit a shadow response, at least two features must be retained during
cavefish evolution: (1) the photosensitivity of the pineal eye and (2) a
neural connection between the pineal eye and the motor system involved in
swimming behavior. The development of both features probably requires
appreciable investment of metabolic energy. Why then is the light sensing
function of the pineal eye conserved in blind cavefish? Although we cannot
answer this question with certainty, two possibilities are offered below.
The pineal gland consists of two parts, one with a role in light detection
and the other devoted to neurosecretion, including melatonin production. The
retina also produces melatonin but it is used and metabolized locally, whereas
melatonin from the pineal gland is released into the blood and has a paracrine
function (Falcón,
1999). Melatonin regulates daily variations in locomotor activity,
sleeping, skin pigmentation (which is absent in cavefish), and seasonal growth
and reproduction (Zachmann et al.,
1992a). Among these periodic activities, seasonal growth and
reproduction are particularly important in the cave environment, where
influxes of new food resources may occur only once a year during seasonal
flooding (Mitchell et al.,
1977). In the absence of light, melatonin secretion by the pineal
eye could depend on water temperature, which has been documented in
controlling pineal secretion in other teleosts
(Falcón et al., 1994;
Zachmann et al., 1992b) and
would be changed during flooding. Thus, the neurosecretory role of the pineal
gland may be necessary for survival in cavefish.
The developmental processes responsible for the formation of a two-part
pineal gland may be interrelated. If so, the photosensitive portion of the
pineal, although seemingly useless in the cave environment, would be conserved
due to developmental constraints. Supporting this idea, opsin genes are still
expressed in the mammalian pineal gland
(Blackshaw and Snyder, 1997),
despite the fact that it lacks photosensitivity. In addition, the
transcription factor cone rod homeobox (CRX/Otx), which controls opsin gene
expression, may also regulate expression of the melatonin synthesis genes,
N-acetyltransferase (NAT) and
hydroxyindole-O-methyltransferase (HIOMT), during pineal development
(Asaoka et al., 2002;
Furukawa et al., 1999;
Li et al., 1998). Therefore,
the cascade of regulatory gene expression leading to photoreception and
melatonin synthesis may be integrated to an extent that it cannot be easily
uncoupled during relatively short evolutionary intervals.
Finally, light detection by the larval pineal gland may be conserved
because it is beneficial for survival in the cave environment. The cave
systems inhabited by Astyanax cavefish can contain karst `windows',
areas of ceiling collapse that allow dim light penetration, and are subject to
periodic episodes of extensive flooding
(Mitchell et al., 1977).
Floods could propel cavefish from the light-less cave interior to semi-lighted
locations, such as near cave entrances or spring resurgences. Both scenarios
could expose cavefish larvae to predation in lighted habitats. Conservation of
the pineal eye could be used to avoid the potential threat of exposure to
light and predation.
|
Acknowledgments |
|---|
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TOPSummaryINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONReferences |
|---|
Asaoka, Y., Mano, H., Kojima, D. and Fukada, Y.
(2002). Pineal expression-promoting element (PIPE), a cis-acting
element, directs pineal-specific gene expression in zebrafish.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
99,15456
-15461.
Avise, J. C. and Selander, R. K. (1972).
Evolutionary genetics of cave-dwelling fishes of the genus Astyanax.Evolution 26,1
-19.
Blackshaw, S. and Snyder, S. H. (1997).
Developmental expression pattern of phototransduction components in mammalian
pineal implies a light-sensing function. J. Neurosci.
17,8074
-8082.
Blaxter, J. H. S. (1968). Visual threshold and
spectral sensitivity of herring larvae. J. Exp. Biol.
48, 39-53.
Burke, J. S., Tanaka, M. and Seikai, T. (1995). Influence of light and salinity on the behavior of larval Japanese flounder (Paralichthys olivaceus) and implications for inshore migration. Neth. J. Sea Res. 34,59 -69.[CrossRef]
Cahn, P. H. (1958). Comparative optic development in Astyanax mexicanus and of its blind cave derivatives. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 115,73 -112.
Chakraborty, R. and Nei, M. (1974). Dynamics of gene differentiation between incompletely isolated populations of unequal sizes. Theor. Popul. Biol. 5, 460-469.[CrossRef][Medline]
Champalbert, G., Macquart-Moulin, C., Patriti, G. and Chiki, D. (1991). Ontogeny of variation in photaxis of larval juvenile sole (Solea solea L.). J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 149,207 -225.[CrossRef]
Collin, J. P. (1971). Differentiation and regression of the cells of the sensory line in the epiphysis cerebri. In The Pineal Gland. A Ciba Foundation Symposium (ed. G. E. W. Wolstenholme and J. Knight), pp. 79-125. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Culver, D. C. (1982). Cave Life: Evolution and Ecology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Dowling, T. E., Martasian, D. P. and Jeffery, W. R.
(2002). Evidence for multiple genetic lineages with similar
eyeless phenotypes in the blind cavefish, Astyanax mexicanus. Mol.
Biol. Evol. 19,446
-455.
Falcón, J. (1999). Cellular circadian clocks in the pineal. Prog. Neurobiol. 58,121 -162.[CrossRef][Medline]
Falcón, J., Bolliet, V., Ravault, J. P., Chesneau, D., Ali, M. A. and Collin, J. P. (1994). Rhythmic secretion of melatonin by the superfused pike pineal organ: thermoperiod and photoperiod interaction. Neuroendocrinology 60,535 -543.[Medline]
Foster, R. G. and Roberts, A. (1982). The pineal eye in Xenopus laevis embryos and larvae: a photoreceptor with a direct excitatory effect on behavior. J. Comp. Physiol. 145,413 -419.[CrossRef]
Foster, R. G., Wagner, H. J. and Bowmaker, J. K. (2006). Non-image-forming photoreception. In Communication in Fishes (ed. F. Ladich, S. P. Collin, P. Moller and B. G. Kapoor), pp. 543-575. New Hampshire: Science Publishers.
Furukawa, T., Morrow, E. M., Li, T. S., Davis, F. C. and Cepko, C. L. (1999). Retinopathy and attenuated circadian entrainment in Crx-deficient mice. Nat. Genet. 23,466 -470.[CrossRef][Medline]
Grunewald-Lowenstein, M. (1956). Influence of light and darkness on the pineal body in Astyanax mexicanus (Filippi). Zoologica 41,119 -128.
Herwig, H. J. (1976). Comparative ultrastructural investigations of the pineal organ of the blind cavefish Anopichthys jordani, and its ancestor, the eyed river fish, Astyanax mexicanus. Cell Tissue Res. 167,297 -324.[Medline]
Inada, K., Horie, T., Kusakabe, T. and Tsuda, M. (2003). Targeted knockdown of an opsin gene inhibits the swimming behavior photoresponse of ascidian larvae. Neurosci. Lett. 347,167 -170.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jamieson, D. and Roberts, A. (2000). Responses of young Xenopus laevis tadpoles to light dimming: possible roles of the pineal eye. J. Exp. Biol. 203,1857 -1867.[Abstract]
Jeffery, W. R. (2001). Cavefish as a model system in evolutionary developmental biology. Dev. Biol. 231,1133 -1144.
Jeffery, W. R. (2005). Adaptive evolution of
eye degeneration in the Mexican blind cavefish. J.
Hered. 96,185
-196.
Jeffery, W. R. and Martasian, D. P. (1998). Evolution of eye regression in the cavefish Astyanax: apoptosis and the Pax6 gene. Am. Zool. 38,685 -696.
Jeffery, W. R., Strickler, A. G., Guiney, S., Heyser, D. and Tomarev, S. I. (2000). Prox1 in eye degeneration and sensory organ compensation during development and evolution of the cavefish Astyanax. Dev. Genes Evol. 210,223 -230.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kajiwara, S. and Yoshida, M. (1985). Changes in
behavior and ocellar structure during the larval life of solitary ascidians.
Biol. Bull. 169,565
-577.
Kusakabe, T., Kusakabe, R., Kawakami, I., Satou, Y., Satoh, N. and Tsuda, M. (2001). Ci-opsin1, a vertebrate-type opsin gene, expressed in the larval ocellus of the ascidian Ciona intestinalis. FEBS Lett. 506, 69-72.[CrossRef][Medline]
Langecker, T. G. (1992). Persistence of ultrastructurally well-developed photoreceptor cells in the pineal organ of a phylogentically old cave-dwelling population of Astyanax fasciatus Cuvier, 1819 (Teleostei, Characidae). Z. Zool. Syst. Evol. 30,287 -296.
Langecker, T. G., Schmale, H. and Wilkens, H. (1993). Transcription of the opsin gene in degenerate eyes of cave-dwelling Astyanax fasciatus (Teleosti, Characidae) and of its conspecific epigean ancestor during early ontogeny. Cell Tissue Res. 273,183 -192.[CrossRef]
Li, X. D., Chen, S. M., Wang, Q. L., Zack, D. J., Snyder, S. H.
and Borjigin, J. (1998). A pineal regulatory element (PIRE)
mediates transactivation by the pineal/retina-specific transcription factor
CRX. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
95,1876
-1881.
Mitchell, R. W., Russell, W. H. and Elliot, W. R. (1977). Mexican eyeless characin fishes, genus Astyanax: environment, distribution, and evolution. Spec. Publ. Mus. Tex. Tech. Univ. 12,1 -89.
Montgomery, J. C., Coombs, S. and Baker, C. F. (2001). The mechanosensory lateral line system of the hypogean form of Astyanax fasciatus. Environ. Biol. Fishes 62, 87-96.[CrossRef]
Omura, Y. (1975). Influence of light and darkness on the ultrastructure of the pineal organ in the blind cave fish, Astyanax mexicanus. Cell Tissue Res. 160,99 -112.[Medline]
Parry, J. W. L., Peirson, S. N., Wilkens, H. and Bowmaker, J. K. (2003). Multiple photopigments from the Mexican blind cavefish, Astyanax fasciatus: a microspectrophotometric study. Vision Res. 43,31 -41.[CrossRef][Medline]
Protas, M., Conrad, M., Gross, J. B., Tabin, C. and Borowsky, R. (2007). Regressive evolution in the Mexican cave tetra, Astyanax mexicanus. Curr. Biol. 17, 1-3.[CrossRef][Medline]
Roberts, A. (1978). Pineal eye and behavior in Xenopus tadpoles. Nature 273,774 -775.[CrossRef][Medline]
adolu, P.
(1957). Mendelian inheritance in the hybrids between the Mexican
blind cave fishes and their overground ancestor. Verh. Dtsch. Zool.
Ges. Graz. 1957,432
-439.
Schemmel, C. (1967). Vergleichende untersuchungen an den hautsinnesorgagen over- and unterirdischlebender Astyanax-formen. Z. Morphol. Tiere 61,255 -316.[CrossRef]
Soares, D., Yamamoto, Y., Strickler, A. G. and Jeffery, W. R. (2004). The lens has a specific influence on optic nerve and tectum development in the blind cavefish Astyanax. Dev. Neurosci. 26,308 -317.[CrossRef][Medline]
Strecker, U., Fuandez, V. H. and Wilkens, H. (2004). Phylogeography of surface and cave Astyanax (Teleostei) from Central and North America based on cytochrome b sequence data. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33,469 -481.[CrossRef][Medline]
Strickler, A. G., Yamamoto, Y. and Jeffery, W. R. (2007). The lens controls cell survival in the retina: evidence from the blind cavefish Astyanax. Dev. Biol. 311,512 -523.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tabata, M. (1982). Persistence of pineal photosensory functions in blind cave fish, Astyanax mexicanus.Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 73A,125 -127.[CrossRef]
Teyke, T. (1990). Morphological differences in neuromasts of the blind cavefish Astyanax hubbsi and the sighted river fish Astyanax mexicanus. Brain Behav. Evol. 35, 23-30.[Medline]
Voneida, T. J. and Sligar, C. M. (1976). Comparative neuroanatomic study of retinal projections in two fishes: Astyanax hubbsi (the Blind Cave Fish), and Astyanax mexicanus.J. Comp. Neurol. 165,89 -105.[CrossRef][Medline]
Wilkens, H. (1988). Evolution and genetics of epigean and cave Astyanax fasciatus (Charicidae, Pisces). Evol. Biol. 23,271 -367.
Yamamoto, Y. and Jeffery, W. R. (2000). Central
role for the lens in cavefish eye degeneration.
Science 289,631
-633.
Yamamoto, Y. and Jeffery, W. R. (2002). Probing teleost eye degeneration by lens transplantation. Methods 28,420 -426.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yamamoto, Y., Espinasa, L., Stock, D. W. and Jeffery, W. R. (2003). Development and evolution of craniofacial patterning is mediated by eye-dependent and -independent processes in the cavefish Astyanax. Evol. Dev. 5,435 -446.[CrossRef][Medline]
Zachmann, A., Ali, M. A. and Falcón, J. (1992a). Melatonin and its effects in fishes: an overview. In Rhythms in Fishes (ed. M. A. Ali), pp.149 -165. New York: Plenum Press.
Zachmann, A., Falcón, J., Knijff, S. C. M., Bolliet, V. and Ali, M. A. (1992b). Effects of photoperiod and temperature on rhythmic melatonin secretion from the pineal organ of the white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) in vitro. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 86,26 -33.[CrossRef][Medline]
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
Related articles in JEB:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. Phillips BLIND LARVAE SENSE LIGHT J. Exp. Biol., February 1, 2008; 211(3): i - ii. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
