Click here to close
Hello! We notice that you are using Internet Explorer, which is not supported by Xenbase and may cause the site to display incorrectly.
We suggest using a current version of Chrome,
FireFox, or Safari.
???displayArticle.abstract???
The morphology and distribution of lateral line neuromasts vary between ecomorphological types of anuran tadpoles, but little is known about how this structural variability contributes to differences in lateral-line mediated behaviors. Previous research identified distinct differences in one such behavior, positive rheotaxis towards the source of a flow, in two tadpole species, the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis; type 1) and the American bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana; type 4). Because these two species had been tested under different flow conditions, we re-evaluated these findings by quantifying flow-sensing behaviors of bullfrog tadpoles in the same flow field in which X. laevis tadpoles had been tested previously. Early larval bullfrog tadpoles were exposed to flow in the dark, in the presence of a discrete light cue, and after treatment with the ototoxin gentamicin. In response to flow, tadpoles moved downstream, closer to a side wall, and higher in the water column, but they did not station-hold. Tadpoles exhibited positive rheotaxis, but with long latencies, low to moderate accuracy, and considerable individual variability. This is in contrast to the robust, stereotyped station-holding and accurate rheotaxis of X. laevis tadpoles. The presence of a discrete visual cue and gentamicin treatment altered spatial positioning and disrupted rheotaxis in both tadpole species. Species differences in lateral-line mediated behaviors may reflect differences in neuromast number and distribution, life history, or perceptual salience of other environmental cues.
???displayArticle.pubmedLink???
27870909
???displayArticle.pmcLink???PMC5117756 ???displayArticle.link???PLoS One ???displayArticle.grants???[+]
Fig 1. XZ spatial position at different flow speeds in Experiment 1 (tadpoles tested in the dark).(A) Untreated tadpoles, X position. (B) Untreated tadpoles, Z position. Solid green bars show position in NF (No Flow) and solid blue bars show position in WF (With Flow). (C) Treated tadpoles, X position. (D) Treated tadpoles, Z position. Hatched green bars show position in NF and hatched blue bars show position in WF. All positions are shown as mean +/- standard deviation. The horizontal dashed line on each plot shows the midpoint of the tank in that dimension. Both untreated and treated tadpoles move towards the back of the tank in the X dimension (A,C) and farther up in the water column in the Z dimension (B,D).
Fig 2. Changes in X position of individual tadpoles during NF and WF periods.(A) Untreated tadpoles. (B) Treated tadpoles. The NF period extends from 30 to 300 seconds and the WF period extends from 330 to 600 seconds. Flow is turned on at 300 seconds (vertical dashed line on each plot). Each colored line shows data from one tadpole at one flow speed. Tadpoles do not station hold in NF or in WF. Streamwise movements were reduced at a flow speed of 10 cm/s although crosswise movements still occurred. Tadpoles initiated movements within the first 30 second time interval after the flow is turned on, and change in movements were similar for untreated and treated tadpoles.
Fig 3. Y positioning of individual tadpoles during NF and WF periods.(A) Untreated tadpoles. Each data point shows the mean Y position of one tadpole over the NF period (dark yellow circles) and over the WF period (dark red triangles). Data are not separated by flow speed, because data points overlapped substantially. Over all tadpoles, the mean Y position in NF is 7.2 and the mean Y position in WF is 7.6, as shown by the color-coded dashed lines. (B) Treated tadpoles. Data in NF are shown as dark yellow squares and data in WF are shown as dark red inverted triangles. The mean Y position in NF is 7.5 and the mean Y position in WF is 8.3, as shown by the color-coded dashed lines. Tadpoles are more clustered towards the middle of the tank in NF than in WF, with treated tadpoles positioned farther towards one side in WF.
Fig 4. Orientation headings at different flow speeds in Experiment 1 (tadpoles tested in the dark).Circular plots (in degrees) showing orientation headings for untreated (A) and treated (B) tadpoles tested in NF (top row) and WF (bottom row) at different flow speeds (columns). The top NF plot (untreated, 2cm/s) shows the circular reference points (in degrees). The arrows on the left of the WF plots point to 0°, the crosswise midpoint of the source of the flow. An animal showing perfect positive rheotaxis would be oriented towards 0°. Red triangles (bin width of 5°) in each plot show the mean orientation, summed over ten time intervals (300 second total sampling time), of each individual tadpole. The length of the triangles indicates how many individual tadpoles exhibited that particular orientation. The numbers inside the circular plots in WF are the vector strengths of the orientation response. Results of the modified Rayleigh test (u, with corresponding P values) are shown below these plots. P values of 0.001 or below are statistically significant, according to our criterion. Statistical significance was not obtained in any NF condition.
Fig 5. Spatial positioning in XZ dimensions in Experiment 2 (testing in the presence of a light cue).(A) Mean (+/- standard deviation) X positioning. (B) Mean (+/- standard deviation) Z positioning. Light location (upstream or downstream) and flow condition (NF, WF) are indicated on the x axis. In all plots, the dashed line shows the midpoint of the tank in that dimension. Untreated tadpoles are shown by the dark green bars and treated tadpoles are shown by the hatched dark blue bars. The presence and location of the light cue strongly affects positioning in the X dimension, while treatment affects positioning in the Z dimension.
Fig 6. Orientation headings in Experiment 2 (testing in the presence of a light cue).Circular plots showing orientation headings of tadpoles tested in NF (top row) and WF (bottom row) in two light conditions (columns). Data are shown separately for untreated and treated animals. Tadpoles were not significantly oriented towards the location of the light cue (shown by the light symbol) or towards the source of the flow (in WF).
Fig 7. DASPEI-stained neuromasts in bullfrog tadpoles.(A) Supra- and infra-orbital lines in an untreated stage 26tadpole. Rostral is to the right. Scale bar = 1mm. (B) Composite of images from the tail of an untreated stage 25tadpole. The trunk is to the left and the tip of the tail is to the right. (C) Supra- and infraorbital lines in a gentamicin-treated stage 26tadpole. In all images, DASPEI fluoresces yellow. Images have been adjusted for brightness, contrast and color balance.
Fig 8. Comparison of rheotaxis behaviors in bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis).Tadpoles at comparable developmental stages were tested in the same flow tank at flow speeds of 2 and 4 cm/s. Black bars show data from bullfrogs and red bars show data from African clawed frogs. (A) Percent of animals showing significant positive rheotaxis. At both flow speeds, all African clawed frog tadpoles show rheotaxis, compared to a mean of 58% of bullfrog tadpoles. (B) Latency to achieve rheotaxis is longer in bullfrog tadpoles (mean of 183 seconds; including responses of animals that did not reach the criterion for rheotaxis) than in African clawed frog tadpoles (mean of 37 seconds). (C) Vector strength of the orientation response is higher in African clawed frog tadpoles (mean of 0.90) compared to bullfrog tadpoles (mean of 0.40).
Bak-Coleman,
Sedentary behavior as a factor in determining lateral line contributions to rheotaxis.
2014, Pubmed
Bak-Coleman,
Sedentary behavior as a factor in determining lateral line contributions to rheotaxis.
2014,
Pubmed
Bak-Coleman,
The spatiotemporal dynamics of rheotactic behavior depends on flow speed and available sensory information.
2013,
Pubmed
Brown,
Reevaluating the use of aminoglycoside antibiotics in behavioral studies of the lateral line.
2011,
Pubmed
Buck,
Ototoxin-induced cellular damage in neuromasts disrupts lateral line function in larval zebrafish.
2012,
Pubmed
Claas,
Reaction to surface waves by Xenopus laevis Daudin. Are sensory systems other than the lateral line involved?
1993,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Drucker,
Locomotor forces on a swimming fish: three-dimensional vortex wake dynamics quantified using digital particle image velocimetry.
1999,
Pubmed
Hatze,
High-precision three-dimensional photogrammetric calibration and object space reconstruction using a modified DLT-approach.
1988,
Pubmed
Hedrick,
Software techniques for two- and three-dimensional kinematic measurements of biological and biomimetic systems.
2008,
Pubmed
Lannoo,
Neuromast topography in anuran amphibians.
1987,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Lum,
Schooling behavior of tadpoles: a potential indicator of ototoxicity.
1982,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Olive,
Rheotaxis of Larval Zebrafish: Behavioral Study of a Multi-Sensory Process.
2016,
Pubmed
Olszewski,
Zebrafish larvae exhibit rheotaxis and can escape a continuous suction source using their lateral line.
2012,
Pubmed
Quinzio,
The lateral line system in anuran tadpoles: neuromast morphology, arrangement, and innervation.
2014,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Roberts,
Responses of hatchling Xenopus tadpoles to water currents: first function of lateral line receptors without cupulae.
2009,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Schmidt,
Movements of Rana catesbeiana tadpoles in weak current flows resemble a directed random walk.
2011,
Pubmed
Shelton,
The structure and function of the lateral line system in larval Xenopus laevis.
1971,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Simmons,
Flow sensing in developing Xenopus laevis is disrupted by visual cues and ototoxin exposure.
2015,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Simmons,
Lateral line-mediated rheotactic behavior in tadpoles of the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis).
2004,
Pubmed
,
Xenbase
Song,
Damage and recovery of hair cells in fish canal (but not superficial) neuromasts after gentamicin exposure.
1995,
Pubmed
Suli,
Rheotaxis in larval zebrafish is mediated by lateral line mechanosensory hair cells.
2012,
Pubmed
Van Trump,
Gentamicin is ototoxic to all hair cells in the fish lateral line system.
2010,
Pubmed
Van Trump,
The lateral line system is not necessary for rheotaxis in the Mexican blind cavefish (Astyanax fasciatus).
2013,
Pubmed
