Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adaptation. Show all posts

Tricky Little Buggers

Biology concepts – immune defense, antibiotic resistance

Naim Süleymanoğlu is better known as Pocket
Hercules (4' 10"). He was born in Bulgaria, but is
of Turkish descent. He competed and retired
several times, and won gold medals from 1983
to 1998. He is one of the first competitors to
lift more than 2.5x his own body weight.

Therewas a small Turkish weightlifter a few years back whose nickname was “Pocket Hercules.” He won gold medals in three separate Olympics and was the one the best examples of big things in little packages. Last week we talked about the immune systems of vertebrates, invertebrates and plants, now let’s talk about the defenses of the smallest organisms – bacteria are the Pocket Hercules of biology.

Do bacteria have defense mechanisms? You bet – they get attacked all the time.  For bacteria that stray into or purposefully target animal or plant hosts, the perils are many and varied. Antimicrobial peptides try to burst them, antibodies try to bind them up and point them out to killer cells. Macrophages and other phagocytic cells try to eat them or wall them off from the other host cells. Organisms will even sacrifice their own cells just to make sure they kill the bacteria. It’s a jungle out there.

We don’t have the time nor the room to go into the thousands of ways that bacteria protect themselves from plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate immune attack, but we can give a few examples, like deception. Mimicry is when a bacterial antigen looks much like one of our molecules, so that the body is either fooled into not attacking, or tempers its attack.

Other bacteria change their clothes to remain hidden. Just when an immune system sees it and starts the attack, Neisseria gonorrhoeae changes its surface molecules and becomes invisible again. On the other hand, Yersinia pestis remains invisible by living inside macrophages.

Some bacteria stunt our antibody response. The best way to keep from being attacked is to not allow the host to recognize and identify you. The bacteria that cause TB inhibit our immune system from producing specific antibodies. 
Some bacteria vary the antigens they show on
their surface in order to evade the immune system.
In this bacterium, the dark areas are stained for
one particular surface antigen. You can see that
some of the cells have none of that protein, some
have only that surface protein, and some have
discrete areas where that protein is expressed.

The defense is a good offense, so some bacteria attack. Pseudomonas strains kill the phagocytic cells that would try to eat them by releasing chemicals called aggressins. Staphylococcus aureus just confuses the phagocytes, producing toxins that stop their movement or make them move erratically.

These are but a few of the many bacterial defenses against our immune system. But they have evolved defenses against other threats as well, like our attempts to kill them with antibiotics.

We talked earlier about multidrug efflux pumps in bacteria that pump out the antibiotics with which we try to kill them. This is related to the stories in the media about antibiotic resistance in bacterial pathogens, but classic antibiotic resistance genes are often plasmid based defenses,as we have discussed. Recently, an additional defense against antibiotics has been recognized.

It seems most bacteria produce hydrogen sulfide (H2S, smells like rotten eggs), which was previously thought to be only a metabolic byproduct. A late 2011 studyshows that H2S is part of an integrated defense system used by almost all bacteria. The gas works to prevent oxidative damage. This is not unheard of since a few bacteria produce nitric oxide to do the same thing, but it is being recognized now that oxidative stress induction is a big part of how many antibiotics work. When the H2S system was turned off in several pathogens, they became much more sensitive to antibiotics. Maybe this a lesson we can exploit in the future.

In addition to our attempts to kill them, the universe itself is a tough place to survive if you are a bacterium. They may end up in bright sunlight for long periods of time, or hurtling through space on a rocket or meteor. Bacteria have ways to protect themselves here as well. Ultraviolet radiation from the sun is a mutagen (causes mutations in DNA), but it also can break down cellular molecules to release oxygen radicals, like hydrogen peroxide or superoxide.

It has been known since the 1950’s that pyruvate and catalase, as well as the newly discovered H2S discussed above, do some work in protecting the cell against oxidative damage, but a 2009 study described a whole new mechanism. It seems that E. coli has two proteins that seek out, identify, and repair oxygen radical-mediated damage to sulphur-containing cysteine amino acids within proteins.

Cysteine is the most reactive of the 20 common amino acids, which means that it are often located in the functional site of enzymes (where the enzyme reacts with the substrate). However, this reactivity also makes cysteine vulnerable to reaction with radicals, especially oxygen radicals, after which it becomes modified and non-functional.

Disulphide bonds are formed between adjacent cysteines on the 
same peptide, far apart cysteines on the same peptides, 
or between cysteines on different peptides. When 
you (not me) get a permanent wave for your hair, the 
disulphide bonds are broken or rearranged by a reducing agent. 
To prevent this radical-mediated damage, cysteines often occur in pairs, where links between the sulphurs of the two cysteines help to prevent oxidation (called disulfide bonds, they also serve to link peptides together and give proteins their proper form). A 2008 study showed that this mechanism provides unusual oxidative stability to a cysteine-containing enzyme of the bacterium, Desulfovibrio africanus.

But there are exceptions; lone cysteines do occur, and these are the cysteines most vulnerable to oxidative damage. The DsbG and DsbC proteins of E. coli patrol the cytoplasm looking for oxidized cysteines to fix.

Here is how ingenious the system is – oxidizing a cysteine may or may not unfold the protein, so DSbG is charged and can interact with the still-folded proteins to correct the cysteine problem, but DsbC is uncharged, so it works better with proteins that have been unfolded. Amazing - and bacteria developed it all on their own – well, with the help of the evolutionary pressure of things trying to kill them.

I mentioned that radiation is also a DNA mutagen. The mutagenic properties of radiation affect bacteria just like they affect us; it is just that some bacteria can protect themselves better once their DNA is damaged. Follow me closely here - by using protein repair and protection systems, bacteria like E. coli, with its DsbG and C enzymes, can keep protein functions going when other organisms would break down and die. Some of these protein functions include DNA repair after mutagenesis. So - some bacteria don’t survive radiation because they protect their DNA better, they survive because they repair the damage better.
This is an overlap of different types of images of a
radiodurans bacterium. The circles of blue green and
pink show high concentrations of manganese, while
red is iron. The manganese is clustered around the
DNA and works to repair it after radiation damage.

Other bacteria have a different mechanism to maintain protein function. According to a 2010 study, a shield of manganese metal atoms and phosphates was found in D. radiodurans. It had been long known that manganese was present in very high levels in bacteria that are most resistant to radiation, but its function was unknown.

The recent study shows that these manganese complexes work together to protect proteins from radiation damage, but not DNA. The key for this system is to keep proteins functioning, which can then repair any radiation damage to the DNA. This mechanism allows D. radiodurans to withstand prolonged radiation that is 1000x stronger than that which would kill a human.

So, bacteria have defenses against immune and environmental attacks. Does anything else attack bacteria? How about other bacteria - it’s dog eat dog out there, competition for resources is brutal. Many bacteria have poisons (bacteriocins) that inhibit or kill bacteria that are distantly related (because related types of bacteria are likely to be in the same places looking for the same food). 

One type of bacteriocin are the lantibiotics. These protein toxins contain a nonstandard amino acid, called lanthionine. We mentioned above that cysteines are very reactive; lanthionine is a modified circular (polycylic) cysteine that gives the toxin its reactivity. And because it is cyclic, it is much less vulnerable to oxidative damage itself – funny how bacteria seem to cover their bases so well.

This is so cool. Bacteria that are engineered to produce
light were injected into rats. The rat in the middle was
also given a bacterium producing a bacteriocin to the
light producing bacteria. The whole rat bodies were
imaged while they were still alive to see if the bacteria
were alive and reproducing. Live animal imaging is a
great tool that is becoming more popular. Image by S.
C. Corr and P. G. Casey.
Lantibioticscome in two types, they either form pores in Gram+ bacterial cell walls or inhibit the cell wall formation. Because they attack only specific types of bacteria, lantibiotics are useful in cheese-making; they allow some bacteria to grow and ripen the cheese, while killing those that would cause the cheese to spoil. One type B lantibiotic just came through its phase I clinical trial in July 2012 with flying colors (phase I trials are meant only to test safety, not effectiveness).

A recent discovery illustrates just how bacteriocins are delivered to the target organism. It seems that bacteria can build a spike and a spike launching system anywhere on their cell membrane. The spike is spring loaded in a tube just 80 atoms long, and is fired at the target cell. Then the bacteriocin is released at the end of the spike to do its damage.

The release of toxin was already known, called a type IV secretion system, but the CalTech study that identified the spring-loaded spike as the delivery system is very new. Once fired, the whole system is broken down, ready to be rebuilt somewhere else in the cell. Amazing. (click for video)

Of course, for every punch there is an evolutionary counterpunch, so there are bacteriocin resistance mechanisms as well. Nisin, a bacteriocin active against strains of listeria, is approved as a food preservative. But listeria can spontaneously develop resistance to nisin. It appears that some strains change their membrane chemistry in order to render nisin ineffective. Therefore resistance could be a problem if we pursue the use of bacteriocins as antibiotics; we might end up back in the same situation that we're in now.

Regardless of this possible downside, scientists have found a way to bring bacteriocins into the battle against antibiotic resistance. An E. coli has been engineered to contain the gene for pyocin, a bacteriocin that kills strains of Pseudomonas bacteria. E.coliand Pseudomonas are not closely related, so E. coli would not naturally possess this toxin, scientists added the gene to the E. coli.

This is schematic of the engineered bacteria to kill Pseudomonas.
P. aeruginosa make chemicals when their numbers reach a
certain density. These trigger pyocin production in the E. coli,
but also triggers the production of the protein that lyses the
E. coli. When lysed, the pyocin attacks the P. aeruginosa.
When the engineered bacteria encounters Pseudomonas, it does two things; it produces the pyocin toxin to kill the target cell, and the engineered E. coli commits suicide. No release system has been engineered into the E. coli, so the only way they get the pyocin to the target is to have the E. coli produce a lysin that destroys its own cell membrane.

This suicide accomplishes two things, it releases the pyocin to kill the target, and it prevents the engineered E. coli from hanging around forever, possibly trading genes with other bacteria or causing havoc in some unforeseen way.

So it looks like bacteria have it made. They can resist immune system attacks, some can resist environmental onslaughts, they even have ways to protect themselves against competition and threats from other bacteria. No wonder they have always been the predominate life form on Earth. But bacteria do have foes of considerable power – veritable “Micro-Hercules” – we will meet them after Thanksgiving.

Let’s take a couple weeks to talk about the biology of turkeys and the so-called “tryptophan nap.”


Basler, M., Pilhofer, M., Henderson, G., Jensen, G., & Mekalanos, J. (2012). Type VI secretion requires a dynamic contractile phage tail-like structure Nature, 483 (7388), 182-186 DOI: 10.1038/nature10846

Saeidi, N., Wong, C., Lo, T., Nguyen, H., Ling, H., Leong, S., Poh, C., & Chang, M. (2011). Engineering microbes to sense and eradicate Pseudomonas aeruginosa, a human pathogen Molecular Systems Biology, 7 DOI: 10.1038/msb.2011.55

For more information or classroom activities, see:

Bacterial defenses–

Bacteriocins –
see Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) for more information on these defenses.

Big Bugs, Little Bugs

The titan beetle (Titanus giganteus), is not necessarily
a gentle giant. Its jaws can snap pencils and easily cut
into human flesh…. and they fly. Calm down, the adults
don’t feed, they just look for mates, so you won’t wake
to one nibbling your toes away.
Today, the biggest insects are goliath beetles, atlas moths, and giant stick insects. But during the carboniferous period (360 -300 million years ago), there were millipedes that were 2 m (6 ft) long and dragonflies (order Protodonata) the size of eagles!

Today’s question is:
How did insects get so big, and if they were big once, why are they so much smaller now?

It wasn’t just the insects that grew large way back then, the first large plants flourished in this same time period. Some ferns grew to be 20 m (65 ft) or more in height, and the diameters of trunks were increased. While not as big as today’s largest plants, the change was significant, as plants before this period did not exceed 3 to 5 ft in height.There was plentiful carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the environment was warm all year round. This allowed lots of photosynthesis and lots of growth.

Nice picture to give scale, but humans and the
Arthropleura never co-existed. Even though the
species alive today aren’t as big, you still have
to beware. Many centipedes are venomous and
some millipedes can emit hydrogen cyanide gas.
Plants were evolving lignan in this carboniferous period (carbonis = coal, and ferrous = producing). Lignan is the stiffest of the plant molecules and is what allows them to grow tall.  This is also what gives the carboniferous period its name, as the lignan of plants is the major component of the coal that formed from their remains.

Horsetails, another type of plant of the carboniferous age and which are still around today, also grew much bigger. Horsetails today do not get any taller than about 1 m (3 ft), but in the carboniferous period, they were often 10-15 m (33-48 ft) tall.

Butit was the arthropods that get all the publicity. Scorpions almost a meter in length deserve to have a lot of attention paid to them! And consider the yuck factor of a 7 inch cockroach scurrying around at your feet.

The plants got big during the Carboniferous period.
Some lycophyte trees were 30 m (98 ft) tall and had
trunks of 2 m (6.5 ft) diameter. Their closest
relatives today are the club mosses, which are about
20 cm or less in height. Talk about deflating your ego.

What allowed these animals to grow so large? Scientists think it was related to the lignan. With lignan, the plants could grow larger and support more photosynthetic material. The carboniferous period is when the first forests appeared.

With more and bigger plants, more carbon dioxide was converted to carbohydrate, and more oxygen was produced as a result. The oxygen content of the air in the carboniferous period reached levels of 35% or more (today it is about 21%).

More oxygen in the air meant that more oxygen could be transferred into the blood of animals.  They could carry out more oxidative phosphorylation and produce more cellular energy (ATP), especially since there was all this plant material around to eat to gain carbohydrates (or plant-eaters to hunt down and eat). This growth spurt especially applied to animals without traditional circulatory systems. Insects, for instance.

Insectsuse spiracles on the sides of their bodies to take in air. The oxygen and other gases are moved through a system of smaller and smaller tubes (called trachea) to bring the oxygen to all the cells of the body. The carbon dioxide produced during cellular respiration is removed in the same way.

The spiracles of a flea are on the side of its abdomen
and the air travels through the tracheae to bring
oxygen to every cell. It seems like he would drown if
he took a dip in the hot tub.
This is not a particularly efficient way to move gases in and out of cells. A slightly bigger bug must have a much more voluminous system of trachea, and at some point, the respiratory system would have to be bigger than the entire volume of the insect! There would be no room for all the other organs. But with a high concentration of oxygen, the spiracle/tracheae system is efficient enough, and the insects can grow very large.

Highoxygen in the air also meant high oxygen in the water. Carboniferous era fish and amphibians grew large as well. Some toothed fishes of this time were impressive predators, and were more than 7 meters (23 ft) in length. Isopods in the oceans were also huge. Even today some of these crustaceans can be pretty impressive. Bathynomus giganteus can grow to more than over 16 inches in length. 

So big plants brought big oxygen levels, which brought big animals. But why are the arthropods so much smaller today as compared to then? Well, the oxygen levels are lower now, so according to a 2006 study the inefficient spiracles system could not support the large body. Insects had to get smaller.

Here is an isopod that grabbed a ride when a deep sea remotely operated 
vehicle was recovered. They look even creepier from the front with 
silver eyes. Isopods are related to shrimp and crabs; I think we’re going 
to need much more butter and lemon.
But there is an additional hypothesis that may also contribute to the small size of many insects, especially flying insects. According to a 2012 study, the size of flying insects is related to another aspect of oxygen. When the explosion of plants in the carboniferous period raised the oxygen levels, the air became more dense (oxygen is a heavier gas). The insects were able to become better fliers, since their wings could move more air.

The data says that one reason flying insect
got smaller was to avoid being easy catches for the birds
that were becoming better fliers and hunters. Really?
Name me a couple birds that would go after this guy if
he was flying today.

Millionsof years later, birds evolved. As they became better fliers (their ability was also based on their ability to move air over their wings), they became better hunters. Better hunting birds could catch flying insects (and terrestrial insects for that matter) better. So it became a disadvantage to be big. The smaller insects now had a reproductive advantage; they were the only ones surviving to have offspring. Over a period of time, the insects grew smaller on the whole.

So today we have fairly small arthropods and insects, although my wife has personally never seen a small insect. According to her they are all large enough to carry off small children and have evil looks in their eyes.

Matthew E. Clapham1 and Jered A. Karr (2012). Environmental and biotic controls on the evolutionary history of insect body size Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1204026109

Next week – ideas for long studies on the nature of science.

Do You Drink Like A Fish?

Biology concepts – fish osmoregulation, shark osmoregulation, semelparity, iteroparity


The irony of fish drinking is not lost on this café in
the Hotel Portofino at Universal Orlando. What I
really like is the eye patch.
You’d think that fish would never be thirsty; if he needs a drink, he just opens his mouth. But some fish don’t drink a drop! Wouldn’t that be similar to some birds never breathing? Ridiculous.

Fish are good examples of the problems of maintaining proper water and salt concentrations. Some fish live in freshwater, and some in saltwater. These are opposite sides of the same coin when dealing with osmoregulation.

Freshwater fish live in a hypotonic (low salt) environment. The flesh of the fish contains more salt than does the water. Diffusion and osmosis work to equalize salt concentrations in different compartments. Therefore, water will move from the lake or river into the fish’s tissues in order to balance the salt concentrations by osmosis. Salt will not move out of the tissues, since there are molecular mechanisms that work to keep the inside.

Like the kangaroo rat, freshwater fish don’t drink. They do take in water when they eat and move water across their gills, but they don’t take in water just for the water. Even without drinking specifically, freshwater fish take in way more water than they need. Anywhere freshwater contacts a fish cell, water will move inward; this includes the gills, the mouth and gut, and the skin.

In a situation like this, kidney-mediated concentration of urine would be counterproductive; why retain water when water is exactly what you have too much of? Therefore, freshwater fish excrete large amounts of urine. Their kidneys have large glomeruli, which move lots of water into the collecting tubules for excretion.


Saltwater and freshwater fish have different ways of
dealing with salt and water loss and conservation.
Freshwater fish must conserve salt, while saltwater
fish must conserve water. The kidneys play a role,
but so do the chloride cells in the gills.
But if the freshwater fish aren’t drinking, how do they get their salt, which is present in low concentrations in the water? You’d think they would have to be drinking all the time just to collect enough salt.  To get around this, they conserve the salt they ingest through the food they eat. They also take in salts through their gill chloride cells, actively pumping sodium and chloride out of the freshwater and into cells that have a lot of mitochondria (to provide energy to pump the salts). The relatively short collecting tubules of the freshwater fish kidney allow for reuptake of a lot of salt, while excluding almost all the water.

Marine (saltwater) fish have the opposite problem. Their tissues are of much lower salt than they surrounding hypertonic ocean, so osmosis wants to dry them out, sending water out of their bodies. The amount of available drinking water is extremely low - can you imagine dying of dehydration while surrounded by water. Just ask anyone who has survived a shipwreck and prolonged float in the ocean; drinking seawater can be lethal.

However, marine fish must drink all the time in order to keep enough water in their body. Retaining water would be an essential function of marine fish kidneys. They are all fish, but their kidneys work in exactly opposite ways.  Marine kidneys have small or absent glomeruli, so little water is taken out of the blood, but long collecting tubules in order to excrete as much salt as possible.

Drinking a lot of saltwater leaves marine fish with way too much salt; more than their kidneys can get rid of. To aid in salt excretion, they also have chloride cells in their gills. In the opposite fashion of the specialized gill cells of freshwater fish, the chloride cells of saltwater fish actively sequester salts from the blood, and then pump the sodium and chloride out into the seawater.


Sharks have unique ways of maintaining
salt and water. I have no idea of their
mechanisms for pepper regulation.
But sharks are an exception among marine fish. They have a different way to combat high salt concentrations. Remember that osmosis means that water moves from areas of low solute (high water concentration) to areas of high solute (lower water concentration). For many marine fish, this would mean a constant loss of body water to the ocean and quick death by dehydration; much like pouring salt on a slug.

To overcome this movement, sharks produce and retain a huge amount of a chemical called urea; it is one of the soluble wastes that animals normally get rid of. This molecule doesn’t affect the electrical potential that salts create, but increases the solute concentration in the shark’s tissues at levels higher than in the seawater, so water (without the salt) will diffuse into the shark’s body. This is its source of fresh water.

Therefore, sharks are osmoconformers; they maintain an osmotic balance with their environment. If the shark becomes too salty and salt needs to be excreted, it has a salt gland, much like that of birds and reptiles, but the shark’s gland is located in it anus, not near its eyes or nose – that’s a big difference! Taken together, there is no force for movement of water in or out of the shark’s tissues, and the shark remains shark-shaped instead of shriveling or swelling up.


Here is a bullshark caught in the Potomac River.
And you thought that sharks in Washington D.C.
were just in the federal buildings.
An exception to this rule for sharks is the bull shark; it can live in both saltwater and freshwater. Most sharks put into in freshwater would absorb too much water and die of water toxicity. However, the bull shark’s kidneys can adjust to the salinity of the water within a short period of time. Their kidneys will remove less salt and more urea from their blood and tissues and into their urine. They move from being osmoconformers to osmoregulators.

A shark that can live in freshwater; this can present a real problem. There have been many bull shark attacks in rivers and estuaries (video), where people don’t expect to encounter sharks. It is suggested that this behavior and physiology is an adaptation that gives the bull shark a protected nursery for their young, away from predators.

Most fish are stenohaline (Greek, steno = narrow and haline = salt), which means they are restricted to either salt or fresh water and cannot survive in water with a different salt concentration than to that which they are adapted. However, there are exceptions- like the bull shark mentioned just a second ago.

Some salmon species are born in freshwater, then move to saltwater for several years, and then return to freshwater to spawn. Other fish, like some eels, are born in a marine environment, move to freshwater, and then go back out to sea to reproduce. If freshwater and saltwater fish kidneys work opposite of one another, how can there be fish that can do both?


Salmon returning upstream to spawn have many obstacles
to overcome. Their spawning grounds are usually a thousand
feet or more above sea level so they must leap up many
waterfalls. Oh, there are hungry bears too.
Salmon are famous for migrating to and from the sea. Almost all the species are semelparous (in Latin, semel = once and parous = breeding); this means that they return to their freshwater streams to spawn only once, and the trip and the reproduction kills them. The one exception is the Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). This species is spawned in, and returns to, the calm streams along the Atlantic coast several times in its life to spawn. This reproductive strategy is call iteroparity (itero = repeated). Iteroparous species lay fewer eggs at a time, the advantage is that survival chance is increased by repeated spawning – one bad year doesn’t destroy a big proportion of the population.

The migratory species of salmon are osmoregulators, as are most freshwater fish; their physiology demands a certain salinity level, and use energy to produce that level in their tissues. However, they can also adapt to various salinity levels. As such, these salmon as well as bull sharks are known as euryhaline (eu = good, haline = salt). Their physiology changes with the salt concentration.

While in freshwater the salmon will not drink, and will produce copious amounts of urine to get rid of the excess water it absorbs through osmosis.  But when it migrates to the ocean, it drinks all the time, and its kidneys work hard to remove the excess salts.


Chloride cells in euryhaline fish can sequester or
excrete salt, based on the hormone signals they receive.
This helps some fish move from aquatic to marine
environments and back again.
But the gills are the key to survival in the both the freshwater and saltwater environments. Energy consuming reactions will transport both Na+ and Cl- against their gradients, so they pump Na+ and Cl- into the fish’s tissues in freshwater and out of the fish’s tissues in saltwater. It is an adaptation of the marine fish’s chloride cells to work in both directions. This switch, as well as the kidney’s change in urine concentration, takes time. Therefore, salmon will spend days or weeks in intermediate zones, or estuaries, before going out to the ocean, and before returning to the rivers.

These are difficult lifestyle choices for salmon, the trips and the spawning kills them. So what is the advantage? The movement to oceans provides the growing salmon with readily available sources of food, so competition is reduced. The return to where they were spawned is just a good bet; if the stream was good enough to spawn them, then it is still probably a good place to lay eggs. Finally, working so hard to get to the spawning ground just a single time allows for selection of strong individuals, allows for huge numbers of eggs to be laid (the chance that some survive goes up), and the death and decomposition of the adults provides nutrients for the hatched fry (baby salmon). But these are human interpretations, I bet there are other advantages and disadvantages. However,  one thing is for sure, the balance sheet for these species comes out in favor of these adaptations – if it did not, nature would adapt further.


The eggs that don’t hatch and the carcasses of the mated
Adults create nutrient rich waters for the fry to develop in
before they head out to sea.
How about one more exception for today? Some individuals in semelparous species of salmon (Chinook, Coho, Pink, Steelhead, etc.) will not die after spawning, and will return again to the ocean. These individuals are often females, and are often smaller than average. These gals reverse their salt and water conservation strategies several times in their lives, making them prize winners for osmoregulatory exceptionality.

Next week, let’s tackle how the properties of hard water affect all life on Earth.





For more information and classroom activities on osmoregulation in fish and sharks, chloride cells, and reproduction strategies, see:

Osmoregulation in fish –

Chloride cells –

Osmoregulation in sharks –

semelparity and iteroparity –
http://web2.uwindsor.ca/courses/biology/weis/55-324/lecture9.htm

Don’t Eat The Yellow Snow

Biology concepts – osmoregulation, tonicity, phytohormones, avian kidney, pinnieds, cetaceans


African elephants are larger than asian elephants, but their
urine production is similar. A 2007 study found that
African elephants can differentiate family members
based on their urine. It is similar to marking territory,
but they use urine to keep track of family members who
may be out of sight.
The asian elephant can urinate as much as 55 liters/day. That's about 3/4 of the volume of the average size bathtub! By comparison, the vaunted racehorse can only manage about 6 liters/day. Maybe we should rethink that old saying.

We know from the posts of the last few weeks that both salts and water are necessary for life, and that they work together to keep their concentrations within safe limits; a process called osmoregulation. You suspect correctly that kidneys and urination is involved, but what about plants – they don’t use the restroom.

For many animals, the kidney is the major organ of osmoregulation. The average adult human voids 1-2 liters of urine each day, but an uncontrolled diabetic with polyuria (poly=much and uria=urine) might expel 5-6 liters. Maybe we should bet on diabetics at the racetrack.

We get rid of water and soluble wastes via our kidneys. The kidneys filter the blood; nearly 800 liters of the red stuff each day. The basic filtering unit of the kidney is the nephron, who we met previously (Sorry, I Don’t Drink), made up of the Bowman’s capsule and sets of tubules.


Solutions of different tonicity have similar effects on plant
and animal cells, but plant cells can handle it better because
they have a rigid cell wall.
If the body is low on water, more water is reabsorbed in the tubules. Likewise, if the body has too much salt, few of the salt ions are reabsorbed in the tubules. In this way, our kidneys are basically concentrating our wastes in a small amount of water for excretion from the body. The amount of water depends on many factors, including the need to keep the cells at the right level of tonicity (concentration of salt relative to outside the cells).

Solutions can be hypertonic, meaning they have more salt than the cytoplasm, and water will flow out of cells by osmosis. Solutions can also be hypotonic, with less salt than in the cells (water will flow in to the cells) or isotonic, with the same osmotic pressure inside the cells as outside.

We all know that we don’t urinate the same amount all the time – drink more, go more. However, you don’t urinate the same amount you drink; your urine is concentrated by your kidneys in order to conserve water. Therefore, there must be some control mechanism. The answer is hormones. A hormone (“to set in motion” in Greek) is a small protein that is released from one cell and then acts as a chemical signal on other cells, either through the bloodstream (endocrine hormones) or through a duct (exocrine hormones) to the bloodstream or directly to other cells.


The angiotensin system. 1. The body senses that water
is low. 2. The kidney releases renin. 3. Renin  and
angiotensin converting enzyme produce angiotensin II
from angiotensin I in the lung. 4. Angiotensin II stimulates
aldosterone in the adrenal glands. 5. Aldosterone causes
more water and salt to be reabsorbed in the Loop of Henle;
this increases the blood volume and solves the problem.
Aldosterone is produced by the adrenal glands and acts on the distal collecting tubules of the kidneys. This endocrine hormone acts to conserve sodium and water and secrete postassium, thereby reducing urine volume but increasing the loss of potassium.  Aldosterone is released in response to angiotensin levels in the plasma, which in turn are controlled by sodium and water levels in the blood.

Arginine vasopressin (AVP, also called antidiuretic hormone) is another endocrine hormone that reduces the amount of water to be lost in the urine. This hormone is produced in the pituitary gland of the brain and also works to conserve water. By reducing the amount of water lost, the blood volume (which is mostly water) is increased, so blood pressure increases. This is why people are given intravenous fluids when they have lost a lot of blood.

The exceptions to this mechanism of kidney function are the mammals that live in hypertonic (saltwater) environments, like whales and dolphins (cetaceans) and seals or walruses (pinnipeds, latin for feather- or fin-footed). It is hard to study the urination in these animals in their native environment; they urinate in the ocean. Are you going to measure their individual contribution to the ocean – I think not.

Water wants to flow out of the cells and into the sea (hypertonic as compared to the cells), trying to balance the salt concentrations in both places. Therefore, the marine mammals must conserve freshwater or they become dehydrated. Both pinnipeds and cetaceans have large kidneys with enough renal tubule length to produce very concentrated urine, thereby conserving water. However, it appears cetaceans don’t really take advantage of this. Instead, they make a lot of metabolic water (Gimme Some Dihydromonoxide) and can keep from dehydrating by using the water they produce through cellular respiration.


Here is an inside view of a seal kidney. It’s huge! The many
lobules provides much tubular area to take up freshwater
and concentrate the urine.
Pinnipeds don’t drink water saltwater to any degree at all, they get their freshwater from their diet and their metabolic water.  Scientists use to think this was also true for cetaceans, but recent studies show that they do drink a small bit of seawater – not enough meet their water needs, but also not more than their kidney’s can handle.

Don’t think that marine (saltwater) mammals have it so bad. If they were to abandon the seas for freshwater sources, they would just trade one problem for another. Freshwater mammals have too much of a good thing, they run the risk of losing too much salt by being in so much salt poor (hypotonic) water all the time. This is why the kidney is so amazing, it can adapt functionally and anatomically to get rid of too much water or too much salt, depending on where you are. That is not to say the kidney is the only anatomic mechanism needed to maintain osmolarity within a tight range. Many organisms need more than kidneys, and have developed completely different mechanisms of osmoregulation.


Bird kidneys may be small, but they represent an evolutionary
intermediate, Some parts have short loops, like most mammals,
and some have long loops, like pinnipeds and cetaceans. However,
most of the kidney has reptile-like nephrons with long loops.
Birds share some water conserving and salt regulating apparatus with mammals. Avian (bird) kidneys have about 75% of their nephrons with reptilian structure, and 25% mammalian nephrons, containing a Loop of Henle. Therefore, avian kidneys are not as good at removing water and regulating salts as mammals are. Mammal urine can be concentrated 20-50x as compared to blood (the Kangaroo rat can produce a 9000x concentration), but birds can only manifest about a 2-3 fold concentration.

Therefore, birds have another mechanism to get rid of salt and maintain an osmotic potential within its limits. The salt gland is found in birds and reptiles. In many birds it is located near the eyes or nostrils (in crocodiles, salt is excreted through their tongues – everything tastes salty to them).  The salt gland removes Na+ and K+ from the blood, allowing birds and reptiles to consume saltwater or animals that live in saltwater.

Some organisms have it easier, like amphibians. With semi-permeable skin, they just leak salt out through their entire skin surface. Other organisms aren’t so lucky, like plants.

Plants must also regulate salt concentration, but they don’t have a familiar excretory system; in fact, they don’t have a specific osmoregulatory system. Water is lost via transpiration (Sorry, I Don’t Drink), and adjustments can be made to alter the amount of evaporation that occurs. Unfortunately, transpiration of water is linked to moving nutrients such as salts up the plant from the roots to the leaves. Therefore, shutting down transpiration will also shut down movement of nutrients. 

Plants in high temperature, low humidity, high wind environments have the highest rates of transpiration and are in danger of losing too much water. Once again, hormones are the answer. Plants do have hormones (phytohormones), so they probably have to deal with teenager issues just like human parents. Abscisic acid is an important hormone which shuts off transpiration. This phytohormone closes the stomata (stoma = mouth in Greek) on the upper sides of leaves, from which water evaporates and gases are exchanged. Abscisic acid also promotes water absorption from roots and root growth.


Some plants are cryptophytes by surviving unfavorable
seasons either underground (geophytes), hide their
seeds in the marshy mud (helophytes) or underwater
(hydrophytes). Hydrophytes in general are plants that
have their roots in water or water-logged soil.
Many xerophytes (plants that live in hot, dry places) have adapted to resolve these issues. They have leaf modifications to reduce water loss; needle-shaped leaves, sunken stomata, and waxy cuticles to cover the leaves. On the other hand, in hydrophytes (plants that live completely or almost completely in water), salts and water can be absorbed in the entire plant, not just the roots.

In terms of cations (Na+, K+), plants have a problem. They use potassium as their primary intracellular cation, but dirt is usually potassium-poor. Therefore, plants have K+ transporters to actively take up this ion. Unfortunately, the transporters don’t discriminate very well between K+ and Na+, so often times too much Na+ is taken up into plants.


Red mangroves have impermeable roots that help keep
out salt, and can also secrete some salt from there leaves,
but their most visible mechanism is the yellow salt leaves.


Excess Na+ can be toxic to cells, so measures must be taken to deal with these ions. Glycophytes are plants that are salt-sensitive, and include many of the plants that we cultivate. Therefore, soil salinity is an important factor in agriculture and gardening. Much research and breeding continues to an effort to produce crops that are better at differentiating uptake of K+ and Na+. Halophytes (halo=salt, phyte=loving), on the other hand, will allow the uptake of the excess ions, and then sequester them in vacuoles to prevent cellular damage.

Some plants live in extremely high salt environments. One example, the red mangrove tree, is a facultative halophyte. Facultative is a fancy way of saying “optionally.” These trees live in estuaries, where the river meets the sea. The water is quite salty there, and the mangroves are rooted in the water, so excess salt could be a problem. To deal with the toxicity of the excess Na+, the mangrove will store the salts in selected leaves, called the “kidney leaves.” When a toxic level is reached, the leaves turn yellow and just drop off. The tree must constantly invest energy in producing new leaves, so there is a cost to this way of life, but it seems to work for them.

If plants that live in or near seawater have adaptive mechanisms to maintain proper salt concentrations, then how about fish? We'll look at the osmoregulatory tricks by these organisms next week.

For more information, classroom activities or laboratories about osmoregulation, tonicity, abscisic acid, avian kidney, pinnipeds, cetaceans, see:

Osmoregulation –

tonicity and osmotic pressure –

abscisic acid –

avian kidney –

pinnipeds –

cetaceans –
http://what-when-how.com/marine-mammals/osmoregulation-marine-mammals/
nature science for kids,nature science definition,nature science articles,nature science jobs,nature science museum,nature science projects,nature science magazine,nature science journal nature science for kids,nature science definition,nature science articles,nature science jobs,nature science museum,nature science projects,nature science magazine,nature science journal