Limits...
Fluorescent proteins function as a prey attractant: experimental evidence from the hydromedusa Olindias formosus and other marine organisms.

Haddock SH, Dunn CW - Biol Open (2015)

Bottom Line: The fish did not respond significantly when treatments did not include fluorescent structures or took place under yellow or white lights, which did not generate fluorescence visible above the ambient light.In situ observations also provided evidence for fluorescent lures as supernormal stimuli in several other marine animals, including the siphonophore Rhizophysa eysenhardti.Our results support the idea that fluorescent structures can serve as prey attractants, thus providing a potential function for GFPs and other fluorescent proteins in a diverse range of organisms.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), 7700 Sandholdt Rd, Moss Landing, CA 95039-9644, USA haddock@mbari.org.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Box plots of number of attacks. Number of attacks plotted by the factor (medusa present or control conditions) and for each of three lighting schemes (color of bars). Box plots show mean (dot), standard error (shaded box height) and 95% confidence interval (whisker height). Significant differences in the number of attacks (P≪1×10−5) were obtained only for the treatment that included a live medusa with blue illumination. Attack behavior with the control objects and yellow or white lighting conditions were not significantly different from each other.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4582119&req=5

BIO012138F3: Box plots of number of attacks. Number of attacks plotted by the factor (medusa present or control conditions) and for each of three lighting schemes (color of bars). Box plots show mean (dot), standard error (shaded box height) and 95% confidence interval (whisker height). Significant differences in the number of attacks (P≪1×10−5) were obtained only for the treatment that included a live medusa with blue illumination. Attack behavior with the control objects and yellow or white lighting conditions were not significantly different from each other.

Mentions: The number of times the fish attacked the clear barrier (Na) was also measured (Fig. 3; Table 2) and showed a significantly higher mean only for the medusa under blue illumination (Type I ANOVA, P<1×10−5). Na was nearly 7 times higher when the medusa was present compared to either control. The other lighting schemes show no significant differences in Na and, like Troi, even show a moderate decrease when the medusa is present.Fig. 3.


Fluorescent proteins function as a prey attractant: experimental evidence from the hydromedusa Olindias formosus and other marine organisms.

Haddock SH, Dunn CW - Biol Open (2015)

Box plots of number of attacks. Number of attacks plotted by the factor (medusa present or control conditions) and for each of three lighting schemes (color of bars). Box plots show mean (dot), standard error (shaded box height) and 95% confidence interval (whisker height). Significant differences in the number of attacks (P≪1×10−5) were obtained only for the treatment that included a live medusa with blue illumination. Attack behavior with the control objects and yellow or white lighting conditions were not significantly different from each other.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4582119&req=5

BIO012138F3: Box plots of number of attacks. Number of attacks plotted by the factor (medusa present or control conditions) and for each of three lighting schemes (color of bars). Box plots show mean (dot), standard error (shaded box height) and 95% confidence interval (whisker height). Significant differences in the number of attacks (P≪1×10−5) were obtained only for the treatment that included a live medusa with blue illumination. Attack behavior with the control objects and yellow or white lighting conditions were not significantly different from each other.
Mentions: The number of times the fish attacked the clear barrier (Na) was also measured (Fig. 3; Table 2) and showed a significantly higher mean only for the medusa under blue illumination (Type I ANOVA, P<1×10−5). Na was nearly 7 times higher when the medusa was present compared to either control. The other lighting schemes show no significant differences in Na and, like Troi, even show a moderate decrease when the medusa is present.Fig. 3.

Bottom Line: The fish did not respond significantly when treatments did not include fluorescent structures or took place under yellow or white lights, which did not generate fluorescence visible above the ambient light.In situ observations also provided evidence for fluorescent lures as supernormal stimuli in several other marine animals, including the siphonophore Rhizophysa eysenhardti.Our results support the idea that fluorescent structures can serve as prey attractants, thus providing a potential function for GFPs and other fluorescent proteins in a diverse range of organisms.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (MBARI), 7700 Sandholdt Rd, Moss Landing, CA 95039-9644, USA haddock@mbari.org.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus