Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:21:56.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scyphistoma Regeneration From Isolated Tentacles in Aurelia Aurita

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2009

Georgia E. Laurie-Lesh  and
R. Corriel
Georgia E. Laurie-Lesh
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, U.S.A.
R. Corriel
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

All animals do not display the same capacities for repairing injuries, i.e. they possess what may be termed different ‘regeneration potentials’. One parameter influencing the regeneration potential manifested by an organism is its developmental history, or ontogeny. Early in an animal's ontogeny many of its cells are still undergoing both structural and biochemical modifications. As the animal matures, its cells become increasingly differentiated, ultimately attaining a high degree of specialization (Hay, 1966; Balinsky, 1970).

Numerous studies support the contention that the younger an animal ontogenically, the greater is its regeneration potential. Investigations using amphibians have presented several cogent examples of this generalization (Balinsky, 1970). Analogous situations are also evident in the Cnidaria. In the hydrozoan, Hydra, the tentacles contain what are among the ontogenically ‘oldest’ cells in the organism (Tripp, 1928; Brien & Reniers-Decoen, 1949; Burnett, 1966; Campbell, 1967b). Unlike the remainder of the organism, these structures also reportedly possess no regeneration potential (Peebles, 1897; Kanaev, 1952).

Three explanations have been proposed to account for the absence of regeneration potential in isolated tentacles. Nussbaum (cited in Kanaev, 1952) suggested that the absence of interstitial cells in the tentacles precluded regeneration. However, other regions of the animal, when experimentally deprived of this cell type, retained their regenerative capacities (Brien, 1953; Diehl & Burnett, 1964).

A second explanation invoked the size of an isolated tentacle as a factor limiting regeneration. In disputing this suggestion, Peebles (1897) measured tentacle volume. Isolated Hydra grisea (Pallas) tentacles ranged from 0.01 to to 0.03 mm3, while the volume of the smallest body fragment capable of total regeneration was considerably smaller, 0.006 to 0.01 mm3. From these measurements she concluded that the size of isolated tentacles could not account for the inability to regenerate.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom , Volume 53 , Issue 4 , November 1973 , pp. 885 - 894
Copyright
Copyright © Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balinsky, B. I., 1970. An Introduction to Embryology. 725 pp. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Berrill, N. J., 1949. Developmental analysis of scyphomedusae. Biological Reviews, 24, 393–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brien, P., 1953. La pérennité somatique. Biological Reviews, 28, 308–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brien, P. & Reniers-Decoen, M., 1949. La croissance, la blastogénèse. l'ovogenese chez Hydra fusca (Pallas). Bulletin Biologique de la France et de la Belgique, 82, 293–386.Google Scholar
Burnett, A. L., 1961. The growth process in hydra. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 146, 21–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burnett, A. L., 1966. A model of growth and cell differentiation in hydra. American Naturalist, 100, 165–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calder, D. R., 1971. Nematocysts of polyps of Aurelia, Chrysaora and Cyanea, and their utility in identification. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 90, 269–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, R. D., 1967 a. Tissue dynamics of steady state growth in Hydra littoralis. I. Patterns of cell division. Developmental Biology, 15, 487–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, R. D., 1967 b. Tissue dynamics of steady state growth in Hydra littoralis. II. Patterns of tissue movement. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 121, 19–28.Google ScholarPubMed
Chapman, D. M., 1966. Evolution of the scyphistoma. In The Cnidaria and their Evolution (ed. Rees, W. J.). Symposium of the Zoological Society of London, no. 16. London, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Diehl, F. & Burnett, A. L., 1964. The role of interstitial cells in the maintenance of hydra. I. Specific destruction of interstitial cells in normal, asexual, non-budding animals. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 155, 253–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilchrist, F. G., 1937. Budding and locomotion in the scyphistomas of Aurelia. Biological Bulletin, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 72, 99–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, A., 1966. Regeneration. 148 pp. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hérouard, E., 1913. Relation entre la dépression et la formation de pseudoplanula tentaculaires chez le scyphistome. Compte rendu hebdomadaire des séances de l'Académie des sciences, 156, 1093–5.Google Scholar
Hyman, L. H., 1940. The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora. 726 pp. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Kanaev, I.I., 1952. Hydra (ed. H., Lenhoff). 452 pp. Moscow: originally published by the Soviet Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Loomis, W. F. & Lenhoff, H., 1956. Growth and sexual differentiation of Hydra in mass culture. Journal of Experimental Zoology, 132, 555–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pantin, C. F. A., 1962. Notes on Microscopical Technique for Zoologists. 76 pp. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Peebles, F., 1897. Experimental studies in hydra. Archiv. für Entwicklungsmechanik der Organismen, 5, 794–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Percival, E., 1923. On the strobilization of Aurelia. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 67, 85–100.Google Scholar
Spangenberg, D. B., 1964. New Observations on Aurelia. Transactions of the American Microscopical Society, 83, 448–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, S. N., 1963. The regeneration of whole polyps from ectodermal fragments of scyphistoma larvae of Aurelia aurita. Biological Bulletin Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, Mass., 124, 337–43–58–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripp, K., 1928. Regenerations fähigkeit von Hydren in der verschiedenen Korperregionen nach Regenerations und Transplantationsversuchen. Zeitschrift für Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 132, 476–525.Google Scholar