Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T13:10:42.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adhesive Structure of the Freshwater Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2011

Nikrooz Farsad ,
Trevor W. Gilbert  and
Eli D Sone
Nikrooz Farsad
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Toronto, Materials Science & Engineering, Toronto, Canada
Trevor W. Gilbert
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Toronto, Institute of Biomaterials & Biomedical Engineering, Toronto, Canada
Eli D Sone
Affiliation:
[email protected], University of Toronto, IBBME, 164 College St., Toronto, M5S 3G9, Canada, 416-978-7422
Get access

Abstract

The freshwater Zebra Mussel, Dreissena polymorpha, was accidently released into the Great Lakes approximately 20 years ago. Since then it has spread rapidly, thanks in part to its ability to adhere to hard substrates, resulting in serious environmental and economic consequences. Like the marine mussels, attachment of the Zebra Mussel is achieved by means of its byssus, a series of proteinaceous threads that connect the animal to surfaces via secreted adhesive plaques. While the byssus of the Zebra Mussel is superficially similar to those of its marine counterparts, significant structural and compositional differences suggest that further investigation of the adhesion mechanisms in this freshwater species is warranted. Here we examine for the first time the detailed distribution of DOPA (3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine)-containing proteins in the Zebra Mussel plaque and threads, as well as the enzyme responsible for their cross-linking. We show that the plaque-substrate interface retains the greatest amount of DOPA after aging, consistent with an adhesive role, while in the threads and bulk of plaque DOPA is presumably cross-linked for cohesive strength. We report also on a remarkably uniform layer ˜10 nm thick on the underside of the plaque, which is most likely responsible for adhesion.

Keywords

adhesionbiologicalnanostructure
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1187: Symposium KK – Structure-Property Relationships in Biomineralized and Biomimetic Composites , 2009 , 1187-KK02-03
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2009

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

1 Herbert, P. D. N., Muncaster, B. W., and Mackie, G. L., Can. J. Fish.. Aquat. Sci. 46 (1989).Google Scholar
2 Hunter, R. D., Toczylowski, S. A., and Janech, M. G., in Zebra Mussels and Aquatic Nuisance Species, edited by D'Itri, F. M. (Lewis Publishers, New York, NY, 1997) pp. 161.Google Scholar
3 Magee, J. A., Wright, D. A., and Setzler-Hamilton, E. M., in Zebra Mussels and Aquatic Nuisance Species, edited by D'Itri, F. M. (Lewis Publishers, New York, NY, 1997) pp. 541.Google Scholar
4 Dormon, J. M., Cottrell, M., Allen, D. G. et al., J. Environ. Eng. 122, 276 (1996).10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(1996)122:4(276)Google Scholar
5 Waite, J. H., Andersen, N. H., Jewhurst, S. et al., J. Adhesion 81, 297 (2005).10.1080/00218460590944602Google Scholar
6 Wiegemann, M., Aquat. Sci. 67, 166 (2005).10.1007/s00027-005-0758-5Google Scholar
7 Waite, J. H., Lichtenegger, H. C., Stucky, G. D. et al., Biochem. 43, 7653 (2004).10.1021/bi049380hGoogle Scholar
8 Coyne, K. J., Qin, X. X., and Waite, J. H., Science 277, 1830 (1997).10.1126/science.277.5333.1830Google Scholar
9 Waite, J. H., Integr. Comp. Biol. 42, 1172 (2002).10.1093/icb/42.6.1172Google Scholar
10 Rzepecki, L. M. and Waite, J. H., Mol. Marine. Biol. Biotech. 2, 255 (1993).Google Scholar
11 Anderson, K. E. and Waite, J. H., Biol. Bull. 194, 150 (1998).10.2307/1543045Google Scholar
12 Rzepecki, L. M. and Waite, J. H., Mol. Marine. Biol. Biotech. 2, 267 (1993).Google Scholar
13 Anderson, K. E. and Waite, J. H., J. Exp. Biol. 203, 3065 (2000).Google Scholar
14 Bonner, T. P. and Rockhill, R., Information Rev. 5, 4 (1994).Google Scholar
15 Frisina, A. C. and Eckroat, L. R., J. Penn. Acad. Sci. 66, 63 (1992).Google Scholar
16 Eckroat, L. R. and Steele, L. M., Am. Malacological Bull. 10, 103 (1993).Google Scholar
17 Bonner, T. P. and Rockhill, R. L., Trans. Am. Microscopical Soc. 113, 302 (1994).10.2307/3226624Google Scholar
18 Deming, T. J., Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 3, 100 (1999).10.1016/S1367-5931(99)80018-0Google Scholar
19 Sprung, M., Arch. Hydrobiol., Suppl. 79, 69 (1987).Google Scholar
20 Paz, M. A., Fluckiger, R., and Boak, A., J. Biol. Chem. 266, 689 (1991).Google Scholar
21 Zhao, H. and Waite, J. H., J. Biol. Chem 281, 26150 (2006).10.1074/jbc.M604357200Google Scholar