Metarhodopsin control by arrestin, light-filtering screening pigments, and visual pigment turnover in invertebrate microvillar photoreceptors
- First Online:
- 601 Downloads
The visual pigments of most invertebrate photoreceptors have two thermostable photo-interconvertible states, the ground state rhodopsin and photo-activated metarhodopsin, which triggers the phototransduction cascade until it binds arrestin. The ratio of the two states in photoequilibrium is determined by their absorbance spectra and the effective spectral distribution of illumination. Calculations indicate that metarhodopsin levels in fly photoreceptors are maintained below ~35% in normal diurnal environments, due to the combination of a blue-green rhodopsin, an orange-absorbing metarhodopsin and red transparent screening pigments. Slow metarhodopsin degradation and rhodopsin regeneration processes further subserve visual pigment maintenance. In most insect eyes, where the majority of photoreceptors have green-absorbing rhodopsins and blue-absorbing metarhodopsins, natural illuminants are predicted to create metarhodopsin levels greater than 60% at high intensities. However, fast metarhodopsin decay and rhodopsin regeneration also play an important role in controlling metarhodopsin in green receptors, resulting in a high rhodopsin content at low light intensities and a reduced overall visual pigment content in bright light. A simple model for the visual pigment–arrestin cycle is used to illustrate the dependence of the visual pigment population states on light intensity, arrestin levels and pigment turnover.
KeywordsNatural light Light sensitivity Pupil mechanism Drosophila PDA
Vision begins with the absorption of a photon of light by the visual pigment, rhodopsin. In most vertebrate photoreceptors, photon absorption causes photoisomerization of the chromophore 11-cis retinal to all-trans retinal, which creates the photoactivated rhodopsin state, metarhodopsin II. This state activates a G-protein coupled phototransduction cascade culminating in a change of the membrane potential, the receptor potential. To avoid saturation and ensure high temporal resolution it is essential that the active metarhodopsin state is rapidly inactivated, which is achieved by phosphorylation and binding to arrestin. Inactivation of the metarhodopsin II state is rapidly further ensured by hydrolysis and dissociation of the all-trans retinal. In invertebrate microvillar photoreceptors, photoinduced isomerization of the chromophore, commonly 11-cis retinal or 11-cis 3-hydroxy retinal, results in a thermostable metarhodopsin state, which, as in vertebrates, activates a G-protein to trigger phototransduction. Active invertebrate metarhodopsins are also inactivated by binding to arrestin, but, at least in flies, without requirement for prior phosphorylation (review Wang and Montell 2007; Hardie and Postma 2008; Katz and Minke 2009; Yau and Hardie 2009).
In a normal diurnal environment, photoreceptors are constantly bombarded by light, resulting in a decrease of the rhodopsin content. Mechanisms must therefore be in place to regenerate rhodopsin and thus maintain light sensitivity. In vertebrate photoreceptors, all-trans retinal is reisomerized to 11-cis retinal via a complex enzymatic cascade occurring mainly in the retinal pigment epithelium or Müller cells (rod and cone photoreceptors, respectively, Saari 2000; Mata et al. 2002; Ala-Laurila 2006; review von Lintig et al. 2010). By contrast, the thermostable metarhodopsin of most invertebrate photoreceptors can be reconverted to rhodopsin simply by absorption of another photon, which reisomerizes the chromophore whilst still attached to the opsin (reviews Hamdorf 1979; Stavenga 1995; Hardie and Postma 2008). Nevertheless, even in invertebrate photoreceptors enzymatic turnover and renewal of the chromophore are also essential mechanisms to maintain rhodopsin content, at least in the medium to long term (Schwemer 1989; Goldsmith and Bernard 1985).
The thermostable metarhodopsin state can have profound consequences for the receptor potential. Notably in dipteran flies such as the fruitfly Drosophila and the blowfly Calliphora, excessive conversion of the blue-absorbing rhodopsin into its orange-absorbing metarhodopsin results in a prolonged depolarizing afterpotential (PDA) when the number of metarhodopsin molecules out-titrates the available arrestin necessary for terminating phototransduction (Minke et al. 1975; Hamdorf 1979; Dolph et al. 1993; Belušič et al. 2010; Satoh et al. 2010). Photoreceptors are effectively blinded during a PDA; however, flies are unlikely to experience this problem in their normal habitat, because the broad-band character of natural light does not create a very large metarhodopsin content, and moreover, long-wavelength stray light filtering through the red screening pigments photoreconverts existing metarhodopsin into the rhodopsin state. It has long been recognized that this strategy ensures that a high rhodopsin content is maintained even under bright illumination (Stavenga et al. 1973; Stavenga 2002). However, exactly how this elegant strategy functions under natural conditions has not been quantitatively evaluated.
In virtually all other insect species that have been studied a very different situation exists, however. The dominant visual pigment class of most insects is a green-absorbing rhodopsin, which is photoconverted into a blue-absorbing metarhodopsin (Hamdorf 1979; Stavenga and Schwemer 1984). In this case a photochemical reconversion system like that of flies would not work, and in fact could be potentially disastrous, because screening pigment allowing red stray light to enter the photoreceptors would favour photoconversion of the green rhodopsins instead of their metarhodopsin. This would generate spurious responses to off-axis light and result in a reduction of light sensitivity. Presumably, therefore, green-sensitive photoreceptors must heavily rely on visual pigment turnover and renewal (Goldsmith and Bernard 1985).
In the present paper, we review the photochemistry of invertebrate visual pigments. We quantitatively evaluate how the metarhodopsin level is controlled by screening pigments, arrestin concentration, and visual pigment turnover under natural conditions. We firstly analyse the uniquely built fly eyes, because of the extensive knowledge of these eyes and their prominent role in invertebrate vision research. We then extend our analysis to show how the rapid pigment turnover reported from green-sensitive photoreceptors (e.g. Bernard 1983a, b) plays a crucial role in controlling visual pigment concentration and sensitivity under the full range of environmental intensities.
Materials, methods and theory
Natural light spectra
Fly eyes contain two main types of screening pigments; firstly the red or red-brown pigments of the screening pigment cells, and secondly the yellow pigments of the mobile granules inside the photoreceptor cells that together function as a light-controlling pupil mechanism. In the dark-adapted state, the pupillary pigment granules are concentrated in the photoreceptor cell soma, at a distance from the rhabdomere, but upon light adaptation the granules are pulled towards the rhabdomere, where they absorb light propagating along the rhabdomere in so-called waveguide modes (Franceschini and Kirschfeld 1976; Stavenga 2004). The blowfly Calliphora vicina has red screening pigment and yellow pupillary pigment (Fig. 1b). The pigments of most other insect eyes absorb over a broad wavelength range and approximate neutral density filters for the visual pigments (Fig. 1c).
Photochemistry of invertebrate visual pigments
Photoconversion speed of visual pigments in a fly rhabdomere and a honeybee or butterfly rhabdom
In insect eyes, visual pigment is contained in the rhabdomeres. The rhabdomeres of R1–6 photoreceptors of the fruitfly, Drosophila, are 80–100 μm long cylinders, tapering from 2 to 1 μm. Each rhabdomere consists of 30–50,000 tightly packed microvilli, each containing about 1,000 visual pigment molecules (Hardie and Postma 2008). Hence, the concentration of the 4 × 107 visual pigment molecules in a rhabdomere volume of (π/4)(1.52)90 = 159 μm3 is C = 2.5 × 105 μm−3. With a specific absorbance coefficient at the peak wavelength κmax = 5.0 × 10−3 μm−1 of the rhabdomere medium (Warrant and Nilsson 1998), the molecular absorbance coefficient becomes αmax = κmax/C = 2.0 × 10−8 μm2 (for bovine rhodopsin αmax = 1.56 × 10−8 μm2; Dartnall 1972). If the quantum efficiency for photoconversion of bovine rhodopsin, γR = 0.67 (Dartnall 1972), is the same for fly rhodopsin, then the peak photosensitivity becomes βR,max = 1.3 × 10−8 μm2. (For similar calculations made for butterfly visual pigment, see Vanhoutte and Stavenga 2005.) In addition to the photosensitivity, calculation of the photoconversion rate constant (Eq. 1) requires the photon flux in the rhabdomere, I(λ). The visual pigment receives light via a facet lens, which focuses incident light into the rhabdomere. In a geometrical approach (see e.g. Stavenga 2003), when a facet lens with diameter Dl and focal length f concentrates light from a wide-field source (e.g. sky) with radiance Es(λ) photons μm−2 s−1 nm−1 sqdeg−1 into a rhabdomere with diameter Dr, the photon flux I(λ) = (π/4)(Dl/f)2Es(λ), with dimension photons μm-2 s−1 nm−1, and with the angle Dl/f in degrees. For the case of the blowfly, assuming a facet lens diameter Dl = 25 μm, focal length f = 50 μm, and rhabdomere diameter 1.5 μm, the lens concentration factor (π/4)(Dl/f)2 becomes 645 sqdeg. Using this value together with the peak photosensitivities and the visual pigment spectra of Fig. 2a, the photoconversion rate constants for sky light (Fig. 1a) are kR = 0.34 s−1 and kM = 0.52 s−1, so that the time constant for photoconversion is τc = 1/(kR+kM) = 1.2 s; for light from grass kR = 0.02 s−1, kM = 0.09 s−1, and τc = 1/(kR+kM) = 9.1 s. The photon flux from the sun, entering on-axis an ommatidium with acceptance angle sufficiently larger than the spatial angle of the sun is I(λ) = (Dl/Dr)2W(λ), with (Dl/Dr)2 = 278 and W(λ) the irradiance of the sun (dimension photons μm−2 s−1 nm−1). The photoconversion rate constants for sun light then become kR = 6.3 × 103 s−1 and kM = 3.3 × 103 s−1, so that τc = 1/(kR+kM) = 0.1 ms. Assuming that the photosensitivity and optical parameters for the blowfly rhodopsin of Fig. 2a and the green-absorbing visual pigment of Fig. 2b are the same, the corresponding values for the latter visual pigment are: for sky light kR = 0.29 s−1, kM = 0.24 s−1, and τc = 1/(kR+kM) = 1.9 s; for light from grass kR = 0.04 s−1, kM = 0.02 s−1, and τc = 1/(kR+kM) = 16.1 s; and for sunlight kR = 3.3 × 103 s−1, kM = 2.6 × 103 s−1, and τc = 1/(kR+kM) = 0.17 ms.
The metarhodopsin fraction resulting from natural illuminants filtered by ocular pigments
Filtering the natural illuminants with the photostable pigments of the screening pigment cells or the pupillary pigment of the photoreceptor cells modifies the light composition and thus the metarhodopsin fraction in photoequilibrium. Both the screening and the pupillary pigment filters can be assumed to be located distally from the visual pigment (Roebroek and Stavenga 1990a). In the case of the blowfly, when the three natural lights are filtered by the red pigment of the screening pigment cells, the metarhodopsin content progressively diminishes with increasing pigment density (Fig. 3a; blowfly, screen). This is precisely the rationale of the long-wavelength transmittance of the screening pigments of fly eyes (Stavenga et al. 1973; Stavenga 2002). Similarly, the metarhodopsin fraction in photoequilibrium diminishes with the increasing density of the yellow-pigmented pupil as it closes in as a function of the light intensity entering the ommatidia on-axis (Fig. 3a; blowfly, pupil). Opposite effects occur in a honeybee or butterfly eye with a green-absorbing rhodopsin of Fig. 2b and the screening pigment of Fig. 1c when illuminated by the three natural spectral lights of Fig. 1a. With increasing density of the screening pigment, the metarhodopsin fraction in photoequilibrium slightly (but still steadily) increases from about 0.6 to about 0.7, because of the relative increase of long-wavelength light (Fig. 3a; honeybee, screen).
The calculations for Fig. 3a have been done assuming that all visual pigment molecules receive the same spectral light flux. However, invertebrate photoreceptors have their visual pigments concentrated in rhabdomeres. The separate rhabdomeres in an ommatidium of a fly compound eye act as separate optical waveguides, but in most insects, including honeybees and butterflies, the rhabdomeres are joined in a fused rhabdom, which acts as an individual optical waveguide. The visual pigments absorb part of the light flux that propagates in the rhabdom(ere), and this self-screening effect modifies the spectral composition along the waveguide’s longitudinal axis. For the blowfly, Fig. 3b shows the dependence of the metarhodopsin fraction in photoequilibrium as a function of the distance from the rhabdomere tip, when light from the sky or grass is not filtered (density 0), or distally filtered by the yellow pupillary pigment with a peak optical density of 1 or 2, i.e. the incident light is then reduced at the pupil peak wavelength by a factor 10 or 100, respectively. The slight decrease in metarhodopsin fraction with increasing distance is due to the relative increase in red light along the length of the rhabdomere. With sunlight the resulting metarhodopsin fractions take intermediate values between those for light from the sky and grass (not shown). In the case of the honeybee, simply assuming that all rhabdomeres in the fused rhabdom contain green visual pigment, the dependence of the metarhodopsin fraction on the location in the rhabdom behaves opposite to that of the blowfly. The relative increase of red light with increasing distance from the rhabdom tip causes a further slight increase of the metarhodopsin fraction (Fig. 3b).
Due to the self-screening of the visual pigment, the effective light flux decreases along the visual waveguides, and thus the photoconversion rate constants decrease. Figure 3c shows the value of the photoconversion rate constant normalized to the value at the rhabdom(ere) tip as a function of the distance from the tip for the same cases as treated in Fig. 3b. The effective reduction in light flux appears to be at most about a factor 3 (half a log unit) for broad-band natural light. Figure 3c presents only the case of the blowfly; a similar decrease of the conversion rate occurs in the fused rhabdom of bees and butterflies.
Dependence of blowfly metarhodopsin on the pupil mechanism
The effective pupil density responsible for the decreasing metarhodopsin can be estimated by calculating the time course of the metarhodopsin fraction with the same procedure as applied for Fig. 3, assuming that the spectral distribution of the effective illumination approximated that of the sun filtered by the pupillary pigment and neglecting the slightly inhomogeneous composition of the visual pigment in the rhabdomeres (Fig. 3b). The calculated time course of the metarhodopsin fraction (Fig. 4b, continuous curve) settles at a value 0.16 ± 0.03, which corresponds to a pupil peak density of about 1.8 ± 0.4.
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate that the red screening pigment of blowfly eyes, together with the yellow pupillary pigment, effectively reduce the metarhodopsin fraction in bright light conditions. However, in the case of the green rhodopsin of bees and butterflies bright natural lights will always create a large metarhodopsin fraction, which could well be deleterious for vision. Fortunately only a small proportion of the metarhodopsin molecules is then actively contributing to the photoreceptor signal, because most of them will be either inactivated by arrestin molecules or degraded, as is discussed below.
The visual pigment–arrestin cycle
The distribution of the visual pigment molecules over the possible states can be quantitatively assessed with the formalism presented in “Appendix”, when the visual pigment and arrestin concentration as well as the conversion rate constants are known. In the fruitfly Drosophila, there are about R0 = 1,000 visual pigment molecules per photoreceptor microvillus. The number of arrestin molecules per microvillus (A0) varies because arrestin undergoes rapid and reversible translocation between the cell body and the rhabdomere depending on the metarhodopsin fraction, fM (Satoh et al. 2010). When most of the visual pigment is in the rhodopsin state (fM < 0.1), only ~25% of arrestin is localized to the rhabdomere, equivalent to A0 = 90 molecules per microvillus. As fM increases, arrestin moves into the rhabdomere in direct proportion to fM until it reaches a value of ~0.37, at which point all available arrestin, equivalent to A0 = 370, is now in the rhabdomere (Satoh et al. 2010). The effective time constant of metarhodopsin inactivation for weak light pulses is 1/kbA0 = 23 ms (Liu et al. 2008); hence, with A0 = 90, kb = 0.48 s−1 molecule−1. The rate constant for arrestin release following photoreconversion of Mi to Ri, kd, is rapid (Satoh et al. 2010) and taken to be 1 s−1. The diagram of Fig. 5 also incorporates visual pigment turnover. The arrestin-bound states, Mi and Ri are vulnerable to degradation with a time constant kf, and rhodopsin regeneration occurs with rate constant kg. The duration of the turnover processes is in the order of hours for fly visual pigment and assumed to be in the order of minutes for the honeybee, as has been shown in butterflies (see “Discussion”).
At low intensities the photoconversion rate constant of metarhodopsin kM ≪ kbA and Ra and A are effectively constant, so that the amount of active metarhodopsin, the trigger of the phototransduction process, via the photoconversion rate constant of rhodopsin kR, is linearly related to the light flux: Ma = RakR/(kbA); see Fig. 6e, f. The number of active metarhodopsin molecules, Ma, rapidly increases around logI = 0 (Fig. 6c, e), because there the number of unbound arrestin molecules, A, rapidly drops. This does not occur with a much larger amount of arrestin (Fig. 6b, d, f). The visual pigment population states change of course with different choices of the rate constants for arrestin binding and release. For example, because arrestin binding is Ca2+ dependent (Liu et al. 2008), kb may increase with light intensity, which would reduce the slope of the Ma-curve. Nevertheless, calculations show that the general features presented in Fig. 6 are maintained even when modifying the rate constant values tenfold (not shown).
The different functions of the screening pigments in blowfly and honeybee eyes
Insect compound eyes are assemblies of ommatidia, structural units with an optical apparatus that feeds incident light into the photoreceptors. The photoreceptor cells are surrounded by pigment cells filled with screening pigments, which form a screen for off-axis light, so as to optimize the spatial resolution of the eye. The absorbance of the pigment cells is generally high at visible wavelengths, but decreases with increasing wavelength, in the red (Fig. 1c). The range of the absorbance spectra is presumably intimately related to the range of the photoreceptor spectral sensitivities. For instance, compared to the honeybee screening pigment, the absorbance spectrum of Heliconius screening pigment extends much further into the red (Fig. 1c), which corresponds to the spectral properties of the green receptor in this butterfly species (λmax = 570 nm, cf λmax = 544 nm in the honeybee; Zaccardi et al. 2006; Peitsch et al. 1992).
The absorbance spectrum of the R1–6 rhodopsin in fly eyes is also well covered by the absorbance of the screening pigment (compare Figs. 1b and 2a). Notably, the absorbance spectrum of the screening pigment rapidly falls off above 600 nm, thus causing the red eye colour (Langer 1975; Stavenga 2002). The resulting benign effect of the red transparency of the screening pigments for maintaining a low metarhodopsin fraction is shown in Fig. 3a, b. The effect of the red screening pigment on a given photoreceptor will depend on where the incident light enters the eye and how much pigment it has to pass before it arrives at the specific photoreceptor. As demonstrated in Fig. 3a, for all treated cases, whether the light source is the sky, the sun or grass, light that passes the screening pigments will be about equally helpful in converting metarhodopsin back into rhodopsin.
The same holds also for the yellow pupillary pigment (Figs. 3, 4). The pigment granules participating in the blowfly pupil mechanism are concentrated in the distal part of the photoreceptor cells and thus enact their light control function in a rather similar fashion as that of the pupil in human eyes (Roebroek and Stavenga 1990a). The granules are increasingly concentrated against the rhabdomere with an increase in incident light flux. At very bright light intensities, the peak absorbance of the pupil of blowfly photoreceptors was estimated by in vivo optical measurements to reach a value 2.8 ± 0.3 log units (Roebroek and Stavenga 1990b), larger than the estimated 1.8 ± 0.4 used in modelling the pupil effect of Fig. 4b. At any rate, like the red screening pigments, the pupil is an important tool for minimizing the metarhodopsin fraction in blowfly photoreceptors. Both the integrated stray light flooding the eye and the photon flux entering the rhabdomere axially will determine the photoconversion of a photoreceptor’s metarhodopsin and the resulting photοequilibrium in a real, living fly eye.
The absorbance spectra of the visual, screening and pupillary pigments of Drosophila differ slightly from the spectra of the blowfly pigments, and also the density of the screening pigments and pupil mechanism in fruitfly eyes are lower (Franceschini 1975; Franceschini and Kirschfeld 1976), but undoubtedly the same principles apply for fly eyes in general. The red screening pigment protects the main, blue-green absorbing rhodopsin of R1–6 photoreceptors, Rh1, but allows red stray light to photoreconvert the bathochromic-shifted, orange-absorbing metarhodopsin. Fly ommatidia have in addition two minor photoreceptors (R7 and R8), expressing one of four further visual pigments: two UV rhodopsins, Rh3 and Rh4 (in R7 cells), a blue absorbing rhodopsin, Rh5 (in R8), all with a bathochromic-shifted metarhodopsin, and a green-absorbing rhodopsin, Rh6 (also in R8), which has a hypsochromic-shifted metarhodopsin (Salcedo et al. 1999). These metarhodopsins absorb mainly in the blue to blue-green wavelength range and absorb little in the red, and therefore the photochemistry of Rh3–5 will not be seriously affected by the long-wavelength transmittance of the screening pigments. However, the situation is different for Rh6, with rhodopsin and metarhodopsin peak wavelengths 515 nm and 468 nm, respectively (comparable to the green visual pigment of Fig. 2b), and therefore its photochemical conversions will be vulnerable to red leakage light. Interestingly, the Rh6 metarhodopsin was found to be rather thermolabile when ectopically expressed in R1–6 cells (Salcedo et al. 1999).
As is clear from Fig. 3, green-absorbing rhodopsins, with their hypsochromic blue-absorbing metarhodopsins, cannot benefit from long-wavelength transmitting screening or pupillary pigments. In fact, in honeybee and butterfly eyes light that passes the screening pigment will only have the apparently detrimental effect of photoconverting rhodopsin into metarhodopsin (Fig. 3a, b). The photochemistry of green rhodopsins thus creates quite a challenge, because in photoequilibrium, which is rather rapidly reached at the high intensities of natural light sources (see Methods), the metarhodopsin fraction is predicted to be over 50% (Fig. 3a, b). This will require special precautions if light sensitivity is to be optimized. The first measure of course, is to make the density of the screening pigment so high that stray, off-axis light remains negligible. This is virtually always realized, because insects generally have very black eyes due to dense screening pigments. Furthermore, insects active in bright environments have pupil mechanisms that reduce the incident light flux and thus lower the photoconversion rate constants to levels suitable for dynamic phototransduction. Nevertheless, after even relatively short exposure to natural illuminants, a substantial fraction of the green rhodopsins will be converted into their metarhodopsin state. This may be acceptable under bright light circumstances when sensitivity is not at a premium, and as long there is sufficient supply of arrestin, but it is unfavourable when the light levels drop and a high sensitivity is required. Insect photoreceptors, therefore, have additional mechanism to regenerate their rhodopsin content.
Visual pigment turnover and regeneration
Regeneration of invertebrate visual pigment by means other than by photoreconversion of metarhodopsin was experimentally shown decades ago (octopus, Schwemer 1969; blowfly, Stavenga et al. 1973; butterfly, Stavenga 1975; Bernard 1983a, b) and was demonstrated to be due to turnover of visual pigment (Stein et al. 1978; Schwemer 1979). Similar processes appear to exist universally in invertebrate eyes (Goldsmith and Bernard 1985). Schwemer (1984), in an extensive series of experiments on blowfly eyes, revealed the pathway of visual pigment turnover and renewal, which involves light-dependent enzymatic processes in the pigment cells (review Schwemer 1989, 1993). Nevertheless, even until recently it appears to have been widely ‘thought that photoreceptor cells in invertebrates such as Drosophila do not employ enzymes for chromophore regeneration’ (Wang et al. 2010; Arshavsky 2010; von Lintig et al. 2010). Unfortunately, the recognition that invertebrates have bistable visual pigments together with the early demonstration that blowfly eyes are red pigmented to photoreconvert metarhodopsin (Stavenga et al. 1973) has become elevated to ‘the dogma that the visual cycle in invertebrates does not exist’ (Arshavsky 2010). Consequently the recent characterization of a retinol dehydrogenase required for chromophore regeneration in Drosophila was heralded as the first demonstration of a chromophore regeneration pathway in non-vertebrate species (Wang et al. 2010; Arshavsky 2010; von Lintig et al. 2010). In fact, Wang et al.’s (2010) characterization of a fly retinol dehydrogenase represents welcome new molecular insight into a pathway first recognized over 30 years ago. Unlike the vertebrate chromophore recycling pathway, however, the invertebrate chromophore regeneration pathway is light dependent and the isomerization of all-trans to 11-cis retinal is mediated by a photoisomerase activated by blue light (λmax = 420 nm). The molecular identity of the photoisomerase in Drosophila and other insects remains unknown, although it has been purified from bee retina (Schwemer et al. 1984; Smith and Goldsmith 1991a), and what may be the equivalent enzyme (retinochrome) has been cloned and sequenced from squid (Hara-Nishimura et al. 1990). Whereas in cephalopods the photoisomerase is located inside the photoreceptors, in the eyes of insects, like the honeybee, it is mainly positioned in the pigment cells (Smith and Goldsmith 1991b). This allows usage of incident light that would otherwise be absorbed by the screening pigments. Flies apply the same system (Schwemer 1989, 1993), and have realized another degree of sophisticated use of waste-light by making the screening pigments red transparent in combination with a blue-green-absorbing rhodopsin and a strongly bathochromic shifted, orange-absorbing metarhodopsin.
The speed of the turnover processes differs widely between species. The metarhodopsin of R1–6 photoreceptors decays exponentially with a half-time of about 2 h in blowflies (Schwemer 1984) and ~13 h in Drosophila (Hofstee 1996). Rhodopsin regeneration occurs upon injection of 11-cis retinal, but also by simply returning the animals to room light (blowfly, half-time 9 h; Schwemer 1984), demonstrating that the released all-trans chromophore is isomerized by a light-driven enzymatic process (Schwemer 1989). Blue (420 nm) light-driven regeneration of 11-cis retinal described in fruitflies is again somewhat slower with a half-time greater than 24 h (Isono et al. 1988), consistent with the slow regeneration described by Wang et al. (2010). Visual pigment turnover in butterflies is much faster. The blue-absorbing metarhodopsins belonging to the green-absorbing rhodopsins decay with an exponential time course that strongly depends on temperature: at 12.5, 23.0 and 26.5°C the decay half-time was assessed at about 50, 12 and 3 min, respectively (Bernard 1983b). The slower rhodopsin regeneration (half time at room temperature about 40 min; Vanhoutte and Stavenga, 2005) was found to be complex and dependent on the illumination history (Bernard 1983b). The experimental values obtained from butterflies dictated the time constants of visual pigment decay and regeneration (3 and 10 min, respectively) used in the calculations of Fig. 7b, d, f. In the “Results” we have assumed that the turnover processes of the green rhodopsin of bees have temporal characteristics similar to those of the butterflies.
During flight larger insects can reach body temperatures that are distinctly higher than the ambient temperature, due to the heat generated by the flight muscles. The head of honeybees can reach temperatures well above 40°C (Heinrich 1993). Accordingly, it can be expected that metarhodopsin decay as well as rhodopsin regeneration will be very fast. This will be especially welcome for the green sensitive photoreceptors; firstly to rapidly reduce the amount of metarhodopsin and secondly to increase the rhodopsin level. A speedy visual pigment turnover will be less necessary for blowfly photoreceptors, because their metarhodopsin is already kept within bounds by alternative, photochemical methods. Although the temperature of blowfly heads is also elevated during flight (Stavenga et al. 1993), the much slower visual pigment turnover presumably is related to their very different photochemical system.
The visual pigment–arrestin cycle
The visual pigment–arrestin cycle of Fig. 5 served to gain a semi-quantitative understanding of how visual pigment molecules are distributed over the different possible states and their coupling to arrestin as a function of light intensity. The parameters used to calculate the intensity dependence pictured in Figs. 6 and 7 are estimates based largely on studies on Drosophila R1-6 photoreceptors, and they may well be rather different for the green receptors, which make up the majority of insect photoreceptors. Nevertheless, the general trends shown in Figs. 6 and 7 are probably adequate for understanding the distribution of the visual pigment over the various states. For example, only a minor fraction of the visual pigment molecules will exist in the active metarhodopsin state (Ma), the trigger of the phototransduction process. Over most of the physiological range of light intensities Ma is proportional to the light intensity, and only at very high light levels beyond the normal physiological range there will be more than one active metarhodopsin per microvillus, which is likely to saturate the electrophysiological response of the photoreceptors.
Fly photoreceptors with total metarhodopsin fractions in the order of 0.2, that is 200 metarhodopsin molecules per microvillus, in principle can manage with a few hundred arrestin molecules per microvillus to avoid the PDA-danger zone. Indeed, Drosophila photoreceptors in the light-adapted state accumulate ~370 arrestins per microvillus (Satoh et al. 2010), and when fMe is low (<0.1) most of these translocate out of the rhabdomeres, leaving only about 90 arrestins per microvillus, presumably to increase the photoreceptor’s integration time and thus its light sensitivity (Liu et al. 2008; Satoh et al. 2010). When fMe exceeds ~0.35 (only found under experimental conditions), the supply of arrestin is exhausted, Ma persists indefinitely and a PDA is maintained even in the dark for many hours. For stimuli generating intermediate metarhodopsin fractions (fMe = 0.1–0.35), there is a short-lived PDA, which decays with a time course reflecting the time course of translocation (Satoh et al. 2010).
Blowfly photoreceptors also exhibit a PDA with blue light; however, even with a maximal metarhodopsin fraction of ~0.7, this decays to baseline over a few minutes (Hamdorf and Razmjoo 1977; Hamdorf 1979; Hamdorf and Razmjoo 1979; Razmjoo and Hamdorf 1980; review Hillman et al. 1983). The reason for this distinction between the PDA of blowfly and fruitfly has never been satisfactorily explained. We suggest the absence of a long lasting PDA in blowflies may reflect a higher absolute level of arrestin, probably equivalent to >800 arrestin molecules per microvillus (cf. Fig. 6b, d, f), and that the decaying PDA reflects the time course of translocation. Thus, if, as in Drosophila, only ~25% of the arrestin is present in the dark-adapted rhabdomere, a PDA will result in response to stimuli generating Ma in excess of say, 200. However, the PDA then decays as the remaining arrestin translocates into the rhabdomere. Interestingly this interpretation of the Calliphora PDA also has the potential to account for the “anti-PDA”—a mysterious and unexplained phenomenon first described over 30 years ago. Namely, following the decay of the PDA and reconversion of M to R a further PDA (by R to M conversion) can only be elicited if the photoreceptor is first left for some time (~10 s) in the dark (review: Hillman et al. 1983). On this interpretation, the anti-PDA (i.e. the inability to induce a second PDA) arises because the rhabdomere is fully loaded with arrestin following translocation, and how long it lasts will depend upon the time course of the reverse translocation of arrestin out of the rhabdomere.
We suggest that the reason why fast flying blowflies may have higher arrestin levels than Drosophila, is that they require photoreceptors with a short integration time and thus a high amount of arrestin to rapidly quench a rhodopsin molecule after its photoconversion into the active metarhodopsin state, resulting in a short-lived photon signal, the bump.
For green receptors, broad-band, natural illuminations generate metarhodopsin fractions >0.6 at high intensities. Nevertheless, because of metarhodopsin degradation, our model predicts that there may be a maximal requirement for only ca 200 arrestin molecules at highest light intensities (Fig. 7d). However, this is under steady-state conditions, and the situation would be different for a dark-adapted photoreceptor with fully regenerated rhodopsin suddenly exposed to daylight conditions (as might occur when a honeybee leaves its hive). To prevent a PDA under such conditions, it would seem essential to have approximately as many arrestin molecules as rhodopsin. To our knowledge, estimates of arrestin levels in insects other than Drosophila are not available. As we suggest for the blowfly, we predict that the absolute levels of arrestin in the green photoreceptors of the majority of insects are likely to be at least 80% of the number of rhodopsin molecules.
Because of the rapid metarhodopsin decay and slower rhodopsin regeneration in the green receptors, the visual pigment level, and thus photosensitivity, will decrease during continuous illumination (Fig. 7f). We suggest that this may be turned to advantage as a mechanism of light adaptation, reducing sensitivity and extending the dynamic range. A similar sensitivity control by bleaching of visual pigment at very bright light levels is believed to play a crucial role in light adaptation in vertebrate cone photoreceptors (Burkhardt 1994; Mata et al. 2002; Ala-Laurila et al. 2006; review, Pugh et al. 1999).
We thank Drs Gregor Belušič and Kentaro Arikawa for reading the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions. Financial support was given by AFOSR/EOARD grant no. FA8655-08-1-3012 (to DGS) and by the BBSRC (to RCH).
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
- Briscoe AD, Bernard GD, Szeto AS, Nagy LM, White RH (2003) Not all butterfly eyes are created equal: Rhodopsin absorption spectra, molecular identification, and localization of ultraviolet-, blue-, and green-sensitive rhodopsin-encoding mRNAs in the retina of Vanessa cardui. J Comp Neurol 458:334–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dartnall HJA (1972) Photosensitivity. In: Dartnall HJA (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VII/1. Spinger, Berlin, pp 122–145Google Scholar
- Franceschini N (1975) Sampling of the visual environment by the compound eye of the fly: fundamentals and applications. In: Snyder AW, Menzel R (eds) Photoreceptor optics. Springer, Berlin, pp 98–125Google Scholar
- Hamdorf K (1979) The physiology of invertebrate visual pigments. In: Autrum H (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology, vol VII/6A. Springer, Berlin, pp 145–224Google Scholar
- Heinrich B (1993) The hot-blooded insects, strategies and mechanisms of thermoregulation. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
- Hofstee CA (1996) The Ca2+ homeostasis of the photoreceptor cell of Drosophila studied with the pupil mechanism. Thesis, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
- Langer H (1975) Properties of screening pigments in insect eyes. In: Snyder AW, Menzel R (eds) Photoreceptor optics. Springer, Berlin, pp 429–455Google Scholar
- Langer H, Struwe G (1972) Spectral absorption by screening pigment granules in the compound eye of butterflies (Heliconius). J Comp Physiol 79:203–212Google Scholar
- McFarland WN, Munz RW (1976) The visible spectrum during twilight and its implications to vision. In: Evans GC, Bainbridge R, Rackham O (eds) Light as an ecological factor, vol II. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 249–270Google Scholar
- Menzel R (1979) Spectral sensitivity and color vision in invertebrates. In: Autrum H (ed) Handbook of sensory physiology Vol VII/6A. Springer, Berlin, pp 503–580Google Scholar
- Schwemer J (1979) Molekulare Grundlagen der Photorezeption bei der Schmeissfliege Calliphora erythrocephala Meig. Habilitationsschrift, BochumGoogle Scholar
- Schwemer J (1989) Visual pigments of compound eyes—structure, photochemistry, and regeneration. In: Stavenga DG, Hardie RC (eds) Facets of vision. Springer, Berlin, pp 112–133Google Scholar
- Schwemer J (1993) Visual pigment renewal and the cycle of the chromophore in the compound eye of the blowfly. In: Wiese K, Gribakin F, Popov AV, Renninger G (eds) Sensory systems of arthropods. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, pp 54–68Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG (1975) Dark regeneration of invertebrate visual pigments. In: Snyder AW, Menzel R (eds) Photoreceptor optics. Springer, Berlin, pp 126–144Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG (1980) Short wavelength light in invertebrate visual sense cells. Pigments, potentials and problems. In: Senger H (ed) The blue light syndrome. Springer, Berlin, pp 5–24Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG (1995) Insect retinal pigments. Spectral characteristics and physiological functions. In: Osborne NN, Chader GJ (eds) Progress in retinal and eye research, vol 15. Pergamon Press, pp 231–259Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG (2003) Angular and spectral sensitivity of fly photoreceptors. II. Dependence on facet lens F-number and rhabdomere type in Drosophila. J Comp Physiol A 189:189–202Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG (2010) On visual pigment templates and the spectral shape of invertebrate rhodopsins and metarhodopsins. J Comp Physiol A 196:869–878Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG, Kuiper JW (1977) Insect pupil mechanisms. I. On the pigment migration in the retinula cells of Hymenoptera (suborder Apocrita). J Comp Physiol A 113:55–72Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG, Schwemer J (1984) Visual pigments of invertebrates. In: Ali MA (ed) Photoreception and vision of invertebrates. Plenum, New York, pp 11–61Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG, Zantema A, Kuiper JW (1973) Rhodopsin processes and the function of the pupil mechanism in flies. In: Langer H (ed) Biochemistry and physiology of visual pigments. Springer, Berlin, pp 175–180Google Scholar
- Stavenga DG, Schwering P, Tinbergen J (1993) A 3-compartment model describing temperature-changes in tethered flying blowflies. J Exp Biol 185:325–333Google Scholar
- Strother GK, Casella AJ (1972) Microspectrophotometry of arthropod visual screening pigments. J Gen Physiol 59:616–636Google Scholar