Advertisement

Journal of Bionic Engineering

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 76–87 | Cite as

Vibrational Receptor of Scorpion (Heterometrus petersii): The Basitarsal Compound Slit Sensilla

  • Kejun Wang
  • Junqiu Zhang
  • Linpeng Liu
  • Daobing Chen
  • Honglie Song
  • Yinliang Wang
  • Shichao Niu
  • Zhiwu HanEmail author
  • Luquan Ren
Article

Abstract

Recently, micro-vibrational perception mechanisms of nocturnal arthropods such as scorpions and spiders are attracting increasingly more attention and research. The relevant micro-vibrational receptors are exquisite, in terms of their comprehensive performance such as sensitivity, stability, high anti-interference, and ultralow-power consumption. In this work, we find the Basitarsal Compound Slit Sensilla (BCSS) of scorpion (Heterometrus petersii) are composed of the crack-shaped slits as mechanosensory structure and can efficiently detect substrate-borne vibrational signal in complex natural environment. The study on microstructures and mechanical properties of tissue phases constituting the BCSS reveals that the strategy of tessellation is used to make crack-shaped slit amplify the tiny mechanical signal. In addition, the magnitude-frequency characteristics of electrophysiological signals caused by vibration stimulation with different frequencies indicate that the scorpion is sensitive to micro-vibrational signals at a certain frequency range. Meanwhile, the vibrational perception mechanism based on geometrical amplification and resonance is proposed to explain how scorpions detect the tiny biotic vibrational signal efficiently in noise environment. This finding not only promotes our further understanding of ultra-sensitive mechanism of the vibrational receptors, but also provides biological inspiration for the next generation of mechanosensor for a broad range of applications.

Keywords

scorpion mechanoreceptor basitarsal compound slit sensilla vibrational perception 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51835006, 51325501 and 51675220), Program for JLU Science and Technology Innovative Research Team (Grant No. 2017TD-04). Interdisciplinary research funding program for doctoral of Jilin University [Grant No. 10183201827]. We sincerely thank Xinrui Wang, Xin Pan and Li Yang from Jilin University, for experimental support and discussions.

Supplementary material

Supplementary material, approximately 5.14 MB.

References

  1. [1]
    Fratzl P, Barth F G. Biomaterial systems for mechanosensing and actuation. Nature, 2009, 462, 442–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. [2]
    Tuthill J C, Wilson R I. Mechanosensation and adaptive motor control in insects. Current Biology, 2016, 26, 1022–1038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Jiang Y, Fu J, Zhang D, Zhao Y. Investigation on the lateral line system of two cavefish: Sinocyclocheilus Macrophthalmus and S. Microphthalmus (Cypriniformes: Cyprinidae). Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2016, 13, 108–114.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Polajnar J, Eriksson A, Lucchi A, Anfora G, Virant-Doberlet M, Mazzoni V. Manipulating behaviour with substrate-borne vibrations-potential for insect pest control. Pest Management Science, 2015, 71, 15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. [5]
    French A S, Torkkeli P H, Seyfarth E A. From stress and strain to spikes: Mechanotransduction in spider slit sensilla. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 2002, 188, 739–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. [6]
    Hossl B, Bohm H J, Rammerstorfer F G, Barth F G. Finite element modeling of arachnid slit sensilla I: The mechanical significance of different slit arrays. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 2007, 193, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Hossl B, Bohm H J, Schaber C F, Rammerstorfer F G, Barth F G. Finite element modeling of arachnid slit sensilla II: Actual lyriform organs and the face deformations of the individual slits. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 2009, 195, 881–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. [8]
    Hill P S M. How do animals use substrate-borne vibrations as an information source? The Science of Nature, 2009, 96, 1355–1371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    McConney M E, Schaber C F, Julian M D, Barth F G, Tsukruk V V. Viscoelastic nanoscale properties of cuticle contribute to the high-pass properties of spider vibration receptor (Cupiennius salei Keys). Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2007, 4, 1135–1143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Hebets E A, Elias D O, Mason A C, Miller G L, Stratton G E. Substrate-dependent signaling success in the wolf spider, Schizocosa retrorsa. Animal Behaviour, 2008, 75, 605–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Schaber C F, Gorb S N, Barth F G. Force transformation in spider strain sensors: White light interferometry. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2011, 9, 1254–1264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Widmer A, Hӧger U, Meisner S, French A S, Torkkeli P H. Spider peripheral mechanosensory neurons are directly innervated and modulated by octopaminergic efferents. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2005, 25, 1588–1598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Gingl E, French A S. Active signal conduction through the sensory dendrite of a spider mechanoreceptor neuron. The Journal of Neuroscience, 2003, 23, 6096–6101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. [14]
    Young S L, Chyasnavichyus M, Erko M, Barth F G, Fratzl P, Zlotnikov L, Politi Y, Tsukruk V V. A spider’s biological vibration filter: Micromechanical characteristics of a biomaterial surface. Acta Biomaterialia, 2014, 10, 4832–4842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Erko M, Younes-Metzler O, Rack A, Zaslansky P, Young S L, Milliron G, Chyasnavichyus M, Barth F G, Fratzl P, Tsukruk V, Zlotnikov L, Politi Y. Micro-and nano-structural details of a spider’s filter for substrate vibrations: Relevance for low-frequency signal transmission. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 2015, 12, 1742–5689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Brownell P, Farley R D. Orientation to vibrations in sand by the nocturnal scorpion Paruroctonus mesaensis: Mechanism of target localization. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 1979, 131, 31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Oliver W C, Pharr G M. Measurement of hardness and elastic modulus by instrumented indentation: Advances in understanding and refinements to methodology. Advanced Materials & Processes, 2004, 19, 3–20.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Brownell P, Farley R D. Detection of vibrations in sand by tarsal sense organs of the nocturnal scorpion, Paruroctonus mesaensis. Journal of Comparative Physiology A, 1979, 131, 23–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. [19]
    Young S L, Chyasnavichyus M, Barth F G, Zlotnikov I, Politi Y, Tsukruk V V. Micromechanical properties of strain-sensitive lyriform organs of a wandering spider (Cupiennius salei). Acta Biomaterialia, 2016, 41, 40–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. [20]
    Vincent J F V. Arthropod cuticle: A natural composite shell system. Advance Functional Material, 2002, 33, 1311–1315.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Bouligand Y. Twisted fibrous arrangements in biological materials and cholesteric mesophases. Tissue and Cell, 1972, 4, 189–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    Fratzl P, Kolednik O, Fischer F D, Dean M N. The mechanics of tessellations–Bioinspired strategies for fracture resistance. Chemical Society Reviews, 2016, 45, 252–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Dean M N, Mull C G, Gorb S N, Summers A P. Ontogeny of the tessellated skeleton: Insight from the skeletal growth of the round stingray Urobatis halleri. Journal of Anatomy, 2009, 215, 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    Liu X, Dean M N, Summers A P, Earthman J C. Composite model of the shark’s skeleton in bending: A novel architecture for biomimetic design of fatigue resistant materials. Materials Science and Engineering C, 2010, 30, 1077–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Summers A P. Stiffening the stingray skeleton–an investigation of durophagy in myliobatid stingrays (Chondrichthyes, Batoidea, Myliobatidae). Journal of Morphology, 2000, 243, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Volkova T, Zeidis I, Witte H, Schmidt M, Zimmermann K. Analysis of the vibrissa parametric resonance causing a signal amplification during whisking behavior. Journal of Bionic Engineering, 2016, 13, 312–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. [27]
    Zhou J, Milers R N. Sensing fluctuating airflow with spider silk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2017, 114, 12120–12125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. [28]
    Yan W Y, Kan Q H, Kergrene K, Kang G Z, Feng X Q, Rajan R. A truncated conical beam model for analysis of the vibration of rat whiskers. Journal of Biomechanics, 2013, 46, 1987–1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. [29]
    Hill P S M, Wessel A. Biotremology. Current Biology, 2016, 26, R187–R191.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Iwasa Y, Pomiankowski A. The evolution of costly mate preferences II: The ‘Handicap’ principle. Evolution, 1991, 45, 4832–4842.Google Scholar
  31. [31]
    Holen O H, Svennungsen T O. Aposematism and the handicap principle. American Naturalist, 2012, 180, 629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Jilin University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kejun Wang
    • 1
  • Junqiu Zhang
    • 1
  • Linpeng Liu
    • 1
  • Daobing Chen
    • 1
  • Honglie Song
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yinliang Wang
    • 3
  • Shichao Niu
    • 1
  • Zhiwu Han
    • 1
    Email author
  • Luquan Ren
    • 1
  1. 1.Key Laboratory for Bionic Engineering, Ministry of EducationJilin UniversityChangchunChina
  2. 2.Applied Mechanics Laboratory, Department of Engineering MechanicsTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  3. 3.Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Resource Conservation and UtilizationNortheast Normal UniversityChangchunChina

Personalised recommendations