Advertisement

Evaluation of tentacle regeneration as a biological assay inHydra

  • Valerie Raabe Flechtner
  • Georgia Elizabeth Lesh-Laurie
  • Michael Kenneth Abbott
Article

Summary

Tentacle number in non-buddingHydra attenuata, randomly selected from mass culture varies <0.5 tentacles over a 3 month period. Replicate samples of untreated regenerates (n=50–60), however, show some variability in mean tentacle number regenerated (Sx0.13–0.15). The variability is similar whether experiments are performed using randomly selected animals or animals with identical tentacle numbers. The variability is, further, not the result of profound differences in the time of tentacle initiation in individual animals.

Addition of 10−5 M glutamate or a methanol extract to the assay medium results in both an earlier appearance of tentacles and in more tentacles being regenerated during early time periods. The mean tentacle number of methanol extract-treated animals is significantly higher than the mean tentacle number of either control or glutamate-treated animals at all time periods examined.

The distribution of tentacle number classes among regenerates is normal in control and glutamate-treated animals but nonparametric in methanol extract-treated animals, making statistical analysis of the data using Student'st-test in-appropriate. The usefulness of the Mann WhitneyU and Kruskal-Wallis tests is discussed, as is the appropriateness of tentacle regeneration as an assay forhydra morphogens.

Key words

Hydra Regeneration Bioassay Morphogen Statistical analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Berking S (1979) Analysis of head and foot formation inHydra by means of an endogenous inhibitor. Wilhelm Roux's Archives 186:189–210Google Scholar
  2. Berking S, Gierer A (1977) Analysis of early stages of budding inhydra by means of an endogenous inhibitor. Wilhelm Roux's Archives 182:117–129Google Scholar
  3. Burnett AL (1973) Biology ofhydra. Academic Press, New York London San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. Gibson, JD (1976) Nonparametric methods for quantitative analysis. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Kanaev II (1952)Hydra, Lenhoff H (ed) Originally published Soviet Acad Sci, MoscowGoogle Scholar
  6. Lenhoff HM, Brown RD (1970) Mass culture inhydra: an improved method and its application to other aquatic invertebrates. Lab Animals 4:139–154Google Scholar
  7. Lenhoff HM, Loomis WF (1961) The biology ofhydra. Univ of Miami Press, MiamiGoogle Scholar
  8. Lesh GE, Burnett AL (1966) An analysis of the chemical control of polarized form inhydra. J Exp Zool 163:55–78Google Scholar
  9. Lesh-Laurie GE, Flechtner VR, Hood RL (1980) Purification and analysis ofhydra morphogen. In: Tardent P, Tardent R (eds) Developmental and cellular biology of coelenterates. Elsevier/ North-Holland Biomedical Press, Amsterdam, pp 401–406Google Scholar
  10. Lesh-Laurie GE, Hang L (1972) Tentacle morphogenesis inHydra. I. The morphological effect of actinomycin D. Wilhelm Roux's Archives 169:314–334Google Scholar
  11. Muscatine L, Lenhoff HM (1965) Symbiosis ofhydra and algae. I. Effects of some environmental cations on growth of symbiotic and aposymbiotic hydra. Biol Bull 128:415–424Google Scholar
  12. Roulon O, Child CM (1937) Observations and experiments on developmental pattern inPelmatohydra oligactis. Physiol Zool 10:1–13Google Scholar
  13. Sacks PG, Davis LE (1979) Production of nervelessHydra attenuata by hydroxyurea treatments. J Cell Sci 37:189–204Google Scholar
  14. Schaller HC (1975) A neurohormone fromhydra is also present in the rat brain. J Neurochem 25:187–188Google Scholar
  15. Schaller H, Gierer A (1973) Distribution of the head-activating substance inhydra and its localization in membranous particles in nerve cells. J Embryol Exp Morphol 29:27–38Google Scholar
  16. Schaller HC, Schmidt T, Grimmelikhuijzen CJP (1979) Separation and specificity of action of four morphogens fromHydra. Wilhelm Roux's Archives 186:139–149Google Scholar
  17. Siegel S (1956) Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. McGraw-Hill Book Co Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Shostak S (1979) Digestive cell and tentacle number in freshly detached buds ofHydra viridis. Int J Invert Repro 1:167–178Google Scholar
  19. Shostak S, Medic D Jr, Sproull FA, Jones CC (1978) Tentacle number in culturedHydra viridis. Biol Bull 155:220–234Google Scholar
  20. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. WH Freeman and Co. San Francisco ReadingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valerie Raabe Flechtner
    • 1
  • Georgia Elizabeth Lesh-Laurie
    • 1
  • Michael Kenneth Abbott
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyCleveland State UniversityClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations