scholarly journals SUBUNIT COORDINATION IN THE FIREFLY LIGHT ORGAN

1969 ◽  
Vol 137 (3) ◽  
pp. 447-464 ◽  
Author(s):  
FRANK E. HANSON ◽  
JEFFREY MILLER ◽  
GEORGE T. REYNOLDS
Keyword(s):  
Life Sciences ◽  
1985 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 433-440 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hossein Hashemzadeh ◽  
Robert M. Hollingworth ◽  
Alan Voliva
Keyword(s):  

1970 ◽  
Vol 131 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret K. Peterson

1975 ◽  
Vol 164 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Donata Oertel ◽  
KennethA. Linberg ◽  
JamesF. Case

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e56406 ◽  
Author(s):  
King-Siang Goh ◽  
Hwo-Shuenn Sheu ◽  
Tzu-En Hua ◽  
Mei-Hua Kang ◽  
Chia-Wei Li
Keyword(s):  

1980 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
K N Smalley ◽  
D E Tarwater ◽  
T L Davidson

Two fluorescent materials have been localized in the adult firefly light organ by fluorescence microscopy. One of these is located in photocyte granules, has a maximum emission between 510 and 540 nm, is more fluorescent in basic than acidic solution, and is unstable in ultraviolet light, phosphomolybdic acid, and potassium permanganate. It is thought to be luciferin. The fluorescence of this material is very dim in untreated fireflies but increases substantially following sustained light emission induced by synephrine or prolonged electrical stimulation. It is suggested that the luciferin of untreated animals is bound in the granules and that binding suppresses its fluorescence. The second fluorescent material is located in the dorsal layer of the light organ, particularly in the cells bordering on the photogenic layer. This material has a maximum emission between 510 and 520 nm, is relatively stable in ultraviolet light, and rapidly disappears when light organs are exposed to water. Its identity and function are unknown.


2014 ◽  
Vol 113 (25) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yueh-Lin Tsai ◽  
Chia-Wei Li ◽  
Tzay-Ming Hong ◽  
Jen-Zon Ho ◽  
En-Cheng Yang ◽  
...  

1982 ◽  
Vol 98 (1) ◽  
pp. 83-104
Author(s):  
MICHAEL I. LATZ ◽  
JAMES F. CASE

The posterior light organ and eyestalk of the midwater shrimp, Sergestes similis Hansen, are capable of 140° of angular movement within the body during pitch body tilt, maintaining the organs at near horizontal orientations. Counter-rotations compensate for 74–80% of body inclination. These responses are statocyst mediated. Unilateral statolith ablation reduces compensation by 50%. There is no evidence for either homolateral or contralateral control by the single functioning statocyst. Bilateral lith ablation abolishes counter-rotation. Light organ and eyestalk orientations are unaffected by the direction of imposed body tilt. Bioluminescence is emitted downward from horizontal animals with an angular distribution similar to the distribution of oceanic light. The amount of downward directed luminescence in tilted animals decreases at large angles of body inclination due to less than total compensation by the light organs. Eye turning towards a light source is induced by upward-directed illumination. The resulting change in eyestalk orientations never amounts to more than 25°. The turning is abolished by bilateral statolith ablation. Downward directed illumination, comparable in intensity to oceanic light, generally does not generate significant eye turning. Light organ orientations remain unaffected by directional illumination, both before and after bilateral statolith ablation. The compensatory counter-rotations by the posterior light organ and eyestalk suggest that counter-illumination by S. similis remains effective in inclined animals.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document