Crustacean Eyestalk Research Articles

Action of Crustacean Eye-Stalk Extract on Melanophores of Hypophysectomized Fishes, Amphibians, and Reptiles.

The discovery of the crustacean eye-stalk hormone by Perkins1 and by Koller2 was soon followed by announcements of its effects upon the chromatophores of vertebrates. Koller and Meyer,3 Meyer,4 Perkins and Kropp,5 and Kropp and Perkins6 reported contraction of fish melanophores following injections of eye-stalk extracts, and Kropp5 and Kropp and Perkins6 found melanophore expansion in tadpoles following similar injections. These divergent results led the writer to reinvestigate the physiological properties of eye-stalk extract with more rigidly-controlled, experimental animals. Extracts were made from the eye-stalks of Palaemonetes vulgaris and injected in various dosages into specimens of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles. The extracts were prepared by macerating eye-stalks in water. The supernatant liquid was boiled, filtered and dried. The dried material was extracted with hot 95% alcohol, the soluble fraction dried, washed with ether, and the ether insoluble material re-extracted with absolute ethanol....

THE ACTION OF THE CRUSTACEAN CHROMATOPHORE ACTIVATOR ON THE MELANOPHORES OF FISHES AND AMPHIBIANS

Previous articleNext article No AccessJournal ArticlesTHE ACTION OF THE CRUSTACEAN CHROMATOPHORE ACTIVATOR ON THE MELANOPHORES OF FISHES AND AMPHIBIANSBENJAMIN KROPP and EARLE B. PERKINSBENJAMIN KROPPFrom the Mt. Desert Island Biological Laboratory and the Zoölogical Laboratory, Rutgers University Search for more articles by this author and EARLE B. PERKINSFrom the Mt. Desert Island Biological Laboratory and the Zoölogical Laboratory, Rutgers University Search for more articles by this author From the Mt. Desert Island Biological Laboratory and the Zoölogical Laboratory, Rutgers UniversityPDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Biological Bulletin Volume 64, Number 2April 1933 Published in association with the Marine Biological Laboratory Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.2307/1537230 Views: 9Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref © 1933 Marine Biological LaboratoryPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article: A. A. Abramowitz The Similarity between the Hypophyseal Chromatophorotropic Hormone and the Chromatophorotropic Hormone of the Crustacean Eyestalk, Physiological Zoology 11, no.33 (Sep 2015): 299–311.https://doi.org/10.1086/physzool.11.3.30151463A. E. NAVEZ and B. KROPP THE GROWTH-PROMOTING ACTION OF CRUSTACEAN EYE-STALK EXTRACT, The Biological Bulletin 67, no.22 (Sep 2016): 250–258.https://doi.org/10.2307/1537161

THE OCCURRENCE OF THE HUMORAL CHROMATOPHORE ACTIVATOR AMONG MARINE CRUSTACEANS

The chromatophore-activating principle of the crustacean eye-stalk has been found in Palcwmonetes by Perkins (1928), in Crangon and several species of Leander by Koller. (1928), in Macrobrachium by Smith (1930), in Praunus by Koller and Meyer (1930), and in Callinectes by Perkins and Kropp (1932). Already indicated as present in several families of decapods, the hormone was looked for in as great a variety of crustaceans as could be obtained in the vicinity of the Mt. Desert Island Biological Laboratory, at Salisbury Cove, Maine. We had available seven different species of marine crustaceans belonging to as many different families. Six were decapods-Crago ( Crangon) boreas, Pandalus montagui, Homarus americanus, Pagurus longicarpus, Libinia emnarginata, and Cancer irroratus; one was a schizopod -Mysis stenolepis. The eyes were extracted in sea water as has been described previously. Unfortunately, the extracts could not in all cases be tested on the species from which they were derived. This was impracticable with Homarus, Libinia and Cancer because of the lack of external chromatophores that undergo readily observable changes. Pandalus and Pagurus did not remain alive long enough under laboratory conditions to permit adequate tests, and Mysis was too small for injection in addition to being very fragile and non-resistant. Therefore, Crago boreas was used as a test animal for all extracts. Measured amounts of the extract in question were injected into two sets of Crago which had previously been adapted to white and black backgrounds respectively. In all cases the chromatophores of Crago were examined microscopically before and after the eye extract was injected in order to determine the degree of contraction or expansion. Control animals, similarly adapted, received like amounts of sea water, and still others received the same amount of the donor's abdominal muscle similarly extracted in sea water. Following injections, the animals were returned to the background on which they had become adapted; i.e., white-