Dataset Information

How do amoebae swim and crawl?

ABSTRACT: The surface behaviour of swimming amoebae was followed in cells bearing a cAR1-paGFP (cyclic AMP receptor fused to a photoactivatable-GFP) construct. Sensitized amoebae were placed in a buoyant medium where they could swim toward a chemoattractant cAMP source. paGFP, activated at the cell's front, remained fairly stationary in the cell's frame as the cell advanced; the label was not swept rearwards. Similar experiments with chemotaxing cells attached to a substratum gave the same result. Furthermore, if the region around a lateral projection near a crawling cell's front is marked, the projection and the labelled cAR1 behave differently. The label spreads by diffusion but otherwise remains stationary in the cell's frame; the lateral projection moves rearwards on the cell (remaining stationary with respect to the substrate), so that it ends up outside the labelled region. Furthermore, as cAR1-GFP cells move, they occasionally do so in a remarkably straight line; this suggests they do not need to snake to move on a substratum. Previously, we suggested that the surface membrane of a moving amoeba flows from front to rear as part of a polarised membrane trafficking cycle. This could explain how swimming amoebae are able to exert a force against the medium. Our present results indicate that, in amoebae, the suggested surface flow does not exist: this implies that they swim by shape changes.

SUBMITTER: Howe JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3770602 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How do amoebae swim and crawl?

Howe Jonathan D JD Barry Nicholas P NP Bretscher Mark S MS

PloS one 20130911 9

The surface behaviour of swimming amoebae was followed in cells bearing a cAR1-paGFP (cyclic AMP receptor fused to a photoactivatable-GFP) construct. Sensitized amoebae were placed in a buoyant medium where they could swim toward a chemoattractant cAMP source. paGFP, activated at the cell's front, remained fairly stationary in the cell's frame as the cell advanced; the label was not swept rearwards. Similar experiments with chemotaxing cells attached to a substratum gave the same result. Further ...[more]

PMID: 24040237

Similar Datasets

Project description:The purposes of this study were to establish test-retest reliability of calculating load-velocity profiles in front crawl swimming using five and three different external loads, and if outcome results were comparable between calculation methods for monitoring performance over time. Fifteen swimmers at either national or international competition level (seven females and eight males) participated in this study. The subjects performed 25 m of semi-tethered swimming with maximal effort with five progressive loads (females 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 kg and males 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 kg) as well as 50 m maximal front crawl on 2 different days. The mean velocity during three stroke cycles in mid-pool was calculated and plotted as a function of the external load. Relationship between the load and velocity was expressed by a linear regression line and established for each swimmer. The intercepts between the axes of the plot and the established regression line were defined as theoretical maximum velocity (V0) and load (L0). In addition, L0 was also expressed as a percentage of body mass (rL0). The coefficient of determination (R2) and the slope (Slv) of the linear load-velocity relationship were calculated. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) showed excellent agreement (ICC ≥0.902) for all variables. The coefficient of variation was ≤3.14% and typical error was rated as "good" in all variables. A difference was found between day 1 and 2 in V0 for three- and five-load calculations and for 50 m front crawl time (p < 0.05). No difference was found between the load-velocity profile outcomes variables compared between the three- and five-trial protocols on neither day 1 nor 2. The Bland-Altman plots showed a small bias across all resistance conditions for five loads, L0: 0.04 kg, rL0: 0.13%, V0: -0.03 m/s, and Slv: 0.003 -m/s/kg and for three loads, L0: -0.24 kg, rL0: -0.27%, V0: -0.04 m/s, Slv: 0.002 -m/s/kg. In conclusion, the load-velocity profile for front crawl swimming can be calculated with high reliability from both five and three external loads and comparable results in outcome variables were established. These methods can be used to monitor performance parameters over time, and to investigate and compare swimmers' velocity and strength capabilities to allow for individualized training prescription to improve performance.

Project description:The variability of electromyographic (EMG) recordings between and within participants is a complex problem, rarely studied in swimming. The importance of signal normalization has long been recognized, but the method used might influence variability. The aims of this study were to: (i) assess the intra-individual variability of the EMG signal in highly skilled front crawl swimmers, (ii) determine the influence of two methods of both amplitude and time normalization of the EMG signal on intra-individual variability and of time normalization on muscle activity level and (iii) describe the muscle activity, normalized using MVIC, in relation to upper limb crawl stroke movements. Muscle activity of rectus abdominis and deltoideus medialis was recorded using wireless surface EMG in 15 adult male competitive swimmers during three trials of 12.5 m front crawl at maximal speed without breathing. Two full upper limb cycles were analyzed from each of the swimming trials, resulting in six full cycles used for the intra-individual variability assessment, quantified with the coefficient of variation (CV), coefficient of quartile variation (CQV) and the variance ratio (VR). The results of this study support previous findings on EMG patterns of deltoideus medialis and rectus abdominis as prime mover during the recovery (45% activity relative to MVIC), and stabilizer of the trunk during the pull (14.5% activity) respectively. The intra-individual variability was lower (VR of 0.34-0.47) when compared to other cyclic movements. No meaningful differences were found between variability measures CV or VR when applying either of the amplitude or the time normalization methods. In addition to reporting the mean amplitude and standard deviation, future EMG studies in swimming should also report the intra-individual variability, preferably using VR as it is independent of peak amplitude, provides a good measure of repeatability and is insensitive to mean EMG amplitude and the degree of smoothing applied.

Dataset Information

How do amoebae swim and crawl?

Publications

How do amoebae swim and crawl?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets