RESEARCH ARTICLE

Distribution of mass in relaxed frog skeletal muscle and its redistribution

upon activation
L.C. Yu, A.C. Steven, G.R. Naylor, R.C. Gamble and R.J. Podolsky

Abstract
Five orders of equatorial reflection were recorded from both relaxed and fully activated intact
frog sartorius muscle using synchrotron x-ray radiation. Electron density maps of the
myofilament lattice in axial projection were calculated from the integrated intensities by Fourier
synthesis, using all possible phase combinations. These maps were evaluated systematically in
terms of their compatibility with electron microscopically and biochemically derived properties
of the lattice structure and with the minimum wavelength principle. For the relaxed state, one
phase combination emerged as most consistent with these constraints: it shows a thick filament
with a compact core surrounded by an annular shell of density. The distribution of mass suggests
that the S-2 moiety of the myosin molecule is an integral part of the thick-filament backbone and
the S-1 moiety makes up the shell and is tilted or slewed around the backbone. For the active
state, there are two feasible maps, which differ according to whether or not the activation process
is associated with phase inversion in two of the reflections. Both maps represent patterns of
redistribution of mass upon activation in which the thick-filament backbone is practically
unaffected and there is movement of density from the annular shell towards the thin filaments. In
addition to this outward radial flux of density from the thick-filament periphery, the pattern of
net mass transfer involves a pronounced azimuthal component in both cases. The total net mass
transfer is equivalent to approximately 20% (no phase change) or approximately 40% (with
phase change) of the S-1 mass. From the observed systematic increase in peak widths of the
higher orders, the size of the crystalline domain in the myofilament lattice in the relaxed sartorius
is estimated to be greater than 650 nm and the variations in myofilament lattice spacing among
different myofibrils to be about +/- 3%. Furthermore, in the activated state, the equilibrium
positions of the myofilaments are no longer well ordered, but are distributed statistically about
the lattice points with a standard deviation of approximately 3 nm.

http://www.cell.com/biophysj/abstract/S0006-3495(85)83921-7
Terrestrial Movements and Upland Habitat Use of Gopher Frogs in
Central Florida
W. Boyd Blihovde,*
Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, 4000 Central Florida Boulevard,
Orlando, FL 32816

Abstract

In recent years, researchers have begun to focus on the upland habitat requirements of pond-
breeding amphibians. The increased attention is due to a general lack of knowledge about the
terrestrial phase of the life history of most pond-breeding species and a concern over loss of
upland habitats. In this study, radio telemetry was used to determine the terrestrial behavior
of Rana capito (Gopher Frogs) in central Florida. Frogs were captured at Gopherus
polyphemus (Gopher Tortoise) and Geomys pinetis (pocket gopher) burrows. Surgically
implanted radio transmitters were used to follow nine Gopher Frogs at various times between
September 1999 and May 2000. Radio-located frogs used from one to four terrestrial shelters
(Mean ± S.D. = 2.28 ± 1.11). Terrestrial movements ranged in total distance from zero to 35 m
(Mean ± S.D. = 15.28 ± 15.29). Mean minimum convex polygons (m 2) were calculated for each
frog (Mean ± S.D. = 45.29 ± 79.73). Gopher Frogs showed strong site fidelity to both pocket
gopher and Gopher Tortoise burrows. Drought conditions could have resulted in an
underestimate of movement distance and an overestimate of site fidelity to upland shelters.
Upland habitat should be managed to protect all species of terrestrial burrowers; in doing so,
Gopher Frogs will be managed.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1656/1528-7092(2006)5[265:TMAUHU]2.0.CO;2
MICROHABITAT USE OF THE CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED
FROG AND INTRODUCED BULLFROG IN A SEASONAL MARSH

1
Sonoma State University, Department of Biology, 1801 E. Cotati Avenue, Rohnert Park,
CA 94928, USA
2
Rana Resources, P.O. Box 2185, Davis, CA 95617, and Research Associate, Department of
Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA
94103, USA
Associate Editor: Kimberly Babbitt
3
PRESENT ADDRESS: 3003 Magowan Drive, Santa Rosa, CA 95405.
4
CORRESPONDENCE: e-mail, dcook@scwa.ca.gov

We quantified frog phenology and microhabitat use of the native California red-legged frog (Rana
draytonii) and introduced bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) in an 11-ha seasonal marsh, Sonoma County,
California. Logistic regression showed that both species selected habitats nonrandomly from among
the available habitats in the marsh. As adults, the two species overlapped in their habitat use,
selecting dead spikerush in winter and spring, and aquatic buttercup in summer. Although the model
emphasized overlap in frog habitats, there was more separation in habitat use between species during
winter than other seasons when few bullfrogs were active (i.e., most bullfrogs hibernating). The egg-
laying habitats and seasons differed dramatically between the two species. Red-legged frogs bred in
winter almost exclusively in shallow dead spikerush and bullfrogs in spring and summer in deeper
areas with dense cover, predominantly smartweed. Breeding periods of red-legged frogs and
bullfrogs were separated by 10 wk, which coincided with peak adult abundances. We suggest that the
separate reproductive seasons may reduce competition and predation by bullfrogs on red-legged
frogs, allowing for coexistence. Furthermore, the marsh's late-season drying limits metamorphosis of
bullfrog tadpoles, which usually require permanent water. The marsh's seasonal hydrologic pattern
offers a model for habitat in which the native red-legged frog may persist despite negative
interactions with the introduced bullfrog.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1655/0018-0831(2007)63[430:MUOTCR]2.0.CO;2
Biological control of mosquito populations through frogs:
opportunities & constrains

The use of frogs and tadpoles for disease vector control is still largely unexplored. Frogs are an important part of the
ecosystem with a role for insect and pest control including mosquitoes. Available information suggests the existence
of many direct and indirect factors affecting the growth and survival of both prey and predators. Other controphic
species that have influence on this relationship also show considerable effect. Still, the associations of different prey
and predator relationships in the environment to assess the feasibility of use of a species as biocontrol agent for
vector control and management. However, frogs cannot be used as an independent intervention for disease vector
control and more research is needed to use them effectively for mosquito control.

Key words Frog--mosquito--tadpole--vector control

**********

A debate is in India on the use of frogs for the control of mosquito larvae in view of decline of frog population and
possible increase in mosquito density. Ban on killing frogs is already in effect in India (1) since 1972. The concern
on the export of frog legs has also supported the ban on killing of frogs (2). There is a strong perception that the
decline in amphibians leads to an increase in mosquito population (3) which needs sufficient scientific evidence.
Studies on the role of frogs in controlling mosquitoes are meagre thus, information on their effectiveness for
mosquito control is lacking. In this review we discuss the reports and available information from various studies
undertaken on the feasibility of use of frogs in mosquito control.

In a study by Komak and Crossland (28) on association of mosquito fish and Limnodynastes omatus (native frog)
and Bufo marinus (non-native frog) it was stated that introduction of mosquito fish, Gambusia affinis holbrooki as a
predator of eggs, hatchling and tadpoles affects both the native and non-native anurans thereby affecting the natural
control of mosquito larvae.

It may be noted that introduction of mosquito fish that preferably utilize amphibian eggs and tadpoles may cause
substantial decline of amphibian populations. Blaustein and Margalit (29) tested the experimental interaction of
mosquito larvae, Culiseta longiarolata and immatures of Bufo viridis which largely feed on periphyton may create
competition for natural food. Further, it was also found that presence of Bufo tadpoles affect the growth of Culiseta
and vice versa due to interspecific competition not affecting survival of each other. They have also stated that
Culiseta larvae preyed on Bufo hatchlings both in field and laboratory experiments affecting the Bufo population. In
the light of these experiments it was cautioned to be careful while assigning prey-predator relationships based on
available documented information alone. Mokany and Shine (30) conducted laboratory studies on association of
mosquito larvae and tadpoles and reported negative effect on each other's development and survival, which was
contemplated to be due to certain chemical and microbiological cues. Hagman and Shine (3) observed reduction in
survival rates of mosquito larvae in the presence of Bufo marinus in the laboratory while in field a reduction in
oviposition rates of mosquito was observed. The above studies on inter- and intra-specific association of mosquito
larvae with frogs have stated that frogs cannot be discounted for use as predators of larvae but at the same time
cannot be considered as a sole intervention for mosquito control. Studies have shown that tadpoles were reported to
prey on mosquito larvae where they are the only food resource. Marian et al (31) reported that the tadpoles of Rana
tigrina show a preference for pupal stages whereas other mosquito predators prefer early larval stages. Therefore,
concurrent presence of other larvivorous organism might exert simultaneous predation pressure on different stages
of mosquito immatures, which will be a more effective control measure. Many larvae escape from predation and
metamorphose to pupal stages, in that case presence of tadpoles of R. tigrina will exert simultaneous pressure on
pupal stages. Spielman and Sullivan (32) in their studies with Hyla septentrionalis and Cx. pipiens larvae reported
that tadpoles preyed specifically on mosquito larvae and contemplated that the observed reduction of Cx. pipens
population co-occurring with Hyla sp. in field may also be due to such specific prey preference. Kumar and Hwang
(20) stated that tadpoles can rarely be accommodated in small container breeding habitats.

Ecological studies on consequences of interactions between the mosquito larvae and other controphic species are
very few. Blaustein and Chase (33) stated that such controphic associations are likely to reduce the mosquito
populations and thus could be an effective management tool for their control. They discussed the impact of
controphic species on mosquitoes in a variety of direct and indirect ways with examples. Controphic species, some
zooplanktons and tadpoles strongly and negatively affect the control of mosquito larvae by consuming the
pathogenic bacteria that kill the mosquito larvae. Controphic species may also act as mutualists by serving as
alternative prey and reduce the predation intensity on mosquitoes. Apparent competition occurs when tadpoles and
mosquito larvae have common predator such as fish that prefer to prey on tadpoles. In this situation it could be
hypothesized that frogs by presenting itself as an additional food source may allow the abundance of the fish. Later,
with the imbalance in tadpole population, fish prey on mosquito larvae which are now abundant, resulting in
possible reduction in mosquito larval density. Apart from all the various factors discussed it is also important to
assess the preference of the predator as to size, mobility, density, ease of availability, synchrony of breeding of the
prey (24). Thus, the basic principle of community ecology of mosquito and their interaction with resources,
predators, pathogens and controphic species is important to understand the prey-predator relationships in the
environment. Role of controphic species as an important component in affecting mosquitoes remain largely
unexplored.

Invasion of species has shown to disrupt the functioning of important components of a natural system. Hagman and
Shine (3) stating various consequences of invasion of non-native, South American cane toads reported that it could
reduce the survival rates, body size, oviposition preference of mosquitoes and negative association owing to its
effect on native species. Therefore, careful analysis of the impact on ecosystem is necessary before selecting any
organism for vector control especially with invasive species. Kumar and Hwang (20) stated that establishment of
biocontrol agents needs a thorough understanding of their interactions with the co-occurring prey-predator
community. In the environment, if the predator shows negative consumptive effect, it will reduce inter- and intra-
specific competition thereby resulting in increased numbers of target species. Hence, overall evaluation of the
impact of such introduction of frogs or other predators should be considered for possible benefits to human health.
The knowledge from studies on the interaction of frog population with prey and predators can be applied to predict
and manipulate its success for its use in vector control. Ecological theories of biomanipulation may be applied for
such vector control programme management strategies.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3867/is_1_128/ai_n32056585/?tag=content;col1
GM potato uses frog gene to resist pathogens

A chemical that South American frogs excrete from their skin could protect potatoes and other crops from a range of
diseases, according to biotechnologists in Canada.

Researchers at the University of Victoria inserted a modified frog gene into potato plants to make them produce the
chemical.

The genetically modified (GM) potatoes showed resistance to infection by a broad range of disease-causing fungi
and bacteria, including those responsible for diseases such as dry rot, late blight and pink rot.

Different species of frog produce different sets of chemicals, including some called dermaseptins, from their skin
depending on the environment they inhabit. The chemicals help protect frogs from bacteria and other 'pathogens'.

The most potent dermaseptin, known as B1, has been isolated from the skin of tree frogs called Phyllomedusa
bicolor that live in the rainforests of South America, where the hot and humid conditions mean fungi and bacteria
thrive.

The Canadian team showed that a synthetic version of dermaseptin B1 inhibited the growth of "an exceptionally
broad range" of fungi that cause plant diseases, as well as the bacterium Erwinia carotovora, which causes blackleg
in potato plants in the field and soft rot of tubers in storage.

The researchers genetically modified potatoes to produce the chemical and exposed the GM plants to the same
organisms. The inserted gene gave "unusually broad-spectrum and powerful resistance to infection", according to
the team's research, which the journal Theoretical and Applied Geneticspublished online in June.

Santosh Misra, who led the work, told SciDev.Net the approach could help farmers in developing countries to
reduce pesticide use, increase yields and reduce losses of crops stored after harvest.

Fungal and bacterial infections can cause heavy losses of potato crops. The standard approach has, in recent
decades, been to spray crops with pesticides, but this can be damaging to the environment and farmers' health, and
encourages the fungi and bacteria to develop pesticide-resistance.

Misra's team says that because their GM potatoes could resist so many types of disease-causing organism, the same
gene could be used to protect other crops such as wheat, barley and sugar.

The researchers say that the preliminary results of studies to show the safety of dermaseptin B1 "are positive". They
add that the GM plants showed no ill effects of having been genetically modified.

Eric Messens, professor of plant molecular genetics at Flanders Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology at Ghent
University, Belgium, says the research into the safety of GM crop using genes that produce toxins should precede
the main research, not follow it.
Messons told SciDev.Net that it was important to test if dermaseptin B1 is toxic to people and animals, as well as
study whether the chemical gets broken down or builds up in the body.
"Long-term effects must be taken into consideration because even though the authors claim that the amount of
dermaseptin is low, the accumulation effect can not be ignored," said Messons.
For example, said Messons, long-term consumption of peas called Lathyrus sativus can cause paralysis if a toxin in
the peas accumulates in people, as has happened in Bangladesh and India.
Messons suggests that safety could be improved by ensuring that GM potatoes only produce dermaseptin B1 when
they become infected, and then only in the skin of the potato, which could then be removed by peeling.

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/gm-potato-uses-frog-gene-to-resist-pathogens.html
 u Importance of the Bones u
Protection
Your bones provide a rigid framework that supports and protects your organs, like the
brain, heart and lungs.

Movement
Your muscles, their attachments and your bones form the musculoskeletal system.
Without it, movement would be impossible.

Acid Regulation
The skeleton also absorbs and releases mineral salts to prevent major changes in the
acidity of the blood, which can be dangerous to the body.

Blood Cell Production

Bone marrow produces red as well as white blood cells.

Storage of Minerals
Calcium and phosphorus are stored in your bones when excess amounts are present in
the blood and released back into the blood when you need them.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5448584_importance-skeletal-system.html
 u Importance of Skeletal System u
The skeletal system fulfils many important functions. The human body has 206 bones, which
protect it while providing it with crucial minerals and blood cells.

Framework
The skeletal system forms the framework for the muscles, ligaments, tendons and other
softer tissues of the body.

Protection
The skeletal system protects the body's organs and other softer components. It acts as a
barrier, making them less likely to become injured.

Movement
The skeletal system works with the muscular system to create movement. Ligaments
connect the bones to one another, and tendons connect muscles to bones. The muscles extend
and contract to create movement.

Blood Cell Production

Some bones contain marrow, which produces new blood cells. The skeletal system
produces about 2.6 million red blood cells per second.

Storage of Minerals
The skeletal system also stores important minerals that the body needs. It stores calcium,
phosphorus and other minerals in the bones when the body's supplies are high, and releases
some of these minerals into the blood if supplies become low.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_5485688_important-functions-skeletal-system.html
u Similarities of Human & Frog Skeletal System u
Even though frogs don't look much like people on the outside, their skeletons are similar
to people's skeletons, especially when it comes to their limbs. Just like in a person's arms, in a
frog's front legs are bones called the humerus, the radius and the ulna.

A frog's radius and ulna are fused into one bone. The same is true for a frog's legs --
the femur supports its upper leg, and the bones of the lower leg, the  tibia and fibula, are fused.
A frog has two  scapulae, or shoulder blades, and clavicles, or collar bones that are shaped a lot
like the same bones in a person's body.

The axial and appendicular both make up a frog and human's skeletal system. For a frog,
the skeletal system's main function is locomotion and maintaining posture. Although the human
and frog skeletal system also protect vital organs the frog does not have any ribs whereas a
human does.

The human's skeletal system is a moveable frame and is an efficient factory for producing
red blood cells. The frog's skeletal system also produces red blood cell and all their bones are
covered with a membrane called the periosteum from which they get their circulation nerves.

http://slohs.slcusd.org/pages/teachers/rhamley/Biology/Frog%20Dissection/skeleton.htm l
A collection of small bones makes up a frog's digits, or its fingers and toes. Most of the time, a frog has
five toes on its back legs and four toes on its front legs. The length and shape of the toes has a big impact
on how the frog moves. Tree frogs have long, flexible toes that allow them to grasp stems and branches
as they climb around. Aquatic frogs also have long toes -- the spaces between them are webbed so they
can use their feet like flippers. Some frogs burrow into the soil in the summer or winter. Often, their feet
are shorter and wider, like shovels or spades.

But a frog's skeleton isn't so similar to a human's once you get past the extremities. Frogs have skulls but
don't have necks, so they can't turn, lift or lower their heads like people can. A frog also doesn't have ribs.
The rib-like structures you can see in the picture above are part of its spine. A frog's pelvis can slide up
and down its spine, which may help it jump. The vertebrae at the bottom end of the spine are fused into
one bone called the urostyle.
 Submitted by:
Angelique Ann V. Israel
II – A BSBT