Functional implications of supercontracting muscle in the chameleon tongue retractors
1 Laboratory of Functional Morphology, Biology Department, University of Antwerp (UIA), Universiteitsplein 1, B-2610 Antwerp, Belgium and
2 Functional Morphology and Physiology Group, Biology Department, Northern Arizona University, PO Box 5640 Flagstaff, AZ 86001, USA
*e-mail: aherrel{at}uia.ua.ac.be
Accepted August 7, 2001
![]() |
Summary |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Key words: Chameleonidae, Chamaeleo oustaleti, super-contracting striated muscle, prey capture, force, tongue retractor, ultrastructure.
![]() |
Introduction |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
As sit-and-wait foragers usually eat infrequently and tend to capture relatively large prey (Andrews, 1979; Pough et al., 2001), it is important that chameleons are extremely accurate in capturing their prey and bringing it back to the mouth. This constraint on the visual and tongue projection systems has resulted in a specialised depth perception mechanism (Harkness, 1977; Ott and Schaeffel, 1995), leading to an extremely accurate prey-capture mechanism (Bell, 1990). As chameleons are known to take large prey (Broadley, 1973; Schleich et al., 1996), the tongue retraction mechanism is probably constrained as well. Not only should chameleons be able to retract the tongue with adhering large prey, but they should be able to do so over a wide range of distances. This might be especially problematic as chameleons are known to project their tongue to distances of up to two body lengths (Wainwright et al., 1991; Schwenk, 2000; Herrel et al., 2000). This implies that the tongue retractor should be able to generate large forces over at least a sixfold change in length (Rice, 1973). Given the length/tension properties of typical vertebrate muscles [with only a short plateau where force production is near maximal (Rome and Lindstedt, 1997; Burkholder and Lieber, 2001)], this seems unlikely. However, on the basis of behavioural observations of chameleons capturing large prey, such as lizards, positioned at a range of distances, we hypothesise that chameleons are able to produce large forces over a wide range of prey distances and that this may be related to the supercontracting properties of the tongue retractor muscle (Rice, 1973).
The first aim of this paper is to examine how tongue retraction forces in chameleons vary with prey distance. In addition, we examine the physiology and structure of the tongue retractor muscle to investigate whether the supercontracting properties of the tongue retractor might facilitate the generation of continuously large forces over a wide range of distances.
![]() |
Materials and methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
To confirm these results in vitro, we investigated the length/tension properties of the tongue retractor muscles in four live, anaesthetised adult Chamaeleo calyptratus (three males, one female). In this experiment, the animals were deeply anaesthetised with Ketamine (100200 mg kg1 body mass), and bipolar stainless-steel electrodes were implanted bilaterally into the tongue retractor muscles. The animal was kept under deep anaesthesia by administering additional Ketamine (half the original dose) every 23 h.
In a preliminary experiment, the tongue was clamped into a clip attached to a force transducer (Kistler type 9203). In all other experiments, the animal was mounted upside down in a purpose-built holder, the hyoid was immobilised in the resting condition, and the tongue pad was sutured to a muscle lever (Cambridge Technology model 6650 force lever connected to an Aurora Scientific series 305B lever system controller). Initially, the muscle was twitch-stimulated (Grass S48 stimulator connected to a Grass SIU5 stimulus isolation unit), and stimulation voltage was increased until maximal force output was obtained (at 25 V). In all subsequent experiments, muscles were stimulated at 30 V to ensure maximal muscle recruitment.
For two individuals, the muscle length was varied and the passive tension was recorded. At each length, the muscles were twitch-stimulated (30 V, 2 ms pulse duration) and the tongue retraction forces were recorded. For at least three twitches in two individuals, muscle twitch kinetics were recorded (maximal isometric tension, time to peak tension, half-relaxation time). For two other animals, the muscle was kept at resting length and stimulated with tetanic trains of 300 ms (2 ms pulse duration) of increasing frequency. The fusion frequency (40 Hz) (Fig. 1) and tension at fusion were determined. Next, tongue length was varied, the passive tension recorded, the muscle stimulated with 300 ms tetanic trains at 40 Hz and the active tension recorded. Throughout the experiment, the temperature of the animal was kept at 32°C by a heat lamp and continuously monitored with a YSI tele-thermometer and thermocouple. After all recordings, the animals were killed by injecting a lethal dose of Ketamine (twice the anaesthetic dose).
|
For light microscopy, the entire head of one preserved Chamaeleo jacksonii (SVL 69.4 mm) and the hyolingual system of three additional preserved C. jacksonii (SVL 74.6±3.1 mm) and one preserved C. oustaleti (SVL 145.8 mm) were prepared for paraffin histology using standard techniques (Humason, 1979). Serial 10 µm sections were made (transverse, sagittal and frontal) and stained with Massons trichrome [see also Herrel et al. (Herrel et al., 2001)]. In addition, the tongues of a preserved C. oustaleti (SVL 174.2 mm) and a preserved C. jacksonii (SVL 78.5 mm) were sectioned sagittally, and selected sections were stained with Verhoeffs elastin stain (Bancroft and Stevens, 1977).
Transmission electron microscopy
For transmission electron microscopy, the m. hyoglossus of an adult Chamaeleo melleri (SVL 220.3 mm) was removed unilaterally under deep anaesthesia (Ketamine, 200 mg kg1) and cut in half. Tissue samples were removed from the middle third of the muscle. The animal was killed with an overdose of Ketamine after removal of the muscle samples. Tissue samples were fixed in 6.25 % glutaraldehyde in 0.1 mol l1 sodium cacodylate buffer (pH 7.4) for 24 h. One half of the muscle was fixed in its resting position (but unfolded), and the other half was extended maximally (to approximately 180 % of its unfolded length) and tied onto a wooden stick using surgical wire. At least three small rectangular blocks of tissue, taken from the middle part of the muscle, were cut from both samples, thoroughly washed in 0.1 mol l1 sodium cacodylate buffer and postfixed for 2 h in 1 % osmium tetroxide in 0.1 mol l1 sodium cacodylate buffer. After postfixation, samples were rinsed thoroughly first in sodium cacodylate buffer and then in 0.05 mol l1 maleic acid in distilled water (pH 5.2). Subsequently, samples were stained en bloc with 0.5 % uranyl acetate in 0.05 mol l1 maleic acid buffer (pH 5.2), washed with 0.05 mol l1 maleic acid buffer (pH 5.2) and dehydrated through a graded series of ethanols. The samples were then cleared in propylene oxide and embedded in resin (EMBed 812). Longitudinal, oblique and cross sections were cut, stained with uranyl acetate and examined with a JEOL 1200 Ex II transmission electron microscope at 60 kV. Pictures were taken of both resting and extended samples (10 000x magnification) at different locations for several sections within each sample. The sarcomere length, filament lengths (thick and thin) and I-band thickness were measured for 30 sarcomeres using digital calipers (Mitutoyo model CD-20DC).
Values in the text are given as means ± S.D.
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
|
|
|
|
Muscle ultrastructure
An examination of the muscle ultrastructure using transmission electron microscopy showed the typical perforations in the Z-disks that indicate that the muscle is indeed of the supercontracting type (Fig. 6). Sarcomere lengths were considerably shorter than those reported for other vertebrates [rest, 1.26±0.024 µm; extended, 1.60±0.140 µm, means ± S.D., N=30; compare with data in Van Leeuwen (Van Leeuwen, 1992), Nishikawa et al. (Nishikawa et al., 1999), Burkholder and Lieber (Burkholder and Lieber, 2001)]. These short sarcomere lengths seem to be the result of short thick filaments (1.00±0.049 µm in chameleon m. hyoglossus versus 1.6 µm typically reported for vertebrate muscle) and thin filaments [0.618±0.049 µm for the chameleon m. hyoglossus versus 0.95 µm typically reported for vertebrate muscle (Van Leeuwen, 1992; Nishikawa et al., 1999); note, however, that myosin filament lengths vary widely in invertebrate muscle (Full, 1997)]. Given the novelty of these measurements, they should be checked in other species of chameleon. The I-band thickness was small in both the resting (0.13±0.012 µm) and extended (0.31±0.072 µm) samples. By comparing the sarcomere and filament lengths, it becomes clear that filament overlap is large both at rest (77 % of each actin filament in overlap) and when extended (51 % of each actin filament in overlap).
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
In vivo, it is only at distances of less than approximately one-third of the body length of a chameleon that a decrease in performance is observed (Fig. 2). One interesting behavioural observation that might correlate with this decrease in performance is that most chameleons tend to refuse to shoot their tongues at prey positioned at distances of less than one-third of their body length and, in many such cases, will move away from the prey before attempting to capture it (Burrage, 1975; Schwenk, 2000) (A. Herrel and J. J. Meyers, personal observations). Although the tongue retractor forces are presumably always high enough to retract the mass of the prey into the mouth, pulling back prey that are holding onto branches and coping with the inertial effects of large prey falling in mid-air aided by gravitational forces might require near-maximal force production.
As basic muscle mechanics show that a trade-off between sarcomere length and force production is unavoidable (Gordon et al., 1966), we investigated the ultrastructure of the chameleon tongue retractor muscle. A comparison of two samples of the tongue retractor muscle (rest versus extended) shows that, even at maximal extension of the muscle (as determined by in vivo measurements and by manual extension of the tongue in anaesthetised specimens), the overlap between the thin and thick filaments remains fairly large (50 %, Fig. 6). This implies that the amount of force that can be exerted by the muscle is large, even when extended to the limits observed during prey capture. The maximal extension capacity of the muscle in vivo seems to be limited by the thick connective tissue sheet connecting the m. accelerator and the tongue pad to the entoglossal process (see Fig. 5) (Herrel et al., 2001). Upon retraction, normal cross-bridge cycling is possible until the muscle is contracted to its unfolded resting length. At that time, thin filaments start to overlap and thick filaments will abut onto the Z-disks. In normal vertebrate muscle, this would result in a drastic reduction of force output (dropping rapidly to zero force) (Gordon et al., 1966), but the perforations in the Z-disks in the chameleon tongue retractor muscle allow the thick filaments to slide through, and cross-bridge cycling can continue (Hoyle et al., 1965; Osborne, 1967). The changes in the spatial organisation of the filaments probably cause the decrease in force production observed at distances of less than a body length (see Fig. 3, Fig. 4) (Huxley, 1965; Osborne, 1967). The ultrastuctural modifications of the tongue retractor muscles in chameleons thus enable them to capture and successfully retract prey into the mouth over a variety of distances at high performance levels. This is made possible by the arrangement of the sarcomeres at maximal extension (showing large overlap), which is determined by passive mechanisms (connective tissue) and by the perforations in the Z-disks that allow continued cross-bridge cycling over large length changes. At shorter muscle lengths, hyoid retraction presumably plays a major role in retracting the tongue with adhering prey.
The chameleon m. hyoglossus is extremely long, so it has to be folded in a complex way upon tongue retraction to fit within the space available in the oral cavity (see Fig. 5). This is potentially problematic as any erroneous folding might impede subsequent tongue projection and could potentially damage the hypoglossal nerve running alongside it. The multiple elastin connections between the internal connective tissue sheet and the tongue retractor muscle (Fig. 5) (Herrel et al., 2001) presumably ensure correct folding of the muscle by exerting small guiding forces. As muscles are thought to function as muscular hydrostats (constant-volume cylinders), the intramuscular pressures are probably large upon maximal contraction (during which the whole-muscle length is actually shorter than the resting length). Without external forces, any disturbance of the maximally retracted tongue system could result in random folding. Upon relaxation of muscular tension, the internal pressure will cause the tongue retractor to expand until forces are in equilibrium. Here, the elastin connections can provide the required external guiding forces to ensure correct folding of the system. Similar functions of elastin sheets associated with long complexly folded structures (such as ligaments or muscles) have been proposed previously (e.g. the anterior maxillo-mandibular ligament in the rainbow trout) (Aerts and Verraes, 1987). The elastin sheet surrounding the hypohyal-hypobranchial 1 ligaments in cichlid fish (Anker, 1989) is probably one of the best-documented examples.
Chameleons are known to eat large prey including other vertebrates (Broadley, 1973; Schleich et al., 1996) (M. Cuadrado personal communication), so the ability to retract the tongue forcefully over a wide range of distances is likely to be very important. The unique structural properties of the tongue retractor, as well as the prehensile tongue (Herrel et al., 2000), might thus have evolved to accommodate the capture of large prey. Quantitative data on diet in general and more specifically on the size of prey are scarce, but qualitative reports on diet in several species indicate the presence of numerous large prey [C. chameleon, lizards, wasps, mantids (Schleich et al., 1996); C. namaquensis, lizards, snakes, beetles (Branch, 1998); C. melleri, birds (Broadley, 1973)]. However, this aspect of the chameleon diet needs to be investigated quantitatively to test the above hypotheses.
Supercontractile properties have not been reported for other vertebrates that use a ballistic prey-capture mechanism with extreme tongue elongation (and thus need to contract their tongues by more than 50 %). Instead, some frogs and plethodontid salamanders fold their extremely long tongue retractor muscle upon retraction in the same way as chameleons do (Nishikawa et al., 1999; Deban et al., 1997). However, as these animals typically eat small prey, the constraint on constant high force production is likely to be reduced. In contrast to a previously proposed hypothesis emphasising length changes (Rice, 1973), we hypothesise that the supercontracting properties of the chameleon tongue retractors evolved to enable continuously high force to be produced over large length changes. Supercontraction might therefore be present in other systems in which the production of a constant near-maximal force is required over large length changes, as suggested by Osborne (Osborne, 1967).
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Aerts, P. and Verraes, W. (1987). Do inertial effects explain the maximal rotation of the maxilla in the rainbow trout (Salmo gairdneri) during feeding? Ann. Soc. R. Zool. Belg. 117, 221235.
Andrews, R. M. (1979). The lizard Corytophanes cristatus: an extreme sit-and-wait predator. Biotropica 11, 136139.
Anker, G. Ch. (1989). The morphology of joints and ligaments in the head of a generalised Haplochromis species: H. elegans Trewavas 1933 (Teleostei, Cichlidae). Neth. J. Zool. 39, 140.
Bancroft, J. D. and Stevens, A. (1977). Theory and Practice of Histological Techniques. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.
Bell, D. A. (1989). Functional anatomy of the chameleon tongue. Zool. Jb. Anat. 119, 313336.
Bell, D. A. (1990). Kinematics of prey capture in the chameleon. Zool. Jb. Physiol. 94, 247260.
Bock, W. J. and Shear, C. R. (1972). A staining method for gross dissection. Anat. Anz. 130, 222227.[Medline]
Branch, B. (1998). Field Guide to the Snakes and Other Reptiles of Southern Africa. Cape Town: Struik Publishers. 399pp.
Broadley, D. G. (1973). Predation on birds by reptiles and amphibians in South-Eastern Africa. Honeyguide 76, 1921.
Burkholder, T. J. and Lieber, R. L. (2001). Sarcomere length operating range of vertebrate muscles during movement. J. Exp. Biol. 204, 15291536.
Burrage, B. R. (1973). Comparative ecology and behaviour of Chamaeleo pumilis pumilis (Gmelin) and C. namaquensis A. Smith (Sauria: Chameleonidae). Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 61, 1158.
Deban, S. M., Wake, D. B. and Roth, G. (1997). Salamander with a ballistic tongue. Nature 389, 2728.[Medline]
Dischner, H. (1958). Zur Wirkungsweise der Zunge beim Chamäleon. Natur. Volk. 88, 320324.
Full, R. J. (1997). Invertebrate locomotor systems. In Handbook of Physiology, section 13, vol. 2 (ed. W. H. Dantzler), pp. 853930. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gordon, A. M., Huxley, A. F. and Julian, F. J. (1966). The variation of isometric tension with sarcomere length in vertebrate muscle fibres. J. Physiol., Lond. 184, 170192.[Medline]
Harkness, L. (1977). Chameleons use accommodation cues to judge distance. Nature 267, 346349.[Medline]
Herrel, A., Meyers, J. J., Aerts, P. and Nishikawa, K. C. (2000). The mechanics of prey prehension in chameleons. J. Exp. Biol. 203, 32553263.
Herrel, A., Meyers, J. J., Nishikawa, K. C. and De Vree, F. (2001). Functional properties of the hyolingual apparatus in chameleons. J. Morph. 249, 154170.[Medline]
Hoyle, G., McAlear, J. H. and Selverston, A. (1965). Mechanism of supercontraction in a striated muscle. J. Cell Biol. 26, 621640.
Humason, G. L. (1979). Animal Tissue Techniques. San Fransisco: Freeman.
Huxley, H. E. (1965). The mechanism of muscular contraction. Scient. Am. 213, 1827.
Meyers, J. J. and Nishikawa, K. C. (2000). Comparative study of tongue protrusion in three iguanian lizards, Sceloporus undulatus, Pseudotrapelus sinaitus and Chamaeleo jacksonii. J. Exp. Biol. 203, 28332849.
Nishikawa, K. C., Kier, W. M. and Smith, K. K. (1999). Morphology and mechanics of tongue movement in the African pig-nosed frog, Hemisus marmoratum: a muscular hydrostatic model. J. Exp. Biol. 202, 771780.
Osborne, M. P. (1967). Supercontraction in the muscles of the blowfly larva: an ultrastructural study. J. Insect Physiol. 13, 14711482.
Ott, M. and Schaeffel, F. (1995). A negatively powered lens in the chameleon. Nature 373, 692694.[Medline]
Pough, F. H., Andrews, R. M., Cadle, J. E., Crump, M. L., Savitzky, A. H. and Wells, K. D. (2001). Herpetology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 612pp.
Rice, M. J. (1973). Supercontracting striated muscle in a vertebrate. Nature 243, 238240.[Medline]
Rome, L. C. and Lindstedt, S. L. (1997). Mechanical and metabolic design of the muscular system in vertebrates. In Handbook of Physiology, section 13, vol. 2 (ed. W. H. Dantzler), pp. 15871651. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schleich, H. H., Kästle, W. and Kabisch, K. (1996). Amphibians and Reptiles of North Africa. Koenigstein, Germany: Koeltz Scientific Publishers.
Schwenk, K. (2000). Feeding in lepidosaurs. In Feeding: Form, Function and Evolution in Tetrapod Vertebrates (ed. K. Schwenk), pp. 175292. San Diego: Academic Press.
Schwenk, K. and Throckmorton, G. S. (1989). Functional and evolutionary morphology of lingual feeding in squamate reptiles: phylogenies and kinematics. J. Zool., Lond. 219, 153175.
Van Leeuwen, J. L. (1992). Muscle function in locomotion. In Mechanics of Animal Locomotion (ed. R. McN. Alexander), pp. 191250. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Van Leeuwen, J. L. (1997). Why the chameleon has spiral-shaped muscle fibres in its tongue. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 352, 573589.
Wainwright, P. C. and Bennett, A. F. (1992a). The mechanism of tongue projection in chameleons. I. Electromyographic tests of functional hypothesis. J. Exp. Biol. 168, 121.
Wainwright, P. C. and Bennett, A. F. (1992b). The mechanism of tongue projection in chameleons. II. Role of shape change in a muscular hydrostat. J. Exp. Biol. 168, 2340.
Wainwright, P. C., Kraklau, D. M. and Bennett, A. F. (1991). Kinematics of tongue projection in Chamaeleo oustaleti. J. Exp. Biol. 159, 109133.
Zoond, A. (1933). The mechanism of projection of the chamaeleons tongue. J. Exp. Biol. 10, 174185.