4.5 Article

Inner ear morphological correlates of ultrasonic hearing in frogs

Journal

HEARING RESEARCH
Volume 283, Issue 1-2, Pages 70-79

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.heares.2011.11.006

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIDCD NIH HHS [DC004086, DC00222, R01 DC004086, R01 DC000222] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Three species of anuran amphibians (Odorrana torrnota, Odorrana livida and Huia cavitympanum) have recently been found to detect ultrasounds. We employed immunohistochemistry and confocal microscopy to examine several morphometrics of the inner ear of these ultrasonically sensitive species. We compared morphological data collected from the ultrasound-detecting species with data from Rana pipiens, a frog with a typical anuran upper cut-off frequency of similar to 3 kHz. In addition, we examined the ears of two species of Lao torrent frogs, Odorrana chloronota and Amolops daorum, that live in an acoustic environment approximating those of ultrasonically sensitive frogs. Our results suggest that the three ultrasound-detecting species have converged on small-scale functional modifications of the basilar papilla (BP), the high-frequency hearing organ in the frog inner ear. These modifications include: 1. reduced BP chamber volume, 2. reduced tectorial membrane mass, 3. reduced hair bundle length, and 4. reduced hair cell soma length. While none of these factors on its own could account for the US sensitivity of the inner ears of these species, the combination of these factors appears to extend their hearing bandwidth, and facilitate high-frequency/ultrasound detection. These modifications are also seen in the ears of 0. chloronota, suggesting that this species is a candidate for high-frequency hearing sensitivity. These data form the foundation for future functional work probing the physiological bases of ultrasound detection by a non-mammalian ear. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available