4.1 Article

Gills of the medaka (Oryzias latipes): A scanning electron microscopy study

Journal

JOURNAL OF MORPHOLOGY
Volume 279, Issue 1, Pages 97-108

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jmor.20757

Keywords

fish gill; gill development; medaka; salinity; scanning electron microscopy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The general morphology and surface ultrastructure of the gills of adult and larvae medaka (Oryzias latipes) were studied in freshwater and seawater using scanning electron microscopy. The gills of all examined fish were structurally similar to those of other teleosts and consisted of four pairs of arches supporting (i) filaments bearing lamellae and (ii) rakers containing taste buds. Three cell types, specifically pavement cells, mitochondria-rich cells (MRCs), and mucous cells, constituted the surface layer of the gill epithelium. Several distinctive characteristics of medaka gills were noted, including the presence of regularly distributed outgrowth on the lamellae, enlarged filament tips, the absence of microridges in most pavement cells in the filament and lamellae and the presence of MRCs in the arch at the filament base. A rapid mode of development was recorded in the gills of larval fish. At hatching, the larvae already had four arches with rudimentary filaments, rakers, and taste buds. The rudimentary lamellae appeared within 2 days after hatching. These results suggest the early involvement of larval gills in respiratory and osmoregulation activities. The responses of the macrostructures and microstructures of gills to seawater acclimation were similar in larvae and adult fish and included modification of the apical surface of MRCs, confirming the importance of these cells in osmoregulation. The potential roles of these peculiarities of the macrostructures and microstructures of medaka gills in the major functions of this organ, such as respiration and osmoregulation, are discussed.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available