4.5 Review

Surviving in a frozen desert: environmental stress physiology of terrestrial Antarctic arthropods

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 217, 期 1, 页码 84-93

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.089490

关键词

Antarctica; Cold tolerance; Dehydration; Environmental stress; Physiology

类别

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [OPP-ANT-0837613]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Abiotic stress is one of the primary constraints limiting the range and success of arthropods, and nowhere is this more apparent than Antarctica. Antarctic arthropods have evolved a suite of adaptations to cope with extremes in temperature and water availability. Here, we review the current state of knowledge regarding the environmental physiology of terrestrial arthropods in Antarctica. To survive low temperatures, mites and Collembola are freeze-intolerant and rely on deep supercooling, in some cases supercooling below -30 degrees C. Also, some of these microarthropods are capable of cryoprotective dehydration to extend their supercooling capacity and reduce the risk of freezing. In contrast, the two best-studied Antarctic insects, the midges Belgica antarctica and Eretmoptera murphyi, are freeze-tolerant year-round and rely on both seasonal and rapid cold-hardening to cope with decreases in temperature. A common theme among Antarctic arthropods is extreme tolerance of dehydration; some accomplish this by cuticular mechanisms to minimize water loss across their cuticle, while a majority have highly permeable cuticles but tolerate upwards of 50-70% loss of body water. Molecular studies of Antarctic arthropod stress physiology are still in their infancy, but several recent studies are beginning to shed light on the underlying mechanisms that govern extreme stress tolerance. Some common themes that are emerging include the importance of cuticular and cytoskeletal rearrangements, heat shock proteins, metabolic restructuring and cell recycling pathways as key mediators of cold and water stress in the Antarctic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据