Swim Team!

Peromyscus SEM Sperm Heads

Photo Cred: K Hook

Not your average Brady bunch! These are the sperm heads of six different species of mice in the genus Peromyscus. This genus includes deer mice, which are notable for being carriers of hantavirus but should be known for being one of the most abundant mammals in North America.

Also, THEY’RE FREAKIN’ CUTE!

Peromyscus maniculatus [Photo Cred: Wiki Public Domain Image by Stacy Manson at Joshua Tree National Park]

I took these images using a scanning electron microscope. This isn’t your typical microscope. Unlike optical microscopes, which are also rad for exploring the microcosmos, a SEM allows for much higher resolution. These sperm cells are imaged at 20,000x their normal size! Check out the fine details on their heads. Pretty amazing stuff considering they’re only 3 microns wide!

To prepare these images, I put live sperm samples through a series of chemical baths: first to fix them, then to dehydrate them, then to dry and preserve them. It’s a veritable spa day for sperm. The final step is sputter coating them in metal so that the electron beam within the microscope can bounce off of the specimen’s surface, forming an image on the screen that you can now enjoy. These samples were coated in gold/palladium.

Why go through all this trouble? We’re trying to figure out whether the shape of sperm cells varies across species and, if so, how it impacts their behavior and swimming abilities. Can you notice any shape differences? Most people can’t, but there are subtle differences.

The two right-most species have cells that are a bit wider than the rest, and that’s important because these two species have really unique sperm behaviors – their sperm form large collective groups that swim together!

 

Peromyscus maniculatus sperm aggregate imaged using a scanning electron microscope [Photo Cred: K Hook]

When you think of sperm (as you do), you probably imagine a single cell doing its thing. But there are a rare number of animal species (e.g., opossums, water beetles, Norway rats) that form sperm pairs or groups. Some of these don’t move much, but some are highly motile. These Peromyscus mice species have very motile sperm groups that look like jellyfish (or sperm eyelashes)!

My preliminary data suggest that head shape is important in both sperm aggregation and motility. This is important because one of the most informative measures for assessing male infertility in humans is motility and, thus, their shape. Basic research like this to explore what traits are important in fertilization can lead to discoveries that benefit many corners of biology and enhance assisted reproductive techniques for use in human fertility clinics as well as wildlife conservation programs.

Last, I’m not going to lie, it took me nearly an entire day to make this image. I hope through this effort that you’ve learned something new!

Advertisements

Tiny Vessels

This Father’s Day give your dad a gift to remember – an understanding of the evolution of his gametes

With Father’s Day quickly approaching, I think it’s time we had a little talk about the evolution of dad’s gametes. Before you get creeped out, don’t think of this as being just about your dad, but rather any dad or male of an organism that reproduces sexually (sorry, bacteria!).

While not all dads are the same across the animal or plant kingdoms, they do all share one common feature – sperm. The production of this gamete type is what defines the male within every species. What defines females is their ability to produce eggs. The most important distinction between these two gamete types is their investment in size; sperm are small, eggs are large. It is their union into a zygote that characterizes sexual reproduction. But how did these two gamete types come to be?

Sperm-Egg

A sperm cell fertilizing an egg cell. <WikiCommons>

It all starts with parasitism. Ah, the romance.

One theory is that before females or males existed, all gametes were of the same type and size. Size is an important trait for gametes because being large translates into more nutrition for a developing zygote, which assures it higher survival. Such survival is highly favored by natural selection and, thus, larger gametes also came to be favored. But might there be a cost if gametes are all under the same selective pressure to become large?

Consider a vast ocean with a single target – a giant ocean liner. Your goal is to reach this easy-to-spot target, which you can achieve through building one of two vessels given a set amount of materials: you can either invest your resources into producing a few more giant ocean liners, or you can take these resources and parse them into a large fleet of torpedo-like mini-submarines ready to divide and conquer. Finding a large vessel with another large vessel will prove a difficult task. For one, they’re less maneuverable. Moreover, they’re less likely to encounter one another since they cover less area. But time is of the essence, and a bunch of smaller vessels all working toward a common goal will more frequently encounter their target and, ultimately, will win the race.

Renegade at Dutch Wikipedia

Underwater attack by frogmen on manned torpedoes. <Renegade at Dutch Wikipedia>

In the gamete world, slow and steady will never win the race either. Large gametes are less efficient at finding their target precisely because their strategy of being large constrains them to be fewer in number. On the other hand, by not investing resources into their size, the smaller gametes are freed up to be more abundant. Occurring in greater numbers means they are much more likely to encounter their larger counterparts – an excellent racing strategy if you’re a gamete.

Now, let’s imagine the potential pairings of these different gamete types from the perspective of natural selection. The important rules of the race are two-fold: the more zygotes the better, and enhanced survival of the zygote is key.

In a remarkable feat, suppose two large gametes finally do find one another.

Avocados

Huzzah!

Sure, the fusion of their genetic material will result in a few mighty-super-survivor zygotes because of their equal investments in being large and nutritious. Unfortunately for them, however, their big investments will come at the expense of being rare, so their union will result in fewer zygotes.

Likewise, though the union of two small gametes would be more probable given their abundance, neither gamete can provide sufficient nutrition for zygote survival.

Blueberry

Consequently, neither of these unions between like-gametes would be favored by selection over time.

It’s these unfortunate pairings that help explain how natural selection additionally came to favor the evolution of a smaller gamete, sperm. What remained and became the evolutionary norm was the most productive and efficient strategy – the fusion of two disparate gamete types – large and small. Now, where there were once only ocean liners, there were also millions of torpedo-like mini-submarines.

And now for the unsettling part. In addition to representing a trade-off between quality and quantity, gamete size also embodies a trade-off in offspring investment. While large gametes evolved for nourishment of the zygote, small gametes evolved to be cheats. They downsized to be better able to find the large gamete, which was then entrapped into providing all of the sustenance for the zygote. So here is the rub that necessitated parasitism. By favoring both egg and sperm, selection actually ensured their unequal contributions to the zygote.

Hence, the very reason sperm likely evolved was to exploit the resources of eggs. And it is ultimately the selection of these two very different investment strategies that led to the origin of females and males, moms and dads.

So this Father’s Day, when you’re having trouble finding the right words to say, keep it simple. Thank him for his parasitic little sperm cell. It made all the difference.

 

Know You

Here is a nifty little write-up featured yesterday in Cornell’s news that discusses a new review in Behavioral Ecology by associate professor Michael Sheehan in my department.

The topic: Sociality and signal evolution

The gist: There’s a trade-off between social recognition (the ability to learn, memorize, and recognize individuals within a group due to repeated interactions) and elaborate, external quality signals (think peacock feathers or lion manes, which don’t require repeated interactions but still can communicate important info about the individual giving the signal). Social group size may drive selection to favor either social recognition (in smaller groups, in which repeated interactions with individuals are common) or external quality signals (in larger groups, in which interactions with randos are common).

One question that remains is how social network size within a larger social group can affect signal evolution. If social networks within a larger social group are relatively small, can selection on signals parallel that within small social groups? Or is it the quantity of interactions (with either unknown or known members or both) in larger groups that primarily drive signal evolution type?

Why care? This research can give us a predictive framework to understand species’ use of signals (be they visual, auditory, or chemical) given what their social structure looks like and vice versa. Also, the framework can have far-reaching implications for understanding social behavior within most animals, including us humans. Because of the inherent trade-off between the two, social recognition may limit the evolution of quality signals, which may explain why we don’t see quality signals in humans (at least non-cultural ones).

The bottom line: Understanding signal use is important for understanding social behavior because it gives us an idea of how individuals interact with one another in a social group and how information about potential rivals, allies, or mates is gathered and used.

Humans

Some social humans that I like. Photo Credit: Unknown