Spatial vision in the purple sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus (Echinoidea).

Recent evidence that echinoids of the genus Echinometra have moderate visual acuity that appears to be mediated by their spines screening off-axis light suggests that the urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, with its higher spine density, may have even more acute spatial vision. We analyzed the movements of 39 specimens of S. purpuratus after they were placed in the center of a featureless tank containing a round, black target that had an angular diameter of 6.5 deg. or 10 deg. (solid angles of 0.01 sr and 0.024 sr, respectively). An average orientation vector for each urchin was determined by testing the animal four times, with the target placed successively at bearings of 0 deg., 90 deg., 180 deg. and 270 deg. (relative to magnetic east). The urchins showed no significant unimodal or axial orientation relative to any non-target feature of the environment or relative to the changing position of the 6.5 deg. target. However, the urchins were strongly axially oriented relative to the changing position of the 10 deg. target (mean axis from -1 to 179 deg.; 95% confidence interval +/- 12 deg.; P<0.001, Moore's non-parametric Hotelling's test), with 10 of the 20 urchins tested against that target choosing an average bearing within 10 deg. of either the target center or its opposite direction (two would be expected by chance). In addition, the average length of the 20 target-normalized bearings for the 10 deg. target (each the vector sum of the bearings for the four trials) were far higher than would be expected by chance (P<10(-10); Monte Carlo simulation), showing that each urchin, whether it moved towards or away from the target, did so with high consistency. These results strongly suggest that S. purpuratus detected the 10 deg. target, responding either by approaching it or fleeing it. Given that the urchins did not appear to respond to the 6.5 deg. target, it is likely that the 10 deg. target was close to the minimum detectable size for this species. Interestingly, measurements of the spine density of the regions of the test that faced horizontally predicted a similar visual resolution (8.3+/-0.5 deg. for the interambulacrum and 11+/-0.54 deg. for the ambulacrum). The function of this relatively low, but functional, acuity - on par with that of the chambered Nautilus and the horseshoe crab - is unclear but, given the bimodal response, is likely to be related to both shelter seeking and predator avoidance.

Nuclear import of Cdk/cyclin complexes: identification of distinct mechanisms for import of Cdk2/cyclin E and Cdc2/cyclin B1.

Reversible phosphorylation of nuclear proteins is required for both DNA replication and entry into mitosis. Consequently, most cyclin-dependent kinase (Cdk)/cyclin complexes are localized to the nucleus when active. Although our understanding of nuclear transport processes has been greatly enhanced by the recent identification of nuclear targeting sequences and soluble nuclear import factors with which they interact, the mechanisms used to target Cdk/cyclin complexes to the nucleus remain obscure; this is in part because these proteins lack obvious nuclear localization sequences. To elucidate the molecular mechanisms responsible for Cdk/cyclin transport, we examined nuclear import of fluorescent Cdk2/cyclin E and Cdc2/cyclin B1 complexes in digitonin-permeabilized mammalian cells and also examined potential physical interactions between these Cdks, cyclins, and soluble import factors. We found that the nuclear import machinery recognizes these Cdk/cyclin complexes through direct interactions with the cyclin component. Surprisingly, cyclins E and B1 are imported into nuclei via distinct mechanisms. Cyclin E behaves like a classical basic nuclear localization sequence-containing protein, binding to the alpha adaptor subunit of the importin-alpha/beta heterodimer. In contrast, cyclin B1 is imported via a direct interaction with a site in the NH2 terminus of importin-beta that is distinct from that used to bind importin-alpha.

Memorability as a measure of processing: a unit analysis of prose and list learning.

The percentage of subjects recalling each unit in a list or prose passage is considered as a dependent measure. When the same units are recalled in different tasks, processing is assumed to be the same; when different units are recalled, processing is assumed to be different. Two collections of memory tasks are presented, one for lists and one for prose. The relations found in these two collections are supported by an extensive reanalysis of the existing prose memory literature. The same set of words were learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Included were intentional free-recall tasks, incidental free recall following lexical decision, and incidental free recall following ratings of orthographic distinctiveness and emotionality. Although the nine free-recall tasks varied widely with regard to the amount of recall, the relative probability of recall for the words was very similar among the tasks. Imagery encoding and recognition produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. Similar results were obtained with a prose passage. A story was learned by 13 different groups of subjects under 13 different conditions. Eight free-recall tasks, which varied with respect to incidental or intentional learning, retention interval, and the age of the subjects, produced similar relative probabilities of recall, whereas recognition and prompted recall produced relative probabilities of recall that were different from each other and from the free-recall tasks. A review of the prose literature was undertaken to test the generality of these results. Analysis of variance is the most common statistical procedure in this literature. If the relative probability of recall of units varied across conditions, a units by condition interaction would be expected. For the 12 studies that manipulated retention interval, an average of 21% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of retention interval, 17% by the main effect of units, and only 2% by the retention interval by units interaction. Similarly, for the 12 studies that varied the age of the subjects, 6% of the variance was accounted for by the main effect of age, 32% by the main effect of units, and only 1% by the interaction of age by units.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)