Animals that continually live in deep sea habitats face unique challenges and require adaptive specializations solutions in order to locate and identify food, predators, and conspecifics. The Ampullae of Lorenzini are specialized electroreceptors used by chondrichthyans for important biological functions. Ampullary organs of the ghost shark Chimaera monstrosa, a deep-sea species commonly captured as by-catch in the bottom trawl fishery, are here described for the first time using macroscopic, ultrastructural and histological approaches. The number of ampullary pores in C. monstrosa is about 700, distributed into the whole cephalic section of C. monstrosa, and organized in12 pore clusters and they are arranged into different configurations and form a distinct morphological pattern for this species, showing some anatomical peculiarities never described before in others cartilaginous fishes and may constitute an evolutionary adaptation of this ancient chondrichthyan species to the extreme environmental conditions of its deep sea niche.
The deep sea (> 200 m depth) includes about 95% of the world’s ocean volume and it is the greatest and not explored biome on the Earth1. The deep sea is close to total darkness and it has limited food resources and scarce mate opportunities2. Animals that live in the deep sea are faced with unique challenges and require sophisticated solutions in order to locate and identify food, predators, and each other. Chondrichthyans are important consumers in most marine ecosystems and show one of the most efficient array of sensory systems among marine fishes3, they are uncommon at depths below 3000 m, but a limited number of species live below 800 m4,5,6. Among the deep-sea cartilaginous fishes, the holocephalans (Chondrichthyes: Holocephali) are a small, ancient and poorly studied group of cartilaginous fishes that live worldwide in the deep environments7,8. Due to their regular occurrence in these extreme habitats and their phylogenetic position as sister and isolated group of elasmobranchs around 400 million years ago old, the sensory systems of chimaeroid fishes represent an interesting opportunity to better understand the evolution and the adaptations of chondrichthyans to the deep sea9. However, information on their senses, mainly on electroreception, is yet scarce at the moment, although chimaeroids have become increasingly threatened by expanding deep-sea fisheries10,11.
Like all others chondrichthyans, holocephalans have specialised ampullary electroreceptors, usually called Ampullae of Lorenzini, used for important biological functions, such as the detection of prey and/or possible predators, navigation, and mating12,13. Recent ampullary organ studies in elasmobranchs have focused on the relationships between morphological features, ecological niches, and the selective pressures that shaped the evolution of this sensory system in species with different life histories and behavioral repertoires14,15,16,17,18,19,20.
Little electrosensory research has been done on holocephalans21,22, so we used an integrative approach to study the electroreceptors of the rabbit fish Chimaera monstrosa Linnaeus, 1758 (Holocephali; Chimaeridae). This species is distributed in the Eastern Atlantic and in the Mediterranean basin between −300 and −1000 m23, and it is commonly found in commercial bycatch of deep-sea bottom trawl fisheries24,25. C. monstrosa is an opportunistic predator feeding mainly on species associated with benthic community, such as crustaceans, molluscs, echinoderms and polychaetes23,25,26,27,28,29. The goals of this research are: (i) to describe the distribution, histological structure, and innervation of ampullary organs; (ii) to infer possible relationships between the anatomical structures and ecological patterns of C. monstrosa; and (iii) to emphasize the possible role of the sensory biology for the conservation of the deep-water cartilaginous fishes (Fig. 1).
Ampullary pore distribution
The number of ampullary pores in our specimens of Chimaera monstrosa has an average of 702 (± 103). They are distributed in the entire cephalic portion. We recognized 12 types of pore clusters (Fig. 2): nine of them are double (one on each side of the head), while the ethmoid (EAF), nasal (NP) and mandibular (MP) are single clusters, that are settled in the medio-ventral part of the head. The total number and average pore size of every cluster type is summarized in Table 1.
density—the pores are mainly concentrated in 3 clusters (suprarostral STP, supra-rostrolateral SRL, and subrostral SUB) which include almost the 65% of the whole ampullary pores and which have a medium or small pore diameter (Table 1 and Fig. 3);
Observations of the gross morphology show that in both sexes the electroreceptive organs of C. monstrosa are organized into clusters and consist of a canal and dilated ampullary portion that are filled with a gel and surrounded by connective tissue (Fig. 5a). The ampullary portion of the sensory organ is formed by eight or nine alveolar sensory chambers (Fig. 5b). The proximal end of the ampullary portion is connected to one afferent nerve (Fig. 5c).
SEM observations allowed us to analyze the superficial structure of the alveolar portion of the Ampullae of Lorenzini and the ampullary canal, revealing no differences among the sexes. The alveolar portion of the chambers converge into a common area (Fig. 6a) and are composed of a single columnar epithelium that contains supporting and sensory cells (Fig. 6b), However, the canals are distinguished from the alveolus by their composition of simple squamous epithelium (Fig. 6c).
Histological analysis confirms the general organization of the ampullary organs and the histological structure of the canal and the alveolar portion (organized in chambers), both surrounded by connective tissue composed mainly of collagen (Fig. 7a). There is a clear histological separation between the epithelia of these two parts divided by a medial zone of cuboidal-shape cells (Fig. 7b).
The canal of the Ampullae of Lorenzini is, in fact, covered by a simple squamous epithelium (Fig. 7c), also presenting mucous flattened cells showing Alcian positive gel protrusions (Fig. 7d); while, on the contrary, the ampullary portion appears to consist of a simple columnar epithelium, formed by supporting and sensory cells (Figs. 7e, 8). The central part of the ampullary portion is formed by the same columnar epithelium. Bundles of afferent nerve fibers reach the base of each alveolar portion, below the central part (Fig. 7f) and nerve terminals were observed at the base of the sensory cells only (Fig. 8).
While teleosts have successfully colonised the deep sea, chondrichthyans are uncommon5. The species who live there rely on their sensory systems to gather information about their environment and to guide their behaviour30. Despite species of the order Holocephali regularly dwell in deep sea habitats, little is yet known about their biology and ecology7, and the information regarding their sensory systems are very limited10,31,32. Here we describe for the first time the Ampullae of Lorenzini in the rabbit fish Chimaera monstrosa, providing morphological details and attempting to clarify their functional role. Although electroreception in shallow-water have been the subject of a number of studies12, which have started to investigate also the correlation between the morphology and the lifestyle18, this sensory system has been more rarely investigated in deep sea species11, even less so in the Holocephalans10,21,22.
Compared to elasmobranchs12, and according to previous data on the other genus of chimaerids, Hydrolagus21, C. monstrosa shows a lower number of electroreceptive ampullary pores. This might be related to the feeding habits of this species: it is an opportunistic suction-feeder that actively searches the prey near the sea bottom24,26,27,33, and then uses its tooth plates to crush the food29. In fact, relatively few pores and low electrosensory resolution are mainly observed in cartilaginous fishes which feed with an indiscriminate suction or ram-feeding methods of prey capture12.
The location of pores determines the spatial representation and direction of the electrosensory field around the head34. In C. monstrosa, more pores are located on the anterior frontal sides of the head and ventrally near the mouth, while the pores with the largest diameter are located dorsoventral to the eyes. In this area we describe the supra-rostrolateral (SRL) cluster, a group of ampullary pores never described before in Holocephalans. Most of the pore clusters fields are located facing forward, which allows C. monstrosa to detect potential prey that swims along the bottom. The highest density of pores is found near the mouth because the primary function of electroreception is to detect prey and correctly position the subterminal mouth during the final strike on prey35. Therefore, pore number and location correlate with the foraging strategy36,37,38. The positions of the clusters with fewer but largest pores might allow the fish to detect possible the presence of possible predators during navigation and prey searching: C. monstrosa is actively preyed upon by larger deep-sea dogfishes28,39. This functional hypothesis is supported by the fact that chondrichthyans feeding on the sea bottom, like C. monstrosa, have limited routes of escape, being partially blocked by the substrate. They usually position their anti-predatory countermeasures, such as tail, fin spines and additional electrosensory pores, along the dorsal and posterior body surfaces12.
Ampullary organs have been classified into three different types based on the size and the length of the canals: (1) macro-ampullae, (2) micro-ampullae, and (3) mini-ampullae40. C. monstrosa presents the so-called “macro-Ampullae”, characterized by large, visible pores and long canals. As the others cartilaginous fishes, electroreceptors in C. monstrosa are embedded in a gelatinous substance and organized in clusters containing several functional sensory units, the ampullary organs. The gross anatomy of the ampullary portion it is not organized in alveoli usually arranged in a grape-like formation12, but it is constituted by numerous independent finger-shaped sacs. This suggests a morphological pattern typical for C. monstrosa or for chimaerids21. This anatomical feature might enhance the sensory surface in relation of deep sea environment. It was previously observed that both the number of alveolar chambers and the overall size of the Ampullae significantly increase with depth, and species inhabiting deeper regions of the water column possess higher numbers of receptor structures, in order to improve feeding capability in a relatively prey-poor environment15,16. In addition, unlike what is observed in some derivate elasmobranchs, like the catshark Scyliorhinus canicula41, in C. monstrosa the size of ampullary organs and the number of finger-shaped sacs are the same in both sexes, and it might be related with the more primitive phylogenetic position of this species42.
The histological organization and innervation of the ampullary organs of C. monstrosa are similar to those already described for some coastal benthic elasmobranchs20,43,44,45. The presence of very abundant Alcian positive gel both in the canal and in the ampullary portion suggests a very important role of this mucopolysaccharidic substance also for C. monstrosa. It has been demonstrated, in fact, that ampullary gel plays a fundamental role as a semiconductor with temperature-dependent conductivity and thermoelectric behavior, as a simple ionic conductor with the same electrical properties as the surrounding seawater, and as proton-conductor as well46,47,48,49. The extreme scarcity of light and the limited probability to find food typical of deep sea environments require adaptations of the chondrichthyan sensory systems35, which might also include enhanced efficiency in the transmission of stimuli mediate by this mucopolysaccharidic substance. Another histological characteristic is that the central part of the ampullary portion seems to be constituted by the same sensory epithelium as the alveolar finger-shaped sacs. This contrasts with what was observed in others chondrichthyans, where the central region appears to be formed by typical cells, called “brush cells”19,40,44.
Variations in alveolar morphology exist within the different ampullary groups, and they have been classified into five types, based on alveolar arrangement: “single-alveolate”, “multi-alveolate”, “branched alveolate”, “centrum cap” and “club-shaped”39. The majority of sharks, including deep sea species, possess the “centrum cap” type15. The ampullary structure observed in C. monstrosa is similar to the so called “central cap” type already suggested for other species44. This organization is beneficial for detecting a variety of stimuli, therefore representing a possible evolutionary adaptive improvement of this phylogenetically conserved sensory system.
There are over 1300 extant species of cartilaginous fishes50 that arose sometime during the group 400 million years evolution, with the main living families having first appeared sometime between the Permian and Jurassic Periods51. Currently, they occupy a very broad range of habitats worldwide, and play a key role in the functioning of ecosystems52. Under selective pressure, the chondrichthyan sensory systems, including olfaction and electroreception, have been differentially optimised to function in various habitats33,53: in particular, recent researches revealed how electrosensory system is adapted to suit the lifestyle or environmental niche of a species, also through discrete molecular and biophysical modifications54. The electroreception in C. monstrosa reveals here some anatomical peculiarities never described before in others cartilaginous fishes, which might constitute an evolutionary adaptation of this ancient chondrichthyan species to the extreme environmental conditions of its deep sea niche18. In this view, Holocephali could be a very interesting model for future comparisons to the study of chondrichthyan ampullary system because : (1) it is a small and phylogenetically isolated group constituted by different closely related species, occupying different deep sea habitats and with also different ecological features8,54, which makes them a very interesting group in which to examine the relationship between structure and function; (2) they reside mostly in deep-sea, a light-limited environment where non-visual senses, like electroreception is most likely to be important55,56,57.
In this framework, future research should verify if some deep-water elasmobranchs have a similar pattern to C. monstrosa or if it is unique to Chimaerids, in order to clarify more the evolutionary and ecological role of this peculiar sensory system.
All experimental protocols followed the recommendations of the Committee for the Animal Welfare of the Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn (https://www.szn.it/index.php/en/who-we-are/organization/committee-for-the-animal-welfare). Moreover, all methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations of the European Union.
Adult specimens of Chimaera monstrosa were collected as by-catch in the Ligurian Sea (North-West Mediterranean Sea) and in the North-East Atlantic (Fig. 1) Ocean by professional bottom trawlers operating at the depth range of −600 and −800 m. They were brought already dead on board and the taxonomical identification was rapidly carried out on board22. After anesthesia with 0,01% MS-222 (tricainemethanesulfonate; Argent, Redmond, WA, USA; dilution 1:1000 in sea water), the rostral parts of their heads were excised immediately and fixed in 4% p-formaldehyde solution in phosphate buffered saline, pH 7.4 (PBS). Alternatively, some specimens were frozen at -30° C. In the laboratory, ampullary clusters were removed from the fixed rostral part of heads, isolated and prepared for macroscopical analysis or microscopical observations for both sexes; frozen specimens were used for ampullary pore distribution description.
Ampullary pore distribution
After defrosting, heads were severed from the specimens in the transverse plane at the first gill because no ampullary pores are located caudal to this position. Pores were counted for each cluster. The number and diameter of pores were measured by direct observation through a dissecting microscope or via ImageJ58 for areas of high pore density. The average number of pores (+ /− SD) were calculated across all specimens. Pore diameter was measured in multiple images for each specimen and an average diameter (+ /- SD) was calculated. The nomenclature used to describe ampullary pore distribution following Didier21. The average pore diameters from different clusters were tested using ANOVA and Tukey HSD test. The graphical representations of the data were performed using R software59 and the ggplot2 package60.
After washing in PBS, ampullary clusters and single Ampullae were observed and examined by a Zeiss Stemi 2000 C stereomicroscope. Images were acquired by a CellPad E (TiEsseLab S.r.l., Italy).
Scanning electron microscope methods
Samples for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) were osmium postfixed, dehydrated through a graded ethanol series, mounted on stubs, sputter coated with gold and examined by SEM Leo Stereoscan 440 (LEO Electron Microscopy Ltd.).
Histomorphological, histochemical and immunohistochemical methods
After washing in PBS, the samples were dehydrated, Paraplast embedded (Bioptica, Italy) and 6 µm sectioned. Dewaxed and rehydrated sections were alternatively haematoxylin–eosin stained or treated with Alcian blue pH 2,5- PAS method for carbohydrate detection. In order to highlight the presence of nerve endings, Na+/K+ATPase immunoreactivity was assessed by pre-treating the slides with Bovine Serum Albumine to block non-specific antibody binding. Next a mouse monoclonal antibodyspecific for the α subunit of chicken Na+/K+ATPase (α5, supernatant, 0.9 mg/ml, DSHB, USA) and then an anti-mouse FITC conjugated antiserum (1:400 in PBS, Agilent DAKO, USA) was used. Negative controls were performed by omission of the primary antibody or by using the NS1 hybridoma culture supernatant (DSHB, USA) as primary antibody. Alternatively, the immunoreactivity was detected using the Agilent Dako EnVision + Kit with HRP in order to increase sensitivity and to minimize non-specific background staining. In this case the incubation with the primary antibody was preceded by the using the blocking reagents for endogenous peroxidase and nuclei were counterstained using Hematoxylin.
The sections were examined with an Olympus BX60 microscope (light and epi-fluorescence microscope) and visualized through the Color-View Camera (Olympus, Japan). The images were acquired and analysed through the software AnalySIS (Soft Imaging System, USA).
Danovaro, et al. Ecological variables for developing a global deep-ocean monitoring and conservation strategy. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-1091-z (2020).
Danovaro, R., Snelgrove, P. V. R. & Tyler, P. Challenging the paradigms of deep-sea ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29(8), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2014.06.002 (2014).
Collin, S. P. The neuroecology of cartilaginous fishes: sensory strategies for survival. Brain Behav. Evol. 80(2), 80–96. https://doi.org/10.1159/000339870 (2012).
Carrier, J. C., Musick, J. A., & Heithaus, M. R. (Eds.). Biology of sharks and their relatives. CRC (2012).
Musick, J. A. & Cotton, C. F. Bathymetric limits of chondrichthyans in the deep sea: a re-evaluation. Deep Sea Res. Part II 115, 73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2014.10.010 (2015).
Treberg, J. R. & Speers-Roesch, B. Does the physiology of chondrichthyan fishes constrain their distribution in the deep sea?. J. Exp. Biol. 219(5), 615–625. https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.128108 (2016).
Didier, D. A., Kemper, J. M. & Ebert, D. A. Phylogeny, biology and classification of extant holocephalans. In Biology of Sharks and Their Relatives, 2nd edn (Carrier, J. C., Musick, J. A. & Heithaus, M. R., eds), pp. 97–124. New York, NY: CRC Pres. (2012).
Weigmann, S. Annotated checklist of the living sharks, batoids and chimaeras (Chondrichthyes) of the world, with a focus on biogeographical diversity. J. Fish Biol. 88(3), 837–1037. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12874 (2016).
Coates, M. I., Gess, R. W., Finarelli, J. A., Criswell, K. E. & Tietjen, K. A symmoriiform chondrichthyan braincase and the origin of chimaeroid fishes. Nature 541(7636), 208–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20806 (2017).
Lisney, T. J. A review of the sensory biology of chimaeroid fishes (Chondrichthyes; Holocephali). Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 20(4), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-010-9162-x (2010).
Finucci, B. et al. Ghosts of the deep–biodiversity, fisheries, and extinction risk of ghost sharks. Fish Fish. 22(2), 391–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12526 (2021).
Newton, K. C., Gill, A. B. & Kajiura, S. M. Electroreception in marine fishes: chondrichthyans. J. Fish Biol. 95(1), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.14068 (2019).
Crampton, W. G. Electroreception, electrogenesis and electric signal evolution. J. Fish Biol. 95(1), 92–134. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13922 (2019).
Whitehead, D. L. Ampullary organs and electroreception in freshwater Carcharhinus leucas. J. Physiol.-Paris 96(5–6), 391–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0928-4257(03)00017-2 (2002).
Raschi, W. G., & Gerry, S. Adaptations in the elasmobranch electroreceptive system. Fish Adaptations. Enfield, NH: Scientific Publishers, 233–258 (2003).
Atkinson, C. J. L. & Bottaro, M. Ampullary pore distribution of Galeus melastomus and Etmopterus spinax: possible relations with predatory lifestyle and habitat. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 86(2), 447–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025315406013336 (2006).
Kempster, R. M. & Collin, S. P. Electrosensory pore distribution and feeding in the basking shark Cetorhinus maximus (Lamniformes: Cetorhinidae). Aquat. Biol. 12(1), 33–36. https://doi.org/10.3354/ab00328 (2011).
Kempster, R. M., McCarthy, I. D. & Collin, S. P. Phylogenetic and ecological factors influencing the number and distribution of electroreceptors in elasmobranchs. J. Fish Biol. 80(5), 2055–2088. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03214.x (2012).
Whitehead, D. L., Gauthier, A. R., Mu, E. W., Bennett, M. B. & Tibbetts, I. R. Morphology of the Ampullae of Lorenzini in juvenile freshwater Carcharhinus leucas. J. Morphol. 276(5), 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.20355 (2015).
Gauthier, A. R. G., Whitehead, D. L., Tibbetts, I. R., Cribb, B. W. & Bennett, M. B. Morphological comparison of the Ampullae of Lorenzini of three sympatric benthic rays. J. Fish Biol. 92(2), 504–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13531 (2018).
Fields, R. D., Bullock, T. H. & Lange, G. D. Ampullary sense organs, peripheral, central and behavioral electroreception in Chimeras (Hydrolagus, Holocephali, Chondrichthyes). Brain Behav. Evol. 41(6), 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1159/000113849 (1993).
Didier, D.A. Phylogenetic systematics of extant chimaeroid fishes (Holocephali, Chimaeroidei). American Museum Novitates; n. 3119 (1995).
Serena, F. Field identification guide to the sharks and rays of the Mediterranean and Black Sea (Food and Agriculture Organization, 2005).
Holt, R. E., Foggo, A., Neat, F. C. & Howell, K. L. Distribution patterns and sexual segregation in chimaeras: implications for conservation and management. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 70(6), 1198–1205. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fst058 (2013).
Ragonese, S., Vitale, S., Dimech, M., & Mazzola, S. Abundances of demersal sharks and chimaera from 1994–2009 scientific surveys in the central Mediterranean Sea. PloS one, 8(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0074865 (2013).
Vacchi, M., & Orsi, L. R. Alimentazione di Chimaera monstrosa L. sui fondi batiali liguri. Atti della Società Toscana di Scienze Naturali, Memorie serie B, 86, 388–391 (1979).
Macpherson, E. Food and feeding of Chimaera monstrosa, Linnaeus, 1758, in the western Mediterranean. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 39(1), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/39.1.26 (1980).
Mauchline, J. & Gordon, J. D. M. Diets of the sharks and chimaeroids of the Rockall Trough, northeastern Atlantic Ocean. Mar. Biol. 75(2–3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00406012 (1983).
Albo-Puigserver, et al. Feeding ecology and trophic position of three sympatric demersal chondrichthyans in the northwestern Mediterranean. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 524, 255–268. https://doi.org/10.3354/meps11188( (2015).
Priede, I. G. Deep-sea fishes: biology, diversity, ecology and fisheries. Cambridge University Press (2017).
Ferrando, S. et al. First description of a palatal organ in Chimaera monstrosa (Chondrichthyes, Holocephali). Anat. Rec. 299(1), 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.23280 (2016).
Garza-Gisholt, E., Hart, N. S., & Collin, S. P. Retinal morphology and visual specializations in three species of chimaeras, the deep-sea R. pacifica and C. lignaria, and the Vertical Migrator C. milii (Holocephali). Brain, behavior and evolution, 92(1–2), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1159/000490655 (2018).
Pethybridge, H., Daley, R. K. & Nichols, P. D. Diet of demersal sharks and chimaeras inferred by fatty acid profiles and stomach content analysis. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 409(1–2), 290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2011.09.009 (2011).
Rivera-Vicente, A. C., Sewell, J. & Tricas, T. C. Electrosensitive spatial vectors in elasmobranch fishes: implications for source localization. PLoS ONE 6(1), e16008. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016008 (2011).
Kajiura, S. M., Cornett, A. D. & Yopak, K. E. Sensory adaptations to the environment: electroreceptors as a case study. Biol. Sharks Relatives 2, 393–434 (2010).
Raschi, W. A morphological analysis of the Ampullae of Lorenzini in selected skates (Pisces, Rajoidei). J. Morphol. 189(3), 225–247. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmor.1051890303 (1986).
Jordan, L. K. et al. Linking sensory biology and fisheries bycatch reduction in elasmobranch fishes: a review with new directions for research. Conserv. Physiol. 1(1), cot002. https://doi.org/10.1093/conphys/cot002 (2013).
Wueringer, B. E., Peverell, S. C., Seymour, J., Squire Jr, L., Kajiura, S. M., & Collin, S. P. Sensory systems in sawfishes. 1. The ampullae of Lorenzini. Brain, behavior and evolution, 78(2), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1159/000329515 (2011).
Bird C.S. The tropho-spatial ecology of deep-sea sharks and chimaeras from a stable isotope perspective. PhD thesis - University of Southampton, UK (2017).
Andres, K. H. & Von Düring, M. Comparative anatomy of vertebrate electroreceptors. Prog Brain Res 74, 113–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(08)63006-X (1998).
Crooks, N. & Waring, C. P. A study into the sexual dimorphisms of the Ampullae of Lorenzini in the lesser-spotted catshark, Scyliorhinus canicula (Linnaeus, 1758). Environ. Biol. Fishes 96(5), 585–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(08)63006-X (2013).
Didier, D. A. Phylogeny and classification of extant Holocephali. Biol. Sharks Relatives 4, 115–138 (2004).
Wueringer, B. E. & Tibbetts, I. R. Comparison of the lateral line and ampullary systems of two species of shovelnose ray. Rev. Fish Biol. Fisheries 18(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11160-007-9063-9 (2008).
Theiss, S. M., Collin, S. P. & Hart, N. S. Morphology and distribution of the ampullary electroreceptors in wobbegong sharks: implications for feeding behaviour. Mar. Biol. 158(4), 723–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-010-1595-1 (2011).
Schäfer, B. T. et al. Morphological observations of Ampullae of lorenzini in Squatina guggenheim and S. occulta (Chondrichthyes, Elasmobranchii, Squatinidae). Microscopy Res Tech. 75(9), 1213–1217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22051 (2012).
Brown, B. R. Sensing temperature without ion channels. Nature 421(6922), 495–495. https://doi.org/10.1038/421495a (2003).
Fields, R. D., Fields, K. D. & Fields, M. C. Semiconductor gel in shark sense organs?. Neurosci. Lett. 426(3), 166–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neulet.2007.08.064 (2007).
Brown, B. R. Temperature response in electrosensors and thermal voltages in electrolytes. J. Biol. Phys. 36(2), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10867-009-9174-8 (2010).
Josberger, E. E. et al. Proton conductivity in Ampullae of Lorenzini jelly. Sci. Adv. 2(5), e1600112. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1600112 (2016).
Froese, R. and Pauly D. https://www.fishbase.de/ (2021).
Sims, D. W. The biology, ecology and conservation of elasmobranchs: recent advances and new frontiers. J. Fish Biol. 87(6), 1265–1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.12861 (2015).
Heithaus, M. R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A. & Worm, B. Predicting ecological consequences of marine top predator declines. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.01.003 (2008).
Dymek, J., Muñoz, P., Mayo-Hernández, E., Kuciel, M. & Żuwała, K. Comparative analysis of the olfactory organs in selected species of marine sharks and freshwater batoids. Zool. Anz. 294, 50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcz.2021.07.013 (2021).
Bellono, N. W., Leitch, D. B. & Julius, D. Molecular tuning of electroreception in sharks and skates. Nature 558(7708), 122. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0160-9 (2018).
Luchetti, E. A., Iglésias, S. P., & Sellos, D. Y. Chimaera opalescens n. sp., a new chimaeroid (Chondrichthyes: Holocephali) from the north‐eastern Atlantic Ocean. J. Fish Biol., 79(2), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8649.2011.03027.x (2011).
Marranzino, A. N. & Webb, J. F. Flow sensing in the deep sea: the lateral line system of stomiiform fishes. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 183(4), 945–965. https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx090 (2018).
Yopak, K. E. & Montgomery, J. C. Brain organization and specialization in deep-sea chondrichthyans. Brain Behav. Evol. 71(4), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1159/000127048 (2008).
Schneider, C. A., Rasband, W. S. & Eliceiri, K. W. NIH Image to ImageJ: 25 years of image analysis. Nat. Methods 9(7), 671–675. https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2089 (2012).
R Core Team, R. A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ (2021).
Wickham, H. ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Springer, New York (2016).
I thank Sara Ferrando (DiSTAV, University of Genoa) for her great cooperation. Thanks also to the crews of F/V “Maria Rosa” (Genoa, Italy) and “Villon” (Concarneau, France) for help during sampling on board. I am also grateful to Elena Luchetti, Samuel P. Iglésias, (Station de Biologie Marine du MNHN, Concarneau, France), Marco Signore, Mauro Sinopoli, Francesco L. Leonetti and Lorenzo Minoia (Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn) for technical assistance. Special thanks to Grazia F. Tagliafierro (formerly at DISTAV, University of Genoa) and Marino Vacchi (formerly at ISPRA, Rome) for important suggestions. Finally, I am grateful to Phillip C. Sternes and to another anonymous reviewer for the useful comments, which greatly improved this paper. The anti-Na+/K+ATPase developed by D. M. Fambrough was obtained from the Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank developed under the auspices of the NICHD and maintained by The University of Iowa, Department of Biological Sciences, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. The study complies with the current EU laws of bioethics.
The author declares no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Bottaro, M. Sixth sense in the deep-sea: the electrosensory system in ghost shark Chimaera monstrosa. Sci Rep 12, 9848 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14076-2