Skip to main content
PMC home page
The Journal of General Physiology logoLink to The Journal of General Physiology
. 1956 May 20;39(5):735–751. doi: 10.1085/jgp.39.5.735

PHOTOREVERSAL OF NUCLEAR AND CYTOPLASMIC EFFECTS OF SHORT ULTRAVIOLET RADIATION ON PARAMECIUM CAUDATUM

C L Brandt 1, A C Giese 1
PMCID: PMC2147556  PMID: 13319659

Abstract

1. Irradiation with three short ultraviolet (UV) wave lengths, 226, 233, and 239 mµ rapidly immobilizes Paramecium caudatum, the dosage required being smaller the shorter the wave length. 85 per cent of paramecia immobilized with wave length 226 mµ recover completely. Recovery from immobilizing doses is less the longer the wave length. 2. Irradiation continued after immobilization kills the paramecia in a manner which is markedly different for very short (226, 233, and 239 mµ) and longer (267 mµ) wave lengths. 3. An action spectrum for immobilization in P. caudatum was determined for the wave lengths 226, 233, 239, 248, and 267 mµ, and found to resemble the absorption of protein and lipide in the wave length region below 248 mµ. Addition of these data to those of Giese (1945 b) gives an action spectrum resembling the absorption by albumin-like protein. 4. Division of P. caudatum is delayed by doses of wave lengths 226, 233, and 239 mµ which cause immobilization, the longest wave length being most effective. 5. Immobilization at any of the wave lengths tested (226, 233, 239, 248, 267 mµ) is not photoreversible when UV-treated paramecia are concurrently illuminated. 6. Division delay resulting from immobilizing doses of 226, 233, and 239 mµ is photoreversible by exposure to visible light concurrently with the UV. 7. Division delay induced by exposure to wave length 267 mµ is reduced by exposure to visible light applied concurrently with UV or immediately afterwards. 8. The data suggest that the shortest UV wave length tested (226 mµ) affects the cytoplasm selectively, because it is absorbed superficially as indicated by unilateral fluorescence in UV. Consequently it immobilizes paramecia rapidly but has little effect on the division rate because little radiation reaches the nucleus. 9. The data support the view that nuclear effects of UV are readily photoreversed but cytoplasmic effects are not.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (996.7 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. BLUM H. F., COOK J. S., LOOS G. M. A comparison of five effects of ultraviolet light on the Arbacia egg. J Gen Physiol. 1954 Jan 20;37(3):313–324. doi: 10.1085/jgp.37.3.313. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. BLUM H. F., LOOS G. M., ROBINSON J. C. The accelerating action of illumination in recovery of Arbacia eggs from exposure to ultraviolet radiation. J Gen Physiol. 1950 Nov;34(2):167–181. doi: 10.1085/jgp.34.2.167. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. BLUM H. F., ROBINSON J. C., LOOS G. M. The loci of action of ultraviolet and x-radiation and of photorecovery in the egg and sperm of the sea urchin Arbacia punctulata. J Gen Physiol. 1951 Nov;35(2):323–342. doi: 10.1085/jgp.35.2.323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. BRANDT C. L., SHEPARD D. C., GIESE A. C. The effect of nutritional state on photoreversal of ultraviolet injuries in Didinium nasutum. J Gen Physiol. 1955 Jan 20;38(3):295–305. doi: 10.1085/jgp.38.3.295. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. DULBECCO R. Experiments on photoreactivation of bacteriophages inactivated with ultraviolet radiation. J Bacteriol. 1950 Mar;59(3):329–347. doi: 10.1128/jb.59.3.329-347.1950. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. GIESE A. C. Action of ultraviolet radiation on protoplasm. Physiol Rev. 1950 Oct;30(4):431–458. doi: 10.1152/physrev.1950.30.4.431. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Hollaender A., Oliphant J. W. The Inactivating Effect of Monochromatic Ultraviolet Radiation on Influenza Virus. J Bacteriol. 1944 Oct;48(4):447–454. doi: 10.1128/jb.48.4.447-454.1944. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Hughes D. M., Bovie W. T. The Effects of Fluorite Ultra-Violet Light on the Rate of division of Paramecium Caudatum. J Med Res. 1918 Nov;39(2):233–238. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. KIMBALL R. F., GAITHER N. The influence of light upon the action of ultraviolet on Paramecium aurelia. J Cell Physiol. 1951 Apr;37(2):211–233. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1030370204. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. KIMBALL R. F., GECKLER R. P., GAITHER N. Division delay by radiation and nitrogen mustard in Paramecium. J Cell Physiol. 1952 Dec;40(3):427–459. doi: 10.1002/jcp.1030400307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. KUNITZ M. Crystalline desoxyribonuclease; isolation and general properties; spectrophotometric method for the measurement of desoxyribonuclease activity. J Gen Physiol. 1950 Mar;33(4):349–362. doi: 10.1085/jgp.33.4.349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. NOVICK A., SZILARD L. Experiments on light-reactivation of ultra-violet inactivated bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1949 Oct;35(10):591–600. doi: 10.1073/pnas.35.10.591. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. SWENSON P. A. The action spectrum of the inhibition of galactozymase production by ultraviolet light. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1950 Dec;36(12):699–703. doi: 10.1073/pnas.36.12.699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. WELLS P. H., GIESE A. C. Photoreactivation of ultraviolet light injury in gametes of the sea urchin Strongylocentrotus purpuratus. Biol Bull. 1950 Oct;99(2):163–172. doi: 10.2307/1538736. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from The Journal of General Physiology are provided here courtesy of The Rockefeller University Press

RESOURCES