Development and function of pearl-sacs grown from regenerated mantle graft tissue in the black-lip pearl oyster, Pinctada margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758)

Kishore, Pranesh; Southgate, Paul C.

doi:10.1016/j.fsi.2015.05.008

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this study, we emphasized the role of the host mussel by studying the traits of freshwater nucleated pearls. The host oyster or mussel is mainly responsible for healing the wound, while the allograft is responsible for the formation of nacre (Shi, Zhang, Wu & Peng ; Kishore & Southgate , 2016a). Cultured nucleated pearls with nacre most had a certain thickness, and most are rejected if it is too thin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freshwater nucleated pearl quality is influenced by host mussel growth traits in Hyriopsis cumingii

Bai

Han

et al. 2017

Aquac Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hyriopsis cumingii is one of the most important freshwater pearl mussels in China. Recently, this species can produce freshwater nucleated pearls of high quality. Here, we investigated whether nucleated pearl quality is influenced by the growth traits of the host mussel or other factors like cultivation period. We implanted host mussels with a spherical nucleus consisting of a small piece of mantle tissue from donor mussels. After 24 and 36 months of culture, host mussel growth traits including body weight and shell length, height, width and weight were recorded. These factors were then correlated with the quality traits of the pearls they produced, such as nacre thickness, size, weight, lustre and colour. Results indicated pearls obtained at 36 months after seeding were significantly larger in terms of nacre thickness, size and weight compared to those harvested at 24 months. In particular, nacre thickness (r = 0.33-0.48, P = 0.00), pearl size (r = 0.39-0.43, P = 0.00) and pearl weight (r = 0.35-0.47, P = 0.00) were showed to be significantly correlated with host mussels shell length, body weight and shell weight at 24 or 36 months. Larger and heavier host mussels tended to produce bigger pearls. In contrast, host mussels did not affect pearl colour. Cumulatively, our results suggest that longer culturing times and a larger host mussel may help produce better quality nucleated pearl. This information can help guide selective breeding programs designed to improve pearl quality produced by H. cumingii.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Freshwater nucleated pearl quality is influenced by host mussel growth traits in Hyriopsis cumingii

Bai

Han

et al. 2017

Aquac Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Suzuki [52] describes this healing process around a foreign body, with and without the graftperhaps the closest experimental take on the argument of which "agency" of natural pearls nucleation is necessary: without the graft, there is no mineralization. Massive regeneration of the specialized mantle epithelium improves grafts but does not induce natural pearl nucleation [53,54]. Awaji [10] compares grafting with shell repaira type of injury that does require shell materials to redress, yet, a pearl oyster's response to lesions may trigger ectopic mineralization whether shell repair is involved or not: Trinkler [55] documents ectopic mineralization without shell structure, Rodríguez [56] describes rich natural pearl nucleation, both triggered by a successful immune response without shell repairs involved.…”

Section: Revisiting Natural Pearl Nucleationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Pearls

Vasiliu¹

2016

KEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.A literature less traveled -peaking between 1900-1920 -draws on pre-classical concepts of crystal growth and a trove of field biology, to understand ectopic shell production, the natural source of pearls. By 1907, grafts from the calcifying mantle epithelium on gonads induced nacre mineralization consistently in Pinctada margaritifera, suggesting that anomalously displaced, readily specialized cells are at least a sufficient cause of natural pearl formation. Otherwise, the epithelial sacks wrapping natural nacreous pearls must specialize for nacre production independently from the shell producing mantle -an idea supported by experiments with shell regeneration, but not amenable to a method of inducing pearl formation. At the time, chasing epithelial cell migration was technically unfeasible, signaling was news, stemness was fiction. Boldly, Jameson & Rubbel [1902-1912 marshaled natural pearl nuclei and shell repairs as mineral records of cells specializing de novo into the shell's secretory regimes. Much of this paper reenacts the historic debate on the origin of pearls: thence bold ideas connect smoothly with new work both on bone or shell. I replicate Jameson's choice of samples and revisit his proposal to search for an "agency [other than the] shell-secreting mechanism" acting on "replacement cells" as the origin of pearls. Much has changed: specialized epithelial cells reportedly migrate; non-differentiated cells remain available throughout and near the calcifying mantle epithelium -both, open possibilities for natural pearl nucleation. Interest in understanding the latter now connects with results sketching the signaling cascade in cell specialization toward bone morphogenesis. Replicating Jameson's choice of samples, I describe the more spectacular structural changes in the mineralization of pearls associated with two instances of cell specialization: toward producing one shell material -in the event of natural pearl nucleation, or switching between two in later pearl growth. Clusters of cells producing distinctly novel mineralization -nacre over fibrous-prismatic aragonite -could be singled out next to natural pearls by Jameson. The possibility has not been probed in roughly a hundred years. Natural pearl nucleation as a cellular event has never been explored.Much of the literature debating the origin of natural pearls has been written more than a century ago. Its foundation is a trove of field biology that still contains the most detailed descriptions of the circumstances, anatomic placement, surrounding cells -the natural pearl 'sacs' -associated with a variety of mineralization in natural pearls. The dialogue between two authors -Henry Lister Jameson [1,2,3] and W. A. Herdman [4] -sums the state of the art shortly before the study of natural pearls ebbs into the historical lull in pearling between the invention of grafting -the technical foundation of pearl culture, and the current revival of interest in natural pearls. This is still the state of the art.1 Herdman [4], page 8.

show abstract

Calmodulin Highly Expressed during the Formation of Pearl Sac in Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Hyriopsis schlegelii)

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Development and function of pearl-sacs grown from regenerated mantle graft tissue in the black-lip pearl oyster, Pinctada margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758)

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

Freshwater nucleated pearl quality is influenced by host mussel growth traits in Hyriopsis cumingii

Freshwater nucleated pearl quality is influenced by host mussel growth traits in Hyriopsis cumingii

Natural Pearls

Calmodulin Highly Expressed during the Formation of Pearl Sac in Freshwater Pearl Mussel (Hyriopsis schlegelii)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About