Microanalysis of scale morphology in killifish, Aphaniops hormuzensis inhabiting ecologically diverse environments (Cyprinodontiformes; Aphaniidae).

Ecologically, Aphaniops hormuzensis populations occupying diverse environments in southern Iran and showed substantial morphological variation across its range. In this study, three different habitats were chosen and identified as group A (sulfur rich spring), group B (salty River), and group C (urban canal), and scale microstructures and scale shape was inspected among three groups. The SEM imaging indicated that lepidonts were more developed on the scale of larger (group C, SL > 30 mm) than younger fish (group A, SL < 30 mm). We tentatively concluded that lepidonts are formed during scale development so that in the earlier stages of fish development, scales probably do not have lepidont. Also, the size and shape of lepidonts vary between the populations, and their shape and orientation within a given species affected by the fish size rather than the local ecological conditions of habitats. The number of radii was relatively higher in group C (12.58 ± 0.66 in males and 13.00 ± 1.89 in females). Similar to what is mentioned before in the case of lepidont, the inter-population variation in the number of radii seems to be influenced by fish size. Group A (SL < 30 mm) had a relatively large focus diameter (0.14 ± 0.02 in males and 0.36 ± 0.44 in females). It is assumed that the focus size is large at the earlier stage of fish development, but later during the fish growth, and by increasing the scale size, the focus diameter is reduced. In conclusion and agreement with previous studies, scale surface morphology and microstructure could be employed to discriminate certain populations, while scale size and J-indices could not help in distinguishing the populations. It is also proposed that the characteristics of scale morphology in the population-level are influenced by the combination of genetic, and environmental factors, as well as fish development.

Cytotoxic immunological synapses do not restrict the action of interferon-γ to antigenic target cells.

Following antigen recognition on target cells, effector T cells establish immunological synapses and secrete cytokines. It is thought that T cells secrete cytokines in one of two modes: either synaptically (i.e., toward antigenic target cells) or multidirectionally, affecting a wider population of cells. This paradigm predicts that synaptically secreted cytokines such as IFN-γ will preferentially signal to antigenic target cells contacted by the T cell through an immunological synapse. Despite its physiological significance, this prediction has never been tested. We developed a live-cell imaging system to compare the responses of target cells and nonantigenic bystanders to IFN-γ secreted by CD8+, antigen-specific, cytotoxic T cells. Both target cells and surrounding nontarget cells respond robustly. This pattern of response was detected even at minimal antigenic T-cell stimulation using low doses of antigenic peptide, or altered peptide ligands. Although cytotoxic immunological synapses restrict killing to antigenic target cells, the effects of IFN-γ are more widespread.