J. Cell Sci. 3, 105-114 (1968)
Printed in Great Britain
105
STRUCTURAL ORGANIZATION ASSOCIATED
WITH PSEUDOPOD EXTENSION AND
CONTRACTION DURING CELL LOCOMOTION
IN DIFFLUGIA
A. WOHLMAN 1 AND R. D. ALLENf
Department of Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
In Difflugia corona, a free-living amoeboid cell, locomotion is hampered by a heavy shell or
test made of sand grains and other debris. Locomotion involves pseudopod extension,
attachment to the substratum, and forcible pseudopod retraction which pulls the shelled
cell body forward.
When observed through a polarizing microscope, the extending pseudopodia appear isotropic or very weakly birefringent. Upon attachment to the substratum a positively birefringent
fibrillar array develops rapidly at the attachment point and extends from this region back to
the cell body within the test. These birefringent fibrils extend through and parallel to the
long axis of the pseudopod. As the pseudopod retracts, the birefringent fibrillar array disappears,
and hyaline blebs, suggestive of syneresis, appear on the pseudopodial surface. The birefringent
fibrils correspond in position and approximate diameter (1 fi) to refractile fibrils visible with
the Nomarski differential interference microscope.
Individual organisms were fixed for electron microscopy at a time when the pseudopodia
were firmly attached to the substratum. Electron-microscopic examination of thin sections of
pseudopodia revealed many i-ft bundles of intimately associated, aligned, 55-75 A microfilaments. The orientation and size of the bundles indicate that they probably correspond to
the birefringent, refractile fibrils observed in living cells. Microfilaments have also been
observed both as randomly oriented and dispersed cytoplasmic components, and as aligned
filaments in the ectoplasm adjacent to the plasmalemma.
During pseudopod extension with sporadic streaming, birefringent 'flashes' have been
observed at the front of the pseudopod. These flashes are believed to represent a photo-elastic
phenomenon.
INTRODUCTION
Attempts to analyse the mechanisms underlying amoeboid movement and cytoplasmic streaming have, for many years, been focused on the search for fibrils or
filaments which, upon contraction, could provide the required motive force. The
search has been largely limited to the large, free-living, naked, carnivorous amoebae
(see Allen, 1961a). These ideas can be traced back to the early nineteenth century.
Following Dujardin's (1835) description of the cytoplasm of amoeboid cells ('sarcode')
• Present address: Bell-Craig Laboratories for Medical Research, 451 Alliance Avenue,
Toronto 9, Ontario, Canada.
t Present address: Department of Biological Sciences, State University of New York at
Albany, Albany, New York, U.S.A.
106
A. Wohlman and R. D. Allen
as contractile, and Briicke's (1861, 1862) proposal that the cytoplasm consisted of
a contractile framework, Engelmann (1869, 1875, 1879) further postulated the
existence of 'Inotagmen', uniaxially birefringent, contractile elements capable of
undergoing form changes to produce the force responsible for cytoplasmic movements.
The concept that contractile fibrils or filaments might provide the motive force
for cell movements and cytoplasmic streaming has also been discussed considerably
in the current literature (for example, see Seifritz, 1929; Meyer, 1929; Monne, 1948;
Loewy, 1949; Goldacre & Lorch, 1950; Frey-Wyssling, 1953; and Allen, 1961 b).
The search for fibrils at the light-microscopic level in living cells has not been
very fruitful; on the other hand, the electron microscope has revealed a number of
fibrillar elements, ranging between 30 and 80 A in diameter, present in fixed cells
(Randall & Jackson, 1958; Sotelo & Trujillo-Cen6z, 1959; De Petris, Karlsbad &
Pernis, 1962; Yaqui & Shigenaka, 1963; Danneel, 1964; Nachmias, 1964, 1966;
Wohlfarth-Bottermann, 1964a, b; Wolpert, Thompson & O'Neill, 1964; Baker,
1965; Komnick & Wohlfarth-Botterman, 1965; McManus & Roth, 1965; Nagai &
Rebhun, 1966; Cloney, 1966; Drum & Hopkins, 1966; Masurovsky, Benitez &
Murray, 1966; Overton, 1966; Taylor, 1966).
The present paper demonstrates the existence of fibrils in pseudopodia of living
testaceans and shows that these fibrils form during pseudopod extension, apparently
to participate in forcible pseudopod retraction during cell locomotion. Closer examination with the light and electron microscopes has enabled us to characterize the
fibrils as microfilaments.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The organism used for this study was Difflugia corona (Wallich), a fresh-water
testacean. The order Testacea, part of the class Sarcodina, contains those amoebae
which inhabit a single-chambered shell. For general information concerning the
testaceans the reader is referred to the works of Leidy (1879), Mast (1931), Deflandre
(1953) and Jepps (1956).
Most of the organisms were obtained from the surface mud or ooze at the bottom
of sphagnum bogs in the pine barrens of south-eastern New Jersey. Difflugia corona
was cultured in either the natural waters in which it was found or in Marshall's
medium (0-05 mM MgSO4. 7H2O; o- 5 mM CaCl2; o-15 mM KjHPC^; o-11 mM KH^C^
in distilled water), supplemented with diatoms and finely-ground quartz sand. The
cultures were maintained at 18—20 °C under a light—dark cycle consisting of 12 h of
light and 12 h of dark.
Light microscopy involved the use of two contrast-generating systems: polarized
light and Nomarski differential interference optics (Nomarski, 1955). The optical
components were manufactured by Carl Zeiss (Oberkochen) and were mounted
in a Photomicroscope I. Photomicrography on 35-mm film was accomplished by
means of the internal camera and accompanying automatic exposure device of the
Photomicroscope. Because of the limited light available during observation of the
organism between crossed polars, photographic records were made on Kodak Plus-x
film processed with Diafine developer which increased the ASA rating 6-9 times
Pseudopods of Difflugia
107
(Baumann Photochemical Corp., Chicago, Illinois). The more favourable light
intensity afforded by ordinary bright-field and differential interference microscopy
permitted the use of a finer-grained film, Adox KB-14, which was also developed
in Diafine.
Motion pictures were taken with an Arriflex 16-mm camera equipped with either
a synchronous motor drive for 8 frames/sec or variable-speed d.c. motor. When
framing rates of 2/sec or less were desired, the Arriflex DOM time-lapse apparatus
was used, Kodak Plus-x negative film, developed in Diafine, was used for motion
pictures of the organism in polarized light. In the case of bright-field and differential
interference microscopy, the finer-grained British Kodak High Contrast Pan film
gave the most satisfactory results. Analysis of 16-mm film was accomplished with
a modified Kodak 'Analyst' projector ('Photo-optical data analyzer', L-W Photo,
Inc., Van Nuys, California).
For electron microscopy, individual organisms were placed in a small drop of
Marshall's medium and allowed to attach to the substratum. Fixation was achieved
by flooding with 3*8% glutaraldehyde in 0-13 M phosphate buffer at pH 7-2. After
20 min at room temperature, the cell was washed 3 times in Marshall's medium,
post-fixed in 1 % osmium tetroxide (1 h), washed again and dehydrated through an
ethanol series. After the specimen was cleared in propylene oxide it was allowed to
equilibrate overnight, at room temperature, in a 1:1 mixture of complete Epon resin
(including hardener) and propylene oxide. Following equilibration, the cell was
embedded in Epon (Luft, 1961) and sectioned with a Huxley ultramicrotome.
Sections stained with uranyl acetate (Stempak & Ward, 1964) and lead citrate
(Reynolds, 1963) were examined in the Hitachi electron microscopes HS-7 and
HU-11.
RESULTS
Pattern of pseudopodial movement
Difflugia corona moves by extending cylindrical pseudopodia which attach to the
substratum, then forcibly retract, pulling the shelled cell body forward. In a typical
sequence in the movement of D. corona, pseudopodia can be seen to extend above
the substratum, swing to one side or the other, and subsequently settle down and
attach. Attachment of the pseudopod to the substratum is quite firm, as evidenced by
the fact that small, membrane-bound fragments are often left on the substratum
following pseudopod detachment. These membrane-bound fragments show independent movement for indefinite periods despite their lack of a nucleus. Numerous
pseudopodia may be put forth and the force determining the velocity of locomotion
is apparently the vector sum of the forces exerted by the contracting pseudopodia.
Competition between pseudopodia extended at approximately 1800 with respect to
each other results in detachment and retraction of the less firmly attached pseudopod,
while contraction of the dominant pseudopod determines the direction of the organism.
Two adjacent pseudopodia from the same organism will often fuse if they touch at
any point along the pseudopodial surface. A cytoplasmic bridge is frequently seen
108
A. Wohlman and R. D. Allen
to form at the proximal end of two adjacent pseudopodia. Membrane fusion has
never been observed upon contact of pseudopodia from different organisms.
Pseudopod extension and cytoplasmic streaming
Cytoplasmic streaming as observed in D. corona closely resembles that described
for Amoeba proteus and Chaos caroUnensis. Endoplasm streams but the hyaline cap
frequently seen at the front tip of naked amoebae is often not evident in Difflugia.
In many instances cytoplasm has been observed to stream into an extending pseudopod
and subsequently to continue streaming distally as the pseudopod itself retracts and
is withdrawn into the cell body. Consequently, bulbous formations sometimes appear
at the pseudopodial tip. In Fig. i the arrow identifies and follows a single particle
flowing in the endoplasmic stream while the pseudopod itself is retracting. Reversal
of the direction of streaming initiates at the proximal end of the pseudopod (as in
C. caroUnensis and A. proteus) and the wave of reversal propagates distally. Cytoplasm,
streaming out of a retracting pseudopod, can flow in a U-shaped pattern and enter
another pseudopod without circulating through the cell body. The velocity of streaming
has been observed to range from 2 to at least 15 /i/sec and is highly variable.
Very rapid, brief flashes of relatively strong positive birefringence have been noted
to occur in normally weakly birefringent extending pseudopodia undergoing sporadic
cytoplasmic streaming. Such flashes are more easily seen in projected films than in
single frames printed from the film.
Fibril formation upon pseudopod attachment
When observed between crossed polaroids, the pseudopods appear very weakly
positively birefringent as they extend from the cell body (Fig. 2 A). Upon attachment
to the substratum, at any point along the pseudopod, strong positive birefringence
develops rapidly at the attachment area and spreads both toward the test and toward
the front tip of the pseudopod (Fig. 2C—1). In most instances the proximal spreading
of birefringence is more rapid than its distal advance toward the pseudopodial tip.
The birefringence does not extend into the hyaline areas that form around the
attachment point. As can be seen in Figs. 4 and 5, the birefringence observed in
attached pseudopodia can be resolved into an oriented array of birefringent fibrils,
each approximately 1 /i in diameter, which extend through the pseudopod and terminate in the attachment area. Upon retraction, birefringence typically fades, but
sometimes a rapid reversal of contrast was observed just at the end of the retraction
phase. Owing to the rapidity of this phenomenon, it is not known whether there
is a reversal in the sign of birefringence.
The fibrillar arrays observed in polarized light are clearly visible as refractile fibrils
when viewed through the differential interference microscope (Figs. 6-8). The narrow
depth of field characteristic of this optical system at high numerical aperture permitted
a determination of fibril location by focusing through the pseudopod. The fibrils
appear to lie in the ectoplasm just beneath the cell membrane. Since both the birefringent and the refractile fibrils are evident only after attachment of the pseudopod
to the substratum and since they disappear in a similar manner, it is assumed that
Psetidopods of Difflugia
109
they are the same fibrils. In those cases where the plasmalemma appeared folded or
rippled, the fibrils did not follow the membrane contour but extended through the
pseudopod in a straight course parallel to other fibrils and to the long axis of the
pseudopod.
Syneresis
As contraction proceeds, drawing the shelled cell body toward the attachment
point, numerous hyaline blebs, suggestive of syneresis, appear on the pseudopod
surface (Fig. 3). Image duplication interference microscopy (Gahm, 1962, 1963) has
shown that the hyaline blebs contain fluid of lower refractive index than the ectoplasm
or endoplasm. The blebs are not restricted to any particular region of the pseudopod,
but appear all along the surface. The blebs often provide a site for the extension of
new pseudopodia which display a morphological and physiological pattern indistinguishable from pseudopodia originating from the cell body. Both types of pseudopodia
are similar in regard to size, shape, cytoplasmic streaming, and contractility.
Behaviour of excised pseudopodia
The locomotor capacity of pseudopodia isolated from the cell body was evaluated
by excising and observing various size fragments. Regardless of how far distally
the separation was made, the isolated fragments continued to move for variable
periods up to several hours. The fragments displayed both cytoplasmic streaming
and consistent translatory movement. Unlike the intact organism, small pseudopodial
fragments appeared to be attached along most of their length and moved in a manner
more closely resembling the naked amoebae. When larger pieces were obtained by
removing the test and excising pieces of the cell body, the fragments assumed a shape
similar to the intact organism; that is, pseudopodia extended from a central cytoplasmic body. Difflugia have been observed to approach and capture an isolated fragment and subsequently reassimilate this piece into one of their extended pseudopodia.
Fibril ultrastructure
The birefringence observed in attached pseudopodia by polarized-light microscopy
suggested fibrillar organization at the electron-microscopic level.
Electron-microscopic examination of pseudopodia of D. corona revealed 1-/1 bundles
of microfilaments 55-75 A in diameter. Fig. 9 represents a section of the cell body
demonstrating the nature of the ground cytoplasm and several cytoplasmic components after fixation by the methods described. A layer of endoplasmic reticulum
appeared closely aligned along the cytoplasmic side of the nuclear membrane. Several
types of vacuoles were present, some of which appeared empty while others contained
electron-dense material. The mitochondria displayed a pattern of convoluted tubules
commonly found in many protists. On several occasions vacuoles were seen that
contained a crystalline inclusion: the nature and function of these structures is
unknown. Electron micrographs of attached pseudopodia (Fig. 10) demonstrate
bundles of microfilaments in the ground cytoplasm. Some microfilaments diverge
from the main bundle and can be seen bending around several cytoplasmic components
no
A. Wohlman and R. D. Allen
(Fig. 10, arrow). In this same electron micrograph one can see the numerous vacuoles
that lie adjacent to the micronlament bundle. Although there is a net orientation, the
microfilaments are not strictly parallel to one another. Some areas of microfilaments
appear 'naked' or 'smooth'; however, in most instances particulate material (or
perhaps 'side-bridges') seems to be adhering to the filament core. One has the
distinct impression of a periodicity in the arrangement of the particulate material.
Microfilaments have also been observed both as randomly oriented and dispersed
cytoplasmic components, and as aligned filaments in the ectoplasm adjacent to the
plasmalemma (Fig. u ) .
DISCUSSION
Our knowledge of, and viewpoints toward, amoeboid movement have been greatly
influenced by the fact that most workers have chosen to study one of the more
abundant giant, naked, free-living, carnivorous amoebae (for example, Amoeba proteus
or Chaos carolinensis). Difflugia extends cylindrical pseudopodia in a surprisingly similar
manner, but that is where the similarity ceases. Unlike the afore-mentioned naked
amoebae, Difflugia forcibly retracts its pseudopodia while they are attached to the
substratum, with the result that the heavy shell is dragged forward.
What makes amoeboid movement in Difflugia especially interesting is that a special
array of fibrils is rapidly laid down before pseudopod retraction occurs. The formation
of this array between the cell body and a forward pseudopodial attachment point
takes only a few seconds, and the array itself may be more highly birefringent and
more impressive in extent than the mitotic spindle of a marine invertebrate egg.
During pseudopod retraction the array fades and disappears.
Forcible pseudopod retraction is not a well-established general feature of amoeboid
movement. Although many have claimed that contraction of the tail is the driving
force (by hydraulic pressure) for the formation of new pseudopods (see Goldacre,
1952), the evidence in favour of this idea is not convincing, and the behavioural
evidence against it is considerable. In the case of Difflugia, forcible pseudopod
retraction occurs without any doubt. It is interesting to note, however, that retraction
is not necessarily temporally correlated with extension of a new pseudopod, as would
be expected if the latter formed as the result of an increased internal hydraulic
pressure.
Forcible retraction of pseudopodia seems to be a general feature of many if not
all testaceans, especially those with the heavier tests, and probably occurs also in
some of the more obscure species of small free-living amoebae. Forcible pseudopod
retraction has also been observed in sea-urchin gastrula mesenchyme cells (Gustafson
& Wolpert, 1963; Gustafson, 1964). One might guess that this type of cell movement
is a more common feature of embryogenesis, histogenesis, and regeneration than is
commonly recognized. Unfortunately, many of the 'working pseudopodia' in embryos
have so far been quite inaccessible to study. Presumably Difflugia serves as an
important model system for the study of this type of pseudopod.
The term ' forcible retraction' implies that something contracts. Since the time of
Engelmann (1879) it has been assumed that contraction can occur only in an aniso-
Pseudopods of Difflugia
in
tropic material. Optical anisotropy (especially positive birefringence) has been observed
in nearly every structure known or suspected to be contractile (myofibrils, cilia,
flagella, reticulopodia, axopodia etc; see Schmidt (1937) for review). Recent studies
from this laboratory (Allen, Francis & Nakajima, 1965) established that pseudopodia
of Chaos carolinensis are normally weakly birefringent (B = 2 x io"6), as if they
contained either a very few protein fibrils or consisted of a weakly organized gel.
The same is true of newly forming pseudopodia of Difflugia: the weakly positive
axial birefringence is barely detectable during pseudopod extension except during
sporadic flow, when flashes of birefringence are observed. This pattern of birefringence changes is strikingly similar to that reported in Chaos by Allen et al. (1965),
and it is tempting to attribute the phenomenon to the same cause in both cases:
a build-up in tension between the postulated site of contraction at the pseudopodial
tip (Allen, 19616) and a region of resistance more posteriorly located.
The birefringent material that forms into arrays of fibrils just before contraction
is particularly noteworthy, for the timing of its appearance in the pseudopod retraction
cycle strongly suggests a contractile role. Engelmann, had he found these structures,
might have claimed them as his postulated 'Inotagmen', or contractile elements.
While the behavioural evidence is suggestive of a contractile role for these fibrils, we
cannot prove this from either the light- or the electron-microscopic evidence so far.
The diminution of birefringence during pseudopod retraction could be due either
to destruction or disorientation of the fibrillar material. The electron microscope
reveals only seemingly static bundles of 55-75 A microfilaments, without any indication of how these elements might participate in a contractile event. We cannot exclude
the possibility that the microfilaments constitute only a part of the contractile
machinery, the rest of which has not been preserved.
The manner in which the fibrillar material appears and certain aspects of pseudopod
behaviour allow us to infer something of the mechanism by which the fibrillar material
is laid down. New pseudopods are almost isotropic, indicating that if the subunits
of the fibrillar material are present, they are randomly oriented. During the late
stages in pseudopod extension, just before attachment, pseudopodia typically wave
about, almost like the tentacles of an octopus, before settling on the substratum. This
may be due to the development of unequal tension along different portions of the
newly formed ectoplasmic tube. An adhesive pseudopod, making contact with the
substratum, might be subject to internal forces that would normally cause it to
bend, but be unable to bend by virtue of its recent attachment to the substratum.
This in turn would result in the development of stress in the ectoplasmic tube
between the attachment point and cell body. Orientation within the ectoplasmic
tube gel caused by the stress might serve to orient further polymerization of fibrils.
It is regrettable that more has not been learned from electron microscopy of this
fibrillar material, its formation and role in contraction. It is hoped that better fixation
media can be found.
Brief mention deserves to be made of the ability of non-nucleated pseudopod
fragments of Difflugia to move in a coordinated and organized manner (see also Kepner
& Reynolds, 1923). This is a somewhat different situation from that which exists
ii2
A. Wohlman and R. D. Allen
in A. proteus, where non-nucleate fragments lose the power of successful locomotion
within a few minutes after enucleation. The retention of the ability of pseudopod
fragments to move independently leaves little doubt that the pseudopods themselves
contain the necessary motile machinery.
We are grateful to Professor L. I. Rebhun for many suggestions concerning fixation for
electron microscopy. This work was supported by a research grant from the National Institute
of General Medical Science.
REFERENCES
ALLEN, R. D. (1961a). Amoeboid movement. In The Cell, vol. 2 (ed. J. Brachet & A. E.
Mirsky), pp. 135-216. New York and London: Academic Press.
ALLEN, R. D. (19616). A new theory of ameboid movement and protoplasmic streaming.
Expl Cell Res., Suppl. 8, 17-31.
ALLEN, R. D., FRANCIS, D. W. & NAKAJIMA, H. (1965). Cyclic birefringence changes in
pseudopods of Chaos carolinensis revealing the localization of the motive force in pseudopod
extension. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 54, 1153-1161.
BAKER, P. C. (1965). Fine structure and morphogenic movements in the gastrula of the tree
frog Hyla regilla. J. Cell Biol. 24, 95-116.
BROCKE, E. (1861). Die Elementarorganismen. Sber. Akad. Wiss. Wien (44), Abt. II, 381-407.
BROCKE, E. (1862). Das Verhalten der sogenannten Protoplastrome in der Brennhaaren von
Urtica urens gegen die Schlage des Magnetelectromotors. Sber. K. Akad. Wiss., Math.Naturwiss. Cl. 46 (Abt. II), 35-38.
CLONEY, R. A. (1966). Cytoplasmic filaments and cell movements. Epidermal cells during
ascidian metamorphosis. J. Ultrastruct. Res. 14, 300-328.
DANNEEL, S. (1964). Identifizierung der kontraktilen Elemente im Cytoplasma von Amoeba
proteus. Naturwissenschaften 15, 368-369.
DHFLANDRE, G. (1953). Thecamoebiens. In Traiti de Zoologie, vol. 1, part 2 (ed. P. Grass^).
Paris: Masson.
DE PETRIS, S., KARLSBAD, G. & PERNIS, B. (1962). Filamentous structures in the cytoplasm
of normal mononuclear phagocytes. J. Ultrastruct. Res. 7, 39-55.
DRUM, R. W. & HOPKINS, J. T. (1966). Diatom locomotion: An explanation. Protoplasma 6a,
i-33-
F. (1835). Recherches sur les organismes. Amis Set. nat. Zool. 4, 343-377.
ENGELMANN, T. W. (1869). Beitrage zur Physiologie des Protoplasmas. PflUgers Arch. ges.
Physiol. 2, 307-322.
ENGELMANN, T. W. (1875). Contractilitat und Doppelbrechung. PflUgers Arch. ges. Physiol.
ii, 432-464ENGELMANN, T. W. (1879). Physiologie der Protoplasma und Flimmerbewegung. In Hermann's
Handbuch d. Physiol. vol. 1. Leipzig: Vogel.
FREY-WVSSLING, A. (1953). Submicroscopic Morphology of Protoplasm. New York: Elsevier.
GAHM, J. (1962). Durchlicht-Interferenzeinrichtungen nach Jamin-Lebedeff. Zeiss Mitt.
Fortschr. tech. Opt. 10.
GAHM, J. (1963). Durchlicht-Interferenzeinrichtungen nach Jamin-Lebedeff. Zeiss Mitt.
Fortschr. tech. Opt. 1.
GOLDACRE, R. J. (1952). The folding and unfolding of protein molecules as a basis of osmotic
work. Int. Rev. Cytol. 1, 135-164.
GOLDACRE, R. J. & LORCH, I. J. (1950). Folding and unfolding of protein molecules in relation
to cytoplasmic streaming, amoeboid movement and osmotic work. Nature, Lond. 166, 497.
GUSTAFSON, T. (1964). The role and activities of pseudopodia during morphogenesis of the
sea urchin larva. In Primitive Motile Systems in Cell Biology (ed. R. D. Allen & N. Kamiya),
PP- 333-350. New York: Academic Press.
GUSTAFSON, T. & WOLPERT, L. (1963). The cellular basis of morphogenesis and sea urchin
development. Int. Rev. Cytol. 15, 139—214.
JEPPS, M. W. (1956). The Protozoa, Sarcodina. London: Oliver and Boyd.
DUJARDIN,
Pseudopods of Difflugia
113
W. A. & REYNOLDS, B. O. (1923). Reaction of cell bodies and pseudopodial fragments
of Difflugia. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 44, 22-46.
KOMNICK, H. & WOHLFARTH-BOTTERMANN, K. E. (1965). Das Grundplasma und die Plasmafilamente der Amoeba Chaos chaos nach enzymatischer Behandlung der Zellmembran.
Z. Zellforsch. mikrosk. Anat. 66, 434-456.
LEIDY, J. (1879). Fresh-water Rhizopods of North America. Rep. U.S. geol. Surv. 12.
LOEWY, A. G. (1949). A theory of protoplasmic streaming. Proc. Am. phil. Soc. 93, 326-329.
LUFT, J. H. (1961). Improvements in epoxy resin embedding methods. J. biophys. biochem.
Cytol. 9, 409—414.
MCMANUS, SISTER M. A. & ROTH, L. E. (1965). Fibrillar differentiation in Myxomycete plasmodia. J. Cell Biol. 25, 305-318.
MAST, S. O. (1931). Movement and response in Difflugia with special reference to the nature
of cytoplasmic contraction. Biol. Bull. mar. biol. Lab., Woods Hole 61, 223-241.
MASUROVSKY, E. B., BENITEZ, H. H. & MURRAY, M. R. (1966). Ultra-structural studies of
sympathetic neurons and supporting cells cultured in deuterium oxide versus nerve growth
factor. J. Cell Biol. 31, 73 A.
KEPNER,
MEYER, K. H. (1929). Biochem. Z. 214, 253-281. See MEYER, K. H. & MARK, H. (1951).
Biological significance of folding and unfolding of protein molecules. Nature, Lond. 167, 736.
MONNE, L. (1948). Functioning of the cytoplasm. Adv. Enzymol. 8, 1-69.
NACHMIAS, V. T. (1964). Fibrillar structures in the cytoplasm of Choas
choas. J. Cell Biol.
23, 183-188.
NACHMIAS, V. T. (1966). Further studies by electron microscopy on fibrils from Chaos chaos.
J. Cell Biol. 31, 154A.
NAGAI, R. & REBHUN, L. I. (1966). Cytoplasmic microfilaments in streaming Nitella cells.
J. Ultrastruct. Res. 14, 571-589.
NOMARSKI, G. (1955). Microinterterometre differentiel a ondea polaresees. J. Phys. Radium,
Paris 16, 9—13S.
OVERTON, J. (1966). Microtubules and microfibrils in morphogenesis of the scale cells of
Ephestia kuhmella. J. Cell Biol. 29, 293-305.
RANDALL, J. T. & JACKSON, S. F. (1958). Fine structure and function in Stentor polymorphus.
J. biophys. biochem. Cytol. 4(6), 807-830.
REYNOLDS, E. S. (1963). The use of lead citrate at high pH as an electron-opaque stain in
electron microscopy. J. Cell Biol. 17, 208-212.
SCHMIDT, W. J. (1937). Die Doppelbrechung von Karyoplasma, Zytoplasma und Metaplasma.
Protoplasma-Monogr. 2.
SEIFRITZ, W. (1929). The contractility of protoplasm. Am. Nat. 63, 410-434.
SOTELLO, J. R. & TRUJILLO-CEN6Z, O. (1959). Thefinestructure of an elementary
contractile
system. .7. biophys. biochem. Cytol. 6(1), 126—128.
STEMPAK, J. G. & WARD, R. T. (1964). An improved staining method for electron microscopy.
J. Cell Biol. 22, 697-701.
TAYLOR, A. C. (1966). Microtubules in the microspikes and cortical cytoplasm of isolated
cells. J. Cell Biol. 28, 155-168.
WOHLFARTH-BOTTERMANN, K. E. (1964a). Cell structures and their significance for amoeboid
movement. Int. Rev. Cytol. 16, 61—131.
WOHLFARTH-BOTTERMANN, K. E. (19646). Differentiations of the ground-plasm and their
significance for the generation of motive force of amoeboid movement. In Primitive Motile
Systems in Cell Biology (ed. R. D. Allen & N. Kamiya), pp. 79-109. New York: Academic
Press.
WOLPERT, L., THOMPSON, C. H. & O'NEILL, C. H. (1964). Studies on the isolated membrane
and cytoplasm of Amoeba proteus in relation to amoeboid movement. In Primitive Motile
Systems in Cell Biology (ed. R. D. Allen & N. Kamiya), pp. 143-171. New York: Academic
Press.
YAQUI, R. & SHIGENAKA, Y. (1963). Electron microscopy of the longitudinal fibrillar bundles
and the contractile fibrillar system in Spirostomum ambiguum. J. Protozool. 10, 364—369.
(Received 26 April 1967—Revised 1 August 1967)
8
CellSci. 3
ii4
A. Wohlman and R. D. Allen
The scale on light micrographs represents io fi per division.
>
r
r
w
2
D
a
r33
r
X
3
o
Fig. IA-H. Retraction of a pseudopod while the endoplasm continues to flow in a distal direction.
Nomarski differential interference contrast optics. Frames at 2-o-sec intervals.
r
Journal of Cell Science, Vol. 3, No. 1
Fig. 2A-1. The development of birefringence at the attachment point and subsequent
spreading away from this point. Frames at 5-o-sec intervals.
A. WOHLMAN AND R. D. ALLEN
2;
>
r
r
w
D
z
r
X
o
Fig. 3A-L. Syneretic blebs forming on the surface of a retracting pseudopod and subsequent development of pseudopodia
from the sites of bleb formation. Nomarski differential interference contrast optics. Frames at 30-sec intervals. The image
obtained with the Nomsrski system is an 'optical shadow-casting effect' caused by interference contrast generated as a function of the gradient of optical path difference.
K
Journal of Cell Science, Vol. 3, No.
Figs. 4, 5. Birefringent fibrils in attached pseudopodia. Zeiss polarized-light optics.
This pair of micrographs shows the reversal of contrast at opposite compensator
bias compensation settings.
Fig. 6. Refractile fibrils in attached pseudopodia. Nomarski differential interference
contrast optics.
Figs. 7, 8. Refractile fibrils terminating at the attachment area. Fig. 8 shows the
orientation of the organism which is suspended from the underside of a coverslip.
Nomarski differential interference contrast optics.
A. WOHLMAN AND R. D. ALLEN
Journal of Cell Science, Vol. 3, No. 1
Fig. 9. Electron micrograph showing area within the cell body (c, chromatin; cv,
crystal-containing vacuoles; db, dark bodies (probably lipoids); er, endoplasmic
reticulum; m, mitochondria; n, nucleus; nm, nuclear membrane; r, ribosomes).
x 24000.
A. WOHLMAN AND R. D. ALLEN
Journal of Cell Science, Vol. 3, No. 1
Fig. 10. Aligned, densely packed microfilaments. The arrow points to several microfilaments bending around cytoplasmic inclusions, x 40000.
Fig. 11. Microfilaments (m/) in the ectoplasm just adjacent to the plasmalemma.
x 36000.
A. WOHLMAN AND R. D. ALLEN