4.5 Article

Validation of manometric microrespirometers for measuring oxygen consumption in small arthropods

Journal

JOURNAL OF INSECT PHYSIOLOGY
Volume 54, Issue 7, Pages 1132-1137

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2008.04.022

Keywords

Drosophila; metabolic rate; oxygen consumption; IRGA

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0444766]
  2. National Institutes of Health RO1 [GM067862-01]
  3. National Cancer Institute MSI CCP NCI [U56 CA96286, 1U54132238]
  4. NSF [IBN 0212092]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Scientists have used numerous techniques to measure organismal metabolic rate, including assays of oxygen (O-2) consumption and carbon dioxide (CO2) production. Relatively few studies have directly compared estimates of metabolic rate on the same groups of animals as determined by different assay methods. This study directly compared measures of the metabolic rate of three lines of Drosophila simulans as determined either from direct measures of CO2 production using infrared gas analysis (IRGA), or from estimates of O-2 consumption based on manometeric techniques. Determinations of metabolic rate of the same cohorts of flies using these two methods produced results that often differed widely. Typically metabolic rate as determined by the manometric method was significantly greater than that determined by CO2 output. These differences are difficult to explain by simple biotic or abiotic factor(s). Because of the idiosyncratic nature of these differences it is not possible to use a simple factor to convert from metabolic rate measurements done using manometric techniques to those expected from direct measures of CO2 output or O-2 consumption. Although manometric devices are simple to construct and use, measurements of metabolic rate made with this method can vary significantly from measurements made by directly assaying CO2 production or O-2 consumption. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available