determines VO2 in epipelagic vertical migrators2 Temperature and pressure working in tandem in mesopelagic vertical migrators make VO2 more constant over the vertical range of the species.
Teal’s 1971 follow‐up study dealt with pressure effects on migrating mesopelagic decapod crustaceans, including Systellaspis debilis, the experimental species of Napora (1964). His results were similar to those of Napora and to his own 1967 study on euphausiids: pressure increased VO2 in the vertically migrating mesopelagic species resulting in a more stable VO2 over their vertical range. Thus, three studies supported conclusion number 2 above. We can add a third conclusion from work on non‐migrating mesopelagic species: pressure has little or no effect on the VO2 of non‐migratory mesopelagic species (Meek and Childress 1973).
Molecular Mechanisms of Adaptation to Pressure
The fact that deeper‐living species seemed insensitive to pressure piqued the curiosity of biochemical physiologists seeking a molecular basis for the observed data. Using the enzymatic reactions of intermediary metabolism as an experimental system, several studies explored the effects of pressure on deeper‐living species. Their a priori reasoning took them back to the basic thermodynamic properties of chemical reactions, which are governed not only by temperature and the concentration of reactants but also by differences in the volume of the reaction system when reactants are changed into products.
1 If a reaction takes place with no volume change, pressure has no effect.
2 If volume increases during the course of the reaction, pressure will inhibit it.
3 If volume decreases, pressure will enhance it.
If reaction rates are expressed incorporating a pressure term, the equation looks like this:
(2.2)
where P is the pressure (atm), T is the absolute temperature (°K), R is the universal gas constant (82 cm3 atm °K−1 mol−1), KD is the rate constant at 1 atm, KP is the rate constant at P atm, and ∆V ‡ is the activation volume of the reaction; the change in system volume occurring during the rate‐limiting step of the reaction, in this case, the activation step.
What is the source of changes in volume in enzymatic reactions? First, consider the total reaction system as the water in which the reactions take place, the enzyme itself, and its substrate or ligand. Those three elements of the system are water–protein–ligand (Hochachka and Somero 1984). Pressure will affect a reaction if there is a volume change in any element of the reaction system during the transition from reactants to products. Though intuitively one might expect that changes in the volume of the enzyme protein during the course of the reaction or production of a higher or lower volume product would be the main source of volume change, most volume changes are actually due to changes in the structure of water. The side‐chains of the enzyme protein’s amino acids are surrounded by a layer of highly organized water, and this water has a higher density (smaller volume) than the bulk water of the system. Enzymatic reactions by their nature alter the organization of water around the molecule.
The alteration can take several forms (Hochachka and Somero 1984). During ligand binding, the highly organized water may be squeezed out into the bulk phase of the system as the two molecules come together, increasing the total volume of the reaction system. Similarly, when two subunits of an enzyme protein come together to form an aggregate, water can be squeezed out into the bulk phase, increasing system volume. Changes in conformation of the enzyme protein during the reaction can also result in volume change. In one case, exposure to the aqueous medium of hydrophobic residues normally packed within the molecule would increase system volume and would respond negatively to increased pressure. In the opposite case, a normally buried hydrophilic amino acid side‐chain exposed to the aqueous medium would allow water to become more densely organized around it, resulting in a decline in volume relative to the bulk water and exhibiting a positive response to increased pressure.
An example from Siebenaller and Somero (1979) of adaptation to pressure in the enzymes of deep‐sea fishes is given in Figure 2.19. In their study, the effects of pressure were tested on the LDHs of deep‐ and shallow‐living marine fishes. LDH catalyzes the final reaction in the glycolytic pathway of intermediary metabolism:
Figure 2.19 The effect of hydrostatic pressure on the apparent Michaelis constant (Km) NADH (upper) and pyruvate (lower) for M4‐LDH's of four deep‐living and three shallow‐living species of marine teleost fishes. Shallow‐dwelling species indicated by dashed lines in both graphs.
Source: Siebenaller and Somero (1979), figure 1 (p. 297) Reproduced with the permission of Springer.
Km values were tested for both NADH and pyruvate at a series of pressures. Not surprisingly, Kms of deeper living fishes were insensitive to pressure. In contrast, shallow‐dwelling species showed a marked elevation of Kms in response to pressure. As was discussed above, for enzymes to satisfy the dual role of efficient catalysts and regulators of cellular metabolism, their Kms must fall within a highly conserved range of values (Hochachka and Somero 1984, 2002). The pressure effects noted in Figure 2.20 would be enough to perturb efficient enzyme function in the shallow‐dwelling species. Later studies by Siebenaller have found that differences in pressure‐sensitive and pressure‐insensitive enzymes in closely related species living at different depths can be caused by a change of as little as one amino acid in enzyme structure (Hochachka and Somero 1984).
The final question to consider with respect to enzyme kinetics is that of trade‐offs in adaptation to pressure. If only one amino acid separates a pressure‐insensitive from a pressure‐sensitive enzyme, why would not insensitivity be selected for in most pelagic species? The answer is that pressure‐insensitive enzymes are less efficient. Table 2.3 shows the relative velocities of LDH’s from fishes living at different depths measured at a common temperature. Clearly, the reaction velocities of enzymes from deeper‐living, pressure‐adapted fishes are very much lower than those from shallower dwelling species.
Figure 2.20 Effects of pressure on gill Na+, K+‐ATPase activities in fishes from different habitats. The deep‐sea fish (cold‐deep) was a species living at depths exceeding 2000 m and temperatures of 2–4 °C (Coryphaenoides armatus – the grenadier); vent fishes (warm‐deep) were two species living near warm hydrothermal vents; shallow‐cold was an eastern Pacific fish found at depths less than 2000 m (Anoplopoma fimbria – the sablefish); shallow‐warm was a species from surface waters near Hawaii (the barracuda Sphyraena).
