To kill, cheetahs use agility and acceleration not top speed

Researchers have used gadget-laden collars to record cheetahs’ movements in the wild. They found that cheetahs succeed not because it is the fastest animal on land, but because of its incredible acceleration and unmatched turning speeds.

Most of what we know about cheetahs in the wild is based on direct observation, or through videos from remote cameras. This limits our understanding of cheetahs to open habitats and daytime. Alan Wilson at the University of London’s Royal Veterinary College wanted to study cheetahs better.

Over the past ten years, Wilson and his team have been perfecting devices to study the locomotion of animals. For cheetahs, they assembled a collar that carries a GPS to record location data, an accelerometer to measure speed, a gyroscope to understand angular motion, and a magnetometer to make location data more accurate, which it does by measuring tiny changes in Earth’s magnetic field. The data were transmitted back to the researchers in real time through radio.

“The key development,” Wilson said, “was to pack all that in a low-power device”. The collar relies only on solar cells for recharging, but carries a battery in case of failure.

After tracking 367 runs by five cheetahs in the wild, Wilson found many surprising results.

First, the top speed of most cheetah hunts is on average half the “record speed”. That record speed is 102 km per hour, and was noted in 1965 (though not published until 1997), by a veterinary surgeon in Kenya.

The average length of a cheetah’s hunt was about 180 meters. Instead, on average, cheetahs covered about six kilometers every day. With only two hunts made every three days, high speed runs make for only a tiny fraction of a cheetah’s daily routine.

Second, he found that cheetahs can successfully hunt in all terrains, not just open fields. The run data were overlaid on Google Earth to visualise the landscape the cheetahs were operating in. This showed that only 20% of chases in open fields were successful, compared to 31% in dense cover. Wilson thinks that dense cover, such as trees, might give cheetahs vantage points that open fields cannot.

Third, cheetahs can decelerate faster than they can accelerate, much as sports cars with powerful engines need beefed-up brakes. While both these processes require different sets of muscles and depend on different conditions, the rates of acceleration and deceleration beat those of any other land-dwelling animal. Based on the recorded data, Wilson calculates that the muscle power output of cheetahs is about four times that of Usain Bolt, three times that of polo horses, and nearly double that of greyhounds.

The top speed of a cheetah hunt had no correlation to the successful outcome of the hunt. Instead, Wilson found that success depended more on how fast the cheetah could slow down, rather than on how fast it could speed up. It is this last phase of a hunt that was critical for success, where the cheetah slows down. When these two observations are put together, Wilson thinks that it seems cheetahs don’t abandon hunts early to save energy or reduce risk of injury.

Finally, cheetahs are not built to be able to turn at their highest speed. In an artificial setting, which astronauts and fighter pilots are put into for training, the force felt by a cheetah trying to turn around at top speed could knock it unconscious. Instead they use their ability to slow down and their ridged footpads and claws to grip the ground well enough to turn quickly.

The results of Wilson’s work are published in the journal Nature today. Craig McGowan at the University of Idaho, an expert in understanding animal locomotion who was not involved in this, was impressed by Wilson’s work. “This research has been able to collect a huge amount of data from animals behaving naturally in their environment. No other dataset of this kind exists,” he said.

Roger Kram at the University of Colorado, Boulder, another biomechanics expert who was not involved in the study, said, “The technology used is absolutely fantastic. Most people studying biomechanics of running do so in labs. I’d like to see this technology applied to prey, such as impala and Thomson’s gazelle.”

Wilson is keen to see the technology used widely. “My aim is not to commercialise this. We’ve revealed all the technology and methods in our paper,” he said. His team has already started using it on lions and wild dogs.The Conversation

First published on The Conversation.

Image credit: photosbyflick

This story made it to the front page of Reddit and Digg, receiving over 130,000 views in two days.

Nuclear bomb tests reveal formation of new brain cells

Researchers have used the radioactive fallout from atomic bomb tests to show that new neurons are produced in one part of the human brain throughout life. Studies have shown that rats can grow new neurons, but there was little definitive evidence that it happens in humans too.

When atomic bombs were tested between 1945 and 1963, radioactive particles were released into the Earth’s atmosphere. Among the isotopes created was carbon-14, which is commonly used in radio carbon dating.

As cells divide, they incorporate carbon from the environment, and some of that carbon comes from the atmosphere. That is why carbon-14 released by the atomic bombs found its way into the DNA of multiplying cells. The amount of carbon-14 in this DNA corresponded to its concentration in the atmosphere at the time the new cells were born.

This essentially meant carbon-14 in DNA can be used as a measure of the age of cells, such as neurons in adult brains. A team led by Jonas Frisén at the Karolinska Institute, used brain cells obtained from 120 people who had consented to have their cells used for experiments after their death. Of the cells analysed, some had much higher levels of carbon-14 than others. This meant that the cells with lower levels were produced after 1963, when bomb testing ceased, and therefore showed that new cells can be produced later in life.

Wikipedia

“The idea was to contrast the hippocampus region of the brain with the rest,” study co-author Kirsty Spalding said. They wanted to confirm the hypothesis that new neurons are only formed in the hippocampus, which plays an important role the formation of memory. The results of their study have been published in the journal Cell today.

The team measured the amount of carbon-14 present in the DNA of neurons in the hippocampus and, separately, in the rest of the brain. They then used complex calculations to model the results, which confirmed that new neurons are produced only in the hippocampus.

There were two surprising discoveries. First, these new neurons were produced in small part of the hippocampus called the dentate gyrus. The rest of the hippocampus (and indeed the rest of the brain) showed no formation of new neurons. Second, about 700 neurons were produced every day, which turns out to be a turnover rate of about 1.75% per year. These neurons also lived about three years less than the ones that do not undergo replacement.

So after the brain is completely formed at the age of about two years, no new neurons are added except in the dentate gyrus. Gerd Kempermann at the German Centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases, who was not involved in the study, has been studying the role of the dentate gyrus for some years. He welcomed the results and said, “These younger cells are key to the working of the dentate gyrus, possibly because they can respond faster than old cells.”

According to Kempermann, by staying “forever young” the dentate gyrus could play a key role in the difficult task of learning, memory formation and the shaping of individual personalities. That might be quite a jump from the mere fact that new neurons are formed in the brain. But that jump dwarfs the results of this study, in which nuclear bombs—arguably the most destructive aspect of the human legacy—led to advances in brain science.The Conversation

First published on The Conversation.

Image credit: ICTANW

New method can image single molecules and identify its atoms

The ultimate dream of nanotechnology is to be able to manipulate matter atom by atom. To do that, we first need to know what they look like. In what could be a major step in that direction, researchers have developed a method that can determine the shape of a single molecule and identify its constituent atoms.

The laws of nature limit what can be seen with the help of light alone. Only objects separated by more than half the wavelength of the light that illuminates it can be observed as separate objects. To overcome this limit, in 1928, Edward Hutchinson Synge came up with an idea of imaging things too small for the naked eye. The idea was to shine light on a small particle and study the scattering when reflected back, making the wavelength of incident light irrelevant.

The realisation of Synge’s idea had to wait till the 1980s, when Heinrich Rohrer, the father of nanotechnology, developed scanning tunnelling microscopy (STM). This method uses a special property of electric current called quantum tunnelling to achieve this.

Since the development of STM, techniques for imaging smaller and smaller objects have been improving incrementally. Today it is possible to identify the shapes of molecules and where the atoms reside. But none of these techniques can identify the atoms those molecules are made of.

Now researchers from China, Spain and Sweden have combined STM with another method called Raman spectroscopy to determine not just the shape, but also the constituent atoms of a single molecule.

Top: Experimental map of the ring-shaped molecule. Bottom: Theoretical fingerprint of the molecule based on calculations. Guoyan Wang and Yan Liang

When some form of energy, like heat or light, hits molecules it makes them vibrate and rotate, even in solid structures. This process is called “excitation”. The movement emits some of the energy back, which is called “emmission”. Raman spectroscopy works by detecting this tiny amount of emitted energy, which tells us things about the molecule that’s doing the emitting.

One of the many uses for Raman spectroscopy is analysing old ruined paintings. It can detect the presence of certain elements at very specific locations. The salts of these elements have specific colours and thus they can reveal what a particular part of the painting might have looked like originally.

Analyzing trillions of molecules is easy, because molecules of the same type will combine to produce a more intense signal, since they all experience the same vibrations and rotations. Where things become tricky is when single molecules need to be excited and their weak energy emission measured. Researchers led by Jianguo Hou, at the University of Science and Technology of China, have found a way to do that. The results of their work are published in the journal Nature today.

They use a modified STM technique that produces just enough light to excite only a few atoms of a molecule at a time. A laser is focused in a metal cavity which contains the molecule to be analysed. The laser’s energy creates an excited cloud of electrons called plasmons, which creates the local energy needed to excite different parts of a single molecule.

Zhenchao Dong

The image to the left is a pictorial representation of the process. Based on theoretical calculations by co-author Javier Aizpurua at the Center for Material Physics in Spain, the energy pattern received at the atomic level, called its Raman spectra, can be analysed to reveal the chemical structure of the molecule.

The researchers claim that the method could be applied to any molecule. The trouble is that extreme conditions of high vacuum and low temperature (-200 deg C) are required to carry out this analysis. “At present this is very much a lab experiment,” Aizpurua said. The setup also require weeks to months of work just to be able to analyse a single molecule, and their paper reports work done with only one ring-shaped molecule.

Prabhat Verma at Osaka University has worked on using Raman spectroscopy to analyse materials at the nanoscale. He was sceptical of the results, “This article claims a spatial resolution of better than 1 nanometer (billionths of a meter), without giving any explanation of how.” Aizpurua and Hou have some theories about it, but are yet to nail down an explanation why they are able to get such high resolution.The Conversation

First published on The Conversation.

Image credit: Guoyan Wang and Yan Liang