Let's Talk about Beta-Keratin

[Zen Reptiles]

Not to be confused with beta-carotene!!!

Beta-keratin or b-keratin is found in the epidermis (skin) of almost all reptiles. It is responsible for retaining moisture to prevent dessication (dehydrating), their horns and nails are composed of beta keratin, and in turtles the shell is composed of a more advanced amino- structure of beta keratin.

Beta keratin also makes up the feet, beaks, and feathers of birds.

Now, one trend I am seeing in the reptile hobby is the scale-less animals, such as the translucent veileds, leather back bearded dragons, and some new snake morphs in cornsnakes and ratsnakes and probably a few others now.

Is this a response from the diet of the adults laying the eggs? programming the offspring for an environment SO low in b-keratins that they are lacking any scales at all? Is this a form of adaptation like Darwin's finches? I think so.

I can't seem to find sources of beta-keratin other than from lizards eating birds, and silk-producing insects such as spiders and silk worms, and other lizards. Chitin in insects is comparable to keratins, but not the same, so insects that do not produce silk would be a poor source.

Most of us feed our lizards or snakes insects and mice/rats. Both of which are sources of chitin and alpha-keratin, but no beta-keratin.

I've considered for a long time the benefits of feeding our pet lizards small, feeder lizards, and now I am wondering if maybe small chicks such as quails would be a good idea also. Not only for the beta keratin, but for the calcium content of their skeletal structure, and pro-biotic (good bacteria) content of their guts

I think our montane species of reptiles would have longer, stronger horns, and their skin would be thicker and less susceptible to burns and dehydration, both problems are more common than you'd expect, and dehydration is a big killer of many montane species of reptiles.

Structurally, they would have nicer, thicker, tougher skin, bigger, longer, stronger horns, stronger nails, stronger teeth and be more resistant to shifts in their environment such as missing a few mistings or a really hot day. My male basilisk may have even produced a much larger sailfin had I gave him small lizards to eat.


-----

In humans and other mammals, we have alpha-keratin. It makes our skin more permeable, it is responsible for our hair and nail growth as well.

-----

Beta Keratin may also help in reproduction, as the females would definitely need an adequate source of it to put a little in each egg/neonate they produce.

Should we be feeding our pets more spiders? mature silk worms? birds? lizards? I think so!

What do you think?

I hope my theory here advances reptile keeping for the improvement of health and body structure of our beloved and very beautiful pets!


--------

Edit/afterthought:

I have read a lot of experiences on this board of unsuccessful rearing of montane species. Maybe the fact they all have horns/sailfins/modified scales implies they have a natural diet high in beta-keratin. Of course, this is because it would HAVE to take a diet rich in b-keratin to produce the horns/sailfins/modified scales.

Perhaps feeding your adult breeders a diet rich in beta-keratin would result in stronger offspring. Since feeding the offspring themselves these beta-keratin sources isn't feasible (aside from spiders and silkworms)

This isn't something that can be fixed with a supplement, it has to be the whole source: a small bird, adult (producing silk) silkworms, and small lizards.

I have read the story of someone who keeps their Jackson's chameleons in a greenhouse, and one day found one of them munching on a hummingbird that got in.

As for spiders, I have posted on here cautioning against it, but perhaps there are species that can be used as feeders? Maybe small ones with high silk content (would make a large web for its size) would be a place to start. Any entomologists on the board??

Those of you breeding any montaine species should give it a try!

 

[Chamero]

This is an interesting topic because it backs up a lot of beliefs I've had about these chams.

I do not have any literature but I think this is why misting is so effective to rehydrate.

Also, I have never practiced the method, but am a strong believer in the occasional feeder mouse and lizard.

To me, variety is the best, and moderation most important.

 

[Sporkthedork]

Interesting thread. I think individual animals that lack beta keratin structures is due to a genetic defect (a germline mutation). I think it's more of the fact that they can not create those keratin structures because they have a malfunction in the synthesis of those protein structures. They may or may not have the amino acids to build those protein structures but either way they wouldn't be able to make them because of some genetic defect. The only analogy I could think of is building a cage for your chameleon. You may have all the parts needed to build the cage, but if you don't have the blueprints it doesn't matter if you have excess parts--the cage isn't going to get built. Also if you look at translucent veileds, they're born that way. I don't think it would make them look normal if you overfed them with proteins and amino acids.

As for beta keratin structures that are more pronounced than normal, I could see that being both a genetic and environmental. You mentioned having lizards that had a much larger sailfin, I could see how excess proteins/amino acids can help in that. I wouldn't start overloading them with protein though just to get larger sailfins. A little too much could end up compromising the lizard's health in some way or another.

 

[Zen Reptiles]

I think the genetic defect is in direct response to the lack of beta-keratin. An adaptation if you will, to a low-beta-keratin environment.

Here is an example of a recent study done on Italian wall lizards that were introduced to an island and then studied a few decades later. They had developed new body structures, including a completely brand new function in their digestive system as an adaptation to living on that specific island, much like Darwin's finches:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

It's an interesting read either way. Keep in mind that the newly developed valves were almost created out of thin air, in just 36 years, as an adaptation to a new environment/diet.

So a translucent veiled or leatherback beardie won't get their scales back no matter what you do. It's permanent. But I do think it is a response in part of the genetic/cellular intellect within the parents that caused it, making it an adaptation rather than a mutation. I'm not in any bio classes so I don't TRULY know all the specifics of this, I'm just a hobbyist.

But it's like their bodies said 'Hey where'd all the b-keratin go? Man it's hard to make scales these days! Might as well just skip it, we can survive without em.'

You're right about the proteins though. And although b-keratin IS a protein, it is a usable protein, unlike some other proteins that would just be excreted through wastes, or in great excess could cause organ failure etc.

I wonder if the digestive enzymes can convert amino acids and proteins into beta-keratin? And in what combinations that would be achieved.

This would be a good subject for a biology student to investigate.

 

[Sporkthedork]

Oh I see what you're trying to get at. You're saying that since the environment had less or total lack of beta-keratin they just adapted to life without it since they essentially could. Yes that could happen. If the abscence of an organ/body part/structure is proven to be non-detriminal to the species, it will eventually become vestigial and sometimes all it will do is just completely turn off that gene that creates that organ/body part/structure. A good example of that is teeth in birds. It's been proven that if a gene is turned on, birds can grow teeth again. It's actually pretty cool.

Back to the translucent veiled. Maybe due to the many generations of veileds in captivity being bred in artificial or insufficient sunlight, I could totally see a mutation (which all adaptations arise from) which could eventually "turn off" or malfunction the proteins that create pigments in their skin. Same thing applies to leather back bearded dragons. Especially since their skin was a protective barriers from harmful UV rays. The lack of those UV rays, might have just given them that push to stuff wasting energy and in building such a protective layer.

 

[jojackson]

Interesting Theory Brock, however 'Adaption', such as the wall lizards (I did read that article, awesome!) is geared toward survival. They had to adapt in order to survive on a more herbivorous diet, to survive in their new niche.
Though species adapt along lines you outlay, consider that there is more to it than simply
'getting rid of uneeded stuff'.

For example, legless lizards. Loss of limbs was an adaption to new enviroments, required for survival. If you rely on prey that can escape down a hole, or into thick entangling vegetation, limbs dont serve you well.
Reduction or loss of limbs means you can more reliabley hunt the prey avail without obstruction. This garantees the species survival in that habitat.

What benefit can a dragon gain from smoother skin? A cham from loss of pigment it relies on to communicate/court/mate successfully?
A snake from loss of scales it relies on for movement/protection?

Im not a biologist either so there is no point im my speculation regards genetics/molecular biology.

From another hobbiest POV, I dont see adaptions of this nature in captive reptiles.
The wall lizards managed to adapt in 30 odd years, folk have been keeping reptiles for atleast 40 odd, some longer, so why no change/s in many reptile species in captivity occuring 'naturally' ?

Where have leatherback beardys been for 40 yrs? scaleless adders? why no shell-less turtles occuring?

I think these things are the result of less than random (selective, regardless of intent)
breeding. Meaning captive animals bred over the years, from a wider genepool than occurs within a given habitat in nature, will result in combinations of genes that wouldnt naturally occur, hence traits, that wouldnt naturally occur, and then get deliberately, or accidently carried on in further generations.

AS opposed to, in nature, a random combination of genetic material resulting in such a bizzare trait like 'leatherback' dragons is highly improbable. To put it another way, the captive genepool (think multimillions) established over a half a century, will naturally result in, increase the odds of, genetic combinations that would not occure in hundreds of years naturally in the wild if at all, Given you have a population of lizards for example, endemic to a rather small area, that is pretty much unchanging, then in evolutionary terms, adaption simply isnt nessary, since the genetic 'base' serves the species perfectly. (think turtles, crocs).

That said, you could theorise for instance, that the treatment of eggs being artificially incubated at ideal temp and humidity, as we do our captives, along with improved health of gravid females, and hence more robust offspring, might eventually, 'naturally'
result in the loss/reduction of the quality of the eggs shells.
Since eggs dont need to withstand the varience of nature (temp/humid), and captive hatchlings are generally more robust, they may become less 'tough'. However, a bearded dragon will still emerge with traits resulting from the genetic combination of both parents. You dont see spontaneous mutations, unless the gene combination so dictates, be the trait, recessive or otherwise.
This is very simplified, but you get my drift.

If the wall lizard example was valid for captives, you might see other/more, 'adaptions'
due to captive diets over so many generations, particularly now that the captive diet with its suppliments and all, is even further removed from a natural diet in the wild.

just my thoughts.

 

[Brad Ramsey]

Point of clarification:
Translucent veileds originally came from wild caught specimens.
The mutation was discovered in the wild and is not a result of being kept in captivity.
Additionally, veiled chameleons have only been kept in captivity (in the states) for about 17 years.

-Brad

 

[jojackson]

I wasn't talking specifically about chameleons Brad. Intresting that the 'translucent' mutation was discovered in a wild caught animal. Im betting without human intervention
it would have not continued many generations in the wild?
Something akin to a wild albino perhaps?

Cant really come up with any evolutionary/adaptive advantage off the top of my head, can you?

 

[codiwatkins]

Very Very interesting!! I dont really know anything about montane species but i do know that my adult panther LOVES anoles. He has had 2 more since the whole "hes a bad lizard" video. He seems to be more active less restless in his cage and I think his color and over all well being has gone up significantly since he started having his bi weekly anole. I dont know for sure that it is from the anole, it could very well be that he is being cared for correctly now.....

 

[jojackson]

ROFL...'Bad Lizard!' made me laugh all over again!
Codi, your chameleon looked exceptionally healthy in that video to me! You must be doing something right.
Anyway, I suspect that if a cham will willing eat an anole, then smaller lizards, if they happen by cannot be too alien a food choice for them, although twice a week might be
borderline? Reptiles are extremely efficient consumers, and an anole is quite a big meal/alot of tummy fuel. Take care not to feed more often than his metabolism can handle, it would take several days to digest an anole entirely at the IBT (ideal body temp).

 

[codiwatkins]

ROFL...'Bad Lizard!' made me laugh all over again!
Codi, your chameleon looked exceptionally healthy in that video to me! You must be doing something right.
Anyway, I suspect that if a cham will willing eat an anole, then smaller lizards, if they happen by cannot be too alien a food choice for them, although twice a week might be
borderline? Reptiles are extremely efficient consumers, and an anole is quite a big meal/alot of tummy fuel. Take care not to feed more often than his metabolism can handle, it would take several days to digest an anole entirely at the IBT (ideal body temp).

I thought biweekly meant ever two weeks!! So He gets maybe 2 a month!! His first one digested within 2 days of him eating it!! I make sure to watch his bm though, it all seems to be digesting....

 

[jojackson]

that would be bimonthly . so long as the poo keeps coming and you dont find partly digested anole bits, or partly digested anything else. LOL

A wild lizard will extract every last bit of nutrition from every meal, since it cant rely on food appearing in abundance each day.
In captivity, really well fed ones will be voiding (crapping out) the food after less than maximum digestion because more is on the way, theres only so much room. If its able to operate at max capacity (acheive the IBT/metabolic rate for best digestive performance)
and you were finding partly digested crickets, roaches for example in its poo, that would indicate its consumption rate was greater
than its metabolism allows for (assuming its its not sick ofcourse).
Dont you just love reptiles? Talk about finely tuned performance, nothing in the mammalian world comes close!

Reptiles Rule!

 

[kinyonga]

Geesh...just had to put those thoughts about alpha/beta kerotin/chitin in my head didn't you Brock!!! One more thing I have to "clutter" my mind with. I'll never get back to MY list of things to study! (evil grin)

You said..."I think our montane species of reptiles would have longer, stronger horns, and their skin would be thicker and less susceptible to burns and dehydration, both problems are more common than you'd expect, and dehydration is a big killer of many montane species of reptiles...so then do you think these chameleons would suffer a decline in keratin while in captivity or just wouldn't develop the thicker skin, etc. when grown in captivity?

Also...are you saying that if they don't eat things that have beta keratin in them they can't/don't produce their own? If so how do seed eating birds and vegetarian lizards such as the uromastyx get/make it?

 

[Zen Reptiles]

Kinyonga, that's what I'm hoping to get out of delving into this. I'm curious as to whether or not reptiles can convert proteins and amino acids into beta keratin, or if they have to consume it directly or indirectly (carrion eating insects that ate some dead bird or lizard). I find it very curious that montane species, not only in chameleons but in all reptiles, are more inclined to be 'decorated' with specialized scales, and those scales are formed by beta-keratin.

I'm sure different species synthesize things in different ways. Birds I have no idea where they get theirs from, they must be able to convert it somehow.

It's interesting how Codi has noticed a very notable difference in her panther since feeding him anoles, though of course there are other variables.

Jojacksion you make some great points. And Brad I had no idea translucents came from wild caughts. I've discovered that there are also wild populations of scaleless ratsnakes in the southern US as well.

You're also very right in pointing out the vast amount of genes in wild populations. In a clutch of 50 veiled eggs, 5 might survive to adults in the wild, whereas all 50 survive in captivity. I remember in Australia watching sea turtles lay eggs, and the herpetologist mentioned that one in 1000 survives to breeding age.

I still, however, find it curious that these genetic mutations are linked to beta-keratin and an apparent lack or absence of it. Though I'm not aware of too many other mutations.

When I get my pair of jacksonii, I am going to experiment with beta-keratin and follow up with results after breeding. That won't be for a while though.

What kind of diet do you guys think would be an adequate amount of b-keratin? A baby finch or quail once a month, once every two weeks, once a week? A house/mourning/pictus gecko once a week, once every two weeks?

According to what I've read about b-keratin, the sources within spiders and silk worms may not be the same b-keratin used in reptiles, though who knows if they can convert it during digestion to be beneficial...?

Ahhh the mysteries of life.

 

[jojackson]

I find it very curious that montane species, not only in chameleons but in all reptiles, are more inclined to be 'decorated' with specialized scales, and those scales are formed by beta-keratin.

This would seem counter to your theory that reduction or loss of scales ,aka reduced 'production' of b-keratin in captivity were a possible response to lower levels of uv, since you might expect montain species (higher elevations) to be getting stronger levels of uv in the wild, so with that idea you would expect these species at lower elevations to be less
decorated, yet many species at lower elevations in various habitats have sails, frills etc.

On the other hand, given we know greater production of b-keratin, in the upper levels of the reptile dermis, with alpha keratin at lower levels has evolved in response to leaving the aquatic life and the need for sealing in moisture on land, why would species at higher elevation, but lower temperatures genetically produce more?
Alligators skins have lower levels than turtles shells, yet both live an aquatic existance.
clearly in the turtles case the formation of shell requires it and this is an adaption (defence). Likewise the alligators horny scutes are beleived to play a major part in its thermoregulation (increasing the surface area along the back that can catch the sun enabling a large animal to absorb heat more efficiently) also an adaption.

If you consider that sails, horns, frills and the like are also adaptions to the various climates and habitats according to each species, eg, some break up the animals outline aiding camouflage, some (like the gators) may assist thermoregulation (particularly at cooler elevations) and so on, then the adornments or lack of would strongly point to adaption for fairly fundamental reasons,
and so pretty much unchanging because they dont need to.

(The italian wall lizards however, did need to adapt its phsiology, because they had to adapt to an alien enviroment/diet.
likewise there are other examples of physical adaption that has occured in geologically, the blink of an eye, again due to alien variables. Note that both these cases, are directly due to human intervention! This is 'un-natural natural' adaption. (my lack of expression, I dont like oxymorons either) As opposed to 'natural natural' adaption, aka, climatic change for example.
Its only the first type that spurs such lightening fast adaption, Yet in 50 yrs or so of herpetology, we dont see herbivorous snakes, or shell-less freshwater turtles occuring spontaneously in captivity. These UNN adaptions are only driven by human
intervention)

Since these adaptions are, in the wild, pretty much unchanging, it would seem to suggest that 'freaks' like wild translucents, were an abberation rather than a deliberate
adaptive mutation, and these continue only through human intervention, since nobodys
multigeneration 'standard' veilds throw translucents out of the blue, likewise you dont see
wild 'leatherback' beardys appearing at random, even on the fringes of thier range where
subspecies overlap and climatic varience can be extreme.

If reptiles were able to totally convert beta keratin they consume directly into nail/scale growth, you might expect to see heavily armoured snakes, crocs with huge bony plates like a stegasaurus, yet you dont, but you still see species that dont consume b-keratin that are indeed 'heavily armoured/adorned, such as large herbivorous iguanas.
Consider the marine iguana, here is a species unchanged for millions of years, a species that you might theorise, if your theory were close, would have adapted reduced or scale-less skin in order to more quickly thermoregulate, allowing it dive into icy waters to feed more often. Its diet is poor (compared to other land based herbies) so it must spend all its wake hours, perpetually either diving or warming up for the next dive so it can eat constantly to gain enough nutrition to survive.
Yet its skin as the same as it land based brothers, why?
Because its skin needs to be water tight to reduce fluid loss, even at sea level, so perhaps another variable is indeed uv, but rather than reduce scalation as an adaption to less uv (nocturnal species) perhaps geckos have reduced scales because dehydration/fluid loss is less a threat when you only venture out at night.

All land based reptiles weather they live ontop a mountain, or at sea level, do share a common basic requirement with mammals,
protection from Uv rays such as UVC. Perhaps reptile skin has also adapted for this purpous? Montane species at higher elevations
may need better protection than those at sea level. Nocturnal species dont need that so much.

Yet multigen captive nocturnal gecko species remain unchanged, you might expect these to become translucent, why do you need pigment in the dark?

Crocs can live for 150 years, they reg consume large whole food prey including hair, hooves and horn, yet captive crocs fed their whole life on abbatoir offal (lacking those parts) are just as tough skin/scale wise as their wild counterparts. No effect, they simply dont need to adapt, and they havent for millions of years, likewise seaturtles, who's diet wouldnt contain much beta K
I imagine. I just dont think the use of ingested beta-K works quite that way.
Some forms of beta K are not digested, claws for example. Claws are frequently found in the scats of varanid lizards (monitors) Fur is almost always excreted by snakes, likewise I have discovered undigested feather quills in the scats of my snakes fed bird prey.
Im inclined to think molecular changes during the digestion process breaks it down into base proteins.

P.S the other UNN adaption I refered to...

http://www.pnas.org/content/101/49/17150.full?ck=nck