Introduction
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Should use italics for genus/species names throughout talk. Introduction ! Like Brother and Sister: Edwardsiidae Family A presentation by Brianne Cuffe Edwardsiella lineata Nematostella vectensis Eukaryota > Metazoa > Eumetazoa >Cnidaria > Anthozoa > Hexacorallia > Actiniaria > ! Edwardsiella and Nematostella may be Edwardsiidae part of the same clade according to Edwardsiidae Daly’s 2002 combined analysis. Edwardsia Edwardsia andresi ! The two species are often used in Edwardsia elegans Edwardsia gilbertensis comparisons due to their close Edwardsia sipunculoides Edwardsia sp. phylogenetic relationship and similar Edwardsia tuberculata Edwardsianthus body plan (Reitzel et al 2006). Edwardsianthus gilbertensis Edwardsiella Edwardsiella lineata Nematostella environmental samples uncultured Nematostella sp. Nematostella sp. JVK-2006 Nematostella vectensis (starlet sea anemone) unclassified Edwardsiidae Edwardsiidae sp. BAR Edwardsiidae sp. CUR Di!erences Metamorphosis ! Edwardsiella lineata: Picture provided by Reitzel et al 2009 Metamorphosis Living Arrangements ! Nematostella vectensis: ! Edwardsiella lineata: Shallow Ocean Water 30‰-50‰ Woods Hole Mass Picture provided by Reitzel et al 2009 ! Edwardsiella lives as a parasite within the ctenophore Mnemiopsis. Living Arrangements ! Mnemiopsis lives in habitats ranging from 3‰ to 38‰ (Dumont and ! Nematostella vectensis: Shiganova). ! Edwardsiella should therefore be best Salt Marsh adapted to 30‰ to 38‰ 15‰-30‰ Nematostella has been observed in waters ranging from 8‰ to 38‰. (Inouye, S. 1976) Sippewissett Mass ! Salinity readily changes in estuarine ! Nematostella should be better adapted habitats due to fluctuations in freshwater to varying salinities due to these and saltwater inputs. fluctuations. " Freshwater inputs: ! Edwardsiella at all stages of life should ! Groundwater be better adapted to salinities in the 30s. ! Rainfall " Saltwater inputs: Might point out some of the ramifications, e.g, if Edwardsiella ! Changing tides is not tolerant of low salinities, it may not be able to tolerate the same range of salinities as its host ctenophore. Mention evaporation. Research Objectives ! Investigate the salinity tolerance of Edwardsiella lineata and Nematostella vectensis. ! Investigate the effect of salinity on the Methods metamorphosis of Edwardsiella lineata. ! Animal Collection: ! Regeneration Rate: " Parasites were harvested from the " Solutions: 1‰, 11‰, 21‰, 31‰, 41‰, 51‰ ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi. " 5 Nematostella vectensis at each salinity " These ctenophores were collected at Woods " 3 Edwardsiella lineata at each salinity (minus Hole, Massachusetts by gently scooping in 21‰) nets and carrying in buckets to be placed in " the BUMP aquarium. Sea anemones were brought up or down step-wise to the appropriate salinity with steps " Nemastostella were collected from at the 1s and 6s and an hour to adjust at each Sippewisset, Massachusetts by collecting and step. Unclear. sifting through the mud. What are the " 31!"#$%"&%'("$%")*'"+,-).,/"0,."1(#$.(%2'//$3 abbreviations " Edwardsiella at all stages originated from “1s” and “6s?” parasites in Mnemiopsis collected at Woods " 45!"#$%"&%'("$%")*'"+,-).,/"0,."6'7$),%)'//$3 Hole. Diagram showing salinity acclimation scheme would be very useful here. ! Regeneration Rate: ! Regeneration Rate: " Foot of each organism was cut off " Pictures were taken under an Olympus SZX9 microscope coupled with a Cannon Power Shot S51S camera against a 1mm2 grid. " Size was measured in terms of 2-dimesional area using Motic Images Plus. " Sea anemones were feed every other day with artemia. " The water was changed to clean water of the appropriate salinity every day. ! Metamorphosis of Edwardsiella lineata: ! Metamorphosis of Edwardsiella lineata " Parasite"Planula " planula"polyp ! Solutions: 1‰, 11‰, 21‰, 31‰, 41‰, 51‰ ! Solutions: 1‰, 11‰, 21‰, 31‰, 41‰, 51‰ ! Cut parasites out of ctenophores ! Cut parasites out of ctenophores ! Parasites were brought up or down step-wise ! All parasites were placed in 31‰ salinity. to the appropriate salinity with steps at the 1s ! Waited till they became planula. and 6s and an hour to adjust at each step. ! Planula were brought up or down step-wise to ! 5 parasites at each salinity the appropriate salinity with steps at the 1s and ! The date of conversion was observed. 6s and an hour to adjust at each step. ! The water was changed every day to clean ! 5 planula at each salinity water of the appropriate salinity. ! The date of conversion was observed. Perhaps remind viewer of the parasite->planula->polyp metamorphosis here? ! The water was changed every day to clean water of the appropriate salinity. How did you define conversion? How do we recognize parasite from planula? How did you define conversion? How do we recognize planula from polyp? ! Metamorphosis of Edwardsiella lineata " planula"parasite in presence of ctenophore ! Solutions: 1‰, 11‰, 21‰, 31‰, 41‰, 51‰ ! Cut parasites out of ctenophores ! All parasites were placed in 31‰ salinity. ! Waited till they became planula. ! Planula and uninfected ctenophores were brought up or down step-wise in separate containers to the Results insert appropriate salinity with steps at the 1s and 6s and space 1hour to adjust at each step. Unclear. What are the ! 5 planula and uninfected ctenophores at each abbreviations salinity “1s” and “6s?” ! 1 planula was paired with 1 uninfected ctenophore ! Observations were made every 10minutes and time of infection for each pair was noted. insert space This is more accurately described as “growth rate of regenerating physal fragment” Instead of presenting the table, I would !"#$"%%&'()*+,-%-.% 5! show the 1% regression alone, and then show the correlation coefficient and the P- 8&/9:/'"; <3=>?5@> value. The same goes for each of the ;"AB&$.' <3?C<C@? following graphs & associated tables. Also, D(E&%)'(";" AB&$.' <3C=CF5= remind your audience what the regression A)$-($.(" is testing: whether the animal grew, or 1..,. 43>5>G>> shrunk, or stayed the same (whether the slope of the line relating body size to time is HI%'.J$9,-% G significantly positive or negative) D6HKD *&#(&3.,(.") ) /0 ** 1* 2 2 ;'L.'%%2,- 5 CC3<F<@= CC3<F<@= F34>4==G <3<4C<5= ;'%2(&$/ = >=3CF<<5 ?3>?C4F= M,)$/ F F53?@<@F" " " *+,(/,$/) ) 4'"5.&"(+% 6$$'$ +)*+,+ 789,:;" <'="$)>?@ ABB"$)>?@ <'="$)>?CD@ ABB"$)>?CD@ N-)'.+':) 5C34<=@ 53?<55C? G3C@C?5 >3<=1O<? 5<3@?=G@ 5=3=?=4? 5<3@?=G@ 5=3=?=4? P"K$.2$I/'"5 O<3<>4@@ <3<55>F4 O43F@G4F <3<4C<5= O<3<?G?= O<3<<?=C O<3<?G?= O<3<<?=C You can remove the “Linear(##ppt)”s from the legend. This is self-evident. I think it would have been helpful to have a slide summarizing the results, e.g., “At the !"#$"%%&'()*+,-%-.%)GEF !"#$"%%&'()*+,-%-.%)EEF following salinities, Nematostella exhibited 8&/9:/'"; <3G4G?4F significant growth...at the following ;"AB&$.' <3F@C<44 8&/9:/'"; <3FGG><@ ;"AB&$.' <3F<F=?5 salinities, Nemaostella exhibited significant D(E&%)'(";" AB&$.' <3FCC?G@ D(E&%)'(";" shrinkage...etc.”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think it was a good idea to show the D(E&%)'(";" AB&$.' <3=5<??@ results for individual animals so your audience could visualize the variance. A)$-($.("1..,. <3===F=G HI%'.J$9,-% G D6HKD ) /0 ** 1* 2 *&#(&3.,(.")2 ;'L.'%%2,- 5 543CFF@G 543CFF@G 4<3@>G5G <3<<4@?F ;'%2(&$/ = C34>?@=5 <3@<?<G@ M,)$/ F 5@3=4C>@" " " ) 4'"5.&"(+% *+,(/,$/)6$$'$ +)*+,+ 789,:;" <'="$)>?@ ABB"$)>?@ <'="$)>?CD@ ABB"$)>?CD@ N-)'.+':) ?3G@4F>5 <3?<C@C> 553F5?G? =3<?1O<@ C3=@G?C5 =35?@545 C3=@G?C5 =35?@545 P"K$.2$I/'"5 O<3<5=>F <3<<>F4@ OC3?C><C <3<<4@?F O<3<4@C> O<3<<F>C O<3<4@C> O<3<<F>C Starting sizes are different. How well does starting size explain growth during regeneration? !"#$"%%&'()*+,-%-.%)EF !"#$"%%&'()*+,-%-.%)EEF 8&/9:/'"; <3>4C>FC 8&/9:/'"; <3C@@FGC ;"AB&$.' <35<?44? ;"AB&$.' <345=GG D(E&%)'(";" D(E&%)'(";" AB&$.' O<3<44@ AB&$.' <35<@4=C A)$-($.("1..,.