Algae and Their Chloroplasts with Particular Reference to the Dinoflagellates

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Algae and Their Chloroplasts with Particular Reference to the Dinoflagellates Paleontological Research, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 299–309, December 31, 2006 6 by the Palaeontological Society of Japan Algae and their chloroplasts with particular reference to the dinoflagellates TAKEO HORIGUCHI Division of Biological Sciences, Graduate School of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan (email: [email protected]) Received April 29, 2006; Revised manuscript accepted September 21, 2006 Abstract. This account firstly outlines the relationships between algal diversity and chloroplast acquisition through endosymbiosis. Secondly, it briefly reviews chloroplast diversity in dinoflagellates. Particular em- phasis is placed on the evolutionary process in the small but interesting group of dinoflagellates that possess a diatom endosymbiont. Key words: chloroplast, diatom endosymbiont, dinoflagellate, secondary endosymbiosis, tertiary endosym- biosis Diversity of eukaryotic algae Plantae (e.g., land plants and green algae, red algae and glaucophytes), Chromalveolata (e.g., Chromista The eukaryotic algae are an assemblage of [Hetrokontophyta, Haptophyta, Cryptophyta, oomy- chloroplast-bearing photosynthetic organisms. They cetes, bicosoecids and labyrinthulids] and Alveolata are extremely diverse in terms of morphology, cytol- [dinoflagellates, apicomplexa and ciliates]), Rhizaria ogy and life cycle (e.g., Hoek et al., 1995). The eukary- (e.g., Cercozoa and Radiolaria) and Excavata (e.g., otic algae can be classified into nine divisions, the Euglenoza, jacobids and diplomonads) or five ‘‘super- Rhodophyta, Chlorophyta, Glaucophyta, Heterokon- groups’’ (Keeling, 2004), viz., Unikonts (including tophyta (including Phaeophyceae (brown algae), Ba- Opisthokonta and Amoebozoa), Plantae, Chromal- cillariophyceae (diatoms), Chrysophyceae, Raphido- veolates, Rhizaria and Excavates (also see Cavalier- phyceae, Xanthophyceae and other minor groups), Smith, 2003, and Nozaki, 2005, for higher taxonomic Haptophyta, Cryptophyta, Dinophyta, Euglenophyta systems of eukaryotes). Not all the groups described and Chlorarachniophyta. Recent molecular phyloge- above, however, enjoy full support from the molecular nies indicate that, although each group is monophy- data—the Excavata, for example, are recognized only letic, many of them are totally unrelated, with closer when the molecular and morphological data are com- relationships to nonphotosynthetic protists (e.g., Eu- bined (Simpson and Roger, 2004b). By positioning the glenophyta and Kinetoplastida; Dinophyta and Cilio- organisms termed ‘algae’ on this global phylogenetic phora; etc.) (e.g., Cavalier-Smith, 1993a). The pres- tree of the eukaryotes, it readily become apparent ence of chloroplasts in these unrelated groups is due how diverse the algae are (for example, see Keeling, to chloroplast acquisition through independent endo- 2004, Figure 1). symbioses. The phylogenetic affinities of eukaryotic organisms, Origin of the chloroplast as a whole, are becoming clearer by the advancement of molecular phylogenetic studies, although discrepan- The obvious common feature that is shared by eu- cies between phylogenies derived from different genes karyotic algae is the presence of chloroplasts. The are encountered and some uncertainty exists with re- mechanism and timing of chloroplast acquisition in gard to the order of deep branches. Recent schemes each group are the key issues for understanding of for the classification of the eukaroyotes recognize six the origins of algae. It is widely accepted that the ‘‘kingdoms’’ (Simpson and Roger, 2004a), viz., Opis- chloroplast was acquired originally through endosym- thokonta (e.g., animals, choanoflagellates and fungi), biosis, i.e., a primitive heterotrophic eukaryote en- Amoebozoa (e.g., slime molds and lobose amoebae), gulfed a cyanobacterium-like photosynthetic prokar- 300 Takeo Horiguchi Figure 1. A hypothetical evolutionary sequence of acquisition of secondary chloroplast (Chromista-type) through secondary endo- symbiosis (based on Cavalier-Smith, 1993b). A photosynthetic alga with primary plastid is engulfed by a heterotrophic eukaryote and re- tained in a food vacuole of the latter organisms (A and B). The food vacuole (phagosomal membrane) is fused with the outer nuclear envelope and the organelles of the engulfed alga disappear (C) (at this stage, the vestigial nucleus (nucleomorph) is retained). Finally, the secondary chloroplast surrounded by four membranes is established (D). HN: host nucleus, EN: endosymbiont nucleus. yote and eventually converted the endosymbiont into Origins of other algal chloroplasts a photosynthetic organelle (see Tomitani in this vol- ume and references therein). This process, resulting It is also widely accepted that chloroplasts in algae in the establishment of the first plant (alga), probably other than the three groups described above were took place only once in the history of life (see Archi- established by secondary endosymbioses (Archibald bald and Keeling, 2004; Keeling, 2004). This process is and Keeling, 2004; Keeling, 2004). In secondary endo- called chloroplast acquisition via ‘‘primary endosym- symbiosis, a phototrophic eukaryotic alga (with pri- biosis’’ and chloroplasts derived thus are called ‘‘pri- mary chloroplasts) was engulfed by a heterotrophic mary chloroplasts.’’ The molecular data suggest that eukaryotic host and retained as an endosymbiont. only three extant photosynthetic groups are direct de- Subsequently, the organelles of the endosymbiont scendents of this first plant. These include the Chloro- (excepting the chloroplasts) were eventually lost phyta (including land plants), the Rhodophyta and the (Cavalier-Smith, 1993b) (Figure 1). In the case of sec- Glaucophyta. Because these three groups are very dif- ondary endosymbioses, the resulting chloroplasts, i.e., ferent in terms of morphology, photosynthetic pig- secondary chloroplasts, are enclosed by either three ment composition and mode of life cycles, e.g., the (Euglenophyta and Dinophyta) or four membranes red algae (Rhodophyta) are totally devoid of flagel- (Heterokontophyta, Haptophyta, Cryptophyta and lated stages, it is hard to believe that these three Chlorarachiniophyta), while in primary chloroplasts groups originate from a single ancestor. Such a mono- (Chlorophyta, Rhodophyta and Glaucophyta) they are phyletic relationship is supported by molecular work bounded by only two membranes. Two algal groups (Rodoriguez-Ezpeleta et al., 2005), although Nozaki with green chloroplasts, the Euglenophyta and the (2005) proposed that these three groups were para- Chlorarachniophyta, are thought to have acquired phyletic, situating them in a basal position of his king- their chloroplasts from green algae, while some other dom ‘‘Plantae.’’ groups, the Heterokontophyta, Haptophyta, Crypto- Dinoflagellates and their chloroplasts 301 phyta, and Dinophyta, are thought to have obtained the rest exhibit heterotrophic nutrition. Additionally, their chloroplasts from red algae. How many times plastid losses have been suggested to have occurred secondary endosymbioses have taken place for green independently multiple times in dinoflagellates (Sal- and red lineages, respectively, is still under discussion darriaga et al., 2001). (e.g., Cavalier-Smith, 2003, Bachvaroff et al., 2005). The types of chloroplasts found in dinoflagellates Members of the Cryptophyta and the Chlorarach- are classified into five categories: 1) a typical dinofla- niophyta are interesting as they retain, in addition to gellate ‘‘peridinin-type’’ chloroplast, 2) chloroplasts chloroplasts, a reduced nucleus (nucleomorph) of the of green algal origin (Figure 2), 3) chloroplasts of hap- endosymbiont, exhibiting an intermediate evolution- tophyte origin (Figure 3), 4) chloroplasts of diatom or- ary stage. The genomes of these two groups are well igin (Figure 4), and 5) kleptochloroplasts (Figure 5) studied (Douglas et al., 2001; Gilson and McFadden, and foreign algal components, whose level of perma- 2002). Although not usually regarded as algae, nency in incorporation into the host dinoflagellate members of the Apicomplexa, a group of parasitic (i.e., organelle versus food) is still uncertain. organisms including malarian parasites, are known to possess reduced chloroplasts, called apicoplasts (McFadden et al., 1996; Mare´chal and Cesbron- Delauw, 2001). The apicoplast is also regarded as hav- ing been obtained via secondary endosymbiosis (Fast et al., 2001). Recently, a number of reviews dealing with the ori- gins of secondary chloroplasts, the number of second- ary endosymbioses and the validity of the ‘‘Chromal- veolata hypothesis’’ (Cavaler-Smith, 2004) have been published (for details, see Stobe and Maier (2002), Palmer (2003), Archibald and Keeling (2004), Keeling (2004), Bachwaroff et al. (2005), Harper et al. (2005), Nozaki (2005) and Yoon et al. (2005)). For the successful acquisition of secondary chloro- plasts, a protein targeting system must be established and this topic is reviewed by Ishida (2005). Of all photosynthetic eukaryotes, the dinoflagellates are probably the most interesting with respect to chloroplast evolution because of their great diversity of chloroplast type. They therefore are briefly re- viewed here. Chloroplast diversity in dinoflagellates The dinoflagellates are important members of aquatic ecosystems and some of them are known to produce red tides (Taylor and Pollingher, 1987). The dinoflagellates also produce cysts that preserve well and which have thus been well studied from a paleon- tological point of view (Fensome et al., 1993). Different
Recommended publications
  • Molecular Data and the Evolutionary History of Dinoflagellates by Juan Fernando Saldarriaga Echavarria Diplom, Ruprecht-Karls-Un
    Molecular data and the evolutionary history of dinoflagellates by Juan Fernando Saldarriaga Echavarria Diplom, Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg, 1993 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Botany We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 2003 © Juan Fernando Saldarriaga Echavarria, 2003 ABSTRACT New sequences of ribosomal and protein genes were combined with available morphological and paleontological data to produce a phylogenetic framework for dinoflagellates. The evolutionary history of some of the major morphological features of the group was then investigated in the light of that framework. Phylogenetic trees of dinoflagellates based on the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene (SSU) are generally poorly resolved but include many well- supported clades, and while combined analyses of SSU and LSU (large subunit ribosomal RNA) improve the support for several nodes, they are still generally unsatisfactory. Protein-gene based trees lack the degree of species representation necessary for meaningful in-group phylogenetic analyses, but do provide important insights to the phylogenetic position of dinoflagellates as a whole and on the identity of their close relatives. Molecular data agree with paleontology in suggesting an early evolutionary radiation of the group, but whereas paleontological data include only taxa with fossilizable cysts, the new data examined here establish that this radiation event included all dinokaryotic lineages, including athecate forms. Plastids were lost and replaced many times in dinoflagellates, a situation entirely unique for this group. Histones could well have been lost earlier in the lineage than previously assumed.
    [Show full text]
  • The Planktonic Protist Interactome: Where Do We Stand After a Century of Research?
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/587352; this version posted May 2, 2019. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Bjorbækmo et al., 23.03.2019 – preprint copy - BioRxiv The planktonic protist interactome: where do we stand after a century of research? Marit F. Markussen Bjorbækmo1*, Andreas Evenstad1* and Line Lieblein Røsæg1*, Anders K. Krabberød1**, and Ramiro Logares2,1** 1 University of Oslo, Department of Biosciences, Section for Genetics and Evolutionary Biology (Evogene), Blindernv. 31, N- 0316 Oslo, Norway 2 Institut de Ciències del Mar (CSIC), Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 37-49, ES-08003, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain * The three authors contributed equally ** Corresponding authors: Ramiro Logares: Institute of Marine Sciences (ICM-CSIC), Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta 37-49, 08003, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. Phone: 34-93-2309500; Fax: 34-93-2309555. [email protected] Anders K. Krabberød: University of Oslo, Department of Biosciences, Section for Genetics and Evolutionary Biology (Evogene), Blindernv. 31, N-0316 Oslo, Norway. Phone +47 22845986, Fax: +47 22854726. [email protected] Abstract Microbial interactions are crucial for Earth ecosystem function, yet our knowledge about them is limited and has so far mainly existed as scattered records. Here, we have surveyed the literature involving planktonic protist interactions and gathered the information in a manually curated Protist Interaction DAtabase (PIDA). In total, we have registered ~2,500 ecological interactions from ~500 publications, spanning the last 150 years.
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2016/096923 Al 23 June 2016 (23.06.2016) W P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2016/096923 Al 23 June 2016 (23.06.2016) W P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every C12N 15/82 (2006.01) C12Q 1/68 (2006.01) kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, C12N 15/113 (2010.01) AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BN, BR, BW, BY, BZ, CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, (21) Number: International Application DO, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, PCT/EP20 15/079893 HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IR, IS, JP, KE, KG, KN, KP, KR, (22) International Filing Date: KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, 15 December 2015 (15. 12.2015) MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PA, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SA, SC, (25) Filing Language: English SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, (26) Publication Language: English TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (30) Priority Data: (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every 14307040.7 15 December 2014 (15. 12.2014) EP kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, RW, SD, SL, ST, SZ, (71) Applicants: PARIS SCIENCES ET LETTRES - TZ, UG, ZM, ZW), Eurasian (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, RU, QUARTIER LATIN [FR/FR]; 62bis, rue Gay-Lussac, TJ, TM), European (AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, 75005 Paris (FR).
    [Show full text]
  • University of Oklahoma
    UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA GRADUATE COLLEGE MACRONUTRIENTS SHAPE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES, GENE EXPRESSION AND PROTEIN EVOLUTION A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE FACULTY in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By JOSHUA THOMAS COOPER Norman, Oklahoma 2017 MACRONUTRIENTS SHAPE MICROBIAL COMMUNITIES, GENE EXPRESSION AND PROTEIN EVOLUTION A DISSERTATION APPROVED FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF MICROBIOLOGY AND PLANT BIOLOGY BY ______________________________ Dr. Boris Wawrik, Chair ______________________________ Dr. J. Phil Gibson ______________________________ Dr. Anne K. Dunn ______________________________ Dr. John Paul Masly ______________________________ Dr. K. David Hambright ii © Copyright by JOSHUA THOMAS COOPER 2017 All Rights Reserved. iii Acknowledgments I would like to thank my two advisors Dr. Boris Wawrik and Dr. J. Phil Gibson for helping me become a better scientist and better educator. I would also like to thank my committee members Dr. Anne K. Dunn, Dr. K. David Hambright, and Dr. J.P. Masly for providing valuable inputs that lead me to carefully consider my research questions. I would also like to thank Dr. J.P. Masly for the opportunity to coauthor a book chapter on the speciation of diatoms. It is still such a privilege that you believed in me and my crazy diatom ideas to form a concise chapter in addition to learn your style of writing has been a benefit to my professional development. I’m also thankful for my first undergraduate research mentor, Dr. Miriam Steinitz-Kannan, now retired from Northern Kentucky University, who was the first to show the amazing wonders of pond scum. Who knew that studying diatoms and algae as an undergraduate would lead me all the way to a Ph.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Biology and Systematics of Heterokont and Haptophyte Algae1
    American Journal of Botany 91(10): 1508±1522. 2004. BIOLOGY AND SYSTEMATICS OF HETEROKONT AND HAPTOPHYTE ALGAE1 ROBERT A. ANDERSEN Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, P.O. Box 475, West Boothbay Harbor, Maine 04575 USA In this paper, I review what is currently known of phylogenetic relationships of heterokont and haptophyte algae. Heterokont algae are a monophyletic group that is classi®ed into 17 classes and represents a diverse group of marine, freshwater, and terrestrial algae. Classes are distinguished by morphology, chloroplast pigments, ultrastructural features, and gene sequence data. Electron microscopy and molecular biology have contributed signi®cantly to our understanding of their evolutionary relationships, but even today class relationships are poorly understood. Haptophyte algae are a second monophyletic group that consists of two classes of predominately marine phytoplankton. The closest relatives of the haptophytes are currently unknown, but recent evidence indicates they may be part of a large assemblage (chromalveolates) that includes heterokont algae and other stramenopiles, alveolates, and cryptophytes. Heter- okont and haptophyte algae are important primary producers in aquatic habitats, and they are probably the primary carbon source for petroleum products (crude oil, natural gas). Key words: chromalveolate; chromist; chromophyte; ¯agella; phylogeny; stramenopile; tree of life. Heterokont algae are a monophyletic group that includes all (Phaeophyceae) by Linnaeus (1753), and shortly thereafter, photosynthetic organisms with tripartite tubular hairs on the microscopic chrysophytes (currently 5 Oikomonas, Anthophy- mature ¯agellum (discussed later; also see Wetherbee et al., sa) were described by MuÈller (1773, 1786). The history of 1988, for de®nitions of mature and immature ¯agella), as well heterokont algae was recently discussed in detail (Andersen, as some nonphotosynthetic relatives and some that have sec- 2004), and four distinct periods were identi®ed.
    [Show full text]
  • BES-‐AG Meeting July 2014
    BES-AG Meeting July 2014 – Charles Darwin House, London Information Document A) INFORMATION, CONTACTS AND HELPERS Details of registration, contact points, instructions etc. B) TIMETABLE Mon: Early Career Researchers Workshops; Tue: Horizon-scanning; Wed-Fri: Detrital Dynamics (Sat: “Silfest” – see point E!) C) ORAL ABSTRACTS 100-word abstracts for talks on Tue-Fri, inc. D) POSTERS Details on hardcopy and e-posters E) SOCIAL (Monday – Friday + Saturday) Evening mixers and local pub venue + Saturday “Silfest” at Imperial College’s Silwood Park Campus F) APPENDIX: DOCUMENT FOR DISCUSSION SESSIONS Document produced as a draft, with a view to submission to NERC to direct future strategic funding 1 British Ecological Society Aquatic Ecology Group A) INFORMATION, SESSON CHAIRS, CONTACTS AND HELPERS Please sign in at the registration desk in the morning that you arrive – if you arrive after the desk has closed, ask for one of the helpers in the table below. The people listed below will be helping out as local points of contact at the registration desk and for the evening mixers etc. Name of Helper e-mail contact Mobile number Joe Huddart [email protected] 07969374483 Marie-Claire Danner [email protected] 07835263486 Manon [email protected] 07749246135 Stessy Nepert [email protected] 07858901812 Xueke Lu [email protected] 07598498997 Gavin Williams [email protected] Lydia Bach [email protected] 2 B) TIMETABLE (Monday – Friday) British Ecological Society Aquatic Ecology Group Early Career Researcher Training Day Date: Monday 21st July 2014 Time: 10:00 – 17:30 Location: Charles Darwin House 12 Roger Street London, WC1N 2JU.
    [Show full text]
  • The Origin of Alternation of Generations in Land Plants
    Theoriginof alternation of generations inlandplants: afocuson matrotrophy andhexose transport Linda K.E.Graham and LeeW .Wilcox Department of Botany,University of Wisconsin, 430Lincoln Drive, Madison,WI 53706, USA (lkgraham@facsta¡.wisc .edu ) Alifehistory involving alternation of two developmentally associated, multicellular generations (sporophyteand gametophyte) is anautapomorphy of embryophytes (bryophytes + vascularplants) . Microfossil dataindicate that Mid ^Late Ordovicianland plants possessed such alifecycle, and that the originof alternationof generationspreceded this date.Molecular phylogenetic data unambiguously relate charophyceangreen algae to the ancestryof monophyletic embryophytes, and identify bryophytes as early-divergentland plants. Comparison of reproduction in charophyceans and bryophytes suggests that the followingstages occurredduring evolutionary origin of embryophytic alternation of generations: (i) originof oogamy;(ii) retention ofeggsand zygotes on the parentalthallus; (iii) originof matrotrophy (regulatedtransfer ofnutritional and morphogenetic solutes fromparental cells tothe nextgeneration); (iv)origin of a multicellularsporophyte generation ;and(v) origin of non-£ agellate, walled spores. Oogamy,egg/zygoteretention andmatrotrophy characterize at least some moderncharophyceans, and arepostulated to represent pre-adaptativefeatures inherited byembryophytes from ancestral charophyceans.Matrotrophy is hypothesizedto have preceded originof the multicellularsporophytes of plants,and to represent acritical innovation.Molecular
    [Show full text]
  • Cell Wall Ribosomes Nucleus Chloroplast Cytoplasm
    Cell Wall Ribosomes Nucleus Nickname: Protector Nickname: Protein Maker Nickname: Brain The cell wall is the outer covering of a Plant cell. It is Ribosomes read the recipe from the The nucleus is the largest organelle in a cell. The a strong and stiff and made of DNA and use this recipe to make nucleus directs all activity in the cell. It also controls cellulose. It supports and protects the plant cell by proteins. The nucleus tells the the growth and reproduction of the cell. holding it upright. It ribosomes which proteins to make. In humans, the nucleus contains 46 chromosomes allows water, oxygen and carbon dioxide to pass in out They are found in both plant and which are the instructions for all the activities in your of plant cell. animal cells. In a cell they can be found cell and body. floating around in the cytoplasm or attached to the endoplasmic reticulum. Chloroplast Cytoplasm Endoplasmic Reticulum Nickname: Oven Nickname: Gel Nickname: Highway Chloroplasts are oval structures that that contain a green Cytoplasm is the gel like fluid inside a The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is the transportation pigment called chlorophyll. This allows plants to make cell. The organelles are floating around in center for the cell. The ER is like the conveyor belt, you their own food through the process of photosynthesis. this fluid. would see at a supermarket, except instead of moving your groceries it moves proteins from one part of the cell Chloroplasts are necessary for photosynthesis, the food to another. The Endoplasmic Reticulum looks like a making process, to occur.
    [Show full text]
  • Durinskia Baltica and Kryptoperidinium Foliaceum
    The Complete Plastid Genomes of the Two ‘Dinotoms’ Durinskia baltica and Kryptoperidinium foliaceum Behzad Imanian., Jean-Franc¸ois Pombert., Patrick J. Keeling* Department of Botany, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Abstract Background: In one small group of dinoflagellates, photosynthesis is carried out by a tertiary endosymbiont derived from a diatom, giving rise to a complex cell that we collectively refer to as a ‘dinotom’. The endosymbiont is separated from its host by a single membrane and retains plastids, mitochondria, a large nucleus, and many other eukaryotic organelles and structures, a level of complexity suggesting an early stage of integration. Although the evolution of these endosymbionts has attracted considerable interest, the plastid genome has not been examined in detail, and indeed no tertiary plastid genome has yet been sequenced. Methodology/Principal Findings: Here we describe the complete plastid genomes of two closely related dinotoms, Durinskia baltica and Kryptoperidinium foliaceum. The D. baltica (116470 bp) and K. foliaceum (140426 bp) plastid genomes map as circular molecules featuring two large inverted repeats that separate distinct single copy regions. The organization and gene content of the D. baltica plastid closely resemble those of the pennate diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum. The K. foliaceum plastid genome is much larger, has undergone more reorganization, and encodes a putative tyrosine recombinase (tyrC) also found in the plastid genome of the heterokont Heterosigma akashiwo, and two putative serine recombinases (serC1 and serC2) homologous to recombinases encoded by plasmids pCf1 and pCf2 in another pennate diatom, Cylindrotheca fusiformis. The K. foliaceum plastid genome also contains an additional copy of serC1, two degenerate copies of another plasmid-encoded ORF, and two non-coding regions whose sequences closely resemble portions of the pCf1 and pCf2 plasmids.
    [Show full text]
  • Brown Algae and 4) the Oomycetes (Water Molds)
    Protista Classification Excavata The kingdom Protista (in the five kingdom system) contains mostly unicellular eukaryotes. This taxonomic grouping is polyphyletic and based only Alveolates on cellular structure and life styles not on any molecular evidence. Using molecular biology and detailed comparison of cell structure, scientists are now beginning to see evolutionary SAR Stramenopila history in the protists. The ongoing changes in the protest phylogeny are rapidly changing with each new piece of evidence. The following classification suggests 4 “supergroups” within the Rhizaria original Protista kingdom and the taxonomy is still being worked out. This lab is looking at one current hypothesis shown on the right. Some of the organisms are grouped together because Archaeplastida of very strong support and others are controversial. It is important to focus on the characteristics of each clade which explains why they are grouped together. This lab will only look at the groups that Amoebozoans were once included in the Protista kingdom and the other groups (higher plants, fungi, and animals) will be Unikonta examined in future labs. Opisthokonts Protista Classification Excavata Starting with the four “Supergroups”, we will divide the rest into different levels called clades. A Clade is defined as a group of Alveolates biological taxa (as species) that includes all descendants of one common ancestor. Too simplify this process, we have included a cladogram we will be using throughout the SAR Stramenopila course. We will divide or expand parts of the cladogram to emphasize evolutionary relationships. For the protists, we will divide Rhizaria the supergroups into smaller clades assigning them artificial numbers (clade1, clade2, clade3) to establish a grouping at a specific level.
    [Show full text]
  • (SSC) Region of Chloroplast Genomes1
    NEWS & VIEWS AMERICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY LETTER TO THE EDITOR Sources of inversion variation in the small single copy (SSC) region of chloroplast genomes1 Joseph F. Walker 2 , Robert K. Jansen 3,4 , Michael J. Zanis 5 , and Nancy C. Emery6,7 Modern sequencing technology has led to a proliferation of whole- Walker et al., 2014 ; Zhang et al., 2014 ; Wang et al., 2015 ). Th ese genome sequences of chloroplasts in a growing number of plant analyses compare the SSC orientation among lineages using a single lineages, bringing opportunities for comparisons that provide in- plastome to represent each lineage and thus have missed the within- sights into the evolutionary history of the plastomes and their host individual variation that exists in this region. Currently, whole- plants ( Jansen et al., 2007 ; Doorduin et al., 2011 ). Amid the emerg- chloroplast genomes are published in GenBank without preference ing literature in this area is a hypothesis that the small single copy for the orientation of the SSC region, leading to apparent variation (SSC) region is a “hotspot” for inversion events (sensu Liu et al., in the orientation of the SSC region among individuals that is actu- 2013 ) because diff erent orientations of the region have been re- ally due to chloroplast heteroplasmy within individuals ( Wolfe and ported in relatively high frequencies among closely related taxa Randle, 2004 ), as originally described by Palmer (1983) . For exam- ( Liu et al., 2013 ; Walker et al., 2014 ). We would like to draw atten- ple, two sequences of Lactuca sativa that have been independently tion to a study by Palmer (1983) that bears heavily on this discus- published (NC_007578 and DQ_383816) were entered with diff er- sion, yet has been overlooked by several authors of publications ent orientations of the SSC region, which could be interpreted as investigating whole-chloroplast genome sequence order, including a major inversion existing within the species if the investigators are one study by some of the authors of this letter ( Walker et al., 2014 ).
    [Show full text]
  • Glenodinium Triquetrum Ehrenb. Is a Species Not of Heterocapsa F.Stein but of Kryptoperidinium Er.Lindem
    Phytotaxa 391 (2): 155–158 ISSN 1179-3155 (print edition) https://www.mapress.com/j/pt/ PHYTOTAXA Copyright © 2019 Magnolia Press Correspondence ISSN 1179-3163 (online edition) https://doi.org/10.11646/phytotaxa.391.2.11 Glenodinium triquetrum Ehrenb. is a species not of Heterocapsa F.Stein but of Kryptoperidinium Er.Lindem. (Kryptoperidiniaceae, Peridiniales) MARC GOTTSCHLING1,*, URBAN TILLMANN2, MALTE ELBRÄCHTER3, WOLF-HENNING KUSBER4 & MONA HOPPENRATH5 1 Department Biologie, Systematische Botanik und Mykologie, GeoBio-Center, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Menzinger Str. 67, D – 80638 München, Germany 2 Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Am Handelshafen 12, D – 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany 3 Alfred-Wegener-Institut, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Wattenmeerstation Sylt, Hafenstr. 43, D – 25992 List/ Sylt, Germany 4 Botanischer Garten und Botanisches Museum Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Königin-Luise-Straße 6-8, D – 14195 Berlin, Germany 5 Senckenberg am Meer, German Centre for Marine Biodiversity Research (DZMB), Südstrand 44, D – 26382 Wilhelmshaven, Germany * corresponding author, e-mail: [email protected] Introduction The dinophyte names Heterocapsa F.Stein and Kryptoperidinium Er.Lindem. are linked in a unfortunate way: The type of Heterocapsa, namely the well-established Heterocapsa triquetra (Ehrenb.) F.Stein, is demonstrably an element of Kryptoperidinium in its current circumscription (Gottschling et al. 2018b). This was uncovered 130 years after the combination from Glenodinium Ehrenb. to Heterocapsa was made (Stein 1883: 13), and we aim at overcoming the severe nomenclatural and taxonomical consequences (Gottschling et al. 2018b) by the proposal to conserve the type of Heterocapsa (Gottschling et al. 2018a) with Heterocapsa steinii Tillmann, Gottschling, Hoppenrath, Kusber & Elbr.
    [Show full text]