Human Impact on Symbioses Between Aquatic Organisms and Microbes

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Human Impact on Symbioses Between Aquatic Organisms and Microbes Vol. 87: 113–138, 2021 AQUATIC MICROBIAL ECOLOGY Published online August 26 https://doi.org/10.3354/ame01973 Aquat Microb Ecol Contribution to AME Special 7 ‘SAME 16: Progress and perspectives in aquatic microbial ecology’ OPEN ACCESS REVIEW Human impact on symbioses between aquatic organisms and microbes Willem Stock1,2,#, Martijn Callens3,#, Shira Houwenhuyse4, Ruben Schols4,5, Naina Goel4,6, Manon Coone4, Charlotte Theys7, Vienna Delnat7, Alice Boudry4,7, Ester M. Eckert8, Cecilia Laspoumaderes9,10, Hans-Peter Grossart11,12, Luc De Meester7,13, Robby Stoks7, Koen Sabbe1, Ellen Decaestecker4,* 1Laboratory of Protistology & Aquatic Ecology, Department of Biology, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium 2Phycology Research Group, Department of Biology, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium 3CEFE, Univ Montpellier, CNRS, EPHE, IRD, Univ Paul Valéry Montpellier 3, 34080 Montpellier, France 4Laboratory of Aquatic Biology, KU Leuven Kulak, 8500 Kortrijk, Belgium 5Department of Biology, Royal Museum for Central Africa, 3080 Tervuren, Belgium 6Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Department of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, University of Ghent, 8400 Oostende, Belgium 7Laboratory of Aquatic Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, KU Leuven, 3000 Leuven, Belgium 8Water Research Institute — National Research Council of Italy (CNR-IRSA), Molecular Ecology Group (MEG), 28922 Verbania, Italy 9Departamento de Ecología, Laboratorio de Limnología, INIBIOMA, CONICET-Universidad Nacional del Comahue, 8400 Bariloche, Argentina 10Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, 27498 Helgoland, Germany 11Dept. of Experimental Limnology, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), 16775 Stechlin, Germany 12Dept. of Biochemistry and Biology, Potsdam University, 14469 Potsdam, Germany 13Dept. of Experimental Limnology, Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB), 12587 Berlin, Germany ABSTRACT: Aquatic organisms rely on microbial symbionts for coping with various challenges they encounter during stress and for defending themselves against predators, pathogens and para- sites. Microbial symbionts are also often indispensable for the host’s development or life cycle com- pletion. Many aquatic ecosystems are currently under pressure due to diverse human activities that have a profound impact on ecosystem functioning. These human activities are also ex pectedto alter interactions between aquatic hosts and their associated microbes. This can directly impact the host’s health and — given the importance and widespread occurrence of microbial symbiosis in aquatic systems — the ecosystem at large. In this review, we provide an overview of the importance of microbial symbionts for aquatic organisms, and we consider how the beneficial services provided by microbial symbionts can be affected by human activities. The scarcity of available studies that assess the functional consequences of human impacts on aquatic microbial symbioses shows that our knowledge on this topic is currently limited, making it difficult to draw general conclusions and predict future changes in microbial symbiont−host relationships in a changing world. To address this important knowledge gap, we provide an overview of ap proaches that can be used to assess the impact of human disturbances on the functioning of aquatic microbial symbioses. KEY WORDS: Host−symbiont interactions · Aquatic microbial symbioses · Mutualism · Anthropogenic disturbances © The authors 2021. Open Access under Creative Commons by *Corresponding author: [email protected] Attribution Licence. Use, distribution and reproduction are un - #These authors contributed equally restricted. Authors and original publication must be credited. Publisher: Inter-Research · www.int-res.com 114 Aquat Microb Ecol 87: 113–138, 2021 1. INTRODUCTION Fig. 1). This commonly used microbiome definition, however, is not fixed and often varies depending on A large fraction of ecological interactions within an the referenced source. There has been increased ecosystem are symbiotic, which can be defined as a research interest in the host-associated microbiota, phenomenon in which dissimilar organisms live facilitated through new DNA sequencing technolo- together (De Bary 1879). Although the term symbio- gies, which has revealed that many host organisms sis is mostly used in the context of mutualistic or com- support highly diverse communities of microbial mensalistic interactions between 2 species that live symbionts (Ley et al. 2008, White et al. 2016). In this in close contact for a substantial amount of time, it review, we discuss both specialized endosymbionts encompasses a whole spectrum of outcomes, includ- and the broader host-associated microbiota, as we ing parasitism. Furthermore, the outcome of a sym- expect some parallels in how they interact with the biosis between 2 species is not fixed, and both the host and how they are affected by environmental strength and direction (positive, neutral or negative) change. We only focus on microbial symbionts that of the interaction can change over time and/or shift provide — at least under some circumstances — a depending on the context (Daskin & Alford 2012). benefit to the host. Symbiosis can either be obligate, where one or both Most aquatic organisms start interacting with partners cannot survive without the other, or it can micro bial symbionts from their birth, and sometimes be facultative, with both partners able to survive even before (Bates et al. 2006, Nyholm 2020). Further- independently outside of the symbiosis. more, aquatic organisms acquire bacteria from the Microbial symbiosis refers to the phenomenon environment throughout their life cycle, making the where, in general, a larger organism (host) is colo- microbiota develop concomitantly with the host’s nized by smaller unicellular microorganisms (sym- chronological development. For several host organ- bionts). In aquatic environments, a wide diversity of isms, it has also been shown that they exert control eukaryote, bacterial and archaeal phyla engage in over the presence or abundance of specific symbionts, microbial symbiosis, either as host or symbiont often favouring beneficial symbiont strains (Rawls et (Grossart et al. 2013). Microbial symbionts can live as al. 2006, McFall-Ngai 2014, Tasiemski et al. 2015, endosymbionts within the cells or as specialized or- Stock et al. 2019a). These processes often en sure that gans of the host. However, many microbial symbionts the microbial community provides the necessary colonize the surface of epithelial tissues such as the functions throughout the host’s life cycle (Sampson & gut mucosa or are externally associated with the host, Mazmanian 2015, Dominguez-Bello et al. 2019). Mi- such as those growing in the phycosphere of micro- crobiota can be acquired from conspecifics through algae (Zoccarato & Grossart 2019). The assembly of maternal transmission or other forms of interactions, microorganisms found on a host is referred to as the or they can be acquired through colonization from the host-associated microbiota, and they form — in com- available pool of environmental microorganisms bination with their specific habitat and biological ac- (Funkhouser & Bordenstein 2013). The mode of trans- tivity — the micro biome (sensu Berg et al. 2020; mission is a key element in eco-evolutionary host− symbiont dynamics and is correlated AB C with symbiont function and degree of specialization (Macke et al. 2017b). Many (especially aquatic) organisms ob tain their microbiota through hori- zontal transmission, and the degree of exposure to environmental sources of microorganisms often plays a major role in determining microbiota assem- blies (Adair & Douglas 2017). Interme- diate modes, whereby symbionts from Fig. 1. Examples of aquatic host−symbiont associations. The host (largest organ- the parents are horizontally transmit- ism, grey) with its symbionts (unicellular eukaryotes, Archaea and Bacteria, ted to their offspring, have also been coloured). We define the symbionts as the microorganisms living in the host or ob served (Ebert 2013, Björk et al. externally associated with it. Well-studied examples of host− symbiont associa- 2019). Vertically transmitted symbi - tions (orange) include (A) Daphnia magna and its gut microbiota, (B) Euprymna scolopes and the bioluminescent bacterium Vibrio fischeri and (C) Acropora spp. onts, which are transferred with high and the eukaryotic algae Symbiodinium spp. fidelity from the mother to the offspring Stock et al.: Human impact on aquatic symbioses 115 before birth, tend to resemble organelles, and their health. In Section 2 (‘Importance of the microbiome presence often has higher relevance for the host’s fit- for aquatic organisms’, summarized in Fig. 2A) we ness (Bright & Bulgheresi 2010, Fisher et al. 2017). In- provide an overview of the importance of microbial terestingly, aquatic host organisms seem to depend symbionts for coping with various challenges encoun- less on vertical transmission than terrestrial hosts tered by aquatic organisms. We focus on resource ac- (Russell 2019). quisition, physiological stress, predation, pathogens, It has become clear that, for many organisms, the parasites and host development. In Section 3 (‘Effects composition of their symbiont community has a major of anthropogenic disturbance on host− symbiont inter- influence on various physiological processes and, ul- actions’, summarized in Fig.
Recommended publications
  • Systema Naturae∗
    Systema Naturae∗ c Alexey B. Shipunov v. 5.802 (June 29, 2008) 7 Regnum Monera [ Bacillus ] /Bacteria Subregnum Bacteria [ 6:8Bacillus ]1 Superphylum Posibacteria [ 6:2Bacillus ] stat.m. Phylum 1. Firmicutes [ 6Bacillus ]2 Classis 1(1). Thermotogae [ 5Thermotoga ] i.s. 2(2). Mollicutes [ 5Mycoplasma ] 3(3). Clostridia [ 5Clostridium ]3 4(4). Bacilli [ 5Bacillus ] 5(5). Symbiobacteres [ 5Symbiobacterium ] Phylum 2. Actinobacteria [ 6Actynomyces ] Classis 1(6). Actinobacteres [ 5Actinomyces ] Phylum 3. Hadobacteria [ 6Deinococcus ] sed.m. Classis 1(7). Hadobacteres [ 5Deinococcus ]4 Superphylum Negibacteria [ 6:2Rhodospirillum ] stat.m. Phylum 4. Chlorobacteria [ 6Chloroflexus ]5 Classis 1(8). Ktedonobacteres [ 5Ktedonobacter ] sed.m. 2(9). Thermomicrobia [ 5Thermomicrobium ] 3(10). Chloroflexi [ 5Chloroflexus ] ∗Only recent taxa. Viruses are not included. Abbreviations and signs: sed.m. (sedis mutabilis); stat.m. (status mutabilis): s., aut i. (superior, aut interior); i.s. (incertae sedis); sed.p. (sedis possibilis); s.str. (sensu stricto); s.l. (sensu lato); incl. (inclusum); excl. (exclusum); \quotes" for environmental groups; * (asterisk) for paraphyletic taxa; / (slash) at margins for major clades (\domains"). 1Incl. \Nanobacteria" i.s. et dubitativa, \OP11 group" i.s. 2Incl. \TM7" i.s., \OP9", \OP10". 3Incl. Dictyoglomi sed.m., Fusobacteria, Thermolithobacteria. 4= Deinococcus{Thermus. 5Incl. Thermobaculum i.s. 1 4(11). Dehalococcoidetes [ 5Dehalococcoides ] 5(12). Anaerolineae [ 5Anaerolinea ]6 Phylum 5. Cyanobacteria [ 6Nostoc ] Classis 1(13). Gloeobacteres [ 5Gloeobacter ] 2(14). Chroobacteres [ 5Chroococcus ]7 3(15). Hormogoneae [ 5Nostoc ] Phylum 6. Bacteroidobacteria [ 6Bacteroides ]8 Classis 1(16). Fibrobacteres [ 5Fibrobacter ] 2(17). Chlorobi [ 5Chlorobium ] 3(18). Salinibacteres [ 5Salinibacter ] 4(19). Bacteroidetes [ 5Bacteroides ]9 Phylum 7. Spirobacteria [ 6Spirochaeta ] Classis 1(20). Spirochaetes [ 5Spirochaeta ] s.l.10 Phylum 8. Planctobacteria [ 6Planctomyces ]11 Classis 1(21).
    [Show full text]
  • Tropical Marine Invertebrates CAS BI 569 Phylum Echinodermata by J
    Tropical Marine Invertebrates CAS BI 569 Phylum Echinodermata by J. R. Finnerty Porifera Ctenophora Cnidaria Deuterostomia Ecdysozoa Lophotrochozoa Chordata Arthropoda Annelida Hemichordata Onychophora Mollusca Echinodermata *Nematoda *Platyhelminthes Acoelomorpha Calcispongia Silicispongiae PROTOSTOMIA Phylum Phylum Phylum CHORDATA ECHINODERMATA HEMICHORDATA Blastopore -> anus Radial / equal cleavage Coelom forms by enterocoely ! Protostome = blastopore contributes to the mouth blastopore mouth anus ! Deuterostome = blastopore becomes anus blastopore anus mouth Halocynthia, a tunicate (Urochordata) Coelom Formation Protostomes: Schizocoely Deuterostomes: Enterocoely Enterocoely in a sea star Axocoel (protocoel) Gives rise to small portion of water vascular system. Hydrocoel (mesocoel) Gives rise to water vascular system. Somatocoel (metacoel) Gives rise to lining of adult body cavity. Echinoderm Metamorphosis ECHINODERM FEATURES Water vascular system and tube feet Pentaradial symmetry Coelom formation by enterocoely Water Vascular System Tube Foot Tube Foot Locomotion ECHINODERM DIVERSITY Crinoidea Asteroidea Ophiuroidea Holothuroidea Echinoidea “sea lilies” “sea stars” “brittle stars” “sea cucumbers” “urchins, sand dollars” Group Form & Habit Habitat Ossicles Feeding Special Characteristics Crinoids 5-200 arms, stalked epifaunal Internal skeleton suspension mouth upward; mucous & Of each arm feeders secreting glands on sessile podia Ophiuroids usually 5 thin arms, epifaunal ossicles in arms deposit feeders act and appear like vertebrae
    [Show full text]
  • Chlorophyta Is a Division of Green Algae, Informally Called
    Chlorophyta is a division of green algae, informally waters of the Sargasso Sea. Many brown algae, such as called chlorophytes. The name is used in two very members of the order Fucales, commonly grow along different senses so that care is needed to determine the rocky seashores. Some members of the class are used as use by a particular author. In older classification food for humans. systems, it refers to a highly paraphyletic group of all Worldwide there are about 1500–2000 species of brown the green algae within the green plants (Viridiplantae), algae.[4] Some species are of sufficient commercial and thus includes about 7,000 species [4] [5] of mostly importance, such as Ascophyllum nodosum , that they aquatic photosynthetic eukaryotic organisms. Like the have become subjects of extensive research in their own land plants (bryophytes and tracheophytes), green algae right.[5] [4] contain chlorophylls a and b, and store food as starch Brown algae belong to a very large group, the in their plastids. Heterokontophyta, a eukaryotic group of organisms In newer classifications, it refers to one of the two distinguished most prominently by having chloroplasts clades making up the Viridiplantae, which are the surrounded by four membranes, suggesting an origin chlorophytes and the streptophytes or charophytes.[6][7] from a symbiotic relationship between a basal In this sense it includes only about 4,300 species.[3] eukaryote and another eukaryotic organism. Most brown algae contain the pigment fucoxanthin, which is responsible for the distinctive greenish-brown color that The red algae, or Rhodophyta ( / r o ʊ ˈ d ɒ f ɨ t ə / or / gives them their name.
    [Show full text]
  • Tropical Marine Invertebrates CAS BI 569 Phylum ANNELIDA by J
    Tropical Marine Invertebrates CAS BI 569 Phylum ANNELIDA by J. R. Finnerty Phylum ANNELIDA Porifera Ctenophora Cnidaria Deuterostomia Ecdysozoa Lophotrochozoa Chordata Arthropoda Annelida Hemichordata Onychophora Mollusca Echinodermata Nematoda Platyhelminthes Acoelomorpha Silicispongiae Calcispongia PROTOSTOMIA “BILATERIA” (=TRIPLOBLASTICA) Bilateral symmetry (?) Mesoderm (triploblasty) Phylum ANNELIDA Porifera Ctenophora Cnidaria Deuterostomia Ecdysozoa Lophotrochozoa Chordata Arthropoda Annelida Hemichordata Onychophora Mollusca Echinodermata Nematoda Platyhelminthes Acoelomorpha Silicispongiae Calcispongia PROTOSTOMIA “COELOMATA” True coelom Coelomata gut cavity endoderm mesoderm coelom ectoderm [note: dorso-ventral inversion] Phylum ANNELIDA Porifera Ctenophora Cnidaria Deuterostomia Ecdysozoa Lophotrochozoa Chordata Arthropoda Annelida Hemichordata Onychophora Mollusca Echinodermata Nematoda Platyhelminthes Acoelomorpha Silicispongiae Calcispongia PROTOSTOMIA PROTOSTOMIA “first mouth” blastopore contributes to mouth ventral nerve cord The Blastopore ! Forms during gastrulation ectoderm blastocoel blastocoel endoderm gut blastoderm BLASTULA blastopore The Gut “internal, epithelium-lined cavity for the digestion and absorption of food sponges lack a gut simplest gut = blind sac (Cnidaria) blastopore gives rise to dual- function mouth/anus through-guts evolve later Protostome = blastopore contributes to the mouth Deuterostome = blastopore becomes the anus; mouth is a second opening Protostomy blastopore mouth anus Deuterostomy blastopore
    [Show full text]
  • Zoology Lab Manual
    General Zoology Lab Supplement Stephen W. Ziser Department of Biology Pinnacle Campus To Accompany the Zoology Lab Manual: Smith, D. G. & M. P. Schenk Exploring Zoology: A Laboratory Guide. Morton Publishing Co. for BIOL 1413 General Zoology 2017.5 Biology 1413 Introductory Zoology – Supplement to Lab Manual; Ziser 2015.12 1 General Zoology Laboratory Exercises 1. Orientation, Lab Safety, Animal Collection . 3 2. Lab Skills & Microscopy . 14 3. Animal Cells & Tissues . 15 4. Animal Organs & Organ Systems . 17 5. Animal Reproduction . 25 6. Animal Development . 27 7. Some Animal-Like Protists . 31 8. The Animal Kingdom . 33 9. Phylum Porifera (Sponges) . 47 10. Phyla Cnidaria (Jellyfish & Corals) & Ctenophora . 49 11. Phylum Platyhelminthes (Flatworms) . 52 12. Phylum Nematoda (Roundworms) . 56 13. Phyla Rotifera . 59 14. Acanthocephala, Gastrotricha & Nematomorpha . 60 15. Phylum Mollusca (Molluscs) . 67 16. Phyla Brachiopoda & Ectoprocta . 73 17. Phylum Annelida (Segmented Worms) . 74 18. Phyla Sipuncula . 78 19. Phylum Arthropoda (I): Trilobita, Myriopoda . 79 20. Phylum Arthropoda (II): Chelicerata . 81 21. Phylum Arthropods (III): Crustacea . 86 22. Phylum Arthropods (IV): Hexapoda . 90 23. Phyla Onycophora & Tardigrada . 97 24. Phylum Echinodermata (Echinoderms) . .104 25. Phyla Chaetognatha & Hemichordata . 108 26. Phylum Chordata (I): Lower Chordates & Agnatha . 109 27. Phylum Chordata (II): Chondrichthyes & Osteichthyes . 112 28. Phylum Chordata (III): Amphibia . 115 29. Phylum Chordata (IV): Reptilia . 118 30. Phylum Chordata (V): Aves . 121 31. Phylum Chordata (VI): Mammalia . 124 Lab Reports & Assignments Identifying Animal Phyla . 39 Identifying Common Freshwater Invertebrates . 42 Lab Report for Practical #1 . 43 Lab Report for Practical #2 . 62 Identification of Insect Orders . 96 Lab Report for Practical #3 .
    [Show full text]
  • Poster Listings
    Posters A-Z Aiyar, Prasad Influence of biotic and abiotic factors on intracellular calcium profile in 53 the green unicellular algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Alacid, Elisabet Parasitoid-host interactions: Parvilucifera sinerae killing dinoflagellates, 54 from the cell to the field Alcolombri, Uria Smell of the sea: Identification of the algal dimethyl sulfide releasing 55 enzyme Alexander, Harriet Nutrient pulses uniquely drive physiological ecology of cosmopolitan 56 phytoplankton strains Antoine-Lorquin, Aymeric Logol : Expressive Pattern Matching in sequences 57 Arndt, Hartmut Deep-sea benthic microeukaryotes: A plea for morphological and 58 ecological studies as a necessary addition to metagenomics and a proposal for a concerted study across the oceans Arroyo, Alicia Diversity of the micrometazoan phyla Acoelomorpha in diverse marine 59 environments: a metabarcoding approach Ashworth, Justin Integration, clustering and systems biology of [diatom] transcriptome 60 data Beisser, Daniela Comparative Transcriptome Analysis of 18 Chrysophyceae Species 61 Bellaaj Zouari, Amel Contribution of Chlorophyta and non-Chlorophyta to the picoeukaryotic 62 community in the Gulf of Gabès (Eastern Mediterranean Sea) Page 17 EMBO | EMBL Symposium: A New Age of Discovery for Aquatic Microeukaryotes Bendif, El Mahdi When the Cheshire Cat meets Gaia: puzzling speciation and adaptive 63 patterns in the Gephyrocapsa complex Berdjeb, Lyria Marine eukaryote network revealed by high frequency temporal survey 64 in the San Pedro Ocean Time-Series station Berney, Cédric UniEuk: a universal taxonomic framework and integrated reference gene 65 databases for eukaryotic biology, ecology, and evolution Bhardwaj, Vaibhav Investigating algae-bacteria symbiosis using a vitamin B12 dependent 66 alga Bigalke, Arite Autoinduced cell death of the diatom C.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of Bilaterian Body‐Plan: Perspectives from the Developmental Genetics of the Acoela (Acoelomorpha)
    The evolution of bilaterian body‐plan: perspectives from the developmental genetics of the Acoela (Acoelomorpha) Marta Chiodin ADVERTIMENT. La consulta d’aquesta tesi queda condicionada a l’acceptació de les següents condicions d'ús: La difusió d’aquesta tesi per mitjà del servei TDX (www.tdx.cat) i a través del Dipòsit Digital de la UB (diposit.ub.edu) ha estat autoritzada pels titulars dels drets de propietat intel·lectual únicament per a usos privats emmarcats en activitats d’investigació i docència. No s’autoritza la seva reproducció amb finalitats de lucre ni la seva difusió i posada a disposició des d’un lloc aliè al servei TDX ni al Dipòsit Digital de la UB. No s’autoritza la presentació del seu contingut en una finestra o marc aliè a TDX o al Dipòsit Digital de la UB (framing). Aquesta reserva de drets afecta tant al resum de presentació de la tesi com als seus continguts. En la utilització o cita de parts de la tesi és obligat indicar el nom de la persona autora. ADVERTENCIA. La consulta de esta tesis queda condicionada a la aceptación de las siguientes condiciones de uso: La difusión de esta tesis por medio del servicio TDR (www.tdx.cat) y a través del Repositorio Digital de la UB (diposit.ub.edu) ha sido autorizada por los titulares de los derechos de propiedad intelectual únicamente para usos privados enmarcados en actividades de investigación y docencia. No se autoriza su reproducción con finalidades de lucro ni su difusión y puesta a disposición desde un sitio ajeno al servicio TDR o al Repositorio Digital de la UB.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of Thesis 4
    Contents List of Papers 2 Abstract 3 Introduction 5 Biodiversity – why should we care? 5 Marine meiofauna 6 What are Nemertodermatida 7 General morphology 8 Ultrastructure 8 Historical overview of the taxon 9 Phylogenetic position 11 Classification 12 Methods 13 Sampling 13 Infrastructure and general workflow 14 Fixation 16 Abundance and patchiness 18 Collection effort for this thesis 19 Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) 20 Principal of CLSM 20 Phalloidin staining of F-actin 21 Immunolabelling of the nervous system 22 Molecular Analyses 24 DNA extraction, amplification & sequencing 25 Data properties 26 Phylogenetic analyses 27 Discussion and future perspectives 27 Literature cited 33 Acknowledgements 39 List of papers Paper I Meyer-Wachsmuth I, Raikova OI, Jondelius U (2013): The muscular system of Nemertoderma westbladi and Meara stichopi (Nemertodermatida, Acoelomorpha). Zoomorphology 132: 239–252. doi:10.1007/s00435-013-0191-6. Paper II Meyer-Wachsmuth I, Curini Galletti, M, Jondelius U (in press): Hyper-cryptic marine meiofauna: species complexes in Nemertodermatida. PLOS One 9: e107688. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0107688 Paper III Meyer-Wachsmuth I, Jondelius U: A multigene molecular assessment reveals deep divergence in the phylogeny of Nemertodermatida. (Manuscript) Paper IV Raikova OI, Meyer-Wachsmuth I, Jondelius U: Nervous system and morphology of three species of Nemertodermatida (Acoelomorpha) as revealed by immunostainings, phalloidin staining, and confocal and differential interference contrast microscopy. (Manuscript) 2 Abstract Nemertodermatida is a group of microscopic marine worm-like animals that live as part of the marine meiofauna in sandy or muddy sediments; one species lives commensally in a holothurian. These benthic worms were thought to disperse passively with ocean currents, resulting in little speciation and thus wide or even cosmopolitan distributions.
    [Show full text]
  • Systema Naturae. the Classification of Living Organisms
    Systema Naturae. The classification of living organisms. c Alexey B. Shipunov v. 5.601 (June 26, 2007) Preface Most of researches agree that kingdom-level classification of living things needs the special rules and principles. Two approaches are possible: (a) tree- based, Hennigian approach will look for main dichotomies inside so-called “Tree of Life”; and (b) space-based, Linnaean approach will look for the key differences inside “Natural System” multidimensional “cloud”. Despite of clear advantages of tree-like approach (easy to develop rules and algorithms; trees are self-explaining), in many cases the space-based approach is still prefer- able, because it let us to summarize any kinds of taxonomically related da- ta and to compare different classifications quite easily. This approach also lead us to four-kingdom classification, but with different groups: Monera, Protista, Vegetabilia and Animalia, which represent different steps of in- creased complexity of living things, from simple prokaryotic cell to compound Nature Precedings : doi:10.1038/npre.2007.241.2 Posted 16 Aug 2007 eukaryotic cell and further to tissue/organ cell systems. The classification Only recent taxa. Viruses are not included. Abbreviations: incertae sedis (i.s.); pro parte (p.p.); sensu lato (s.l.); sedis mutabilis (sed.m.); sedis possi- bilis (sed.poss.); sensu stricto (s.str.); status mutabilis (stat.m.); quotes for “environmental” groups; asterisk for paraphyletic* taxa. 1 Regnum Monera Superphylum Archebacteria Phylum 1. Archebacteria Classis 1(1). Euryarcheota 1 2(2). Nanoarchaeota 3(3). Crenarchaeota 2 Superphylum Bacteria 3 Phylum 2. Firmicutes 4 Classis 1(4). Thermotogae sed.m. 2(5).
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to the Bilateria and the Phylum Xenacoelomorpha Triploblasty and Bilateral Symmetry Provide New Avenues for Animal Radiation
    CHAPTER 9 Introduction to the Bilateria and the Phylum Xenacoelomorpha Triploblasty and Bilateral Symmetry Provide New Avenues for Animal Radiation long the evolutionary path from prokaryotes to modern animals, three key innovations led to greatly expanded biological diversification: (1) the evolution of the eukaryote condition, (2) the emergence of the A Metazoa, and (3) the evolution of a third germ layer (triploblasty) and, perhaps simultaneously, bilateral symmetry. We have already discussed the origins of the Eukaryota and the Metazoa, in Chapters 1 and 6, and elsewhere. The invention of a third (middle) germ layer, the true mesoderm, and evolution of a bilateral body plan, opened up vast new avenues for evolutionary expan- sion among animals. We discussed the embryological nature of true mesoderm in Chapter 5, where we learned that the evolution of this inner body layer fa- cilitated greater specialization in tissue formation, including highly specialized organ systems and condensed nervous systems (e.g., central nervous systems). In addition to derivatives of ectoderm (skin and nervous system) and endoderm (gut and its de- Classification of The Animal rivatives), triploblastic animals have mesoder- Kingdom (Metazoa) mal derivatives—which include musculature, the circulatory system, the excretory system, Non-Bilateria* Lophophorata and the somatic portions of the gonads. Bilater- (a.k.a. the diploblasts) PHYLUM PHORONIDA al symmetry gives these animals two axes of po- PHYLUM PORIFERA PHYLUM BRYOZOA larity (anteroposterior and dorsoventral) along PHYLUM PLACOZOA PHYLUM BRACHIOPODA a single body plane that divides the body into PHYLUM CNIDARIA ECDYSOZOA two symmetrically opposed parts—the left and PHYLUM CTENOPHORA Nematoida PHYLUM NEMATODA right sides.
    [Show full text]
  • The Making of a Photosynthetic Animal
    303 The Journal of Experimental Biology 214, 303-311 © 2011. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd doi:10.1242/jeb.046540 The making of a photosynthetic animal Mary E. Rumpho1,*, Karen N. Pelletreau1, Ahmed Moustafa2 and Debashish Bhattacharya3 1Department of Molecular and Biomedical Sciences, 5735 Hitchner Hall, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469, USA, 2Department of Biology and Graduate Program in Biotechnology, American University in Cairo, New Cairo 11835, Egypt and 3Department of Ecology, Evolution and Natural Resources, Institute of Marine and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA *Author for correspondence ([email protected]) Accepted 6 August 2010 Summary Symbiotic animals containing green photobionts challenge the common perception that only plants are capable of capturing the sun’s rays and converting them into biological energy through photoautotrophic CO2 fixation (photosynthesis). ‘Solar-powered’ sacoglossan molluscs, or sea slugs, have taken this type of symbiotic association one step further by solely harboring the photosynthetic organelle, the plastid (chloroplast). One such sea slug, Elysia chlorotica, lives as a ‘plant’ when provided with only light and air as a result of acquiring plastids during feeding on its algal prey Vaucheria litorea. The captured plastids (kleptoplasts) are retained intracellularly in cells lining the digestive diverticula of the sea slug, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as kleptoplasty. Photosynthesis by the plastids provides E. chlorotica with energy and fixed carbon for its entire lifespan of ~10months. The plastids are not transmitted vertically (i.e. are absent in eggs) and do not undergo division in the sea slug. However, de novo protein synthesis continues, including plastid- and nuclear-encoded plastid-targeted proteins, despite the apparent absence of algal nuclei.
    [Show full text]
  • Xenoturbella Bocki Exhibits Direct Development with Similarities to Acoelomorpha
    ARTICLE Received 24 Jul 2012 | Accepted 28 Jan 2013 | Published 26 Feb 2013 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms2556 OPEN Xenoturbella bocki exhibits direct development with similarities to Acoelomorpha Hiroaki Nakano1,2, Kennet Lundin3, Sarah J. Bourlat1,4, Maximilian J. Telford5, Peter Funch6, Jens R. Nyengaard7, Matthias Obst1 & Michael C. Thorndyke1,8 Xenoturbella bocki, a marine animal with a simple body plan, has recently been suggested to be sister group to the Acoelomorpha, together forming the new phylum Xenacoelomorpha. The phylogenetic position of the phylum is still under debate, either as an early branching bilaterian or as a sister group to the Ambulacraria (hemichordates and echinoderms) within the deuterostomes. Although development has been described for several species of Acoelomorpha, little is known about the life cycle of Xenoturbella. Here we report the embryonic stages of Xenoturbella, and show that it is a direct developer without a feeding larval stage. This mode of development is similar to that of the acoelomorphs, supporting the newly proposed phylum Xenacoelomorpha and suggesting that the last common ancestor of the phylum might have been a direct developer. 1 Department of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Gothenburg, Kristineberg 566, SE-451 78 Fiskeba¨ckskil, Sweden. 2 Shimoda Marine Research Center, University of Tsukuba, Shimoda, Shizuoka 415-0025, Japan. 3 Go¨teborg Natural History Museum, Box 7283, SE-402 35 Go¨teborg, Sweden. 4 Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden. 5 Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment, Darwin Building, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UK.
    [Show full text]