Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Molecular Phylogeny of Symbiotic Dinoflagellates Foraminifera and Radiolaria from Planktonic R. J. Gast and D. A. Caron Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Recent analyses of the small subunit ribosomal DNA (srDNA) from dinoflagellate symbionts of cnidaria have confirmed historical descriptions of a diverse but well-defined clade, S~mhiodinium, as well as several other independent symbiont lineages (Rowan 199 1; Rowan and Powers 1992; Sadler et al. 1992; McNally et al. 1994). Dinoflagellates also occur as intracellular symbionts in a number of pelagic protistan taxa, but the srDNA of these symbionts has not been examined. We analyzed the srDNA sequences of the symbiotic dinoflagellates from four planktonic foraminiferal species and six radiolarian species. The symbionts from these sarcodines formed two distinct lineages within the dinoflagellates. Within each lineage, symbionts obtained from different host species showed few, if any, srDNA sequence differences. The planktonic foraminiferal symbionts were most closely related to Gymnodinium simplex and the Symbiodinium clade, whereas the radiolarian symbionts were most closely related to the dinoflagellate symbiont from the oceanic chondrophore, Velella velella. Therefore, although the dinoflagellate symbionts of foraminifera appear to be a sister taxon of the symbionts from benthic foraminifera and invertebrates, the symbionts of radiolaria are distinct and arose from an independent lineage of dinoflagellate symbionts that shares common ancestry with the symbiont of at least one pelagic metazoan. The lack of srDNA variability within the sarcodine symbiont lineages suggests that coevolution of host and symbiont has not occurred. Introduction Planktonic foraminifera and radiolaria are relatively large (> 1 mm), cosmopolitan, marine protists that have significant biological and geological importance in oligotrophic oceans. Living specimens form conspicuous biological assemblages that contribute to primary production, herbivory, and carnivory within epipelagic oceanic communities (Swanberg and Caron 1991; Caron et al. 1995). In addition, foraminifera form calcium carbonate skeletons that are used extensively in the analysis of marine sediments and paleoclimatological reconstruction (Bolli, Saunders, and Perch-Nielsen 1985). Many of the extant species of planktonic foraminifera and radiolaria in the surface waters of tropical and subtropical oceans harbor algal symbionts. Four species of planktonic foraminifera (Globigerinoides conglobatus, G. ruber, G. sacculifer, and Orbulina universa) and numerous species of radiolaria contain symbiotic dinoflagellates (fig. I). Despite knowledge of the existence of these symbioses among planktonic sarcodines for well over a century, identification of the symbionts has been hindered by the loss of diagnostic morphological features, such as thecae or flagella, when the alga is in the symbiotic state. The dinoflagellate symbionts of the radiolarian Callozoum inerme were first described as Zooxanthella nutricula (Brandt 188 I), but emendations to the identification of radiolarian dinoflagellate symbionts have included reassignment to the genera Amphidinium and Endodinium (Blank and Trench 1986). Recently, Banaszak, Iglesias-Prieto, and Trench (1993) proposed identificaAbbreviations: x-DNA, small subunit ribosomal RFLR restriction fragment length polymorphism. Key words: srDNA, minifera, radiolaria. dinoflagellate, symbiont, RNA gene; phylogeny, fora- Address for correspondence and reprints: R. J. Cast, Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02.543. E-mail: [email protected]. 1192-l 197. I996 0 1996 by the Society for Molecular Bdogy Mol. B/01. EV0l. 139): 1192 and Evolution. ISSN: 0737-4038 tion of the dinoflagellate symbionts from the colonial radiolarian Collozoum inerme as Scrippsiella nutricula based on morphologic similarities with the dinoflagellate symbionts of VeZeZZa velella. Initial investigations of the dinoflagellates of planktonic foraminifera indicated that these species were similar to species of Aureodinium (Spindler and Hemleben 1980, pp. 133-140). More recent studies of the morphologic features of symbionts cultured from 0. universa led Spero to describe these symbionts as Gymnodinium beii (Spero 1987). The identities of the symbionts from the other three dinoflagellate-bearing foraminifera have not been confirmed, although they have been presumed to be similar to G. beii. Using srDNA sequences, we investigated the phylogenetic relationship of the symbionts from the planktonic sarcodines to each other, and to Symbiodinium, the symbiotic dinoflagellate commonly found in many benthic cnidaria and the benthic foraminifera. Materials and Methods Sample Collection In order to examine the molecular phylogeny of the symbiotic dinoflagellates, foraminifera and radiolaria were collected from several areas in the Sargasso Sea 3-5 miles southeast of Bermuda during September-October 1994 and May 1995. Sarcodines were collected individually by divers to ensure that these delicate organisms were in good condition (Be et al. 1977). We collected and analyzed the dinoflagellate symbiont of VeZeZZa velella from the Sargasso Sea in May, 1995. Symbiont Microdissection and DNA Isolation Sarcodines were transferred through three sterile seawater washes and the symbionts were dissected out in filter-sterilized seawater. Symbionts were collected from individual hosts, and each microdissection was considered a single sample. Samples were not pooled. Several hundred symbionts were obtained from each Molecular Phylogeny of Symbiotic Dinoflagellates 1195 I Symbiont (Collozoum caudatum) Symbiont (Thalassicolla nucleata) Symbiont (Spongostaurus spp.) Radiolarian symbionts Symbiont (UCR 153) Symbiont (UCR 159) Symbiont (USR 332) I Symbiont (Veleila velella) Symbiodinium spp. (Marginopora kudakajimensis) * Symbiodinium spp. Symbiodinium corculorum Gymnodinium beii (Orbulina universa) G. beii (Globigerinoides * conglobatus) Foraminiferal symbionts Gymnodinium sanguineum 0.10 FIG. 4.-Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic reconstruction. The scale bar represents a length equivalent to 10 changes per 100 nucleotides. Both sarcodine symbiont lineages are highlighted. Benthic foraminiferal symbiont species are indicated by asterisks. We also found that the dinoflagellate symbionts from the radiolaria examined were identical to each other, despite the rather wide taxonomic positions of the hosts. All of the identified hosts were spumellarian radiolaria. However, Thalassicolla nucleata and the colonial species were from different families within the suborder Sphaerocollina, and Spongostaurus is a newly constructed genus within the suborder Sphaerellarina (Lee, Hutner, and Bovee 1985; Swanberg, Anderson, and Bennett 1985). This was in contrast to the situation with the foraminifera where all of the extant host species that harbor dinoflagellate symbionts were derived from one (or potentially two) lineages (Kennett and Srinivasan 1983). Sequences from the radiolarian symbionts were very similar to the symbiont of Velella velella (four differences out of 1,802 bp), and quite distinct from G. beii (85 bases out of an aligned 1,802 bp). Based on morphologic criteria, Banaszak, Iglesias-Prieto, and Trench (1993) described the dinoflagellate symbionts from V. velella in the Pacific as Scrippsiella velellae. They found it very similar to, but morphologically distinct from, the dinoflagellate symbiont of V. velella from the Mediterranean and the dinoflagellate symbiont of the colonial radiolarian C. inerme. For these two symbionts, they proposed the names Scrippsiella chattonii and Scrippsiella nutricula, respectively, retaining the original species distinctions (Brandt 1881; Taylor 1971) but emending the genus. Our srDNA data for the symbionts from the Sargasso Velella and the Sargasso radiolaria support the conclusion that the symbionts of Velella and the radi- olaria are closely related (Banaszak, Iglesias-Prieto, and Trench 1993). However, the srDNA data (four base differences) do not support a distinction between the radiolarian and Velella symbionts isolated from the Sargasso. Based on precedence (Brandt 1881), we propose the name Scrippsiella nutricula for both of these symbionts. It is unclear if the slight morphologic differences noted by Banaszak, Iglesias-Prieto, and Trench (1993) indicate intraspecific morphologic variation or closely related, but different, symbionts in organisms from different oceans. A comparison of srDNA sequences from Pacific and Mediterranean symbionts could be helpful in establishing the validity of historical descriptions of these symbionts and their relationship to the Sargasso Sea specimens in this study. We believe that the sequences we have obtained are representative of the symbiont populations in the planktonic sarcodines that we have collected. We have cultured the symbionts from the sarcodines and have found their srDNA sequences to be the same as those that we have amplified directly from microdissected tissues. The cellular morphology of the free-living symbionts is similar to what has been previously described (Spero 1987; Banaszak, Iglesias-Prieto, and Trench 1993). It would be very unlikely to obtain the same sequences from different types of samples (microdissected vs. cultured), as well as from different organisms, if we were not amplifying the symbiont. It is possible that our PCR-based analyses obscured some of the diversity that exists in the natural symbiont population. However, our experiments were designed to determine the broad phylogenetic relationships of the symbionts, and microheterogeneity that might exist within (or between) populations would not change our conclusions. Phylogenetic reconstructions based on srDNA sequences were accomplished to examine the relationship between symbiotic and nonsymbiotic dinoflagellates. Maximum-parsimony analysis indicated that G. beii (foraminiferal symbiont) is related to but still distinct from clade (fig. 3). Although G. simplex the Symbiodinium branched prior to the divergence of Symbiodinium and G. beii, this node was not well supported (bootstrap value of 59%). It does appear that the Symbiodinium species and G. beii shared a recent common ancestor, but the identification of “ancestral” lineages within the dinoflagellates has been problematic (McNally et al. 1994). The Symbiodinium clade included two benthic foraminiferal dinoflagellate symbionts (Lee, Wray, and Lawrence 1995). Interestingly, the benthic foraminiferal symbionts were more closely related to the symbionts from benthic invertebrates than to the symbionts of the planktonic foraminifera. This result could be explained if one considers that the two groups of foraminifera occupy distinctly different environments. The benthic foraminifera co-occur with many symbiont-bearing benthic invertebrates and perhaps the establishment of symbioses within the benthic foraminifera is based upon availability or environmental conditions rather than inheritance (Lee, Wray, and Lawrence 1995). More surprising than the relationship of the benthic foraminiferal symbionts relative to the planktonic fora- 1196 Cast and Caron miniferal symbionts was the dissimilarity of the symbionts of planktonic foraminifera and radiolaria. The divergence of the radiolarian dinoflagellate symbionts from the foraminiferal symbionts was evident from their position within both trees (fig. 3 and 4). Note that there is no significance to the branch order within the sarcodine symbiont groups in either reconstruction. The geographical, temporal, and vertical distributions of the two planktonic sarcodine groups overlap significantly, as do their life histories and feeding behaviors (Swanberg and Caron 199 1). Given the close relationship observed for the symbionts of benthic foraminifera and invertebrates, one might have expected the symbionts of the planktonic sarcodines to be more closely related than they were. When maximum-likelihood was used for phylogenetic reconstruction, the branch lengths emphasized the similarity of the sequences within either the planktonic foraminiferal or the radiolarian symbiont groups (fig. 4). The close relationship between G. beii and G. simplex also becomes more evident. G. simplex was the only nonsymbiotic dinoflagellate that grouped closely with either the radiolarian or foraminiferal symbionts. Amphidinium belaunese, the symbiont of a flatworm, and Gloeodinium viscum, the symbiont of a hydrocoral, were both unrelated to G. beii, the Symbiodinium species, and the Scrippsiella species. Conclusions Our molecular characterization of the sarcodine dinoflagellate symbionts was striking for two reasons. First, foraminifera and radiolaria, organisms that have been considered to be related, have similar lifestyles, and occupy the same environment, have distinctly different symbionts. Second, the degree of symbiont specificity is impressive because these symbioses must be reestablished in each individual host every generation. Reproduction among planktonic sarcodines is thought to be a sexual process involving the division of an adult into several hundred thousand gametes (Be and Anderson 1976; Spindler et al. 1978). There is no evidence that symbionts are passed directly to the next generation via the gametes, and in at least one of the foraminiferal species the symbionts are digested immediately preceding gametogenesis (Be et al. 1983). In nature, reinfection occurs sometime during early ontogeny as relatively small juvenile foraminifera can be collected which already possess symbiotic dinoflagellates. Very little is known about the highly selective, yet frequently occurring, process of symbiont reacquisition in the pelagic protozoa. It is presumed that symbionts are ingested with the wide variety of phytoplankton and zooplankton prey consumed by these species (Caron and Swanberg 1990; Swanberg and Caron 1991) and that appropriate dinoflagellates are retained as symbionts rather than digested. No information is available at present on the distribution of free-living symbiotic dinoflagellates because it has not been feasible to identify free-living cells in water samples. The srDNA sequence information described here, however, will allow the development of rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes that can be used to detect and identify free-living symbiotic dinoflagellates and study their distribution and acquisition. The information we have obtained from an srDNAbased analysis of the symbionts suggests that coevolution of symbiont and planktonic sarcodine host has not occurred. We do not have the corresponding molecular phylogenetic information for the planktonic foraminifera and radiolaria, but the lack of molecular variation within the two sarcodine symbiont lineages, compared to the taxonomic diversity of the hosts, suggests that while specificity for a single species of symbiont may exist, speciation of the host has occurred independently. Langer and Lipps (1994) also found that the phylogeny of the dinoflagellate symbionts indicated that they evolved independently of their benthic foraminiferal hosts. The instances where similar sarcodines have completely different algal symbionts (Anderson 1983, p. 12 1; Faber et al. 1988) and the similarity of the symbionts from VeZeZZa and the radiolaria are further evidence that although the symbiotic relationships are specific within the hosts, they are not unique to a particular host. The presence of very similar symbionts in very different hosts is extremely interesting because it may indicate the existence of genetic characters in these dinoflagellates that are universally involved in establishment and maintenance of the symbiotic association. Recent work by Rowan and Knowlton (1995) indicated that different species of zooxanthellae could inhabit the same species of coral host, perhaps in response to light zonation at different depths. Our work has shown a very specific association of symbiont and host over time and space. At the present time, we have found only one type of symbiont present in a host. There was no evidence for different species of dinoflagellate symbionts within either the foraminifera or the radiolaria over three different collecting trips (preliminary data from third trip not shown), each at least 6 months apart and in different locations in the Sargasso Sea. There appears to be some strain variation (detectable only by sequence analysis) for Gymnodinium beii isolates from 0. universa, but this did not correlate with the different sampling times or locations. Because we have only obtained samples from the Sargasso, there is the potential that different dinoflagellate symbionts exist in sarcodines from other oceans. srDNA sequence information from those organisms would help determine whether the symbiont specificity is universal or regional. Acknowledgments We thank M. Sogin, R. Norris, L. Amaral-Zettler, and E. L. Lim for discussions and comments on the manuscript. We also thank L. Maranda for our Symbiodinium culture and D. Anderson for the culture of Gymnodinium sanguineum. We are grateful to A. Michaels, H. Trapido-Rosenthal, members of their labs, and the staff and crew at the Bermuda Biological Station for Research for making the fieldwork possible. This work was supported by NSF Grant OCE-93 14533 and the WHO1 Education Program (WHO1 contribution #9243). Molecular LITERATURE CITED ANDERSON, 0. R. 1983. Radiolaria. Springer-Verlag, New York. BANASZAK, A. T., R. IGLESIAS-PRIETO, and R. K. TRENCH. 1993. Scrippsiella velellae sp. nov. (Peridiniales) and Gloeodinium viscum sp. nov. (Phytodiniales), dinoflagellate symbionts of two Hydrozoans (Cnidaria). J. Phycol. 29: 517-528. BB, A. W. H., and 0. R. ANDERSON. 1976. Gametogenesis in planktonic foraminifera. Science 192:890-892. BB, A. W. H., 0. R. ANDERSON, W. W. FABER JR., and D. A. CARON. 1983. Sequence of morphological and cytoplasmic changes during gametogenesis in the planktonic foraminifer Globigerinoides sacculifer (Brady). Micropaleontology 29: 310-325. BB, A. W. H., C. HEMLEBEN, 0. R. ANDERSON, M. SPINDLER, J. HACUNDA, and S. TUNTIVATE-CHOY. 1977. Laboratory and field observations of living planktonic foraminifera. Micropaleontology 23: 155-179. BILOFSKY, H. S., and C. BURKS. 1988. The GenBank genetic sequence data bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 16: 1861-1864. BLANK, R. J., and R. K. TRENCH. 1986. Nomenclature of endosymbiotic dinoflagellates. Taxon 35:286294. BOLLI, H. M., J. B. SAUNDERS, and K. PERCH-NIELSEN. 1985. Plankton stratigraphy. Cambridge University Press, New York. BRANDT, K. 188 1. Ueber das Zusammenleben von Thieren und Algen. Verhandlungen der Physikalische Gesellschaft zu Berlin. CARON, D. A., A. E MICHAELS, N. R. SWANBERG, and E A. HOWSE. 1995. Primary productivity by symbiont-bearing planktonic sarcodines (Acantharia, Radiolaria, Foraminifera) in surface waters near Bermuda. J. Plankton Res. 17: 103-129. CARON, D. A., and N. R. SWANBERG. 1990. The ecology of planktonic sarcodines. Rev. Aquat. Sci. 3: 147-180. CILIA, V., B. LAFAY, and R. CHRISTEN. 1996. Sequence heterogeneities among 16s ribosomal RNA sequences, and their effect on phylogenetic analyses at the species level. Mol. Biol. Evol. 13:45 1-461. FABER, W. W., 0. R. ANDERSON, J. L. LINDSEY, and D. A. CARON. 1988. Algal-foraminiferal symbiosis in the plankGlobigerinella aequilateralis: I. Occurtonic foraminifer rence and stability of two mutually exclusive chrysophyte endosymbionts and their ultrastructure. J. Foraminiferal Res. 18:334-343. FELSENSTEIN, J. 1989. PHYLIP-phylogeny inference package. Version 3.2. Cladistics 5: 164-166. Fox, G. E., J. D. WISOTZKEY, and I? JURTSHUK. 1992. How close is close: 16s rRNA sequence identity may not be sufficient to guarantee species identity. Intl. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 42: 166-170. KENNETT, J. l?, and M. S. SRINIVASAN. 1983. Neogene planktonic foraminifera: a phylogenetic atlas. Hutchinson Ross Publishing Company, Stroudsburg, Pa. LANGER, M. R., and J. H. LIPPS. 1994. Phylogenetic incongruence between dinoflagellate endosymbionts (Symbiodin&m) and their host foraminifera (Sorites): small-subunit ribosoma1 RNA gene sequence evidence. Mar. Micropaleontol. 26:179-186. LEE, J. J., S. H. HUTNER, and E. C. BOVEE. 1985. An illustrated guide to the protozoa. Society of Protozoologists, Lawrence, Kans. LEE, J. J., C. G. WRAY, and C. LAWRENCE. 1995. Could foraminiferal zooxanthellae be derived from environmental Phylogeny of Symbiotic Dinoflagellates 1197 pools contributed by different coelenterate hosts? Acta Protozool. 34:75-85. LENAERS, G., C. A. SCHOLIN, Y. BHAUD, D. SAINT-HILAIRE, and M. HERZOG. 1991. A molecular phylogeny of dinoflagellate protists (Pyrrhophyta) inferred from the sequence of the 24s rRNA divergent domains Dl and D8. J. Mol. Evol. 32:53-63. MCNALLY, K. L., N. S. GOVIND, I? E. THOMI& and R. K. TRENCH. 1994. Small-subunit ribosomal DNA sequence analyses and a reconstruction of the inferred phylogeny among symbiotic dinoflagellates (Pyrrophyta). J. Phycol. 30:3 16-329. MEDLIN, L., H. J. ELWOOD, S. STICKEL, and M. L. SOGIN. 1988. The characterization of enzymatically amplified eukaryotic 16S-like rRNA-coding regions. Gene 71:491-499. ROWAN, R. 1991. Molecular systematics of symbiotic algae. J. Phycol. 27:661-666. ROWAN, R., and N. KNOWLTON. 1995. Intraspecific diversity and ecological zonation in coral-algal symbiosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92:2850-2853. ROWAN, R., and D. A. POWERS. 1991a. A molecular genetic classification of zooxanthellae and the evolution of animalalgal symbiosis. Science 251: 1348-135 1. 1991 b. Molecular genetic identification of symbiotic dinoflagellates (zooxanthellae). Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 71:6573. -. 1992. Ribosomal RNA sequences and the diversity of symbiotic dinoflagellates (zooxanthellae). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89:3639-3643. SADLER, L. A., K. L. MCNALLY, N. S. GOVIND, C. E BRUNK, and R. K. TRENCH. 1992. The nucleotide sequence of the small subunit ribosomal RNA gene from Symbiodinium piZosum, a symbiotic dinoflagellate. Cm-r. Genet. 21:409-416. SAIKI, R., I? S. WALSH, C. LEVENSON, and H. ERLICH. 1988. Primer-directed enzymatic amplification of DNA with a thermostable DNA polymerase. Science 239:487-494. SPERO, H. J. 1987. Symbiosis in the planktonic foraminifer, Orbulina universa, and the isolation of its symbiotic dinoflagellate, Gymnodinium beii sp. nov. J. Phycol. 23:307317. SPINDLER, M., 0. R. ANDERSON, C. HEMLEBEN, and A. W. H. BB. 1978. Light and electron microscopic observations of gametogenesis in Hastigerina pelagica (Foraminifera). J. Protozool. 25:427-433. SPINDLER, M., and C. HEMLEBEN. 1980. Endocytobiology endosymbiosis and cell biology. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. SWANBERG, N. R., 0. R. ANDERSON, and I? BENNETT. 1985. Spongiose spumellarian radiolaria: the functional morphology of the radiolarian skeleton with a description of Spongostaurus, a new genus. Mar. Micropaleontol. 9:455-464. SWANBERG, N. R., and D. A. CARON. 199 1. Patterns of sarcodine feeding in epipelagic oceanic plankton. J. Plankton Res. 13:287-3 12. SWOFFORD, D. L. 1990. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony. Version 3.0. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign. TAYLOR,D. L. 197 1. Ultrastructure of the ‘zooxanthella’ Endodinium chattonii in situ. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 51:227-234. WALSH, I? S., D. A. METZGER, and R. HIGUCHI. 1991. Chelex 100 as a medium for simple extraction of DNA for PCR-based typing from forensic material. Biotechniques 10:506-5 13. MITCHELL SOGIN, reviewing Accepted July 18, 1996 editor