Advertisement

Marine Biology

, 166:31 | Cite as

The effects of symbiotic state and nutrient availability on the cnidom in the model sea anemone, Exaiptasia diaphana

  • Katrina A. GundlachEmail author
  • Glen M. Watson
Original paper

Abstract

The symbiotic relationship between corals and zooxanthellae allows coral reefs to thrive. The symbiont translocates nutrients which it derives from photosynthesis to the coral, which then uses the nutrients for its growth, reproduction, metabolism, and the maintenance of structural integrity. The majority of the coral’s nutritional input is lost when the coral loses its symbionts in a bleaching event. However, the importance of the symbiotic state to the cnidom of corals remains unknown. The facultative symbiotic anemone Exaiptasia diaphana, common name Aiptasia, is widely used as a model organism to understand the symbiotic relationship between coral and their symbionts. We experimentally rendered Aiptasia aposymbiotic using a menthol treatment. We exposed symbiotic anemones and aposymbiotic anemones to differing feeding regimes to investigate the impact of nutritional input on the cnidom. Symbiotic state and feeding regime significantly affected the: ratio of cnida types in tentacles; the mean volume of cnidae; and the mean density of cnidae in Aiptasia. When Aiptasia becomes aposymbiotic, its tentacles possess more spirocysts and fewer penetrant-type nematocysts. Furthermore, cnidae in aposymbiotic anemones tended to be smaller than in symbiotic anemones. In addition, the ratio of cnida types and the mean volume of cnidae were significantly affected by nutrient availability in aposymbiotic anemones. When nutrients were exogenously supplied, the cnidom of aposymbiotic anemones became comparable to that of symbiotic anemones. Moreover, the mean size of cnidae significantly increased. Thus, the cnidom is a dynamic entity that is significantly influenced by the symbiotic state of the anemone and/or the availability of nutrients.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

This research was funded by the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Graduate Student Organization. The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed. All procedures performed in studies involving animals were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted. This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Ainsworth TD, Heron SF, Ortiz JC, Mumby PJ, Grech A, Ogawa D, Eakin CM, Leggat W (2016) Climate change disables coral bleaching protection on the Great Barrier Reef. Science 352:338–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumgarten S, Simakov O, Esherick LY, Liew YJ, Lehnert EM, Michell CT, Li Y, Hambleton EA, Guse A, Oates ME et al (2015) The genome of Aiptasia, a sea anemone model for coral symbiosis. PNAS 112:11893–11898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayer T, Aranda M, Sunagawa S, Yum LK, DeSalvo MK, Lindquist E, Coffroth MA, Voolstra CR, Medina M (2012) Symbiodinium transcriptomes: genome insights into the dinoflagellate symbionts of reef-building corals. PLoS One 7:e35269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bieri T, Onishi M, Xiang T, Grossman AR, Pringle JR (2016) Relative contributions of various cellular mechanisms to loss of algae during cnidarian bleaching. PLoS One 11:e0152693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown BE (1997) Coral bleaching: causes and consequences. Coral Reefs 16:S129–S138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown BE, Suharsono (1990) Damage and recovery of coral reefs affected by El Niño related seawater warming in the Thousand Islands, Indonesia. Coral Reefs 8:163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen MC, Hong MC, Huang YS, Liu MC, Cheng YM, Fang LS (2005) ApRab11, a cnidarian homologue of the recycling regulatory protein Rab11, is involved in the establishment and maintenance of the AiptasiaSymbiodinium endosymbiosis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 338:1607–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davy SK, Allemand D, Weis VM (2012) Cell biology of cnidarian-dinoflagellate symbiosis. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 76:229–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Downs CA, Kramarky-Winter E, Martinez J, Kushmaro A, Woodley CM, Loya Y, Ostrander GK (2009) Symbiophagy as a cellular mechanism for coral bleaching. Autophagy 5:211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fabricius KE (2011) Factors determining the resilience of coral reefs to eutrophication: a review and conceptual model. In: Dubinksy Z, Stambler N (eds) Coral reefs: an ecosystem in transition. Springer, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0114-4_28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Falkowski PG, Dubinsky Z, Muscatine L, McCloskey L (1993) Population control in symbiotic corals. Bioscience 43:606–611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fautin DG (1988) Importance of nematocysts to actinian taxonomy. In: Hessinger DA, Lenhoff HM (eds) The biology of nematocysts. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  13. Fautin DG (2009) Structural diversity, systematics, and evolution of cnidae. Toxicon 54:1054–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fitt WK, Trench RK (1983) Endocytosis of the symbiotic dinoflagellate Symbiodinium microdriaticum Freudenthal by endodermal cells of the scyphistomae of Cassiopea xamachana and resistance of the algae to host digestion. J Cell Sci 64:195–212PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fransolet D, Roberty S, Herman AC, Tonk L, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Plumier JC (2013) Increased cell proliferation and mucocyte density in the sea anemone Aiptasia pallida recovering from bleaching. PLoS One 8:e65015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gates RD (1990) Seawater temperature and sublethal coral bleaching in Jamaica. Coral Reefs 8:193–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E, Harvell CD, Sale PF, Edwards AJ, Caldiera K et al (2007) Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science 318:1737–1742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kass-Simon G, Scappaticci AA (2002) The behavioral and developmental physiology of nematocysts. Can J Zool 80:1772–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. LaJeunesse TC, Parkinson JE, Gabrielson PW, Jeong HJ, Reimer JD, Voolstra CR, Santos SR (2018) Systematic revision of symbiodiniaceae highlights the antiquity and diversity of coral endosymbionts. Curr Biol 28(16):2570–2580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lehnert EM, Burriesci MS, Pringle JR (2012) Developing the anemone Aiptasia as a tractable model for cnidarian-dinoflagellate symbiosis: the transcriptome of aposymbiotic A. pallida. BMC Genom 13:271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lehnert EM, Mouchka ME, Burriesci MS, Gallo ND, Schwarz JA, Pringle JR (2014) Extensive differences in gene expression between symbiotic and aposymbiotic cnidarians. G3 Genes Genomes Genet 4:277–295Google Scholar
  22. Lesser MP, Farrell JH (2004) Exposure to solar radiation increases damage to both host tissues and algal symbionts during thermal stress. Coral Reefs 23:367–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Louis YD, Bhagooli R, Kenkel CD, Baker AC, Dyall SD (2017) Gene expression biomarkers of heat stress in scleractinian corals: promises and limitations. Comp Biochem Physiol Part C Toxicol Pharmacol 191:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mariscal RN (1974) Nematocysts. In: Muscatine L, Lenhoff HM (eds) Coelenterate biology: reviews and new perspectives. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Matthews JL, Sproles AE, Oakley CA, Grossman AR, Weis VM, Davy SK (2016) Menthol-induced bleaching rapidly and effectively provides experimental aposymbiotic sea anemones (Aiptasia sp.) for symbiosis investigations. J Exp Biol 219:306–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mumby PJ, van Woesik R (2014) Consequences of ecological, evolutionary and biogeochemical uncertainty for coral reef responses to climatic stress. Curr Biol 24:R413–R423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Östman C (2000) A guideline to nematocyst nomenclature and classification, and some notes on the systematic value of nematocysts. Sci Marina 64:31–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palumbi SR, Barshis DJ, Traylor-Knowles N, Bay RA (2014) Mechanisms of reef coral resistance to future climate change. Science 344:895–898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robson EA (1988) Problems of supply and demand for cnidae in anthozoa. In: Hessinger DA, Lenhoff HM (eds) The biology of nematocysts. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  30. Seneca FO, Palumbi SR (2015) The role of transcriptome resilience in resistance of corals to bleaching. Mol Ecol 24:1467–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sunagawa S, Wilson EC, Thaler M, Smith ML, Caruso C, Pringle JR, Weis VM, Medina M, Schwarz JA (2009) Generation and analysis of transcriptomic resources for a model system on the rise: the sea anemone Aiptasia pallida and its dinoflagellate endosymbiont. BMC Genom 10:258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang JT, Chen YY, Tew KS, Meng PJ, Chen CA (2012) Physiological and biochemical performances of menthol-induced aposymbiotic corals. PLoS One 7:e46406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Watson GM, Wood RL (1988) Colloquium on terminology. In: Hessinger DA, Lenhoff HM (eds) The biology of nematocysts. Academic Press, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  34. Woolridge SA (2010) Is the coral-algae symbiosis really ‘mutually beneficial’ for the partners? BioEssays 32:615–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yellowlees D, Rees TAV, Leggat W (2008) Metabolic interactions between algal symbionts and invertebrate hosts. Plant Cell Environ 31:679–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kewalo Marine Laboratory, University of Hawaii, ManoaHonoluluUSA
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of Louisiana, LafayetteLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations