Neglected Biological Features in Cnidarians Self-Nonself Recognition

  • Baruch Rinkevich
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (AEMB, volume 738)


Cnidarian taxa, currently of the most morphologically simplest extant metazoans, exhibit many salient properties of innate immunity that are shared by most Animalia. One hallmark constituent of immunity exhibit by most cnidarians is histocompatibility, marked by wide spectrum of allogeneic and xenogeneic effector arms, progressing into tissue fusions oRinflammatory rejections. Scientific propensity on cnidarians immunity, while discussing historecognition as the ground for immunity in these organisms, concentrates on host-parasitic and disease oriented studies, or focuses on genome approaches that search for gene homologies with the vertebrates. Above tendency for mixing up between historecognition and host-parasitic/disease, highlights a serious obstacle for the progress in our understanding of cnidarian immunobiology. Here I critically overview four ‘forgotten’ cnidarian immune features, namely, specificity, immunological memory, allogeneic maturation and natural chimerism, presenting insights into perspectives that are prerequisite for any discussion on cnidarian evolution. It is evident that cnidarian historecognition embraces elements that the traditional field of vertebrate immunology has never encountered (i.e., variety of cytotoxic outcomes, different types of effector mechanisms, chimerism, etc.). Also, cnidarian immune features dictating that different individuals within the same species seem to respond differently to the same immunological challenge, is far from that recorded in the vertebrates’ adaptive immunity. While above features may be connected to host-parasitic and disease phenomena and effector arms, they clearly attest to their unique critical roles in shaping cnidarians historecognition, calling for improved distinction between historecognition and host-response/ disease disciplines. The research on cnidarians immunity still suffers from the lack of accepted synthesis of what historecognition is or does. Mounting of an immune response against conspecifics or xenogeneic organisms should therefore be clearly demarcated from other paths of immunity, till cnidarian innate immunity as a whole is expounded.


Coral Reef Soft Coral Immunological Memory Gorgonian Coral Tissue Fusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Rinkevich B. Invertebrates versus vertebrates innate immunity: in the light of evolution. Scand J Immunol 1999; 50:456–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rinkevich B. Allorecognition and xenorecognition in reef corals: A decade of interactions. Hydrobiologia 2004; 430/531:443–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dunn SR. Immunorecognition and immunoreceptors in the Cnidaria. Invertebrate Survival Journal 2009; 6:7–14.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Leddy V, Green DR. Historecognition of the Cnidaria. In: Warr GW, Cohen R, eds. Phylogenesis of Immune Functions. CRC Press, 1991:103–116.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rinkevich B. Immune responsiveness in colonial marine invertebrates revisited: the concourse of puzzles. In: Söderhäll K, Vasta G, Iwanaga S, eds. Invertebrate Immunology. Fair Haven, NJ: SOS Publications 1996:55–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rinkevich B. Links between alloresponses and their genetic background in colonial urochordates and cnidarians: evidence for the recognition of “nonself” as opposed to “self”. In: Stolen JS, Fletcher TC, Bayne CJ et al, eds. Modulators of Immune Responses, The Evolutionary Trail. Fair Haven, NJ: SOS Publications, 1996:1–13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lang JC, Chornesky EA. Competition between scleractinian reef corals—a review of the mechanism and effects. In: Dubinsky Z, ed. Ecosystems of the world; Coral Reefs. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1990:209–252.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tanner JE. Interspecific competition reduces fitness in scleractinian corals. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 1997; 214:19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rinkevich B, Loya Y. Intraspecific competitive networks in the Red Sea coral Stylophora pistillata. Coral Reefs 1983; 1:161–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rinkevich B, Shashar, N, Liberman T. Nontransitive xenogeneic interactions between four common Red Sea sessile invertebrates. Proc 7th Int Coral Reef Symp Guam 1993; 2:833–839.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rinkevich B, Frank U, Bak RPM et al. Alloimmune responses between Acropora hemprichi conspecifics: nontransitive patterns of overgrowth and delayed cytotoxicity. Mar Biol 1994; 118:731–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olano CT, Bigger CH. Phagocytic activities of the gorgonian coral Swiftia exserta. J Invertebr Pathol 2000; 76:176–184.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Peach MB, Hoegh-Guldberg O. Sweeper polyps of the coral Goniopora tenuidens (Scleractinia: Poritidae). Invertebr Biol 1999; 118:1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Koh EGL. Do scleractinian corals engage in chemical warfare against microbes? J Chem Ecol 1997; 23:379–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jokiel PL, Bigger CH. Aspects of histocompatibility and regeneration in the solitary reef coral Fungia scutaria. Biol Bull 1994; 186:72–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Abelson A, Loya Y. Interspecific aggression among stony corals in Eilat, Red Sea: a hierarchy of aggression ability and related parameters. Bull Mar Sci 1999; 65:851–860.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aerts LAM. Dynamics behind standoff interactions in three reef sponge species and the coral Montastraea cavernosa. P.S.Z.N. Mar Ecol 2000; 21:191–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alino PM, Sammarco PW, Coll GC. Competitive strategies in soft corals (Coelenterata, Octocorallia). IV. Environmentally induced reversals in competitive superiority. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1992; 81:129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bak RPM, Termaat RM, Dekker R. Complexity of coral interactions: influence of time, location of interaction and epifauna. Mar Biol 1982; 69:215–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bigger CH, Olano CT. Alloimmune cellular responses of the gorgonian coral Swiftia exserta. J Immunol 1993; 150:134A.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bruno JF, Witman JD. Defense mechanisms of scleractinian cup corals against overgrowth by colonial invertebrates. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 1996; 207:229–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chadwick-Furman NE, Rinkevich B. A complex allorecognition system in a reef building coral: delayed responses, reversals and nontransitive hierarchies. Coral Reefs 1994; 13:57–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 24.
    Ding JL, Fung FMY, Chou LB. Cytotoxic effects of mucus from coral Galaxea fascicularis. J Mar Biotechnol 1994; 2:27–33.Google Scholar
  24. 25.
    Griffith JK. Occurrence of aggressive mechanisms during interactions between soft corals (Octocorallia: Alcyoniidae) and other corals on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Mar Freshw Res 1997; 48:129–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 26.
    Frank U, Rinkevich R. Nontransitive patterns of historecognition phenomena in the Red Sea hydrocoral Millepora dichotoma. Mar Biol 1994; 118:723–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 27.
    Frank U, Rinkevich B. Alloimmune memory is absent in the Red Sea hydrocoral Millepora dichtoma. J Exp Zool 2001; 291:25–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 28.
    Frank U, Bak RPM, Rinkevich B. Allorecognition responses in the soft coral Parerythropodium fulvum fulvum from the Red Sea. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 1996; 197:191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 29.
    Frank U, Oren O, Loya Y et al. Alloimmune maturation in the coral Stylophora pistillata is achieved through three distinctive stages, four months post metamorphosis. Proc R Soc Lond B 1997; 264:99–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 30.
    Frank U, Brickner I, Rinkevich B et al. Allogeneic and xenogeneic interactions in reef-building corals may induce tissue growth without calcification. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1995; 24:181–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 31.
    Hidaka M, Yurugi K, Sunagawa S et al. Contact reactions between young colonies of the coral Pocillopora damicornis. Coral Reefs 1997; 16:13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 32.
    Kvell K, Cooper EL, Engelmann P et al. Blurring borders: Innate immunity with adaptive features. Clin and Dev Immunol 2007; doi:10.1155/2007/83671.Google Scholar
  32. 33.
    Rast JP, Messier-Solek C. Marine invertebrate genome sequences and our evolving understanding of animal immunity. Biol Bull 2008; 214:274–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 34.
    Miller DJ, Hemmrich G, Ball EE et al. The innate immune repertoire in Cnidaria—ancestral complexity and stochastic gene loss. Genome Biol 2007; 8:R59 (doi:10.1186/gb-2007-8-4-r59).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 35.
    Sunagawa S, DeSalvo MK, Voolstra CR et al. Identification and gene expression analysis of a taxonomically restricted cysteine-rich protein family in reef-building corals. PLoS ONE 2009; 4:e4865. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0004865.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 36.
    Hibino TM, Loza-Coll M, Messier C et al. The immune gene repertoire encoded in the purple sea urchin genome. Dev Biol 2006; 300:349–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 37.
    Hughes AL. Natural selection and the diversi?cation of vertebrate immune effectors. Immunol Rev 2002; 190:161–168.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 38.
    Frank U, Leitz T, Müller WEG. The hydroid Hydractinia: a versatile, informative cnidarian representative. BioEssays 2001; 23:963-971.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    Neigel JE. Recognition of self or nonself? Theoretical implications and empirical test. In: Grosberg RK, Hedgecock D, Nelson K, eds. Invertebrate Historecognition, New York: Plenum Press 1988; 127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 40.
    Neigel JE, Avise JC. Clonal diversity and population structure in a reef-building coral, Acropora cervicornis: self recognition analysis and demographic interpretation. Evolution 1983; 37:437–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 41.
    Tanner JE. Experimental analysis of digestive hierarchies in coral assemblages. Proc 7th Int Coral Reef Symp Guam 1993; 1:569–574.Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    Genin A, Karp L, Miroz A. Effects of flow on competitive superiority in scleractinian corals. Limnol Oceanogr 1994; 39:913–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 43.
    Alino PM, Sammarco PW, Coll JC. Competitive strategies in soft corals (Coelenterata, Octocorallia). IV. Environmentally induced reversals in competitive superiority. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 1992; 81:129–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 44.
    Van Veghel MLJ, Cleary DFR, Bak RPM. Interspecific interactions and competitive ability of the polymorphic reef-building coral Montastrea annularis. Bull Mar Sci 1996; 58:792–803.Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    Frank U, Bak RPM, Rinkevich B. Allorecognition responses in the soft coral Parerythropodium fulvum fulvum from the Red Sea. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 1996; 197:191–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 46.
    Nicotra ML, Powell AE, Rosengarten RD et al. Hypervariable invertebrate allodeterminant. Curr Biol 2009; 19:583–589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 47.
    Kurtz J. Memory in the innate and adaptive immune systems. Microbes Infect 2004; 6:1410–1417.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 48.
    Brehélin M, Roch P. Specificity, learning and memory in the innate immune response. Invertebr Surviv J 2008; 5:103–109Google Scholar
  48. 49.
    Hildemann WH, Bigger CH, Johnston IS. Histoincompatibility reactions and allogeneic polymorphism among invertebrates. Transplant Proc 1979; 11:1136–1141.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 50.
    Salter-Cid L, Bigger CH. Alloimmunity in the gorgonian coral Swiftia excerta. Biol Bull 1991; 181:127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 51.
    Sauer KP, Muller M, Weber M. Alloimmune memory for glycoprotein recognition molecules in sea anemones competing for space. Mar Biol 1986; 92:73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 52.
    Kurtz J, Franz K. Innate defence: evidence for memory in invertebrate immunity. Nature 2003; 425:37–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 53.
    Little TJ, O’Connor B, Colegrave N et al. Maternal transfer of strain-specific immunity in an invertebrate. Curr Biol 2003; 13:489–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 54.
    Hellberg ME, Taylor MS. Genetic analysis of sexual reproduction in the dendrophylliid coral Balanophyllia elegans. Mar Biol 2002; 141:629–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 55.
    Hidaka M. Tissue compatibility between colonies and between newly settled larvae of Pocillopora damicornis. Coral Reefs 1985; 4:111–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 56.
    Amar KO, Rinkevich B. Mounting of erratic histoincompatible responses in hermatypic corals: a multi-years interval comparison. J Exp Biol 2009 in press.Google Scholar
  56. 57.
    Barki Y, Gateňo D, Graur D et al. Soft-coral natural chimerism: a window in ontogeny allows the creation of entities comprised of incongruous parts. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2002; 231:91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 58.
    Shenk MA, Buss LW. Ontogenetic changes in fusibility in the colonial hydroid Hydractinia sumbiolongicarpus. J Exp Zool 1991; 257:549–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 59.
    Lange RG, Dick MH, Muller WA. Specificity and early ontogeny of historecognition in the hydroid Hydractinia. J Exp Zool 1992; 262:307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 60.
    Bavestrello G, Cerrano C. Aggregate colonies in Eudendrium glomeratum Picard 1952 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa, Anthomedusae). Sci Mar 1992; 56:333–335.Google Scholar
  60. 61.
    Cadavid LF, Powell AE, Nicotra ML et al. An invertebrate histocompatibility complex. Genetics 2004; 167:357–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 62.
    Nozawa Y, Loya Y. Genetic relationship and maturity state of the allorecognition system affect contact reactions in juvenile Seriatopora corals. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2005; 286:115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 63.
    Rinkevich B, Weissman IL. Chimeras in colonial invertebrates: a synergistic symbiosis or somatic-and germ-cell parasitism? Symbiosis 1987; 4:117–134.Google Scholar
  63. 64.
    Rinkevich B. Natural chimerism in colonial urochordates. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol 2005; 322:93–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 65.
    Amar KO, Chadwick NE, Rinkevich B. Coral kin aggregations exhibit mixed allogeneic reactions and enhanced fitness during early ontogeny. BMC Evol Biol 2008; 8:126–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 66.
    Rinkevich B. Will two walk together, except they have agreed? J Evol Biol 2004; 17:1178–1179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 67.
    Rinkevich B. Immunology of human implantation: from the invertebrates’ point of view. Human Reprod 1998; 13:455–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 68.
    Rinkevich B. Human natural chimerism: An acquired character or a vestige of evolution? Human Immunol 2001; 62:651–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 69.
    Pancer Z, Gershon H, Rinkevich B. Coexistence and possible parasitism of somatic and germ cell lines in chimeras of the colonial urochordate Botryllus schlosseri. Biol Bull 1995; 189:106–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 70.
    Paz G, Rinkevich B. Morphological consequences for multi-partner chimerism in Botrylloides, a colonial urochordate. Dev Comp Immunol 2002; 26:615–622.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 71.
    Rinkevich B. Characteristics of allogeneic resorption in Botrylloides from the Mediterranean coast of Israel. Dev Comp Immunol 1995; 19:21–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 72.
    Rinkevich B. Bi—vs. multi-chimerism in colonial urochordates: a hypothesis for links between natural tissue transplantation, allogenetics and evolutionary ecology. Exp Clin Immunogenet 1996; 13:61–69.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 73.
    Rinkevich B, Yankelevich I. Environmental split between germ cell parasitism and somatic cell synergism in chimeras of a colonial urochordate. J Exp Biol 2004; 207:3531–3536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 74.
    Sabbadin A, Astorri C, Chimeras and histocompatibility in the colonial ascidian Botryllus schlosseri. Dev Comp Immunol 1998; 12:737–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 75.
    Stoner DS, Rinkevich B, Weissman IL. Heritable germ and somatic cell lineage competitions in chimeric colonial protochordates. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1999; 96:9148–9153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 76.
    Puill-Stephan E, Willis BL, van Herwerden L et al. Chimerism in wild adult populations of the broadcast spawning coral Acropora millepora on the Great Barrier Reef. PLoS ONE 2009; 4:e7751. doi:10.1371/ journal.pone.0007751.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 77.
    Raymundo LJ, Maypa AP. Getting bigger faster: Mediation of size-specific mortality via fusion in juvenile coral transplants. Ecol Appl 2004; 14:281–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 78.
    Cadavid LF, Powell AE, Nicotra ML et al. An invertebrate histocompatibility complex. Genetics 2004; 167:357–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 79.
    Gild S, Frank U, Mokady O. Allogeneic interactions in Hydractinia: is the transitory chimera beneficial? Int J Dev Biol 2003; 47:433–438.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 80.
    Grosberg RK, Quinn JF. The genetic control and consequences of kin recognition by the larvae of a colonial marine invertebrate. Nature 1986; 322:456–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 81.
    Rinkevich B, Shapira M. Multi-partner urochordate chimeras outperform two-partner chimerical entities. Oikos 1999; 87:315–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 82.
    Buss LW. Somatic cell parasitism and the evolution of somatic tissue compatibility. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993; 79:5337–5341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 83.
    Boschma H. On the post larval development of the coral Maeandra aerolata (L.). fap. Tortugas Lab., Carnegie Inst. Washington 1929; 26:131–147.Google Scholar
  83. 84.
    Duerden JE. Aggregated colonies in Madreporarian corais. Am Nat 1902; 36:461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 85.
    Buss LW, Shenk AM. Hydroid allorecognition regulates competition at both the level of the colony and at the level of the cell lineage. In: Marchalonis JJ, Reinish C, eds. Defense Molecules. New York: A.R. Liss Press 1990; 85–106.Google Scholar
  85. 86.
    Schwarz RS, Hodes-Villamar L, Fitzpatrick KA et al. A gene family of putative immune recognition molecules in the hydroid Hydractinia. Immunogenetics 2007; 59:233–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 87.
    Mydlarz LD, Holthouse SF, Peters EC et al. Cellular responses in sea fan corals: Granular amoebocytes react to pathogen and climate stressors. PLoS ONE 2008; 3:e1811. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 88.
    Palmer CV, Mydlarz LD, Willis BL. Evidence of an inflammatory-like response in nonnormally pigmented tissues of two scleractinian corals. Proc R Soc 2008; B275:2687–2693.Google Scholar
  88. 89.
    Grosberg RK. The evolution of allorecognition specificity in clonal invertebrates. Q Rev Biol 1988; 63:377–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 90.
    Kvennefors ECE, Leggat W, Hoegh-Guldberg O et al. An ancient and variable mannose-binding lectin from the coral Acropora millepora binds both pathogens and symbionts. Dev Comp Immunol 2008; 32:1582–1592.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 91.
    Ritchie KB. Regulation of microbial populations by coral surface mucus and mucus-associated bacteria. Mar Ecol Prog Ser 2006; 322:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 92.
    Ovchinnikova TV, Baladin SV, Aleshina GM et al. Aurelin, a novel antimicrobial peptide from jellyfish Aurelia aurita with structural features of defensins and channel-blocking toxins. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 2006; 348:514–523.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 93.
    Loker ES, Adema CM, Zhang SM et al. Invertebrate immune systems—not homogeneous, not simple, not well understood. Immunol Rev 2004; 198:10–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 94.
    Kortschak RD, Samuel G, Saint R et al. EST analysis of the cnidarian, Acropora millepora, reveals extensive gene loss and rapid sequence divergence in the model invertebrates. Curr Biol 2003; 13:2190–2195.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 95.
    Technau U, Rudd S, Maxwel LP et al. Maintenance of ancestral complexity and nonmetazoan genes in two basal cnidarians. Trends Genet 2005; 21:633–639.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 96.
    Dishaw LJ, Smith SL, Bigger CH. Characterization of a C3-like cDNA in a coral: phylogenetic implications. Immunogenetics 2005; 57:535–548.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 97.
    Rodriguez-Lanetty M, Phillips WS, Weis VM. Transcriptome analysis of a cnidarian-dinoflagellate mutualism reveals complex modulation of host gene expression. BMC Gen 2006; 7:23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 98.
    Couch CS, Mydlarz LD, Harvell CD et al. Variation in measures of immunocompetence of sea fan coral, Gorgonia ventalina, in the Florida Keys. Mar Biol 2008; 155:281–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 99.
    Mydlarz LD, Jones LE, Harvell CD. Innate immunity, environmental drivers and disease ecology of marine and freshwateRinvertebrates. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 2006; 37:251–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 100.
    Iwanaga S, Lee BL. Recent advances in the innate immunity of invertebrate animals. J Bioch Mol Biol 2005; 38:128–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Landes Bioscience and Springer Science+Business Media 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Baruch Rinkevich
    • 1
  1. 1.Israel Oceanographic and Limnological ResearchNational Institute of OceanographyHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations