Since
whales do not cremate their dead, there exists a surprising community
of extreme specialists who depend on sunken cetacean carcasses for
sustenance and habitation. Within this group is the bone-eating
polychaete worm, Osedax,
an especially specific specialist that permeates whale bones with
root-like structures. These structures are brimming with bacterial
symbionts hypothesized to break bone down into nutrients which their
host can use. Osedax
depends entirely on these symbionts for nutrition, as it lacks a
mouth and gut, like its fellow Siboglinidae member, the hydrothermal
vent worm Riftia
pachptila.
Due the rarity of whalefall events, only 5 Osedax
species
have had their
symbionts identified and so far all fall within the Oceanospirillales
of the Gammaproteobacteria. This study aimed to fill in the knowledge
gap regarding Osedax
endosymbiont diversity and distribution within individuals, using O.
mucofloris,
comparative 16S rRNA sequencing and fluorescence in situ
hybridization (FISH).
16S
rRNA gene analysis found a paraphylectic group of eight
phylogenetically distinct clusters (labelled A-H) with 99.5-99.7 %
similarity; most O. mucofloris
individuals were dominated by a single Oceanospirillales cluster.
Endosymbiont microdiversity was impressive, with 61 of 76 full rRNA
phylotype sequences being unique (differing by at least one
nucleotide from all other endosymbiont sequences) and the majority of
individual hosts had phylotypes unique to them, sometimes as many as
nine. Geographic patterns of endosymbionts distribution showed no
clear pattern, contrasting with clear depth patterns,
as statistical and 16S rRNA analyses demonstrated strong phylogenetic
distinctions between Osedax
species found in shallow and deep water (<500-1000m<). Given
the close relatedness of the host species studied, endosymbiote
phylogeny is a more likely cause of depth differences, since
endosymbionts likely have a free-living stage during which they
infect a host.
FISH
confirmed endosymbiont presence in O. mucofloris
root tissues and revealed further diversity undetected by 16S rRNA
sequencing, as general FISH probes for Osedax
endosymbionts hybridized to novel endosymbionts which did not belong
to any of the eight known phylogenetic clusters. FISH demonstrated
dominance of cluster A across most hosts, closely associated with
clusters B, C, D and E. FISH analysis of small sections of root
tissue suggested low endosymbiont co-occurrence within bacteriocytes,
with a single cluster dominating most and minor clusters occupying
peripheral root tissue. Endosymbionts also occurred occasionally in
epithelial cells and often in the root surface mucus layer, also
dominated by a single cluster.
Apart
from endosymbionts, other O. mucofloris
associated bacteria included Bacteroidetes, Epsilonproteobacteria and
Alphaproteobacteria, both of which were never found in worm tissue,
had way less diverse sequence libraries than the Oceanospirillales
and included whalefall-associated members of these groups. These
bacteria are present as epibiota on all Osedax
species and their role is unknown.
Endosymbiont
and host genetic similarities did not correlate and bacteria were
absent from eggs or sperm, strongly indicating horizontal
transmission as the means of endosymbiont acquisition. 68% of
endosymbiont variability was explained by the effect of host
individuality, resulting from heterogeneity in the environment, the
greater size and diversity of water column bacteria compared to that
of the hosts and competition between endosymbionts.
Despite
its unique and unusual nature, this symbiosis lends itself well to
being a model for understanding symbiosis formation, symbiont
transmission and the influence of genomic associations between host
and symbiont on evolution. Particularly prominent is the
compartmentalisation of distinct endosymbionts, suggesting a strong
requirement for the separation of their respective metabolic roles.
The mysterious role of the bacterial epibiota could well be one
involving endosymbiont acquirement, depending on whether the skin is
the route of uptake or not and also the relative timing of epibiota and endosymbiont
acquirement during development. Much is unanswered regarding these
bone-worms; how do their symbioses change between growing on whale
bone and waiting for the next whalefall? Is all whale bone equally
usable by all symbioses? Do shallow water Siboglinid worms also
favour horizontal endosymbiont transmission, or is is vertical
transmission just too conservative to succeed in the harsh, nutrient
scarce deep ocean? How significant is the role of bone being broken
down by these endosymbionts in terms of carbon, nitrogen and
phosphorus cycling?
Verna,
C., Ramette, A., Wiklund, H., Dahlgren, T. G., Glover, A. G., Gaill,
F., & Dubilier, N. (2010). High symbiont diversity in the
bone‐eating worm Osedax
mucofloris
from shallow whale‐falls in the North Atlantic. Environmental
Microbiology,
12(8),
2355-2370.
This is an extremely interesting post! It would be very interesting to know if the symbionts are inherited of gained from the environment as in the similar worm Riftia pachyptila - maybe further studies searching for genes coding chemotaxis or heterotrophic metabolism that may indicate a free living stage would help this. I would also be interesting to know if the endosymbionts are physically compartmentalized or separate themselves within the root structure, and if there are any differences in the internal enviroment in the root structure that might account for such separation.
ReplyDeleteOsedax life cycles have been studied and it seems that the gametes released into the water column contain no symbionts; after fertilization, the embryos form lecithotrophic trocophores which persist for 16-24 days before settling. So it seems they also acquire their symbionts horizontally. I guess that infection by the bacteria triggers morphological changes such as apoptosis of digestive system cells, just like in Riftia pachyptila.
DeleteDid they look at fertilized eggs at all? It could be that the symbiosis occurs very early on in development. I think i heard that they are viable for a long time, which seems pretty obvious when your floating around the ocean looking for a dead whale. Maybe during this time they acquire the microbes. Otherwise how do they grow into adults without the ability to take on nutrients?
ReplyDeleteThey do not mention fertilized eggs anywhere. After fertilization, a free-living trocophore larvae is formed in about 24 hours; these larvae then swim for 9-16 days before finally settling. These stage does not feed, so if the symbionts are acquired during this phase, then they must enter through its external body surfaces. Whilst maternal provisioning sustains them during this time, the acquirement of symbionts likely occurs after settlement, when there is bone to feed on.
Delete