Obligate mixotrophy of the pigmented dinoflagellate Polykrikos lebourae (Dinophyceae, Dinoflagellata)
- Author: Kim Sunju, Yoon Jihae, Park Myung Gil
- Publish: ALGAE Volume 30, Issue1, p35~47, 15 March 2015
-
ABSTRACT
The marine sand-dwelling dinoflagellate
Polykrikos lebourae possesses obvious gold-brown pigmented plastids as well as taeniocyst-nematocyst complex structures. Despite of the presence of the visible plastids, previous attempts to establish this species in culture all failed and thus the unavailability of cultures of this species has posed a major obstacle to further detailed exploration of ecophysiology of the dinoflagellate. Here, we isolatedP. lebourae from sandy sediment of an intertidal flat on Korean western coast, successfully established it in culture, and have been maintaining the stock culture over the past 3 years. Using this stock culture, we explored phagotrophy and potential prey resources ofP. lebourae , growth and grazing responses ofP. lebourae to different prey organisms, the effect of prey concentration on growth and grazing rates and gross growth efficiency (GGE) ofP. lebourae when fed three different prey organisms, and the growth kinetics ofP. lebourae under different light regimes.P. lebourae captured prey cells using a tow filament and then phagocytized them through the posterior end. The dinoflagellate was capable of ingesting a broad range of prey species varying in size, but not all prey species tested in this study supported its sustained growth. GGE ofP. leboura e was extremely high at low prey concentration and moderate or low at high prey concentrations, indicating thatP. lebourae grows heterotrophically at high prey concentrations but its growth seems to be more dependent on a certain growth factor or photosynthesis of plastids derived from the prey. In the presence of prey in excess,P. lebourae grew well at moderate light intensity of 40 µmol photons m−2s−1, but did not grow at dim and high (10 or 120 µmol photons m−2s−1) light intensities. Our results suggest that the benthic dinoflagellateP. lebourae is an obligate mixotroph, requiring both prey and light for sustained growth and survival.
-
KEYWORD
benthic cryptophytes , gross growth efficiency , growth response , obligate mixotrophy , Polykrikos lebourae , sand-dwelling dinoflagellate
-
Polykrikoid dinoflagellates have distinctive morphological features compared to other dinoflagellates as they form multinucleated pseudocolonies. The polykrikoid dinoflagellates divide into two genera, Pheopolykrikos Chatton and
Polykrikos Bütschli, with the type species beingPheopolykrikos beauchamphii andPolykrikos schwartzii , respectively. At present, they include 8 species (i.e.,Ph. beauchamphii in the genusPheopolykrikos andP. geminatum, P. hartmannii, P. herdmanae, P. kofoidii, P. lebourae, P. schwartzii , andP. tanit in the genusPolykrikos ). Among these species, classification of one species,P. hartmanii has been controversial, transferring back and forth between the two genera over the past 80 years (Zimmermann 1930, Matsuoka and Fukuyo 1986, Hoppenrath et al. 2010) because there was no consistency about taxonomic keys (e.g., ratio of the numbers of zooids and nuclei of pseudocolonies, photosynthesis, a single-celled life cycle stage) to classify the two genera.Polykrikoid species are all known to be marine planktonic dinoflagellates, except for the benthic species
Polykrikos lebourae Herdman, which resides in intertidal sandy sediments. Pseudocolonies ofP. lebourae consist of eight zooids and two nuclei, although reduced pseudocolonies comprised of four or five zooids with one nucleus have been observed (Hoppenrath and Leander 2007b ). Pseudocolonies ofP. lebourae are laterally flattened and lacking zooid borders although each zooid has its own a pair of flagella and cingulum. Descriptions ofP. lebourae have included both heterotrophic and photosynthetic forms (Herdman 1923, Balech 1956, Dragesco 1965). The non-pigmented, heterotrophic form ofP. lebourae is now classified as a different species, namelyP. herdmanae Hoppenrath et Leander, because the molecular phylogeny placed it into a separate lineage from the photosynthetic form (Hoppenrath and Leander 2007b ).Polykrikos lebourae contains both plastids and taeniocyst-nematocyst complex structures likeP. hartmannii , but the plastid ofP. lebourae exhibits unusual ultrastructure, having only two enveloping membranes, thylakoids in stacks of two, and central pyrenoids devoid of thylakoids. By contrast,P. hartmannii possesses typical plastids in peridinin-containing dinoflagellates having three stacks of thylakoids and enveloping by three outer membranes (Hoppenrath and Leander 2007b ). Also, molecular phylogenetic relationships demonstrated thatP. lebourae is closely related to several heterotrophicPolykrikos species rather than to other phototrophic species within polykrikoids, suggesting that the plastids ofP. lebourae may be either acquired via an endosymbiotic replacement event following the reduction or loss of the peridinin-containing plastids, or be retained via kleptoplastidy (Hoppenrath and Leander 2007a , Tang et al. 2013). Despite the presence of plastids, however, previous attempt to establishP. lebourae in culture failed (e.g., Hoppenrath and Leander 2007b ) and thus the unavailability of cultures of this species has posed a major obstacle to further detailed exploration of ecophysiology and evolution of plastid of the dinoflagellate.Here, we isolated
P. lebourae from sandy sediment of an intertidal flat on Korean western coast, successfully established it in culture by supplying a benthic cryptophyte,Rhodomonas sp., as prey, and have maintained stock culture over the past 3 years. Using this stock culture, we explored 1) phagotrophy and potential prey resources ofP. lebourae , 2) growth and grazing responses ofP. lebourae to different prey organisms, 3) the effect of prey concentration on the growth and grazing rates and gross growth efficiency ofP. lebourae when fed three different prey organisms, and 4) the growth kinetics ofP. lebourae at different light intensities.Sediment samples were taken from Dongho beach of Korean western coast during low tide in November 2011. A trowel was gently scrapped over the surface of the sandy sediment and used to scoop sediment and ambient seawater into plastic bag. The samples were transported to the lab and observed at 100× to 400× magnification using an inverted microscope (IX-51; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). The benthic dinoflagellate
P. lebourae was isolated using a capillary pipette and grown in 30 psu f/2-Si medium (Guillard 1975) at 20℃ under 14 : 10 of light : dark cycle of cool-white fluorescent light at 40 µmol photons m−2s−1, with the cryptophyteRhodomonas sp. 2 (rCR04) provided as prey. Five benthic cryptophytes,Chroomonas sp. 1 (gCR07),Chroomonas sp. 2 (gCR09),Rhodomonas sp. 1 (rCR02),Rhodomonas sp. 2 (rCR04), andRhodomonas sp. 3 (rCR05) and four benthic dinoflagellates,Amphidinium sp. (bdAmp01),Heterocapsa sp. (bdHet01),Thecadinium kofoidii (bdTK01), andProrocentrum fukuyoi (bdPF03) were isolated using the same method described forP. lebourae and grown under the same culture condition as described above.Live specimens were observed using a bright field microscope (Axio imager A2; Carl Zeiss Inc., Hallbergmoos, Germany) equipped with differential interference contrast optics. Light micrographs were taken at 1,000× magnification using a photomicrographic system (AxioCam HRc; Carl Zeiss Inc.) coupled to the microscope.
> Growth and grazing of
Polykrikos with different prey organismsGrowth and grazing responses of
Polykrikos lebourae were determined for nine different prey organisms: five benthic cryptophytes,Chroomonas sp. 1 (gCR07),Chroomonas sp. 2 (gCR09),Rhodomonas sp. 1 (rCR02),Rhodomonas sp. 2 (rCR04), andRhodomonas sp. 3 (rCR05), and four benthic dinoflagellates,Amphidinium sp. (bdAmp01),Heterocapsa sp. (bdHet01),Thecadinium kofoidii (bdTK01), andProrocentrum fukuyoi (bdPF03). Stock cultures of prey species were diluted with f/2-Si medium to achieve the ratio of 1 : 30 of predator and prey based on biovolume, expect forP. fukuyoi adjusted to the ratio of 1 : 10. The diluted cultures of the cryptophytes and the dinoflagellates were distributed into a total of 24 sets of 48-well plate. Each set of the plate had three wells containing prey and predator mixtures as treatments and six wells containing either prey only or predator only as controls. Every two plates including treatments and controls for the nine prey species were fixed at each sampling day. Stock culture ofPolykrikos used for this experiment was starved for two weeks prior to the set-up of the experiment. ThreePolykrikos cells were individually added to the treatment wells including each prey organism. When the preyAmphidinium was depleted in the treatment cultures at the day 10, the prey cells were freshly supplied once again to achieve the final concentration of the ratio of prey and predator of 10 to 1. All treatments and controls were placed on the shelves under the same culture condition as described above. Each well plate including prey and predator mixture and predator only was fixed by adding 3 µL of Lugol’s solution (final conc. 1%) into each well at 2-3 days intervals for first 10 days of the experiment period and thereafter at 5-7 days intervals for the remaining period. Abundances of the organisms were enumerated using Sedgwick-Rafter chambers at 100-200× magnification under a microscope (Olympus BX-50; Olympus). Cells present in optical transects of each chamber were summed until the entire chamber was examined, or until over 200 cells were counted. Growth rates ofPolykrikos (µ) with different prey organisms were calculated using the following exponential growth equations:, where
N 1 andN 0 are cell concentrations att 1 and timet 0, respectively, andt 1 −t 0 is the time interval between samplings. Ingestion rate (I , in cellsPolykrikos −1 d−1) ofP. lebourae was calculated according to Kim et al. (2008): ingestion rates ofP. lebourae were estimated from changes in prey cell numbers in treatments compared with prey densities in controls. Gross growth efficiency (GGE, %) was defined as predator carbon produced per prey carbon ingested (Kim et al. 2008). GGE was calculated as follows:, where µ is growth rate (d−1) of
Polykrikos ,I is ingestion rate (prey cellsPolykrikos −1 d−1),Cpo andCpe indicate carbon contents ofPolykrikos and each prey, respectively. Cell volume was determined by measuring cell length, width, and depth using a Zeiss Axio Imager A2 microscope equipped with an AxioCam HRc (Carl Zeiss Inc.) photomicrographic system at 400× magnification. Biovolume was calculated using the geometric formulas of π/6 × width2 × length and π/6 × width × depth × length for the cryptophytes and the dinoflagellates, respectively (Vadrucci et al. 2007). Carbon content was estimated from the cell volume using conversion factors of 220 fg C µm3 for cryptophytes (Børsheim and Bratbak 1987) and pg C cell−1 = 0.760 × (volume, µm3)0.819 for dinoflagellates, respectively (Menden-Deuer and Lessard 2000).> Growth and grazing of
Polykrikos lebourae with different prey concentrationTo investigate the effect of prey concentration on growth and grazing responses of
P. lebourae , we chose three prey organisms led to relatively high growth rates of the predator based on the result of the previous experiment: the cryptophyteRhodomonas sp. 2 (rCR04) and the dinoflagellatesAmphidinium sp. andHeterocapsa sp. The initial concentrations (cells mL−1) of each predator/prey mixture were 5/25, 5/50, 5/100, 5/250, 5/500, 5/1,500, and 5/3,500. In addition, triplicate controls containing only prey and only predator were also run at the same concentrations as ones in the mixtures of predator and prey. Data on growth rates were fitted to a modified MichaelisMenten model, which includes a positive y-axis intercept. The modified equation was applied following Kim et al. (2008) and the parameters were estimated using the software SigmaPlot (version 10.0; MMIV Systat software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA) and the equation:, where µ is growth rate of
Polykrikos , µmax is maximum growth rate,x is prey concentration (cells mL−1),x ′ is compensation point of prey concentration where growth is 0 (µ = 0), andK m is prey concentration sustaining 1/2 µmax.Data on ingestion rates were fitted a Michaelis-Menten model and the equation:
, where
I is ingestion rate ofPolykrikos ,I max is maximum ingestion rate,x is prey concentration (cells mL−1),K s is prey concentration sustaining 1/2I max.> Growth kinetics of
Polykrikos lebourae with different light intensityThis experiment was conducted to investigate the effect of light intensities on growth and ingestion rates of
P. lebourae . Irradiance was measured with a radiometer (Model QSL-2101; Biospherical Instruments, San Diego, CA, USA). Stock culture ofP. lebourae that had been maintained at 40 µmol photons m−2 s−1 was distributed to a total of 18 plates (96-well in each plate). ThreePolykrikos cells were distributed to each well in triplicate treatments including preyRhodomonas sp. 2 (rCR04) to achieve a predator/prey ratio of 1/30 which is assumed to represent prey saturation. One third of the 18 sets of well plates was incubated at each of the following irradiances: 10, 40, and 120 µmol photons m−2 s−1 for about 40 days. Monocultures with onlyRhodomonas sp. 2 orPolykrikos served as controls for each light intensity. Prey and predator cells in treatments and controls were fixed using Lugol’s solution at every 1-4 days during the experiment period and counted for cell abundance as described above.Data were presented as mean ± standard error (SE) of triple replicates unless otherwise stated. All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics version 21 (IBM Co., Armonk, NY, USA). Significant differences were assessed by one-way ANOVA and Turkey’s honestly significant difference
post hoc test at the 95% significance level (p < 0.05).> Growth and grazing responses of
Polykrikos lebourae to different prey organismsThe biovolume of the benthic prey used in this study covered a broad range, being smallest in the cryptophyte
Chroomonas sp. 2 (112 µm3) and largest in the dinoflagellateProrocentrum fukuyoi (22,003 µm3) (Table 1). Despite the large difference in biovolume of prey,P. lebourae was capable of ingesting all 9 potential prey organisms tested in this study (Fig. 1). The dinoflagellate captured prey cells using a tow filament and then phagocytized them through the posterior end. Sustainable growth ofP. lebourae , however, was supported only with addition of the cryptophytes,Rhodomonas sp. 1 andRhodomonas sp. 2, and the dinoflagellates,Amphidinium sp. andHeterocapsa sp. (Fig. 2C, D, F & G). When offered other prey, cell abundance ofP. lebourae slightly increased by 24 days at growth rates of less than 0.1 d−1 and reached shortly to stationary phase or dramatically decreased although the prey cells still remained replete (Table 1, Fig. 2A, B, E, H & I). The growth rates ofPolykrikos were relatively higher in the presence ofAmphidinium sp.,Heterocapsa sp., andRhodomonas sp. 2 than other prey species with mean growth rates of 0.17, 0.17, and 0.16 d−1, respectively, during exponential growth period of the predator (Table 1). By comparison, cell abundances ofPolykrikos in monocultures remained constant up to 10 days and thereafter gradually decreased (Fig. 2).While
P. lebourae ingested prey ranging in biovolume from 112 to 22,003 µm3 , ingestion rates were inversely correlated with prey biovolume (r2 = 0.90, p = 0.0001) (Table 1, Fig. 3A). Growth rate and GGE ofP. lebourae were not significantly correlated with the ingestion rate (p > 0.05) (Fig. 3B & C).> Growth and grazing responses of
Polykrikos lebourae as a function of prey concentrationWhen fed
Amphidinium sp.,Heterocapsa sp., andRhodomonas sp. 2, the growth rate ofP. lebourae increased sharply with increasing prey concentrations up to 618, 1,418, and 60 ng C mL−1, respectively, and thereafter saturated (Fig. 4A). When data were fitted to a modified Michaelis-Menten equation, the µmax ofP. lebourae was 0.36, 0.29 , and 0.19 d−1 when fedAmphidinium sp.,Heterocapsa sp., andRhodomonas sp. 2, respectively (p = 0.0001), withK m being 45.9, 423.3, and 12.0 ng C mL−1, respectively (Table 2). Ingestion rate ofP. lebourae increased with increasing prey concentration, with saturation occurring above 5,700, 3,100, and 225 ng C mL−1 forAmphidinium sp.,Heterocapsa sp., andRhodomonas sp. 2, respectively (Fig. 4B). TheI max was 23.17 ng CPolykrikos −1 d−1 forAmphidinium sp., 3.45 ng CPolykrikos −1 d−1 forHeterocapsa sp., and 5.70 ng CPolykrikos −1 d−1 forRhodomonas sp. 2, withK s of 1,665.0 ng C mL−1 forAmphidinium sp., 910.0 ng C mL−1 forHeterocapsa sp., and 114.4 ng C mL−1 forRhodomonas sp. 2 (Table 2). WhenP. lebourae fed eitherHeterocapsa sp. orRhodomonas sp. 2, values for GGE ranged from 68 to 520 % across the range of prey concentrations, with a remarkable increase observed at low prey concentrations (Fig. 5). By comparison, when fedAmphidinium sp.,P. lebourae showed much lower GGE ranging from 18 to 121%, with no sharp increase observed at low prey concentrations (Fig. 5).> Growth kinetics of
Polykrikos lebourae under three different light regimesPolykrikos lebourae in the presence of the preyRhodomonas sp. 2 displayed different patterns of response to light intensities (Fig. 6). At the moderate light intensity of 40 µmol photons m−2 s−1,P. lebourae grew well for the first 17 days with a growth rate of 0.14 ± 0.01 d−1 and then reached stationary phase (Fig. 6B). By comparison, at dim light of 10 µmol photons m−2 s−1 and high light of 120 µmol m−2 s−1, the abundance ofP. lebourae slightly increased with growth rates of 0.03 ± 0.03 and 0.03 ± 0.02 d−1 for the first 3 and 6 days, respectively, and thereafter decreased gradually toward the end of the experiment even if prey remained replete in the cultures (Fig. 6A & C). In the absence of prey,P. lebourae abundances remained constant at light intensities of 10, 40, and 200 µmol photons m−2 s−1 for 4, 24, and 16 days, respectively and then rapidly decreased thereafter in all control cultures (Fig. 6G-I). Ingestion rate ofP. lebourae was estimated as 0.42 ± 0.12, 0.39 ± 0.35, and 0.43 ± 0.10 ng CPolykrikos −1 d−1 at 10, 40, and 200 µmol photons m−2 s−1, respectively, during the exponential growth period of each prey (3, 5, and 6 days, respectively) and did not differ significantly among the light regimes (one-way ANOVA, p > 0.05) (Fig. 6).Mixotrophy, i.e., a combination of phagotrophy and phototrophy in a single organism, is widespread among dinoflagellates (e.g., Stoecker 1999, Hansen 2011). Despite the many previous reports on the occurrence of mixotrophy in dinoflagellates, only a few dinoflagellates are known to be obligate mixotrophs, requiring both prey and light for growth and survival. Thus far,
Dinophysis spp. (Park et al. 2006, Kim et al. 2008),Esoptrodinium sp. (Fawcett and Parrow 2014),Paragymnodinium shiwhaense (Yoo et al. 2010), and an unidentified Antarctic dinoflagellate (Gast et al. 2007) fit this category. Our results now add a new member, the dinoflagellatePolykrikos lebourae , to this list of obligate mixotrophic dinoflagellates.Prey specificity of obligate mixotrophic dinoflagellates varies greatly from non-specific to highly specific. The obligate mixotrophs,
Dinophysis spp. and the unidentified Antarctic dinoflagellate appear to require specific prey. The mixotrophic ciliateMesodinium rubrum is a sole prey known thus far for the former species (Park et al. 2006), while the latter was recently reported to specifically feed on the haptophytePhaeocystis antarctica (Sellers et al. 2014). Natural populations ofDinophysis spp., however, can contain plastids of multiple algal origins (Kim et al. 2012), indicating the possibility of prey other than the well-known prey ciliateM. rubrum . Interestingly, those dinoflagellates with strong prey specificity are obligate mixotrophs that practice the retention of plastids of cryptophyte and haptophyte origins, respectively. The dinoflagellates retain the plastids through selective feeding on the intermediate preyM. rubrum , itself also a specific predator for the cryptophyteTeleaulax / Geminigera genus complex (Yih et al. 2004, Kim et al. 2012) and the haptophyteP. antarctica (Gast et al. 2007, Sellers et al. 2014), respectively. Thus far, plastid-retaining, obligately mixotrophic dinoflagellates having broad prey range have not been reported.While both
Esoptrodinium sp. (Fawcett and Parrow 2014) andParagymnodinium shiwhaense (Yoo et al. 2010) are also obligate mixotrophs, they are different from the other obligately mixotrophic dinoflagellates mentioned above in that they have their own plastids (i.e., peridinin-type plastids) and have a broad range for prey. The former can feed on a variety of freshwater protists (diatom, chlorophyte, chrysophyte, cryptophyte, dinoflagellate, and euglenoid microalgae) similar in size to itself, but the most suitable prey for promoting active feeding and sustained growth is the cryptophyteCryptomonas ovata (Fawcett and Parrow 2014). Also,P. shiwhaense seems to be a prey generalist because it can ingest various protists (prymnesiophyte, cryptophyte, rhaphidophyte, and dinoflagellate), with positive growth supported by most of the different prey (Yoo et al. 2010). The benthic dinoflagellateP. lebourae appears to be the same case toEsoptrodinium sp. andP. shiwhaense rather than toDinophysis spp. and the unidentified Antarctic dinoflagellate, as it ‘apparently’ has its own plastids (also, see below) as well as has a broad range for prey.Polykrikos lebourae appears to have a wider range in prey size thanEsoptrodinium sp. andP. shiwhaense , ingesting prey range from ~5 µm (Chroomonas sp. gCR09) to ~30 µm (Prorocentrum fukuyoi ) in diameter, whileEsoptrodinium sp. andP. shiwhaense mostly ingest prey similar to their own size. The difference in prey size among these dinoflagellates may be associated with feeding mechanism. That is,P. lebourae engulfs whole prey cells after capturing them using a tow filament (this study), whereas the other two species ingest prey through a feeding tube or so-called peduncle (Yoo et al. 2010, Fawcett and Parrow 2014).Despite the fact that
Polykrikos lebourae can feed on a broad range of prey species varying in size, not all prey species support sustained growth. For example, unlikeRhodomonas spp.,Chroomonas spp. did not support the significant growth ofP. lebourae , even though ingestion rates ofP. lebourae onChroomonas spp. (0.81-0.84 ng CPolykrikos −1 d−1) were higher than those onRhodomonas spp. (0.08-0.44 ng CPolykrikos −1 d−1). On the other hand, while GGE (46-51%) ofP. lebourae onChroomonas spp. were within the range (10-70%) reported for protists (Verity 1985, Caron and Goldman 1990, Skovgaard 1998), those onRhodomonas spp. were greatly high (280-340%). The observed difference in growth response ofP. lebourae when fed eitherChroomonas orRhodomonas may be explained by several factors. First, the nutritional value ofChroomonas forP. lebourae may not be as high as that ofRhodomonas . Second,P. lebourae might acquire new plastids through feeding onRhodomonas , with active photosynthesis of freshly retained plastids substantially supplementing growth ofP. lebourae . Unlike the typical peridinin-type plastids which contain thylakoids in stack of three surrounded by a triple membrane envelope (Schnepf and Elbrächter 1999),P. lebourae has unusual plastids consisting of thylakoids in stacks of two and enveloping two membranes, although whether these plastids are permanent or are derived from the prey (i.e., stolen plastids; kleptoplastids) is still controversial (Hoppenrath and Leander 2007b ). Given that the kleptoplastidic dinoflagellateDinophysis caudata can acquire new plastids of cryptophyte origin through ultrastructural modification and retention after feeding on the mixotrophic ciliateMesodinium rubrum (Kim et al. 2012), we cannot completely rule out the possibility thatP. lebourae acquires plastids when feeding on a variety of prey types.Among the benthic dinoflagellates used as prey in this study,
Amphidinium andHeterocapsa supported significant growth ofP. lebourae . When fed on these two dinoflagellates,P. lebourae grew well at the same growth rate of 0.17 d−1, even though ingestion rate ofP. lebourae onAmphidinium was an order of magnitude greater than that onHeterocapsa . Nonetheless, GGE ofP. lebourae onHeterocapsa was much higher (842%) when compared to that onAmphidinium (97%). One possible explanation for this pattern is that the nutritional value ofAmphidinium is much smaller than that ofHeterocapsa . Indeed, more fecal pellets were observed in cultures ofP. lebourae fedAmphidinium compared to those fedHeterocapsa (M. G. P. personal observation), indicating that undigested materials of the preyAmphidinium not used byP. lebourae are egested and less nutritional. Second, the thecate dinoflagellateHeterocapsa may be more resistant to enzymatic digestion in food vacuoles ofP. lebourae compared to athecate dinoflagellateAmphidinium , thereby allowing the functional plastids ofHeterocapsa to remain photosynthetically active over a relatively longer period.GGE of protists as a function of prey concentration has been reported for both bacterivorous and plastidretaining ciliates, in which GGE tends to decrease with increasing prey concentration (Heinbokel 1978, Stoecker and Evans 1985, Jonsson 1986, Schoener and McManus 2012). By comparison, the effect of prey concentration on GGE in dinoflagellates is at present not commonly studied. To our knowledge, the only previous report on the effect of prey concentration on GGE of dinoflagellates was for a kleptoplastidic dinoflagellate
Amylax triacantha , in which GGE decreased with increasing prey (Mesodinium rubrum ) concentration, with the highest GGE (81-179%) observed at low prey concentrations (Park et al. 2013). The authors interpreted the extremely high GGE ofA. triacantha observed at low prey concentrations as being associated with a substantial supplement of photosynthetic products from retained plastids. GGE ofP. lebourae for three prey species,Amphidinium sp.,Heterocapsa sp., andRhodomonas sp. tested in this study also showed a pattern similar to that of reported forA. triacantha , with extremely high GGE at low prey concentrations and moderate or low GGE at high prey concentrations. This suggests thatP. lebourae grows heterotrophically at high prey concentrations but its growth seems to be more dependent on a certain growth factor or photosynthesis of plastids derived from the prey. Interestingly, whenHeterocapsa sp. was offered as prey, GGE ofP. lebourae almost exceeded 100% over all prey concentrations. As noted above, more resistant characteristics and resultant active photosynthesis or an unknown growth factor fromHeterocapsa may contribute greatly to the observed high GGE.Polykrikos lebourae appears to require light for sustained growth, even when a sufficient amount of prey cells was provided. While the cryptophyteRhodomonas sp. grew well at high light intensity (120 µmol photons m−2 s−1) as well as at moderate light intensity (40 µmol photons m−2 s−1),P. lebourae grew well just at the moderate light intensity (40 µmol photons m−2 s−1) in the presence of prey, but did not grow at dim light (10 µmol photons m−2 s−1) and high light (120 µmol photons m−2 s−1) intensities in prey-replete conditions. Similar growth response on light intensity has also been found in a benthic kleptoplastidic dinoflagellateAmphidinium poecilochroum (Jakobsen et al. 2000). Given thatP. lebourae and its preyRhodomonas live interstitially in sand sediment environment, different growth responses of the predator and prey to light intensity are notable and indicate that the former may be more adapted to a certain moderate light (40 µmol photons m−2 s−1) environment than the latter. It may be likely that some unknown materials required for growth ofP. lebourae are produced by the prey at moderate to high light environments. The unknown materials and / or the plastids ofP. lebourae may be, however, easily photodamaged and could not be repaired insideP. lebourae cells under high light (120 µmol photons m−2 s−1) environment, eventually leading to cell death. At dim light (10 µmol photons m−2 s−1) environment, production of the unknown materials by prey and / or photosynthesis ofP. lebourae may not be enough to support to the positive growth ofP. lebourae .Conclusively, the benthic dinoflagellate
Polykrikos lebourae is an obligate mixotroph, which requires both prey and light for sustained growth and survival. The benthic dinoflagellateP. lebourae is a prey generalist with a limited variety of prey supporting positive growth and fits the category of the mixotrophic dinoflagellates, in which food uptake results in a large increase in growth rate (i.e., assigned as type 2 in Hansen 2011). Availability ofP. lebourae in a culture may provide a better understanding of the status of the plastids and plastid evolution in this dinoflagellate.-
[]
-
[]
-
[]
-
[]
-
[Table 1.] List of the source, biovolume, and carbon content of prey organisms and growth (μ) and grazing rates (I) and gross growth efficiency (GGE) of Polykrikos lebourae during exponential growth period supplied each prey organism
-
[Fig. 1.] Polykrikos lebourae ingested each prey organism tested in this study. Polykrikos fed Chroomonas sp. 1 (gCR07) (A), Chroomonas sp. 2 (gCR09) (B), Rhodomonas sp. 1 (rCR02) (C), Rhodomonas sp. 2 (rCR04) (D), Rhodomonas sp. 3 (rCR05) (E), Amphidinium sp. (bdAmp01) (F), Heterocapsa sp. (bdHet01) (G), Prorocentrum fukuyoi (bdPF03) (H), and Thecadinium kofoidii (bdTK01) (I) as prey. Scale bars represent: A-I, 20 μm.
-
[Fig. 2.] Growth of Polykrikos lebourae when supplied 9 different prey organisms. Circles and triangles indicate Polykrikos and each prey organism, respectively. Closed symbols indicate the mixed cultures of predator and prey, and open symbols indicate monocultures of predator or prey. Chroomonas sp. 1 (gCR07) (A), Chroomonas sp. 2 (gCR09) (B), Rhodomonas sp. 1 (rCR02) (C), Rhodomonas sp. 2 (rCR04) (D), Rhodomonas sp. 3 (rCR05) (E), Amphidinium sp. (F), Heterocapsa sp. (G), Thecadinium kofoidii (H), and Prorocentrum fukuyoi (I) as prey. Symbols and error bars represent mean and standard errors of triplicate cultures.
-
[Fig. 3.] Polykrikos lebourae. Gross growth efficiency (GGE) on 9 different prey species vs. prey biovolumes (A), growth rates vs. ingestion rates (B), GGE vs. ingestion rates (C).
-
[Fig. 4.] Growth (A) and ingestion rates (B) of Polykrikos lebourae lebourae as a function of prey concentration. Data were fitted to a modified Michaelis-Menten equation for growth and a Michaels-Menten for ingestion. Symbols and error bars represent mean and standard errors of triplicate cultures.
-
[Table 2.] Parameters fitted to a modified Michaels-Menten equation (Eq. 3) for growth rates and a Michaeles-Menten equation for ingestion rates
-
[Fig. 5.] Gross growth efficiency (GGE) of Polykrikos lebourae on prey of either Amphidinium, Heterocapsa, or Rhodomonas vs. prey concentration.
-
[Fig. 6.] Growth responses of Polykrikos lebourae at low irradiance of 10 μmol photons m?2 s?1 (A), moderate irradiance of 40 μmol photons m?2 s?1 (B), and high irradiance of 120 μmol photons m?2 s?1 (C) when offered Rhodomonas sp. 2 as prey. Cultures of prey only (D-F) and predator only (G-I) were also run as controls at each light intensity. Data points are shown as mean and standard error for triplicates. Arrows in (A) & (D) indicate additional supply of prey Rhodomonas sp. 2 in the mixed cultures. PPF, photosynthetic photon flux.