Vestimentiferan tubeworms live around hydrothermal vents
and cold seeps rich in metals. Tubeworms often dominate these ecosystems and
are able to colonize rapidly. These animals lack digestive systems and rely on
chemoautotrophic bacteria that live endosymbiotically within the worm’s tissues
for their nutritional needs. Unlike the adults, Vestimentiferan larvae have a
temporary digestive system and initially do not have symbionts. The infection
process that the larvae subsequently undergo triggers developmental and physiological
changes. Hydrothermal vents are transient and larvae need to be able to travel
vast distances to settle on new vents. It is therefore imperative that each new
generation of tubeworms becomes infected with symbiotic bacteria.
Previous hypotheses suggested that the symbiotic bacteria
entered through the mouth to colonize the dorsal mesentery or midgut. The
development of the trophosome from mesodermal tissue would follow, which is an organ
containing the symbiotic bacteria in large concentrations. This study by
Nussbaumer et al. (2006) suggests
that the symbiotic bacteria enter the host through the skin. The bacteria
migrate to the dorsal mesentery, where the trophosome forms. The infection
process culminates with the digestive system tissue undergoing extensive
apoptosis.
The study used devices called tubeworm artificial
settlement cubes (TASCs) to aid settlement of larvae and very small juveniles.
These cubes were made up of a series of transparent grooved plates that could
be taken apart to retrieve the larvae and juveniles. The TASCs were deployed at
a hydrothermal vent site within the East Pacific Rise area and retrieved by the
submersible Alvin one year later. Three
Vestimentiferan species, Riftia
pachyptila, Tevnia jerichonana
and Oasisia alvinae, had established
on the TASCs after one year. These ranged from larvae to juveniles between 200 μm - 2
mm in length. These three species have a very similar symbiotic phylotype. Fluorescent
in situ hybridization (FISH) together
with electron microscopy were used to confirm that the newly-settled larvae did
not have symbionts and had a digestive system upon settlement.The newly settled larvae appeared to be digesting on the microbes in their guts and it was only when the larvae were 250 μm long, did infection with the symbionts occur. FISH was performed to visualize the infection of the Vestimentiferan trophosome and FISH micrographs showed the symbiotic bacteria entering the larvae through the skin. Depending on the age of the individuals, the bacteria were found in different locations. In larvae and smaller juveniles, rod-shaped bacteria were observed in the dorsal mesentery, the foregut, epidermis, muscles and the cytoplasm but when they were in the trophosome, the bacteria were held within vacuoles. This contrasted with adults and larger juveniles, in which the symbiotic bacteria were found only in the trophosome. No symbionts were detected in the gut lumen, mouth or anus as previous infection hypotheses have suggested.
The authors of this study propose that the infection process begins once the larvae have settled on a substrate and the symbiotic microbes enter the larvae via the skin. They migrate to the dorsal mesentery and there form the trophosome, which expands to fill the digestive cavity. In adult tubeworms, the trophosome occupies the majority of the tube. Newly settled animals released an extracellular mucous which was believed to enable symbionts to colonize the Vestimentiferan larvae.
The authors acknowledge that they did not use live individuals to follow the process of infection and used instead a series of animals of different sizes and developmental stages. Given the environment from which these animals live, I feel it would be difficult to recreate the conditions needed in the lab to observe a live individual from the larval stage to adulthood. Despite this, I feel that this study has been useful in highlighting that a different developmental pathway for Vestimentiferan symbiont infection is likely and may help answer questions about how the mechanisms for acquisition of microbes in other mutualistic symbioses have evolved.
Reference:
Nussbaumer, A.D., Fisher, C.R. and Bright, M. (2006)
Horizontal endosymbiont transmission in hydrothermal vent tubeworms, Nature, 441, 345-348.
Hi Anita,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post, I think this experiment is such a clever idea. The fact that FISH was used in situ, I assume the tubes weren`t taken up from the hydrothermal vent site and all measurements were taken under water? I know it would be very costly but would it be possible to follow individual organisms throughout development and take FISH measurements in their different developmental stages, with maybe a stationary sampling device?
Did the authors mention that bacteria enter at similar body areas of the tubeworm, or is this random?
Thank you :)
Tabea
Hi Tabea
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. I really liked this paper, it’s a shame that no recent research has been done on this. The researches didn’t remove any of the tubes from the site but they did remove the larvae from the site to analyse in the lab. I think it would be possible to follow development through the individual stages but the larvae would need to be sampled more extensively and for longer periods to get a wide variety of sampled stages. The FISH measurements were done in the lab as the larvae have to be sliced into very thin slices in order to show up the bacteria to be observed by electron microscopy. This may be why very little research has been done since, especially as the samples have to be retrieved by a submersible.
In the recently settled vestimentiferans, bacteria began settling across the whole skin on the larvae, aided by a mucous coating that the larvae secrete to encourage the bacteria to settle. The settlement of the bacteria on the larvae appeared to be random. The bacteria then make their way into the centre of the larvae where the trophosome forms. I hope this answers your queries :)
Anita
Hi Anita, thanks for getting back to me! It seems like it therefore would never be possible to actually follow one individual throughout its whole development while assessing the symbionts, even if we would manage to maintain them in the lab? After todays lecture I wonder if there is some kind of chemotaxis preferencing and selection for particular bacteria strains going on as found in Euprymna scolopes and Vibrio fischeri. Did they mention anything about this in the paper?
DeleteThanks Tabea
Hi Tabea
ReplyDeleteThe authors are suggesting that the process of larval infection is similar to that in the Vibrio-squid symbiosis and that a similar developmental process occurs in the Riftia larvae. The authors have acknowledged that the mechanisms responsible for this infection in Riftia need to be further studied. I have found a more recent study from 2012 which looked at another hydrothermal vent tube worm, Ridgeia piscesae, in the adult stages rather than the larval stages. They found a number of genes associated with cell cycle regulation, mucus secretion, cell regression or apoptosis, similar to the Euprymna-Vibrio example.
As far as I can see there has been no further work on the chemotaxis of the symbionts in Riftia larvae. I have put the link below for the paper I found.
Sorry I couldn’t be more specific but there doesn’t appear to have been any more work on this which is a shame!
Anita
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3372519/