As professor William Wilson highlighted in his lecture, the role of viruses
within marine systems is commonly overlooked. Phytoplankton are known key
drivers of global processes such as primary production and biogeochemical
cycling. Marine coccolithophores, such as Emiliania
huxleyi, are enclosed by CaCO3
plates called coccoliths. The sinking and
dissolution of these plates results in the sequestration of dissolved inorganic
carbon, known as the carbonate pump. Coccolithophores form mesoscale blooms which are
characterized by an exponential increase in abundance followed by a crash, initiated
by lytic viruses. Despite being well studied, there are considerable
discrepancies within the literature regarding the effect of ocean acidification
on algal bloom dynamics. Some studies have found that reduced pH levels result
in increased calcite production whereas others have reported reduced calcification,
and some have even suggested no effect. The effects of decreased pH on the
viruses of these algae and their interaction with their host are yet not known
and may indeed contribute to this varied response of coccolithophores to ocean acidification.
Accordingly, Highfield et al. (2017) investigated the impacts of elevated pCO2
levels (760 pmv) on the structure and diversity of both the algal host, E. huxleyi and its viruses (EhVs),
through a mesocosm experiment conducted in a Norwegian fjord.
The progression of the bloom
was monitored through chlorophyll a concentration (flurorometrically determined),
pigment analysis (High Pressure Liquid Chromatography) and cell counts of E. huxleyi and EhVs (flow cytometry). Carbon fixation was used as a proxy for primary
production and was determined using 14C measurements of surface
water samples. To determine genetic diversity, Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) and Denaturing
Gradient Gel Electrophoresis (DGGE) analyses were carried out using primers
specific to the calcium binding protein gene (gpa) for E. huxleyi and
the major capsid protein gene (mcp)
for EhV.
The results of the study suggest a
negative effect of ocean acidification in this instance as a lower pH was found
to significantly reduce phytoplankton biomass and primary production of
an E. huxleyi dominated bloom. Within the elevated
treatment, they found high variability between replicates, with significant
differences in the abundance of coccolithophores. Despite this, the genetic diversity
of the E. huxleyi remained stable across the replicates,
treatments and the duration of the experiment. The authors therefore posit that
viral infection by EhV may be driving these differences in abundances. Notably,
they found that elevated pCO2 levels can affect both the composition
and diversity of EhV as in contrast to their algal host they did not stabilise
through the succession of the bloom and were not consistent across replicates. Environmental
stress may affect EhVs host ranges and infection characteristics (burst size
and latent period) and may have caused a change in virus genotype resulting in
a change in viral community composition.
This study really demonstrates the importance of including viruses when
studying marine systems, particularly in the context of climate change. Indeed,
the authors provide evidence that suggests a potential knock-down effect of
increased pCO2 on E. huxleyi driven
by viral responses to acidified conditions. Despite this, it is still not clear
whether the observed response is due to the environmental conditions affecting
viruses directly or their interaction with the host. Future experiments should
aim to better dissect the host and viral responses, in order to accurately predict
their ecological interactions in future ocean acidification scenarios.
Referenced paper:
Highfield, A., Joint, I., Gilbert, J., Crawfurd, K., & Schroeder, D.
(2017). Change in Emiliania huxleyi Virus Assemblage Diversity but Not in Host
Genetic Composition during an Ocean Acidification Mesocosm Experiment. Viruses,
9(3), 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v9030041
Hi Amelia,
ReplyDeleteVery interesting blog. What was the authors reasoning for selecting this acidification value, for example, was it based on the low or high emissions scenario forecast for 2100? I feel that, staying true to climate change predictions by increasing the temperature as well as acidity (following the same scenario predictions as the pH) would further add ecological validity to the findings of this experiment, as temperature is known to have an effect on both host and virus. Do the authors make mention to this? If not, what are your opinions on the possibles advantages and disadvantages of combining both temperature and acidification in such a mesocosm experiment?
Bellow I have included a publication by Lindh and colleges (2013) who have combined both temperature and pH predictions in to a mesocosm study conducted in the Baltic Sea. I found comparing these two papers (Highfield et al., 2017 to Lindh et al., 2013) interesting and I look forward to reading your opinion.
Lindh, M.V., Riemann, L., Baltar, F., Romero‐Oliva, C., Salomon, P.S., Granéli, E. and Pinhassi, J., 2013. Consequences of increased temperature and acidification on bacterioplankton community composition during a mesocosm spring bloom in the Baltic Sea. Environmental Microbiology Reports, 5(2), pp.252-262.
Hi Ellen,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your comment. The enclosures were enriched with Co2 to 760 ppmv, but the authors didn't specify whether these values corresponded to a forecast OA value associated with a particular future emissions scenario. I think the focus of this study was to disseminate the effect of reduced pH on the host-virus interactions. Therefore, at this stage, I think it would be a little premature to attempt to extrapolate these results to changes in E.hux ecology under future conditions as so little if still known regarding these interactions, and I believe this as an area which requires further study before questions regarding changes in their ecology can be answered. I agree that studies which aim to investigate responses of organisms at all levels to climate change require further understanding into the effects of multiple stressors on physiology and ecology, but including this variable would have required many more treatments and replicates to pull apart the antagonistic/synergistic effects of temperature and OA in combination on both coccolithophores and their viruses. As this topic receives further scientific attention, the incorporation of additional climate change stressors in future studies would allow us to make more robust predictions about how these organisms will respond to climate change. Also worth keeping in mind is the very short generation time of these species, which could potentially confer a high level of adaptive potential to future environmental changes. Therefore, multiple stressor experiments looking at the responses of these species across a single generation may bear little ecological validity in themselves as the results would not be truly representative of how this species will respond over longer timescales. I hope this has answered your question, and I have included a few papers on this topic that you might find interesting.
Best,
Amelia
Lohbeck, K., Riebesell, U., & Reusch, T. (2012). Adaptive evolution of a key phytoplankton species to ocean acidification. Nature Geoscience, 5(5), 346-351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1441
Schlüter, L., Lohbeck, K., Gutowska, M., Gröger, J., Riebesell, U., & Reusch, T. (2014). Adaptation of a globally important coccolithophore to ocean warming and acidification. Nature Climate Change, 4(11), 1024-1030. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2379
Hi Amelia,
ReplyDeleteThank you so much for such a comprehensive and informed answer, I couldn't agree with you more! Equally I had not previously considered the adaptive potential of this species and is something I will apply to my revision of this subject!
Many thanks,
Ellen