Responses of marine planktonic protists to amino acids: feeding inhibition and swimming behavior in the ciliate Favella sp.

Strom, Suzanne L.; Wolfe, Gordon V.; Bright, Kelley J.

doi:10.3354/ame047107

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Amino acid, peptide, and lectin molecules have been shown to act as attractants for Tetrahymena cells (2,30,34), and attractants for Paramecium include acetate, lactate, folate, cyclic AMP, and NH 4 ϩ (67). Conversely, certain amino acids may have inhibitory effects on ciliates (64). Analysis of extracellular metabolites from biofilm cultures of S. plymuthica and a bacterium related to P. costantinii (Pseudomonas syringae) showed that a variety of amino acids and other molecules were present in concentrations which differed significantly between these cultures (70) and may have caused the observed feeding preference of Chilodonella sp.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mechanisms by which protozoa identify and selectively feed on different prey organisms are not well understood, however (42). Surface-bound and dissolved chemical cues are important mediators of microbial interactions, and chemosensory recognition of dissolved signals may be used by predators to locate prey (18,34,36,68) or may deter predation (63,64). However, elucidating the role of chemical cues in protozoan selective feeding behaviors remains a challenge (23,42).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preferential Feeding by the Ciliates Chilodonella and Tetrahymena spp. and Effects of These Protozoa on Bacterial Biofilm Structure and Composition

Dopheide

Lear

Stott

et al. 2011

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protozoa are important components of microbial food webs, but protozoan feeding preferences and their effects in the context of bacterial biofilms are not well understood. The feeding interactions of two contrasting ciliates, the free-swimming filter feeder Tetrahymena sp. and the surface-associated predator Chilodonella sp., were investigated using biofilm-forming bacteria genetically modified to express fluorescent proteins. According to microscopy, both ciliates readily consumed cells from both Pseudomonas costantinii and Serratia plymuthica biofilms. When offered a choice between spatially separated biofilms, each ciliate showed a preference for P. costantinii biofilms. Experiments with bacterial cell extracts indicated that both ciliates used dissolved chemical cues to locate biofilms. Chilodonella sp. evidently used bacterial chemical cues as a basis for preferential feeding decisions, but it was unclear whether Tetrahymena sp. did also. Confocal microscopy of live biofilms revealed that Tetrahymena sp. had a major impact on biofilm morphology, forming holes and channels throughout S. plymuthica biofilms and reducing P. costantinii biofilms to isolated, grazing-resistant microcolonies. Grazing by Chilodonella sp. resulted in the development of less-defined trails through S. plymuthica biofilms and caused P. costantinii biofilms to become homogeneous scatterings of cells. It was not clear whether the observed feeding preferences for spatially separated P. costantinii biofilms over S. plymuthica biofilms resulted in selective targeting of P. costantinii cells in mixed biofilms. Grazing of mixed biofilms resulted in the depletion of both types of bacteria, with Tetrahymena sp. having a larger impact than Chilodonella sp., and effects similar to those seen in grazed single-species biofilms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferential Feeding by the Ciliates Chilodonella and Tetrahymena spp. and Effects of These Protozoa on Bacterial Biofilm Structure and Composition

Dopheide

Lear

Stott

et al. 2011

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Factors important in chemosensory attraction include proteins, amino acids, and other dissolved inorganic or organic nutrients (Rassoulzadegan 1982, Flynn & Davidson 1993, Ferrier-Pagès et al 1998, Davidson et al 2005. Alternatively, other prey metabolites may deter grazing, including dimethylsulfide (Wolfe et al 1997, Strom et al 2003, dissolved free amino acids (Strom et al 2007), and algal toxins (Hansen 1989, Kamiyama 1997, Tillmann 2003, Caron et al 2004. Conceptually, chemosensory attraction, particularly to areas of elevated prey density, will reduce future searching time by the protist and increase the potential for predator-prey contact.…”

Section: Mechanistic Steps Involved In Selective Protistan Feedingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective feeding behaviour of key free-living protists: avenues for continued study

Montagnes¹,

Barbosa²,

Boenigk³

et al. 2008

Aquat. Microb. Ecol.

175

154

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phagotrophic protists are diverse and abundant in aquatic and terrestrial environments, making them fundamental to the transfer of matter/energy within their respective food webs. Recognising their grazing impact is essential to evaluate the role of protists in ecosystems, and this includes appreciating prey selectivity. Efforts have been made by groups and individuals to understand selective grazing behaviour by protists: many approaches and perspectives have been pursued, not all of which are compatible. This article, which is not a review, is the product of our discourse on this subject at the SAME 10 meeting. It is the work of individuals, assembled for their breadth of backgrounds, approaches, views, and expertise. Firstly, to communicate ideas and approaches, we develop a framework for selective feeding processes and suggest 6 steps: searching, contact, capture, processing, ingestion, digestion. We then separate study approaches into 2 categories: (1) those examining whole organisms at the community, population, and individual levels, and (2) those examining physiology and molecular attributes. Finally, we explore general problems associated with the field of protistan selective feeding (e.g. linking food selection into food webs and modeling). We do not present all views on any one topic, nor do we cover all topics; instead, we offer opinions and suggest avenues for continued study. Overall, this paper should stimulate further discourse on the subject and provide a roadmap for the future.

show abstract

“…was obtained from Michael Finiguerra at the University of Connecticut, Groton, CT. Favella sp. cultures were maintained in 200 ml batches at 14-16°C in filtered seawater (30 ppt) supplemented with a dilute trace metal solution (Strom et al, 2007). Favella sp.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(Fig. 1A) is a cosmopolitan member of the plankton community that has well-described trophic behaviors (Stoecker and Sanders, 1985;Stoecker, 1988, 1989;Taniguchi and Takeda, 1988;Stoecker et al, 1995Stoecker et al, , 2013Strom et al, 2007) and has morphological and behavioral characteristics that are representative of marine planktonic ciliates; they are therefore an excellent model for studying the sensory mechanisms underlying the trophic ecology of marine alveolate grazers (Montagnes, 2013;Echevarria et al, 2014). [Note: the genus Favella has been recently redescribed and some former Favella spp.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feast or flee: bioelectrical regulation of feeding and predator evasion behaviors in the planktonic alveolateFavellasp. (Spirotrichia)

Echevarria

Wolfe

Taylor

2015

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Alveolate (ciliates and dinoflagellates) grazers are integral components of the marine food web and must therefore be able to sense a range of mechanical and chemical signals produced by prey and predators, integrating them via signal transduction mechanisms to respond with effective prey capture and predator evasion behaviors. However, the sensory biology of alveolate grazers is poorly understood. Using novel techniques that combine electrophysiological measurements and high-speed videomicroscopy, we investigated the sensory biology of Favella sp., a model alveolate grazer, in the context of its trophic ecology. Favella sp. produced frequent rhythmic depolarizations (∼500 ms long) that caused backward swimming and are responsible for endogenous swimming patterns relevant to foraging. Contact of both prey cells and non-prey polystyrene microspheres at the cilia produced immediate mechanostimulated depolarizations (∼500 ms long) that caused backward swimming, and likely underlie aggregative swimming patterns of Favella sp. in response to patches of prey. Contact of particles at the peristomal cavity that were not suitable for ingestion resulted in depolarizations after a lag of ∼600 ms, allowing time for particles to be processed before rejection. Ingestion of preferred prey particles was accompanied by transient hyperpolarizations (∼1 s) that likely regulate this step of the feeding process. Predation attempts by the copepod Acartia tonsa elicited fast (∼20 ms) animal-like action potentials accompanied by rapid contraction of the cell to avoid predation. We have shown that the sensory mechanisms of Favella sp. are finely tuned to the type, location, and intensity of stimuli from prey and predators.

show abstract

Responses of marine planktonic protists to amino acids: feeding inhibition and swimming behavior in the ciliate Favella sp.

Cited by 27 publications

References 57 publications

Preferential Feeding by the Ciliates Chilodonella and Tetrahymena spp. and Effects of These Protozoa on Bacterial Biofilm Structure and Composition

Preferential Feeding by the Ciliates Chilodonella and Tetrahymena spp. and Effects of These Protozoa on Bacterial Biofilm Structure and Composition

Selective feeding behaviour of key free-living protists: avenues for continued study

Feast or flee: bioelectrical regulation of feeding and predator evasion behaviors in the planktonic alveolateFavellasp. (Spirotrichia)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About