Strain specificity in a tropical marine sponge

Kaye, Heather R.; Peralta-Ortiz, Tessy

doi:10.1007/bf00406825

Cited by 40 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The formation of tissue bridges is not uncommon in allograft rejection and provides a provisional mechanical fusion between graft partners, as observed in Hymeniacidon perleve (Evans et al, 1980), Xestospongia exigua (Hildemann & Linthicum, 1981), and Toxadocia violácea (Bigger et al, 1983). Allograft acceptance and rejection in Aplysina longissima (cited as Verongid), besides confirming the exis-tence of strains in marine sponges, gave evidence for a different expression of 'foreigners' by the development of a cuticle along the contact surfaces of the two partners, thus preventing their interaction (Kaye & Ortiz, 1981). This process is equivalent to the active collagen synthesis observed in Aplysina aerophoba and in A. cavernícola, which leads to the bounding of foreign material settled on the sponge surface (Vacelet, 1971).…”

Section: Transplantation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Several grafting experiments carried out in freshwater and marine sponges gave evidence for autograft acceptance and xenograft rejection (Kaye & Ortiz, 1981;Bigger et al, 1983;Mukai & Shimoda, 1986). Paris (I960) first observed that a fragment of Tethya aurantium (named T. lyncurium) transplanted into Suberites domuncula triggered the formation of a barrier between the sponges.…”

Section: Transplantation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Self/non‐self recognition in sponges

Gaino

Bavestrello

Magnino

1999

Italian Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A variety of procedures have been utilized to study the sponge ability to discriminate self-from non-self. In adult sponges, the histocompatibility reaction has traditionally been tested by transplantation techniques or parabiosis. These consist of pushing into contact different species (xenograft) or conspecific individuals (allograft) with their outer pinacodermal layers intact. A fast reaction can be observed when fragments of the inner part of the sponge are tied together. Lack of compatibility generates signals suppressing or activating both exopinacocytes bounding the contact surface and discrete mesohyl cell types (archaeocytes, collencytes, gray and spherulous cells). These cells are involved to different extents according to the species (active migration along the contact surface, cytotoxicity, phagocytosis, synthesis of a collagen barrier). In sponge cell aggregates, species-specific sorting-out expresses the recognition reaction of the mixed cells. Glycoconjugates are key molecules for self/non-self cell discrimination. In the model derived from Geodia cydonium cells, galectin molecules in the presence of Ca 2+ form a bridge between the intercellular multiprotein complex aggregation factor (AF) and the cell surface-associated aggregation receptor (AR). The AF is a soluble and diffusible macromolecule that may play an important role also in self recognition mechanisms occurring in sponges in toto. A new paradigm has recently been suggested for cell recognition: interactions between the most peripheral cell surface specific proteoglycans (glyconectins). These molecules have been purified from three marine sponge species (Microciona prolifera, Halichondria panicea, and Cliona celata). This mechanism of self recognition could represent a remarkable event for the appearance of multicellularity.

show abstract

Section: Transplantation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 85%

Section: Transplantation Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self/non‐self recognition in sponges

Gaino

Bavestrello

Magnino

1999

Italian Journal of Zoology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sponges have been demonstrated to discourage adherence by other conspecific (e.g., Van de Vyver 1970;Hildemann et al 1980;Kaye and Ortiz 1981;Bigger et al 1983;Wulff 1986) and, in one case, heterospecific individuals (e.g., Thacker et al 1998), but in order to participate in these mutualisms, sponges must allow heterospecific sponges to adhere to them. This opens the possibility that species that cause harm may also adhere.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Life-History Differences among Coral Reef Sponges Promote Mutualism or Exploitation of Mutualism by Influencing Partner Fidelity Feedback

Wulff

2008

The American Naturalist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mutualism can be favored over exploitation of mutualism when interests of potential heterospecihc partners are aligned so that individual organisms are beneficial to each others' continued growth, survival, and reproduction, that is, when exploitation of a particular partner individual is costly. A coral reef sponge system is particularly amenable to field experiments probing how costs of exploitation can be influenced by life-history characteristics. Pairwise associations among three of the sponge species are mutually beneficial. A fourth species, Desmapsamma anchorata, exploits these mutualisms. Desmapsamma also differs from the other species by growing faster, fragmenting more readily, and suffering higher mortality rates. Evaluating costs and benefits of association in the context of the complex life histories of these asexually fragmenting sponges shows costs of exploitation to be high for the mutualistic species but very low for this essentially weedy species. Although it benefits from association more than the mutualist species, by relying on their superior tensile strength and extensibility to reduce damage by physical disturbance, exploitation is favored because each individual host is of only ephemeral use. These sponges illustrate how life-history differences can influence the duration of association between individuals and, thus, the role of partner fidelity in promoting mutualism.Keywords: sponges, mutualism, partner fidelity, asexual fragmentation, weed strategies, exploitation.Why some species participate in mutualisms while other species exploit mutualisms remains one of the more intriguing questions about interspecific interactions (e.g., (2000) showed that partner interests can align when benefits are symmetrical to the partners, partner species differ in their resource preferences, and successful transmission of a symbiont depends on a long-lived host. Likewise, Yu (2001) stressed the importance of reliable reassembly and the original benefit-donor (or its offspring) receiving the reciprocated benefit. Finally, a model by Foster and Wenseleers (2006) identified high benefit-to-cost ratios for heterospecific interactions, high within-species relatedness, and high between-species fidelity as helping mutualisms withstand the threat of exploitation.In common among many of these mutualism-promoting factors is that they align interests of species by increasing how beneficial an individual (or clone or colony) of one species is to the continued survival, growth, and reproduction of a particular individual of the partner species. If fitness benefits are gained as long as the association is maintained, an exploiter risks damaging itself if it damages its partner, favoring mutualism without need for special sanctions against exploiters (i.e., "passive retaliation" in the sense of Bull and Rice [1991]). This has been referred to as "partner fidelity" by Bull and Rice (1991) and Sachs et al. (2004) and as "community of interest" by Leigh (2001) and has played a prominent role in discussions of

show abstract

“…Processes that characterise graft rejection may include tissue necrosis of one or both graft partners Bigger et al 1981;Fernàndez-Busquets and Burger 1997;1999), collagen deposition to form a physicochemical barrier between the apposing tissue (Van de Vyver 1975;Kaye and Ortiz 1981;Buscema and Van de Vyver 1983;Van de Vyver and Barbieux 1983;Humphreys and Reinherz 1994;Humphreys 1994;Fernàndez-Busquets and Burger 1997), cellular migration to the point of contact (Curtis et al 1982;Van de Vyver and Barbieux 1983;Humphreys 1994;Humphreys and Reinherz 1994;Fernàndez-Busquets and Burger 1999;Fernàndez-Busquets et al 2002), and phagocytic or cytotoxic reactions (Hildemann et al 1980;Bigger et al 1981;Van de Vyver and Barbieux 1983;Yin and Humphreys 1996). Qualitative and quantitative responses to tissue grafts are replicable and predictable (Hildemann et al 1980;Hildemann and Linthicum 1981;Fernàndez-Busquets and Burger 1997), between both first-party (sponge A:B replicates) and third-party (where A:B fusion predicts identical A:C and B:C reactions) grafts (Bigger et al 1981;Kaye and Ortiz 1981;Neigel and Avise 1985). This specificity and repeatability indicates that recognition responses are governed by an Sponge pieces of approximately 1.5 x 3 cm were placed with cut surfaces touching, and were held together with a fresh syringe needle.…”

Section: Sponge Immune Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, responses to particular graft combinations within or between species are generally repeatable and predictable, and reveal a hierarchical genetic immunological relationship between conspecifics Bigger et al 1981;Kaye and Ortiz 1981;Neigel and Avise 1983;Neigel and Schmahl 1984;Neigel and Avise 1985;Wulff 1986;Fernàndez-Busquets and Burger 1997). This shows that sponges possess a fully functional allorecognition system that is genetically encoded and is capable of recognising and discriminating between self and nonself.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-nonself recognition: genomic and transcriptomic insights from the sponge aggregation factors

Grice¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The multicellular condition cannot be maintained without safeguards protecting the integrity of the individual. Tissue contact and fusion with other conspecific individuals may threaten this integrity, as genetically non-identical cells may shirk their somatic duties and gain disproportionate access to the germ line. As sessile invertebrates that commonly inhabit crowded benthic environments, sponges are particularly reliant on a molecular self-nonself defense system in order to resist loss of habitat space, chimerism and possible germ line parasitism by neighbouring conspecific sponges. Sponge allorecognition appears to be, at least in part, under the control of extracellular proteoglycans called aggregation factors (AFs), which were first discovered based on their role in the species-specific reaggregation of dissociated sponge cells. Although the AFs have been extensively studied for over fifty years, the majority of this work has involved biochemical, rather than genetic approaches, and has focussed on the role of the glycan subunits associated with the AFs. In the present work, I investigate the genetic properties underlying the AF protein backbone, to better understand the functions and evolution of these putative allorecognition molecules.Using newly-available genomic and transcriptomic data, I surveyed the phylum Porifera for novel putative AF sequences, to explore the evolutionary origins of this gene family. I conclude that the AFs are a demosponge and hexactinellid-specific innovation. I then performed an in-depth characterisation of the six AF genes from the model demosponge species, Amphimedon queenslandica. The six genes display a highly modular intron/exon organisation. However, as expected of putative allorecognition genes, the AFs are greatly diversified between individuals, with nucleotide polymorphism (and possible positive selection) and intron retention events distributed across the six genes. The AFs are very highly expressed across sponge development and in response to alloimmune challenge, and undergo a particular spike in gene expression levels after the onset of sponge metamorphosis. The AF genes also exhibit expression patterns across development that are significantly correlated with those of other, developmentally important genes with roles in various cell signalling pathways. I conclude that the AFs play a novel developmental role, in addition to their putative allorecognition capabilities.iii S e l f -N o N S e l f R e c o g N i t i o N : S p o N g e ag g R e g at i o N f a c t o R S Declaration by authorThis thesis is composed of my original work, and contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due reference has been made in the text. I have clearly stated the contribution by others to jointly-authored works that I have included in my thesis.I have clearly stated the contribution of others to my thesis as a whole, including statistical assistance, survey design, data analysis, significant technical procedures, professional editorial ...

show abstract

Strain specificity in a tropical marine sponge

Cited by 40 publications

References 18 publications

Self/non‐self recognition in sponges

Self/non‐self recognition in sponges

Life-History Differences among Coral Reef Sponges Promote Mutualism or Exploitation of Mutualism by Influencing Partner Fidelity Feedback

Self-nonself recognition: genomic and transcriptomic insights from the sponge aggregation factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About