Bioluminescence is an ocean wide phenomenon
and is present in many organisms, some of the main organisms being bacteria. Luminescent
bacteria are responsible for several occurrences such as behavioral
alterations, predation, communication and signaling, amongst others. This paper
looks at how bacterial bioluminescence can serve as a ‘bait’ to attract
predatory organisms, and how this can benefit the bacteria. The ability of
bioluminescence in bacteria is energetically costly, and therefore the benefits
of luminescence must outweigh these costs.
Luminous bacteria can exist in symbiotic
relationships (for example, in the bobtail squid Euprymna scolopes from Colin’s lectures), as saprophytes (on marine
snow for example), and as parasites. Some suggested reasons for why bacteria
possess the bioluminescence characteristic are for advanced repair of DNA,
protection against UV radiation, and for dispersal purposes.
In
this particular study, the bacteria used were the luminous Photobacterium leiognathi strain MI1. From this, a mutant was also
produced which failed to produce a measurable light emission, which was named the
dark mutant. This dark mutant was created by mutagenising the wild type with
N-methyl-N¹-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine. The clones which then failed to glow were
isolated, identified, and pure cultures were produced. The zooplankton used
were small brine shrimp Artemia salinaas
they are readily eaten by zooplanktivourous fishes, they are easy to handle and they lack evasive
behaviour. The fish species chosen
for the study was the nocturnal zooplanktivorous Apogon annularis, as it is a visual predator with excellent light
sensitivity.
In the initial experiment, two dialysis
bags were placed in opposite corners of a large tank of seawater; one
containing the luminescent P. leiognathi,
and the other containing the dark mutant P. leiognathi. A variety of zooplankton were then added to the tank
and left for 15 minutes in the dark. The results showed that the decapods and
mysids were found almost entirely where the bag containing the luminescent
bacteria was. The copepods showed no significant attraction, and the internal
control of non motile organisms such as fish eggs also showed no attraction. Having
swum in a liquid medium containing the bacteria, A. salina also became bioluminescent after only 10 seconds. Long
exposure photography showed that the P.
leiognathi were visible in the gut of A.
salina, as well as being seen externally. The chances of predation by A. annularis dramatically increased
after the consumption of the luminescent bacteria also turned the mysid A. salina luminescent. Almost all
luminescent mysids were actively hunted by the fish, whereas the non
luminescent mysids were only consumed on the rare occasion of one passing near
the fish’s head. The final experiment was to determine whether the bacteria
survived passing through the guts of fish and/or zooplankton. To do this, the
faecal pellets from A. annularis were
analysed and showed strong bioluminescence, indicating that the bacteria
survived this process. Strong bioluminescence was also observed in the faecal
pellets of the mysids A. Salina. The
abundance of luminous cells in A. annularis
faeces inceased fivefold in the specimens which had consumed luminescent mysids,
compared to those who consumed non luminescent mysids.
Bioluminescence
in bacteria can be used as a visual cue, as it has the potential to travel
further than chemical or mechanical cues. The zooplankton take a great risk
when approaching bioluminescent bacteria, as their own predators may also be
attracted to the area. However, the presence of this bacteria indicates
ephemeral patches rich in nutrients where, if successfully consumed without
predation occurring, benefits the zooplankton greatly. This experiment showed
that the bioluminescence of non symbiotic bacteria is a visual attractant for
organisms higher up the food chain. When consumed by these organisms, the
bacteria are in an area where they are sheltered and surrounded by nutrients in
the gut, enabling them to thrive and proliferate. Once these bacteria are
excreted, they will have travelled a lot further than their natural
capabilities would allow due to the high mobility of the fish. Due to their
wide range of ecological tolerances, they can take advantage of the new areas
they are introduced to.
Zarubin, M., Belkin, S., Ionescu, M. &
Genin, A. (2011) Bacterial bioluminescence as a lure for marine zooplankton and
fish. PNAS. 109 (3): 853-857.
Fantastic post Hannah i reviewed this paper a few months ago. How do you think this study adds to the field? I love that it is one of, if not the first, to actuelly test the bait hypothesis but I still think this needs to be directly tested on marine snow.what do you make of the choice of organisms on this study? My blog had some criitism of them.
ReplyDeleteGreat post Hannah, it was interesting that the paper used Apogon annularis as the fish species instead of a common host from the Leiognathidae family. Was the reason for this choice based on the specific sampling site or the increased light sensitivity? if the second, do the authors explain how A.annularis are adapted for better light sensitivity than other nocturnal fish?
ReplyDeleteJames, I really enjoyed your review of this paper. It was a lot better than mine in my opinion! This has been my favourite blog post I have written so far because I really enjoyed reading the paper as I had not heard of this hypothesis previously. I agree that it needs to be tested on marine snow, which the authors also mentioned should be done. As for the organism choices, I believe that Artema was a suitable choice, as was A. annularis. Their justification for the use of A. annularis is that it is a zooplanktivorous, nocturnal fish, which I think makes sense seeing as they required a fish which is able to detect luminescence in the dark.
ReplyDeleteKath, as I have just mentioned above, the authors stated that they used this species for its nocturnal properties, and because it is zooplanktivorous. I don't know what the 'common host' of the Photobacterium leiognathi is in order to try to see if there were any other reasons for this species of fish being chosen.
In the results, it is mentioned that A. annularis seemed to be able to identify the glowing of the prey prior to entering the feeding chamber, suggesting its light sensitivity enabled it to be seen from ca.30cm away. When the non glowing mutant was introduced, they were rarely consumed unless they happened to pass close to the head of A. annularis, which seems to indicate it is highly dependent on the luminescence to retrieve its prey.
I hope this helps, if not, don't hesitate to ask again!
Hi Hannah i agree but i still think there are some draw backs. I am just not convinced by the choice of artemia in this investigation. I think they chose it out of conviencance rather than for realism, considering that this study applies to deep sea ecology but hard to find a suitable model organism for this type of research. I am not saying they should have a perfect model for this system but come on a brine shrimp?! why not an marine member of the zooplankton?
ReplyDeleteThe only other issue i have with this experiment is that Zarubin did not differentiate between external and internal luminesence on the surrogates, although the difference is probably negligable. But i still dont think it gives us enough to answer step one and two of the bait hypothesis for that reason. Maybe i am just to picky!
All in all though i think the findings of this study are huge in the field and it now gives us, with a few slight modifications, a great standard for future investigations
James, having read that, I do agree with you completely in that I think their choice was a matter of convenience. However, I think their choice of organism wasn't terrible. Many researchers will use another species for convenience, so although it makes it slightly different as the species is not the same, maybe the fact that they got the results they did means they can go on to do a further study using the correct organism and using actual marine snow.
ReplyDeleteBeing picky can be good, as it can bring a new perspective on the matter, as you have done with me here! Thanks.
Thank you Hannah that does help. The reason for my interest comes from my post about P.mandapensis. P.leiognathi is mentioned repeatedly because it is closely related to P.mandapensis. The post explains that previous research has identified P.Leiognathi in many Leiognathid fish. In reguards to a common host, P.leiognathi tends to be found in ponyfish (leiognathidae)which are found in the Indian and Pacific oceans. This symbiotic relationship is not exclusive,as shown by its presence in A.annularis and other fish but it is a common find demonstrated by the bacterium's name. A.annularis is from the Apogonidae family which is found in the Western Indian ocean, this is why I thought there could be a specific sampling area.
ReplyDeleteI agree that light sensitivity does seem to be the main reason for this host selection, since most leiognathid fish are also nocturnal.