Friday, 28 December 2012

Toxic meal for gutless marine worm


Toxic meal for gutless marine worm

Olavius algarvensis is a marine worm which lives off the coast of Italy in the Mediterranean (Fig. 1.). The worm has no mouth or gut and lives off energy provided by five different symbiotic bacteria.  Previous metagenomic studies have shown that the bacterial symbionts enable the worm to migrate between upper oxidized layers of sediment and lower suboxic and anoxic layers to inhabit a range of different niches.
 
Figure 1. A photograph of Olavius algarvensis taken from the Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology website.
 
Kleiner et al. (2012) used metaproteomics and metabolomics to reveal previously unknown metabolic interactions between the symbionts and the worm host. At this point it is useful to highlight the difference between metagenomics and metaproteomics/metabolomics, the former approach can only predict the metabolic potential of an organism based on its genome, while the latter gives information on the actual physiology and metabolism occurring at the time of sampling. Both approaches are becoming increasingly important in studying non-culturable species.

The most significant findings of this study were that O. algarvensis symbionts can recycle host fermentative waste products and that they can use carbon monoxide (toxic to most animals) as an energy source. Given the oligotrophic conditions which the worm inhabits it would certainly be advantageous to recycle energy rather than excreting it. Aquatic invertebrates (without symbionts) must excrete fermentative waste products to maintain their internal pH, in doing so they lose large amounts of energy-rich organic compounds. The recycling of fermentative host waste products was detected by the high expression of enzymes for an almost complete 3-hydroxypropionate bi-cycle in one of the symbionts, in which the fermentative waste products can be heterotrophically assimilated. The discovery that symbionts can use carbon monoxide as an energy source came as quite a surprise given its toxicity to animals as it would be expected to have negative effects on the host. Furthermore researchers were surprised to find carbon monoxide in the sediment in sufficient quantities to allow such reactions to occur. This toxic compound, when coupled with carbon dioxide, is an excellent electron donor whose electrons can be transferred to a variety of terminal electron acceptors. The analysis detected the presence of aerobic and anaerobic carbon monoxide dehydrogenases. Carbon monoxide could therefore be used as an energy source for the symbionts under all redox conditions as the worm moves through the sediment layers.

Whilst reading about complex symbioses between a host animal and its microbes, I can’t help but wonder how such a relationship has evolved. Selection pressures have driven the symbiosis so far that it would appear the worm has entirely lost its ability to survive independently. We are starting to get a mechanistic understanding of the physiology of O. algarvensis’s relationship with four of its symbionts (two aerobic gammaproteobacteria who are both sulfur oxidzers and two anaerobic deltaproteobacteria who are both sulphate reducers). However there is a fifth member of the consortium, a spirochete, which we still know very little about. In the future it would be interesting to investigate the evolutionary relationship of the host and its symbionts more explicitly, rather than just speculating, which is all we have so far. Furthermore it would be interesting to explore how the host animal can survive in the presence of carbon monoxide, a known respiratory poison.


Kleiner, M., Wentrup, C., Lott, C., Teeling, H., Wetzel, S., Young, J., Chang, Y.-J., et al. (2012). Metaproteomics of a gutless marine worm and its symbiotic microbial community reveal unusual pathways for carbon and energy use. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(19), 1–10.  http://www.pnas.org/content/109/19/E1173.full.pdf+html

 

 

6 comments:

  1. This was a great post Vicky. The first fascinating point seemed to be that they found the carbon monoxide present in the sediment in ‘sufficient quantities’. Does this mean that it was present in each layer of the sediment? Or does the quantity increase in specific conditions i.e. Anoxic? The other interesting point is that Carbon monoxide is used as an energy source by the symbionts, yet does not harm the host. The carbon monoxide must be absorbed for the symbiont to use it, so there has to be a form of inhibition to reduce its toxicity to protect the host. What would you say causes this host’s resilience to carbon monoxide?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Vicky and Kathryn,

    The use of carbon monoxide by symbiotic bacteria may not be as rare as our intuition would lead us to believe. In the article relating to the blog I have just posted, the chemosynthetic, hydrogen-utilising symbionts of hydrothermal vent mussels were found to have a hydrogen metabolism gene most closely related to that of an alphaproteobacterium, Oligotropha carboxidovorans, which grows chemolithoautotrophically under aerobic conditions, and uses H2 or CO as an electron donor.

    Perhaps such activity actually protects the host from the deleterious effects of CO by utilising it whenever it is present? If the symbionts grow in tissue that has close contact to the environment (the mussel symbionts are found in the gills), this may prevent contact of CO molecules with the metazoan tissues? I really find this kind of thing fascinating!

    Jo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi all,
      When reading this paper I did think about the CO concentrations in the sediment. To start with I thought the details on the CO distribution in the sediment could have been more detailed, but then I found the supporting documents. I think PNAS papers are really good in the way they convey all the important stuff in the paper and then the supporting material is super detailed and coherent so if you want the extra information you can find it easily.

      Basically they sampled pore water at 25 cm depth into the sediment and 5 cm above the sediment (n=9), so don’t have any information on concentration gradients etc. CO concentrations in the sediment pore waters ranged from 17–46 nM.

      Jo you make an interesting link to vent organism. I suppose if CO is such a good electron donor then it would make perfect sense to metabolise it to get rid of it if it’s toxic, whilst getting the benefits too. Do you know at what concentration CO becomes toxic to animals? As this could be a crucial factor here.

      Thanks for the comments,
      Vicky

      Delete
    2. Hi Vicky,

      I believe that the type of animal present would heavily influence the concentration at which CO becomes toxic due to physiological differences between animals.

      For example, a primary toxic function of CO is its high affinity to respiratory pigments (thus preventing the transport of oxygen). CO is likely to have a different affinity to each pigment type due to differences in molecular structure between each type of pigment. Thus the concentration at which CO becomes toxic may depend partly on the type of respiratory pigment present in any one animal (being just one example of such physiological differences).

      It seems plausible that the presence of any CO metabolising microbial associates could affect the concentration of CO which an animal can tolerate too. So many potential experiments!

      Jo

      Delete
  3. Hi again,

    It is certain the organism and its haemoglobin would affect toxicity of CO. Slightly off the topic, but my friends dog got CO poisoning as its bed was near the boil, however my friend and her partner showed no symptoms. I’ve read a few things about CO being more toxic to smaller animals, but this is really just concerning mammals, perhaps could be extended more generally to vertebrates. But I can’t find any information on CO toxicity to invertebrates…. Maybe it isn’t toxic at all to invertebrates, in which case the title of my post would be incorrect. I will persevere with this one and let you know if I find anything of interest.

    Moving on from CO and its toxicity for the moment, what do you both make of the evolutionary aspect of this post? I can’t quite get my head round how such a complex symbiosis could evolve.

    Thanks again,
    Vicky

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.