4.6 Article

Prevalence and Mechanisms of Dynamic Chemical Defenses in Tropical Sponges

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 7, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0132236

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. German Academic Exchange Service
  2. National Institutes of Health MBRS SCORE grant [S06-GM-44796]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sponges and other sessile invertebrates are lacking behavioural escape or defense mechanisms and rely therefore on morphological or chemical defenses. Studies from terrestrial systems and marine algae demonstrated facultative defenses like induction and activation to be common, suggesting that sessile marine organisms also evolved mechanisms to increase the efficiency of their chemical defense. However, inducible defenses in sponges have not been investigated so far and studies on activated defenses are rare. We investigated whether tropical sponge species induce defenses in response to artificial predation and whether wounding triggers defense activation. Additionally, we tested if these mechanisms are also used to boost antimicrobial activity to avoid bacterial infection. Laboratory experiments with eight pacific sponge species showed that 87% of the tested species were chemically defended. Two species, Stylissa massa and Melophlus sarasinorum, induced defenses in response to simulated predation, which is the first demonstration of induced antipredatory defenses in marine sponges. One species, M. sarasinorum, also showed activated defense in response to wounding. Interestingly, 50% of the tested sponge species demonstrated induced antimicrobial defense. Simulated predation increased the antimicrobial defenses in Aplysinella sp., Cacospongia sp., M. sarasinorum, and S. massa. Our results suggest that wounding selects for induced antimicrobial defenses to protect sponges from pathogens that could otherwise invade the sponge tissue via feeding scars.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available