4.0 Article

Symbiotic Ciliates Receive Protection Against UV Damage from their Algae: A Test with Paramecium bursaria and Chlorella

Journal

PROTIST
Volume 160, Issue 2, Pages 233-243

Publisher

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.protis.2008.11.005

Keywords

ciliates; green algae; mutual benefit; symbiosis; UV radiation

Categories

Funding

  1. Austrian Science Fund [16559-B06]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We assessed the photoprotective role of symbiotic Chlorella in the ciliate Paramecium bursaria by comparing their sensitivity to UV radiation (UVR) with Chlorella-reduced and Chlorella-free (aposymbiotic) cell lines of the same species. Aposymbiotic P. bursaria had significantly higher mortality than the symbiotic cell lines when exposed to UVR. To elucidate the protection mechanism, we assessed the algal distribution within the ciliate using thin-sections and transmission electron microscopy and estimated the screening factor by Chlorella based on an optical model. These analyses evidenced a substantial screening factor ranging, from 59.2% to 93.2% (320 nm) for regular algal distribution. This screening efficiency reached up to similar to 100% when Chlorella algae were dislocated to the posterior region of the ciliate. The dislocation was observed in symbiotic ciliates only under exposure to UV plus photosynthetically active radiation (PAR) or to high PAR levels. Moreover, under exposure to UVB radiation and high PAR, symbiotic P. bursaria aggregated into dense spots. This behavior could represent an efficient avoidance strategy not yet described for ciliates. Analyses of the intact symbiosis and their algal symbionts for UV-screening compounds (mycosporine-like amino acids and sporopollenin) proved negative. Overall, our results show that photoprotection in this ciliate symbiosis represents an additional advantage to the hitherto postulated nutritional benefits. (C) 2008 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available