4.5 Article

COALESCING RED ALGAE EXHIBIT NONINVASIVE, REVERSIBLE CHIMERISM

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
Volume 53, Issue 1, Pages 59-69

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jpy.12476

Keywords

cell competition; cell lineage segregation; chimerism; coalescence; upright axes formation

Funding

  1. FONDECYT [1120129]
  2. [PAIFAC-2015-2016]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chimerism is produced by the somatic fusion of two or more genetically distinct conspecific individuals. In animals, the main cost of fusion is competition between genetically different cell lineages and the probability of original cell line replacement by more competitive invasive lines, which limits its natural frequency (3%-5%). In red and brown seaweeds, chimerism is widespread (27%-53%), seemingly without the negative outcomes described for animals. The rigidity of cell walls in macroalgae prevents cell motility and invasions. In addition, in moving waters, most somatic fusions involve the holdfast. Histological observations in laboratory-built bicolor macroalgal chimeras indicated that upright axes emerge from the base of plants by proliferation and vertical growth of discrete cell groups that include one or just a few of the cell lineages occurring in the holdfasts. Laboratory experiments showed growth competition between cell lineages, thus explaining lineage segregation during growth along originally chimeric erect axes. Genotyping of the axes showed more heterogeneous tissues basally, but apically more homogeneous ones, generating a vertical gradient of allele abundance and diversity. The few chimeric primary branches produced, eventually became homogenous after repeated branching. Therefore, coalescing macroagae exhibit a unique pattern of post-fusion growth, with the capacity to reverse chimerism. This pattern is significantly different from those in animals and land plants, suggesting chimerism is a biologically heterogeneous concept.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available