4.5 Article

Calcification rates of a massive and a branching coral species were unrelated to diversity of endosymbiotic dinoflagellates

期刊

MOLECULAR BIOLOGY REPORTS
卷 49, 期 9, 页码 9101-9106

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11033-022-07702-9

关键词

Porites australiensis; Acropora digitifera; Cladocopium; Polymorphism; Japan

资金

  1. Nissei Science Foundation [02]
  2. KAKENHI from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [18H03366, 18K18793, 19K22938, 20H00653]
  3. Research Laboratory on Environmentallyconscious Developments and Technologies (E-code) at the National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)
  4. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20H00653, 19K22938, 18H03366, 18K18793] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the diversity of symbiotic algae in coral colonies with different calcification rates. The results suggest that coral calcification rates may be attributed to genetic factors of coral hosts themselves and/or within symbiont genotypes.
Background To explore the possibility that endosymbiotic dinoflagellates (Symbiodiniaceae) are associated with coral calcification rates, we investigated the diversity of symbiotic algae in coral colonies with different calcification rates within massive and branching corals (Porites australiensis and Acropora digitifera). Methods and results Genotyping symbiotic algae from colonies with different calcification rates revealed that all the colonies of both species harbored mainly Cladocopium (previously clade C of Symbiodinium). The Cladocopium symbionts in P. australiensis were mainly composed of C15 and C15bn, and those in A. digitifera of C50a and C50c. We did not detect clear relationships between symbiont compositions and calcification rates within the two coral species. Conclusions Our results suggest that different coral calcification rates within species may be attributed to genetic factors of coral hosts themselves and/or within symbiont genotypes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据