4.6 Article

Cell size, photosynthesis and the package effect: an artificial selection approach

期刊

NEW PHYTOLOGIST
卷 219, 期 1, 页码 449-461

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/nph.15163

关键词

allometric size-scaling; artificial selection; evolutionary size-shift; experimental evolution; geometric biology; metabolism; oxygen evolution; primary production

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP110103529]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cell size correlates with most traits among phytoplankton species. Theory predicts that larger cells should show poorer photosynthetic performance, perhaps due to reduced intracellular self-shading (i.e. package effect). Yet current theory relies heavily on interspecific correlational approaches and causal relationships between size and photosynthetic machinery have remained untested. As a more direct test, we applied 250 generations of artificial selection (c. 20 months) to evolve the green microalga Dunaliella teriolecta (Chlorophyta) toward different mean cell sizes, while monitoring all major photosynthetic parameters. Evolving larger sizes (>1500% difference in volume) resulted in reduced oxygen production per chlorophyll molecule - as predicted by the package effect. However, large-evolved cells showed substantially higher rates of oxygen production - a finding unanticipated by current theory. In addition, volume-specific photosynthetic pigments increased with size (Chla+b), while photo-protectant pigments decreased (beta-carotene). Finally, larger cells displayed higher growth performances and F-v/F-m, steeper slopes of rapid light curves (alpha) and smaller light-harvesting antennae (sigma(PSII)) with higher connectivity (rho). Overall, evolving a common ancestor into different sizes showed that the photosynthetic characteristics of a species coevolves with cell volume. Moreover, our experiment revealed a trade-off between chlorophyll-specific (decreasing with size) and volume-specific (increasing with size) oxygen production in a cell.

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

4.6
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