4.5 Review

Genetic comparisons of freshly isolated versus cultured symbiotic dinoflagellates: Implications for extrapolating to the intact symbiosis

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYCOLOGY
卷 37, 期 5, 页码 900-912

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1046/j.1529-8817.2001.00194.x

关键词

culture; internal transcribed spacer; microsatellites, small subunit rDNA genes; Symbiodinium; symbiosis; symbiotic dinoflagellates; zooxanthellae

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Zooxanthellae, algal symbionts in divergent marine invertebrate hosts, are a genetically heterogeneous group. All species descriptions and most physiological and infectivity studies of zooxanthellae have been conducted using cultured material. However, few studies have attempted to quantify the representation of cultures isolated from cnidarians to the in hospite zooxanthella populations of the individual host or host species from which they were established. RFLPs of small subunit (18S) rDNA, internal transcribed spacer (ITS)rDNA sequence data, and microsatellite analyses were conducted to assess the relatedness between cultured zooxanthellae and the in hospite populations of the individual host or host species from which they were isolated. RFLP data demonstrated that cultures may represent either the numerically dominant symbiont or ones present in lower number. ITS-rDNA sequences from zooxanthella. cultures were disconcordant with ITS-rDNA sequences identified from in hospite zooxanthellae of the same host species, and microsatellites present in in hospite zooxanthella populations were absent from the corresponding cultures. Finally, reexamination of the literature revealed examples of zooxanthellar cultures being nonrepresentative of in hospite populations. These data suggest that, in most cases, cultures are a subset of the original in hospite population. Factors such as failing to homogenize bulk cultures before transfer, growth medium used, and the picking of single motile cells may contribute to many zooxanthella cultures being nonrepresentative.

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