Myung Gil Park

Parasites and phytoplankton, with special emphasis on dinoflagellate infections.

Abstract Planktonic members of most algal groups are known to harbor intracellular symbionts, including viruses, bacteria, fungi, and protozoa. Among the dinoflagellates, viral and bacterial associations were recognized a quarter century ago, yet their impact on host populations remains largely unresolved. By contrast, fungal and protozoan infections of dinoflagellates are well documented and generally viewed as playing major roles in host population dynamics. Our understanding of fungal parasites is largely based on studies for freshwater diatoms and dinoflagellates, although fungal infections are known for some marine phytoplankton. In freshwater systems, fungal chytrids have been linked to mass mortalities of host organisms, suppression or retardation of phytoplankton blooms, and selective effects on species composition leading to successional changes in plankton communities. Parasitic dinoflagellates of the genus Amoebophrya and the newly described Perkinsozoa, Parvilucifera infectans, are widely distributed in coastal waters of the world where they commonly infect photosynthetic and heterotrophic dinoflagellates. Recent work indicates that these parasites can have significant impacts on host physiology, behavior, and bloom dynamics. Thus, parasitism needs to be carefully considered in developing concepts about plankton dynamics and the flow of material in marine food webs.

Parasitism of photosynthetic dinoflagellates by three strains of Amoebophrya (Dinophyta): Parasite survival, infectivity, generation time, and host specificity

Amoebophrya ceratii (Koeppen) Cachon is an obligate parasite of dinoflagellates and may represent a species complex. However, little is known about the biology and host range of different strains of Amoebophrya Cachon. Here, we determined parasite generation time and dinospore infectivity, survival, and ability to infect nonprimary hosts for strains of Amoebophrya from Akashiwo sanguinea (Hirasaka) G. Hansen et Moestrup, Gymnodinium instriatum (Freudenthal et Lee) Coats comb. nov., and Karlodinium micrum (Leadbeater et Dodge) J. Larsen. Akashiwo sanguinea was readily infected, with parasite prevalence reaching 100% in dinospore:host inoculations above a 10:1 ratio. Parasitism also approached 100% in G. instriatum, but only when inoculations exceeded a 40:1 ratio. Karlodinium micrum appeared partially resistant to infection, as parasite prevalence saturated at 92%. Parasite generation time differed markedly among Amoebophrya strains. Survival and infectivity of dinospores decreased over time, with strains from G. instriatum and A. sanguinea unable to initiate infections after 2 and 5 days, respectively. By contrast, dinospores from Amoebophrya parasitizing K. micrum remained infective for up to 11 days. Akashiwo sanguinea and G. instriatum were not infected when exposed to dinospores from nonprimary Amoebophrya strains. Karlodinium micrum, however, was attacked by dinospores of Amoebophrya from the other two host species, but infections failed to reach maturity. Observed differences in host–parasite biology support the hypothesis that Amoebophrya ceratii represents a complex of host‐specific species. Results also suggest that Amoebophrya strains have evolved somewhat divergent survival strategies that may encompass sexuality, heterotrophy during the “free‐living” dinospore stage, and dormancy.

Feeding by the Heterotrophic Dinoflagellate Oxyrrhis marina on the Red-Tide Raphidophyte Heterosigma akashiwo: a Potential Biological Method to Control Red Tides Using Mass-Cultured Grazers

Abstract As part of the development of a method to control the outbreak and persistence of red tides using mass-cultured heterotrophic protist grazers, we measured the growth and ingestion rates of cultured Oxyrrhis marina (a heterotrophic dinoflagellate) on cultured Heterosigma akashiwo (a raphidophyte) in bottles in the laboratory and in mesocosms (ca. 60 liter) in nature, and those of the cultured grazer on natural populations of the red-tide organism in mesocosms set up in nature. In the bottle incubation, specific growth rates of O. marina increased rapidly with increasing concentration of cultured prey up to ca. 950 ng C ml−1 (equivalent to 9,500 cells ml−1), but were saturated at higher concentrations. Maximum specific growth rate (μmax), KGR (prey concentration sustaining 0.5 μmax) and threshold prey concentration of O. marina on H. akashiwo were 1.43 d−1, 104 ng C ml−1, and 8.0 ng C ml−1, respectively. Maximum ingestion and clearance rates of O. marina were 1.27 ng C grazer−1 d−1 and 0.3 μl grazer−1 h−1, respectively. Cultured O. marina grew well effectively reducing cultured and natural populations of H. akashiwo down to a very low concentration within 3 d in the mesocosms. The growth and ingestion rates of cultured O. marina on natural populations of H. akashiwo in the mesocosms were 39% and 40%, respectively, of those calculated based on the results from the bottle incubation in the laboratory, while growth and ingestion rates of cultured O. marina on cultured H. akashiwo in the mesocosms were 55% and 36%, respectively. Calculated grazing impact by O. marina on natural populations of H. akashiwo suggests that O. marina cultured on a large scale could be used for controlling red tides by H. akashiwo near aquaculture farms that are located in small ponds, lagoons, semi-enclosed bays, and large land-aqua tanks to which fresh seawater should be frequently supplied.

PLASTID DYNAMICS DURING SURVIVAL OF DINOPHYSIS CAUDATA WITHOUT ITS CILIATE PREY1

To survive, the marine dinoflagellate Dinophysis caudata Saville‐Kent must feed on the plastidic ciliate Myrionecta rubra (=Mesodinium rubrum), itself a consumer of cryptophytes. Whether D. caudata has its own permanent chloroplasts or retains plastids from its ciliate prey, however, remains unresolved. Further, how long D. caudata plastids (or kleptoplastids) persist and remain photosynthetically active in the absence of prey remains unknown. We addressed those issues here, using the first established culture of D. caudata. Phylogenetic analyses of the plastid 16S rRNA and psbA gene sequences directly from the three organisms (D. caudata, M. rubra, and a cryptophyte) revealed that the sequences of both genes from the three organisms are almost identical to each other, supporting that the plastids of D. caudata are kleptoplastids. A 3‐month starvation experiment revealed that D. caudata can remain photosynthetically active for ∼2 months when not supplied with prey. D. caudata cells starved for more than 2 months continued to keep the plastid 16S rRNA gene but lost the photosynthesis‐related genes (i.e., psaA and psbA genes). When the prey was available again, however, D. caudata cells starved for more than 2 months were able to reacquire plastids and slowly resumed photosynthetic activity. Taken all together, the results indicate that the nature of the relationship between D. caudata and its plastids is not that of permanent cellular acquisitions. D. caudata is an intriguing protist that would represent an interesting evolutionary adaptation with regard to photosynthesis as well as help us to better understand plastid evolution in eukaryotes.

DINOPHYSIS CAUDATA (DINOPHYCEAE) SEQUESTERS AND RETAINS PLASTIDS FROM THE MIXOTROPHIC CILIATE PREY MESODINIUM RUBRUM(1).

“Phototrophic”Dinophysis Ehrenberg species are well known to have chloroplasts of a cryptophyte origin, more specifically of the cryptophyte genus complex Teleaulax/Geminigera. Nonetheless, whether chloroplasts of “phototrophic”Dinophysis are permanent plastids or periodically derived kleptoplastids (stolen chloroplasts) has not been confirmed. Indeed, molecular sequence data and ultrastructural data lead to contradictory interpretations about the status of Dinophysis plastids. Here, we used established cultures of D. caudata strain DC‐LOHABE01 and M. rubrum strain MR‐MAL01 to address the status of Dinophysis plastids. Our approach was to experimentally generate D. caudata with “green” plastids and then follow the ingestion and fate of “reddish‐brown” prey plastids using light microscopy, time‐lapse videography, and single‐cell TEM. Our results for D. caudata resolve the apparent discrepancy between morphological and molecular data by showing that plastids acquired when feeding on M. rubrum are structurally modified and retained as stellate compound chloroplasts characteristic of Dinophysis species.

Genetic Diversity of Parasitic Dinoflagellates in the Genus Amoebophrya and Its Relationship to Parasite Biology and Biogeography

ABSTRACT. We determined 18S rRNA gene sequences of Amoebophrya strains infecting the thecate dinoflagellates Alexandrium affine and Gonyaulax polygramma from Korean coastal waters and compared those data with previously reported sequences of Amoebophrya from cultures, infected cells concentrated from field samples, and environmental 18S rRNA gene sequences obtained from a variety of marine environments. Further, we used these data to examine genetic diversity in Amoebophrya strains relative to geographic origin, host phylogeny, site of infection, and host specificity. In our analyses of known dinoflagellate taxa, the 13 available Amoebophrya sequences clustered together within the dinoflagellates as three groups forming a monophyletic group with high bootstrap support (maximum likelihood, ML: 100%) or a posterior probability (PP) of 1. When the Amoebophrya sequences were analyzed along with environmental sequences associated with Marine Alveolate Group II, nine subgroups formed a monophyletic group with high bootstrap support (ML: 100%) and PP of 1. Sequences known to be from Amoebophrya spp. infecting dinoflagellate hosts were distributed in seven of those subgroups. Despite differences in host species and geographic origin (Korea, United States, and Europe), Amoebophrya strains (Group II) from Gymnodinium instriatum, A. affine, Ceratium tripos (AY208892), Prorocentrum micans, and Ceratium lineatum grouped together by all of our tree construction methods, even after adding the environmental sequences. By contrast, strains within Groups I and III divided into several lineages following inclusion of environmental sequences. While Amoebophrya strains within Group II mostly developed within the host cytoplasm, strains in Groups I and III formed infections inside the host nucleus, a trait that appeared across several of the subgroups. Host specificity varied from moderately to extremely species‐specific within groups, including Group II. Taken together, our results imply that genetic diversity in Amoebophrya strains does not always reflect parasite biology or biogeography.

DOES DINOPHYSIS CAUDATA (DINOPHYCEAE) HAVE PERMANENT PLASTIDS

The marine photosynthetic dinoflagellates Dinophysis Ehrenb. species are obligate mixotrophs that require both light and the ciliate prey Myrionecta rubra (= Mesodinium rubrum) for long‐term survival. Despite rapid progress on the study of Dinophysis using laboratory cultures, however, whether it has its own permanent plastids or kleptoplastids (i.e., stolen plastids from its ciliate prey) is not fully resolved. Here, we addressed this issue using established cultures of D. caudata Saville‐Kent strain DC‐LOHABE01 and cross‐feeding/starvation experiments encompassing the prey M. rubra strain MR‐MAL01 cultures grown on two different cryptophytes (strains CR‐MAL01 and CR‐MAL11). To follow the fate of prey plastids, psbA gene as a tracer was amplified from individually isolated D. caudata cells, and the PCR products were digested with a restriction enzyme, SfaNI. The RFLP pattern of the PCR products digested by SfaNI revealed that D. caudata continued to keep CR‐MAL01–type plastids, while it lost CR‐MAL11–type plastids with increasing starvation time. Our results suggest that Dinophysis treats in different ways plastids taken up from different cryptophytes via its ciliate prey M. rubra. Alternatively, D. caudata may already have its own CR‐MAL01–type permanent plastid, with two types of plastids (CR‐MAL01 and CR‐MAL11) obtained from M. rubra being lost within 1 month. This result highlights the need to identify more accurately the origin of plastids in newly isolated photosynthetic Dinophysis species to resolve the issue of plastid permanence.

INFECTION OF THE BLOOM‐FORMING THECATE DINOFLAGELLATES ALEXANDRIUM AFFINE AND GONYAULAX SPINIFERA BY TWO STRAINS OF AMOEBOPHRYA (DINOPHYTA)1

In autumn 2002, parasitic dinoflagellates of the genus Amoebophrya Koeppen infected populations of the bloom‐forming thecate dinoflagellates Alexandrium affine (Inoue and Fukuyo) Balech and Gonyaulax spinifera (Claparede and Lachmann) Diesing in coastal waters of Korea. Here we present the first documentation of Amoebophrya infections in A. affine and G. spinifera and use host–parasite cultures to provide information on parasite development and total generation times. Parasites of the two dinoflagellate hosts differed in their site of infection, developing in the cytoplasm of A. affine but in the nucleus of G. spinifera. Developmental stages of the parasite strains were similar to the previous descriptions of Amoebophrya spp. infecting other dinoflagellates. A prominent feature of Amoebophrya infection in A. affine from natural field samples was the presence of abnormal “giant cells” in the long chains formed by this host species. The characteristic green autofluorescence of Amoebophrya infections was not evident under blue light excitation until very late in the infection cycle of the A. affine–Amoebophrya sp. system but was detectable throughout the infection cycle in the G. spinifera–Amoebophrya sp. system. Despite the relatively long duration (2–10 min) of the emergence process of Amoebophrya spp. from these thecate hosts, total parasite generation times were shorter (53–55 h) than those previously reported for athecate host–parasite systems. These observations provide the basis for better assessing the impact of parasitism by Amoebophrya sp. as a significant loss factor for thecate dinoflagellate populations in Korean waters.

PREY SPECIFICITY AND FEEDING OF THE THECATE MIXOTROPHIC DINOFLAGELLATE FRAGILIDIUM DUPLOCAMPANAEFORME1

In summer to autumn of 2008, a recently described thecate mixotrophic dinoflagellate, Fragilidium duplocampanaeforme Nézan et Chomérat, occurred in Masan Bay, Korea, where it frequently contained bright‐orange fluorescent inclusions. Using cultures of F. duplocampanaeforme isolated from Masan Bay, we investigated feeding, digestion, and prey specificity of this mixotroph. F. duplocampanaeforme fed exclusively on Dinophysis spp. when offered a variety of prey including dinoflagellates, a raphidophyte, a cryptophyte, a ciliate, and diatoms separately. In addition, F. duplocampanaeforme had allelopathic effects on other organisms, including cell immobilization/motility decrease (in Dinophysis acuminata, D. caudata, D. fortii, D. infundibulus, Gonyaulax polygramma, Heterocapsa triquetra, and Prorocentrum triestinum), breaking of cell chains (in Cochlodinium polykrikoides), cell death (in Prorocentrum minimum), and temporary cyst formation (in Scrippsiella trochoidea). F. duplocampanaeforme engulfed whole Dinophysis cells through the sulcus. About 1 h after ingestion, F. duplocampanaeforme became immobile and shed all thecal plates. The ecdysal cyst persisted for ∼7 h, during which the ingested prey was gradually digested. These observations suggest that F. duplocampanaeforme may play an important role in the Dinophysis population dynamics in the field.

A Dinoflagellate Amylax triacantha with Plastids of the Cryptophyte Origin: Phylogeny, Feeding Mechanism, and Growth and Grazing Responses

The gonyaulacalean dinoflagellates Amylax spp. were recently found to contain plastids of the cryptophyte origin, more specifically of Teleaulax amphioxeia. However, not only how the dinoflagellates get the plastids of the cryptophyte origin is unknown but also their ecophysiology, including growth and feeding responses as functions of both light and prey concentration, remain unknown. Here, we report the establishment of Amylax triacantha in culture, its feeding mechanism, and its growth rate using the ciliate prey Mesodinium rubrum (= Myrionecta rubra) in light and dark, and growth and grazing responses to prey concentration and light intensity. The strain established in culture in this study was assigned to A. triacantha, based on morphological characteristics (particularly, a prominent apical horn and three antapical spines) and nuclear SSU and LSU rDNA sequences. Amylax triacantha grew well in laboratory culture when supplied with the marine mixotrophic ciliate M. rubrum as prey, reaching densities of over 7.5 × 103 cells/ml. Amylax triacantha captured its prey using a tow filament, and then ingested the whole prey by direct engulfment through the sulcus. The dinoflagellate was able to grow heterotrophically in the dark, but the growth rate was approximately two times lower than in the light. Although mixotrophic growth rates of A. triacantha increased sharply with mean prey concentrations, with maximum growth rate being 0.68/d, phototrophic growth (i.e. growth in the absence of prey) was −0.08/d. The maximum ingestion rate was 2.54 ng C/Amylax/d (5.9 cells/Amylax/d). Growth rate also increased with increasing light intensity, but the effect was evident only when prey was supplied. Increased growth with increasing light intensity was accompanied by a corresponding increase in ingestion. In mixed cultures of two predators, A. triacantha and Dinophysis acuminata, with M. rubrum as prey, A. triacantha outgrew D. acuminata due to its approximately three times higher growth rate, suggesting that it can outcompete D. acuminata. Our results would help better understand the ecophysiology of dinoflagellates retaining foreign plastids.