Evolutionary significance of the microbial assemblages of large benthic Foraminifera.
Cenozoic
climate change
coral reefs
microbiome
ocean warming
symbiosis
Journal
Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society
ISSN: 1469-185X
Titre abrégé: Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0414576
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2019
06 2019
Historique:
received:
26
04
2018
revised:
21
10
2018
accepted:
24
10
2018
pubmed:
20
11
2018
medline:
25
1
2020
entrez:
20
11
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Large benthic Foraminifera (LBF) are major carbonate producers on coral reefs, and are hosts to a diverse symbiotic microbial community. During warm episodes in the geological past, these reef-building organisms expanded their geographical ranges as subtropical and tropical belts moved into higher latitudes. During these range-expansion periods, LBF were the most prolific carbonate producers on reefs, dominating shallow carbonate platforms over reef-building corals. Even though the fossil and modern distributions of groups of species that harbour different types of symbionts are known, the nature, mechanisms, and factors that influence their occurrence remain elusive. Furthermore, the presence of a diverse and persistent bacterial community has only recently gained attention. We examined recent advances in molecular identification of prokaryotic (i.e. bacteria) and eukaryotic (i.e. microalgae) associates, and palaeoecology, and place the partnership with bacteria and algae in the context of climate change. In critically reviewing the available fossil and modern data on symbiosis, we reveal a crucial role of microalgae in the response of LBF to ocean warming, and their capacity to colonise a variety of habitats, across both latitudes and broad depth ranges. Symbiont identity is a key factor enabling LBF to expand their geographic ranges when the sea-surface temperature increases. Our analyses showed that over the past 66 million years (My), diatom-bearing species were dominant in reef environments. The modern record shows that these species display a stable, persistent eukaryotic assemblage across their geographic distribution range, and are less dependent on symbiotic photosynthesis for survival. By contrast, dinoflagellate and chlorophytic species, which show a provincial distribution, tend to have a more flexible eukaryotic community throughout their range. This group is more dependent on their symbionts, and flexibility in their symbiosis is likely to be the driving force behind their evolutionary history, as they form a monophyletic group originating from a rhodophyte-bearing ancestor. The study of bacterial assemblages, while still in its infancy, is a promising field of study. Bacterial communities are likely to be shaped by the local environment, although a core bacterial microbiome is found in species with global distributions. Cryptic speciation is also an important factor that must be taken into consideration. As global warming intensifies, genetic divergence in hosts in addition to the range of flexibility/specificity within host-symbiont associations will be important elements in the continued evolutionary success of LBF species in a wide range of environments. Based on fossil and modern data, we conclude that the microbiome, which includes both algal and bacterial partners, is a key factor influencing the evolution of LBF. As a result, the microbiome assists LBF in colonising a wide range of habitats, and allowed them to become the most important calcifiers on shallow platforms worldwide during periods of ocean warming in the geologic past. Since LBF are crucial ecosystem engineers and prolific carbonate producers, the microbiome is a critical component that will play a central role in the responses of LBF to a changing ocean, and ultimately in shaping the future of coral reefs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30450723
doi: 10.1111/brv.12482
pmc: PMC7379505
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
828-848Informations de copyright
© 2018 The Authors. Biological Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society.
Références
Front Microbiol. 2017 Mar 07;8:341
pubmed: 28326066
R Soc Open Sci. 2015 Feb 11;2(2):140297
pubmed: 26064597
Proc Biol Sci. 2014 Aug 22;281(1789):20140846
pubmed: 25009065
PLoS One. 2013;8(2):e54443
pubmed: 23405081
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jul 15;111(28):10227-32
pubmed: 24982156
Ecol Lett. 2017 Feb;20(2):246-263
pubmed: 28032461
J Phycol. 2012 Dec;48(6):1306-16
pubmed: 27009983
Am Nat. 2003 Oct;162(4 Suppl):S51-62
pubmed: 14583857
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 23;7:45227
pubmed: 28332634
ISME J. 2014 Jun;8(6):1198-209
pubmed: 24401862
J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2016 Nov;63(6):786-793
pubmed: 27174711
Front Microbiol. 2018 Oct 09;9:2404
pubmed: 30356788
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2007 Jun;71(2):295-347
pubmed: 17554047
Science. 2006 May 12;312(5775):857-8
pubmed: 16690848
Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Mar;22(3):148-55
pubmed: 17129636
J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2001 May-Jun;48(3):362-7
pubmed: 11411845
J Invertebr Pathol. 2017 Jul;147:136-144
pubmed: 27993618
J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2001 May-Jun;48(3):368-73
pubmed: 11411846
PLoS One. 2015 Dec 28;10(12):e0145752
pubmed: 26710320
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1992 Jun 15;89(12):5685-9
pubmed: 1608980
Biol Bull. 2014 Jun;226(3):169-86
pubmed: 25070863
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2018 Nov;93(4):2006-2020
pubmed: 29808579
J Foraminifer Res. 2013 Jan 1;43(1):72-87
pubmed: 26166915
Environ Microbiol. 2012 Jan;14(1):4-12
pubmed: 22004523
Protist. 2005 Jun;156(1):19-34
pubmed: 16048130
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2013 Sep 16;371(2001):20130096
pubmed: 24043869
mBio. 2016 Mar 31;7(2):e01785
pubmed: 27034284
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 13;10(8):e0132917
pubmed: 26270964
Nature. 2017 Mar 15;543(7645):373-377
pubmed: 28300113
Mar Pollut Bull. 2010 Nov;60(11):2062-78
pubmed: 20696442
Nat Commun. 2017 Feb 10;8:14213
pubmed: 28186132
Science. 2004 Aug 13;305(5686):997-1000
pubmed: 15310901
Microbiome. 2018 Feb 20;6(1):39
pubmed: 29463295
ISME J. 2013 Jul;7(7):1452-8
pubmed: 23303372
ISME J. 2015 Oct;9(10):2261-74
pubmed: 25885563
Annu Rev Microbiol. 2016 Sep 8;70:317-40
pubmed: 27482741
ISME J. 2012 May;6(5):951-60
pubmed: 22134648
Science. 2016 Jun 24;352(6293):1518-9
pubmed: 27339969
Zootaxa. 2016 Dec 23;4215(1):zootaxa.4215.1.1
pubmed: 28006788
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2010 Jul;56(1):492-7
pubmed: 20371383
Nature. 2008 Jan 17;451(7176):279-83
pubmed: 18202643
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006 May;72(5):3724-32
pubmed: 16672523
Sci Rep. 2016 Feb 23;6:21936
pubmed: 26902511
Proc Biol Sci. 2006 Sep 22;273(1599):2305-12
pubmed: 16928632
Front Microbiol. 2018 Sep 11;9:2018
pubmed: 30254612
mBio. 2016 Jul 26;7(4):
pubmed: 27460792
J Eukaryot Microbiol. 2008 May-Jun;55(3):163-9
pubmed: 18460153
Microbiome. 2017 Mar 23;5(1):38
pubmed: 28335814
Trends Ecol Evol. 2010 Apr;25(4):233-40
pubmed: 20006405
Science. 2008 Aug 1;321(5889):654-7
pubmed: 18669854
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 19;8(4):e62182
pubmed: 23620810
Protist. 2005 Dec;156(4):399-412
pubmed: 16310745
Trends Microbiol. 2010 Oct;18(10):455-63
pubmed: 20674366
Science. 2011 Jul 22;333(6041):418-22
pubmed: 21778392
Sci Rep. 2018 May 29;8(1):8189
pubmed: 29844498
Sci Rep. 2016 Jan 13;6:19324
pubmed: 26758800