Within-family plasticity of nervous system architecture in Syllidae (Annelida, Errantia).
Annelida
Nervous system evolution
Neuroanatomy
Phyllodocida
Syllidae
Journal
Frontiers in zoology
ISSN: 1742-9994
Titre abrégé: Front Zool
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101231669
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
25
10
2019
accepted:
03
04
2020
entrez:
26
6
2020
pubmed:
26
6
2020
medline:
26
6
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The ground pattern underlying the nervous system of the last common ancestor in annelids was long thought to be settled, consisting of a dorsal brain, circumoesophageal connectives and a subepithelial, ladder-like ventral nerve cord with segmental ganglia connected by paired connectives. With the advent of immunocytochemical stainings and confocal laser scanning microscopy, it becomes evident that its architecture is extremely diverse, which makes the reconstruction of a ground pattern in annelida challenging. Whereas the nervous systems of many different families has already been described, only very few studies looked at the diversity of nervous systems within such clades to give a closer estimate on how plastic the annelid nervous system really is. So far, little is known on syllid nervous system architecture, one of the largest and most diverse groups of marine annelids. The position of the brain, the circumoesophageal connectives, the stomatogastric nervous system, the longitudinal nerves that traverse each segment and the innervation of appendages are relatively uniform within the clade. Both the number of connectives within the ventral nerve cord and the number of segmental nerves, which in earlier studies were used to infer phylogenetic relationships and to reconstruct an annelid ground pattern, are highly diverse and differ between genera or even within a given genus. Differences in the distribution of somata of the brain, the nuchal innervation and its associated cell bodies were found between Syllinae and Exogoninae and may be subfamily-specific. The nervous system morphology of syllids very likely depends on the taxon-specific ecological requirements. Thus, it is not surprising that in a clade, which occupies such diverse niches as the Annelida, we find similar patterns in phylogenetically widely separated species in similar niches and a high degree of modularity within a family. Only standardized protocols and staining methods can lead to comparable results, but so far different approaches have been taken to describe annelid nervous systems, making homologization of certain structures difficult. This study provides the first thorough description of the nervous system in the family Syllidae, allowing more detailed comparisons between annelid families in the future.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The ground pattern underlying the nervous system of the last common ancestor in annelids was long thought to be settled, consisting of a dorsal brain, circumoesophageal connectives and a subepithelial, ladder-like ventral nerve cord with segmental ganglia connected by paired connectives. With the advent of immunocytochemical stainings and confocal laser scanning microscopy, it becomes evident that its architecture is extremely diverse, which makes the reconstruction of a ground pattern in annelida challenging. Whereas the nervous systems of many different families has already been described, only very few studies looked at the diversity of nervous systems within such clades to give a closer estimate on how plastic the annelid nervous system really is. So far, little is known on syllid nervous system architecture, one of the largest and most diverse groups of marine annelids.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The position of the brain, the circumoesophageal connectives, the stomatogastric nervous system, the longitudinal nerves that traverse each segment and the innervation of appendages are relatively uniform within the clade. Both the number of connectives within the ventral nerve cord and the number of segmental nerves, which in earlier studies were used to infer phylogenetic relationships and to reconstruct an annelid ground pattern, are highly diverse and differ between genera or even within a given genus. Differences in the distribution of somata of the brain, the nuchal innervation and its associated cell bodies were found between Syllinae and Exogoninae and may be subfamily-specific.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The nervous system morphology of syllids very likely depends on the taxon-specific ecological requirements. Thus, it is not surprising that in a clade, which occupies such diverse niches as the Annelida, we find similar patterns in phylogenetically widely separated species in similar niches and a high degree of modularity within a family. Only standardized protocols and staining methods can lead to comparable results, but so far different approaches have been taken to describe annelid nervous systems, making homologization of certain structures difficult. This study provides the first thorough description of the nervous system in the family Syllidae, allowing more detailed comparisons between annelid families in the future.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32582362
doi: 10.1186/s12983-020-00359-9
pii: 359
pmc: PMC7310387
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
20Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
BMC Evol Biol. 2019 Aug 28;19(1):173
pubmed: 31462293
Front Zool. 2015 Apr 18;12:8
pubmed: 25960761
Biol Bull. 2008 Aug;215(1):3-23
pubmed: 18723633
Mol Biol Evol. 2014 Jul;31(7):1833-49
pubmed: 24748651
BMC Evol Biol. 2016 Apr 14;16:83
pubmed: 27080383
BMC Evol Biol. 2016 Oct 4;16(1):196
pubmed: 27716025
Front Zool. 2019 Mar 12;16:6
pubmed: 30911320
BMC Evol Biol. 2015 Feb 25;15:25
pubmed: 25880037
Evol Dev. 2008 Sep-Oct;10(5):606-18
pubmed: 18803778
Evodevo. 2013 Oct 07;4(1):27
pubmed: 24098981
Arthropod Struct Dev. 2006 Dec;35(4):211-30
pubmed: 18089072
Front Zool. 2010 Jun 16;7:17
pubmed: 20553614
Integr Comp Biol. 2006 Apr;46(2):125-33
pubmed: 21672729
Zookeys. 2011;(150):281-326
pubmed: 22207817
Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2010 Jan;54(1):309-13
pubmed: 19825421
J Morphol. 2019 Nov;280(11):1628-1650
pubmed: 31487090
Front Zool. 2018 Sep 27;15:36
pubmed: 30275868
Zoological Lett. 2015 Aug 06;1:20
pubmed: 26605065
J Morphol. 2009 Nov;270(11):1296-310
pubmed: 19530094
Dev Genes Evol. 2005 Oct;215(10):509-18
pubmed: 16133569
Front Zool. 2016 Feb 08;13:5
pubmed: 26862347
Zookeys. 2015 Mar 19;(488):1-29
pubmed: 25878521
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Nov;32(11):2860-75
pubmed: 26205969
Front Zool. 2010 Nov 09;7:29
pubmed: 21062451
J Morphol. 2012 Jan;273(1):57-67
pubmed: 21953880
R Soc Open Sci. 2016 Oct 26;3(10):160289
pubmed: 27853545
Front Zool. 2006 Oct 10;3:16
pubmed: 17032451
BMC Evol Biol. 2015 Dec 10;15:277
pubmed: 26653148
Nat Methods. 2012 Jun 28;9(7):676-82
pubmed: 22743772
Zookeys. 2011;(150):327-45
pubmed: 22346561
Curr Biol. 2008 Aug 5;18(15):1129-32
pubmed: 18656359
Zookeys. 2012;(181):1-10
pubmed: 22539907
Front Zool. 2010 May 04;7:13
pubmed: 20441583
Biol Bull. 2009 Jun;216(3):293-306
pubmed: 19556595
Int J Dev Biol. 2014;58(6-8):613-22
pubmed: 25690975
Arthropod Struct Dev. 2011 May;40(3):193-209
pubmed: 21315833
BMC Evol Biol. 2016 Jun 16;16(1):129
pubmed: 27306767
J Morphol. 2004 Sep;261(3):259-69
pubmed: 15281055