Article

Genetic diversity in the Paramecium aurelia species complex.

Department of Biology, Indiana University, USA.
Molecular Biology and Evolution (Impact Factor: 14.31). 12/2008; 26(2):421-31. DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msn266
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Current understanding of the population genetics of free-living unicellular eukaryotes is limited, and the amount of genetic variability in these organisms is still a matter of debate. We characterized-reproductively and genetically-worldwide samples of multiple Paramecium species belonging to a cryptic species complex, Paramecium aurelia, whose species have been shown to be reproductively isolated. We found that levels of genetic diversity both in the nucleus and in the mitochondrion are substantial within groups of reproductively compatible P. aurelia strains but drop considerably when strains are partitioned according to their phylogenetic groupings. Our study reveals the existence of discrepancies between the mating behavior of a number of P. aurelia strains and their multilocus genetic profile, a controversial finding that has major consequences for both the current methods of species assignment and the species problem in the P. aurelia complex.

0 Followers
 · 
116 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The relevance of geographical distribution and the roles of dispersal and spatial isolation during the speciation of microorganisms are nowadays of great interest. The Paramecium aurelia species complex is a perfect model system to explore these questions given its long history as a study subject and broad distribution. However, the world-wide distribution of the Paramecium aurelia complex (Ciliophora, Protista) still needs study, e.g. sampling in the southern hemisphere has been quite limited, while Europe has been investigated for years, with the majority of aurelia species isolated from here. Recently, new stands of species of the P. aurelia complex were found in southern Europe (Malta, Bulgaria, Cyprus) and in the Czech Republic (P. primaurelia, P. triaurelia, P. octaurelia). In Africa (Republic of South Africa), new stands of P. primaurelia, P. triaurelia, and P. octaurelia were found. Interestingly, the rare species P. triaurelia, and P. octaurelia were found to co-occur both in South Africa (SA 13) and the Czech Republic (CKV 8). Newly established strains were identified to species by crossing with the test strains (the reference strains for the particular species).
    Folia Biologica 12/2014; 62(4). DOI:10.3409/fb62_4.361 · 0.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Microscopy has revealed tremendous diversity of bacterial and eukaryotic forms. Recent molecular analyses show discor-dance in estimates of biodiversity between morphological and molecular analyses. Moreover, phylogenetic analyses of the diversity of microbial forms reveal evidence of convergence at scales as deep as interdomain: morphologies shared between bacteria and eukaryotes. Here, we highlight examples of such discordance, focusing on exemplary lineages such as testate amoebae, ciliates, and cyanobacteria. These have long histories of morphological study, enabling deeper analyses on both the molecular and morphological sides. We discuss examples in two main categories: (i) morphologically identical (or highly similar) individuals that are genetically distinct and (ii) morphologically distinct individuals that are genetically the same. We argue that hypotheses about discordance can be tested using the concept of neutral morphologies, or more broadly neutral phenotypes, as a null hypothesis. Keywords: .mi crobial evolution; molecular data; morphology; neutral evolution "Thus, we have a neutral-morphology theory of evolution, where a variety of morphologies are equally successful in a particular environment. This makes an interesting contrast to the neutral-gene theory of Motoo Kimura. In the former, for one reason or another, natural selection fails to discriminate among phenotype morphologies, each of which has a distinctive genotype; in the latter, selection fails to discriminate among genotypes that all could have the same phenotype."
    BioEssays 10/2014; 36(10). DOI:10.1002/bies.201400056 · 4.84 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1.Laboratory microcosm experiments using protists as model organisms have a long tradition and are widely used to investigate general concepts in population biology, community ecology and evolutionary biology. Many variables of interest are measured in order to study processes and patterns at different spatiotemporal scales and across all levels of biological organization. This includes measurements of body size, mobility, or abundance, in order to understand population dynamics, dispersal behaviour, and ecosystem processes. Also, a variety of manipulations are employed, such as temperature changes or varying connectivity in spatial microcosm networks. 2.Past studies, however, have used varying methods for maintenance, measurement, and manipulation, which hinders across-study comparisons and meta-analyses, and the added value they bring. Furthermore, application of techniques such as flow-cytometry, image and video analyses, and in-situ environmental probes provide novel and improved opportunities to quantify variables of interest at unprecedented precision and temporal resolution. 3.Here, we take the first step towards a standardization of well-established and novel methods and techniques within the field of protist microcosm experiments. We provide a comprehensive overview of maintenance, measurement, and manipulation methods. An extensive supplement contains detailed protocols of all methods, and these protocols also exist in a community updateable online repository. 4.We envision that such a synthesis and standardization of methods will overcome shortcomings and challenges faced by past studies, and also promote activities such as meta-analyses and distributed experiments conducted simultaneously across many different laboratories at a global scale.
    Methods in Ecology and Evolution 02/2015; 6(2). DOI:10.1111/2041-210X.12312 · 5.32 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
60 Downloads
Available from
May 16, 2014