Due to their world-wide distribution in marine and terrestrial (as well as freshwater)
habitats, the order Isopoda (Crustacea: Malacostraca: Peracarida) provides an excellent model for
the evolutionary ecology of terrestrialization.
(1) Terrestrial isopods (Oniscidea) harbor endosymbiotic bacteria in their midgut glands (hepatopancreas)
that are lacking in marine isopods of the suborders Valvifera and Sphaeromatidea, considered
being (part of) a sister taxon of Oniscidea. Thus, these bacterial endosymbionts seem to be
significant in the context of living in terrestrial habitats and may have been important during the
course of terrestrialization. In truly terrestrial species (Crinocheta), two different endosymbionts
have been characterized that are distantly related to known parasites and pathogens of the orders
Rickettsiales and Mycoplasmatales, respectively. Both these endosymbionts form cytoplasmic appendages
that are in contact with the host epithelium and may serve in the exchange of nutrients
and information and or serve as holdfasts. In non-crinochete terrestrial isopods (Diplocheta, Tylida,
Synocheta), hepatopancreatic bacteria belong to the genus Pseudomonas.
Both marine and freshwater Asellota also harbor bacteria in their midgut glands. The lack of bacteria
in other marine suborders (as studied so far) may be due to antibiotic agents in these isopods.
Based on the present findings, I propose a common (marine) ancestor of Asellota and Oniscidea
that acquired the ability to harbor bacterial endosymbionts inside the hepatopancreas. While symbiotic
relationships remained unspecific in marine Asellota, they developed towards specific primary
symbioses with bacteria that aid in digesting cellulosic and phenolic compounds, and thus, facilitate
the utilization of terrestrial food sources in semi-terrestrial and terrestrial Oniscidea and in
freshwater Asellota. I, further, hypothesize that later during early phylogeny of Crinocheta, primary
symbionts have been replaced by secondary endosymbionts that are still characteristic of recent
Crinocheta.
In contrast to previous studies, suggesting a role of hepatopancreatic bacteria in nutrition, our present
knowledge does not provide any evidence for crinochete symbionts to supply any digestive enzymes
to their isopod host. However, Pseudomonas spp. are well-known to degrade both cellulosic and phenolic
compounds. Thus, I hypothesize that, while primary symbionts of Oniscidea provide cellulases
and/or phenol oxidase, a transfer of cellulase and/or phenol oxidase genes from symbiont to host
occurred in early Crinocheta, resulting in endogenous cellulase of evolutionarily bacterial origin. Besides
(a) providing enzymes for the digestion of leaf litter, further possible contributions of hepatopancreatic
endosymbionts to their hosts physiological constitution and fitness include (b) increasing
the availability of nitrogen on a nitrogen-poor food source, (c) protecting their host from secondary
(pathogenic) infection, (d) protecting their host from predatory attack, or (e) increasing fertility, mating
success and fecundity of their host these hypotheses are briefly discussed.
(2) Terrestrial isopods interact with leaf litter-colonizing microbiota that they ingest along with their
major food source. While, however, it is well-documented that isopods gain from feeding on microbially
inoculated leaf litter, reasons for this dependence are not well understood. Possibly, (a) microbiota
serve as supplementary high-quality food source and provide essential or otherwise limiting
nutrients; (b) microbiota promote digestion of leaf litter itself, either prior to ingestion or during the
gut passage; (c) microbiota simply act as indicators of easily digestible food sources of high quality.
These explanations are not mutually exclusive, and the prevailing reason for preferentially consuming
microbially inoculated leaf litter depends on both the species and developmental stage of the isopod
and the nutritional context, i.e. the food source as such; recent results, however, indicate that cellulolytic
capabilities of litter-colonizing microbiota [see (b)] may be less significant than previously
thought, while a role of litter-colonizing microbiota in indicating high-quality food [see (c)] is supported.
The ability to digestively utilize microbial cells as supplementary food [see (a)] depends on cell
wall characteristics as indicated by gram-staining of the microbes, gram-positive bacteria being
digested more effectively than gram-negative bacteria and fungi, and being preferred as food source.
Despite numerous studies, the most recent ones using modern molecular techniques, it is still debated
whether or not terrestrial isopods harbor resident gut microbes in their hindgut. Most hindgut
bacteria that may be candidates for hindgut residents appear to belong to gram-negative bacterial
taxa, and are taxonomically related to anaerobic species. Thus, we have to assume anoxic
microhabitats in cuticular wrinkles. Further, the radial center of the hindgut is anoxic, too, allowing
for fermentative digestive processes, while the periphery of the hindgut lumen is largely oxic and
oxidizing, thus, allowing for aerobic and oxidative digestive processes. These processes are promoted
through cell compounds of ingested microbiota resulting in homeostatic maintenance of a
slightly acidic pH that is optimal for the activity of involved enzymes. Potentially harmful effects of
phenolic food compounds that are likely under such conditions are counteracted through hydrolytic
enzymes and surfactants of microbial origin.
In conclusion, our up-to-date knowledge as summarized and discussed herein strongly confirms
the assumption that (terrestrial) isopods strongly depend on microbial activity and nutrients for
their capability of digestively utilizing terrestrial leaf litter; on an evolutionary scale, this dependence
may indicate the role that microbiota played during the course of terrestrialization, although
this aspect of isopod-microbe interactions is far from being understood.