Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article views: 14
Laboratory of Plankton Systems, Oceanographic Institute, University of So Paulo, So Paulo 05508900, Brazil
Hatami 52013, Ondo-cho, Kure, Hiroshima 7371207, Japan
3
Unit dEcologie, Systmatique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 8079, Universit Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France
2
INTRODUCTION
Two major groups of dinoagellates can be distinguished based on morphological criteria: thecate or
armoured species with discernible thecal plates and
athecate, unarmoured or naked species without
plates or with plates that are barely visible under the
light microscope. Unarmoured dinoagellates,
especially gymnodinioid forms, tend to be delicate,
easily damaged by net sampling and often too distorted by xation to be identied. Live specimens can
be easily deformed when they are examined under the
microscope (Kofoid & Swezy, 1921).
227
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling and isolation of material
In the Mediterranean Sea, the specimens of Torodinium spp.
were collected from October 2007 to September 2008 by
slowly ltering surface seawater taken from the pier of the
Station Marine dEndoume at Marseille (431648.05N, 5
2056.22E, bottom depth 3 m). A strainer of 20 m mesh
size was used to collect planktonic organisms from water
volumes ranging between 10 and 100 l, depending on particle
concentration. The plankton concentrate was scanned in settling chambers at 100 magnication with an inverted microscope (Nikon Eclipse TE200, Nikon Inc., Tokyo, Japan).
Cells were photographed alive at 200 or 400 magnication
with a Nikon Coolpix E995 digital camera. During the sampling on 1721 December 2007, the distinction between
species was not dened and we pooled a total of 20 specimens of Torodinium spp. into a single sample for PCR amplication and cloning (isolated cells FG212, FG213, FG21
4, GenBank accession numbers KR139781, KR139782,
KR139783). Sporadic samplings were carried out in the
Bay of Marseille at the SOMLIT (Service dObservation en
Milieu LITtoral) site (431452.8N, 51752.8E). Samples
were collected with Niskin bottles at the surface and 55 m
depth and analysed following the procedure described above.
In this case, a single specimen (#FG187) was analysed by
single-cell PCR (GenBank accession number KR139784).
Further specimens were collected using the same method
from October 2008 to August 2009 in the surface waters
(depth of 2 m) of the port of Banyuls-sur-Mer, France
(422850N, 30809E). The concentrated sample was
examined in Utermhl chambers with an inverted microscope (Olympus IX51, Olympus Inc., Tokyo, Japan) and
photographed with an Olympus DP71 digital camera.
Sampling continued from September 2009 to February
2010 in the Bay of Villefranche-sur-Mer, Ligurian Sea. For
this location, sampling was performed at the long-term monitoring site Point B (434110N, 71900E, water column
depth ~80 m). Water column samples (080 m) were
obtained using a phytoplankton net (53 m mesh size,
54 cm diameter, 280 cm length). Samples were prepared
according to the same procedure as described above and
specimens were observed with an inverted microscope
(Olympus IX51) and photographed with an Olympus DP71
digital camera. Sampling continued from May 2012 to
February 2013 in the port of Valencia, Spain (392738.13
N, 01921.29W, water column depth of 4 m). Specimens
were obtained using a phytoplankton net (20 m mesh size).
Samples were prepared according to the same procedure as
described above and specimens were observed with an
inverted microscope (Nikon Eclipse T2000) and photographed with an Olympus DP71 digital camera.
In addition, samples were collected during the BOUM
(Biogeochemistry from the Oligotrophic to the Ultra-oligotrophic Mediterranean) cruise on board R/V LAtalante from
the south of France to the south of Cyprus (20 June18 July
2008). Seawater samples were collected with Niskin bottles
from 30 stations. At each station 6 depths were sampled
between 5 and 125 m, with an additional sample at 250 m
depth. These samples were preserved with acid Lugols solution and stored at 5C. Samples of 500 ml were concentrated
via sedimentation in glass cylinders. The top 450 ml of
F. Gmez et al.
sample was slowly siphoned off with small-bore tubing over
6 days. The remaining 50 ml of concentrate, representing 500
ml whole water, was then settled in composite settling chambers. The sample was examined in Utermhl chambers at
100 magnication with a Nikon inverted microscope
(Nikon Eclipse TE200) and the specimens were photographed with a digital camera (Nikon Coolpix E995).
In the North Pacic Ocean, samples were collected with a
plankton net (30 m mesh size) from the coastal Inland Sea of
Japan at Kure (341030N, 1323321.6E). The living concentrated samples were observed at 400 and 1000 magnication with an upright microscope (Olympus BH2), and
photographed with a digital camera (Canon EOS Kiss F.,
Canon Inc., Tokyo, Japan).
228
and a nal elongation step of 7 min at 72C. A nested
PCR was then carried out using 25 l of the rst PCR
products in a GoTaq (Promega, Lyon, France) polymerase
reaction mix containing the eukaryotic-specic primers
EK-82F (5GAAACTGCGAATGGCTC3) and EK1498R (5CACCTACGGAAACCTTGTTA3) (LpezGarca et al., 2001) and similar PCR conditions as
described above. Negative controls without template
DNA were used at all amplication steps. Amplicons of
the expected size (~1700 base pairs) were then sequenced
bi-directionally using primers EK-82F and EK-1498R
using an automated 96-capillary ABI PRISM 3730xl
sequencer (BC Genomics, Takeley, UK). In other samples, the amplied product was subsequently cloned
using the Topo TA Cloning system (Invitrogen, Life
Technologies, Saint Aubin, France) following the instructions provided by the manufacturers. Three clones were
picked and the corresponding insert amplied using vector primers. Amplicons of the expected size were fully
sequenced (Cogenics, Meylan, France) with vector primers using the same automated sequencer.
Phylogenetic analyses
The new SSU rDNA sequences were aligned to a large multiple sequence alignment containing ~1500 publicly available
complete or nearly complete (>1300 base pairs) dinoagellate sequences using the prole alignment option of
MUSCLE 3.7 (Edgar, 2004). The resulting alignment was
manually inspected using the program ED of the MUST
package (Philippe, 1993). Ambiguously aligned regions and
gaps were excluded in phylogenetic analyses. Preliminary
phylogenetic trees with all sequences were constructed
using the Neighbour joining method (Saitou & Nei, 1987)
implemented in the MUST package (Philippe, 1993). These
trees allowed identication of the closest relatives of our
sequences together with a sample of other dinoagellate
species, which were selected to carry out more computationally intensive Bayesian inference analyses. These analyses
were done with the program MrBayes 3.2.3 (Ronquist et al.,
2012) applying a GTR + 4 model of nucleotide substitution,
taking into account a -shaped distribution of substitution
rates with four rate categories. Four chains (three heated and
one cold) were run for 2 million generations with trees
sampled every 100 generations. The rst 5000 trees were
discarded as burn-in and a majority-rule consensus tree was
constructed with the remaining trees. Our sequences were
deposited in DDBJ/EMBL/GenBank under accession numbers KR139781KR139784.
RESULTS
Light microscopy of Torodinium spp.
The observations of Torodinium, with more or less
slender co-existing specimens, were sporadic in the
sampling areas. The separation of the two species of
Torodinium in the literature has traditionally been
based on morphometric parameters: T. teredo for larger slender specimens [length more than 3.54 depths
(=transdiameter sensu Kofoid & Swezy)] and T.
robustum for shorter and stouter specimens. We
229
Emended generic description of Torodinium based on
scanning electron microscopy
The detailed morphology was examined from specimens of Torodinium spp. collected from the south of
Japan (Figs 2550). We rst established the orientation of the cells, whose ventral side was dened by the
position of the sulcus and the pore of the longitudinal
agellum. The hyposome was small and conical. The
ventral side of the hyposome was concave and occupied by the posterior end of the sulcus below the pore
of the longitudinal agellum (Figs 2528).
The sulcus extended for almost the entire ventral
side of the hyposome, occupying about 1/3 of the
contour of the hyposome (Figs 2829). The pore of
the longitudinal agellum was located in the sulcus
between the transversal agellar pore and the posterior end of the cingulum (Figs 2530). The posterior end of the sulcus, directed posteriorly from the
longitudinal agellar pore, was placed in a wide
concave area surrounded by the cingulum and the
hyposome in the left and right margins, respectively
(Figs 2627). The texture of the sulcus surface was
rugose, similar to the surface of the rest of the cell.
Towards the episome and after the longitudinal
agellar pore, the sulcus became thinner and
extended anteriorly describing a loop of about 1/6
of the cell contour towards the dextral side
(Figs 2632). Anteriorly, from the longitudinal agellar pore, the anterior margin of the sulcus
showed an overhanging tube-like structure that
separated it from the anterior extension of the cingulum (Figs 2628, 33). We named this structure
the sulcal lip. The sulcus extended along the episome to end below the beginning of the apical
groove (Fig. 34).
The transversal and longitudinal agellar pores
were separated by the sulcal lip (Fig. 26). The
pore of the transversal agellum delimited the two
sections of the cingulum. The transversal agellum
encircled the posterior section of the cingulum
above the hyposome and the posterior end of the
sulcus (Fig. 34). In contrast to the sulcus, the surface of the posterior cingulum was smooth and
lacked any ornamentation (Figs 28, 34). The anterior section of the cingulum was thinner than the
posterior one. The anterior cingulum continued parallel to the anterior (left) margin of the sulcus,
describing the same looping (Figs 28, 34). The
anterior extensions of the sulcus and cingulum
were separated by the sulcal lip from the agellar
pore to the convex basis of the episome. The anterior cingulum diverged from the sulcal lip and
shortly ended (Fig. 34).
Based on these observations, we established that
the cell of T. teredo showed a circular transversal
section, whereas T. robustum was laterally compressed instead of dorsoventrally compressed as
230
F. Gmez et al.
Figs 124. Light microscopy (LM) images of Torodinium teredo and T. robustum. Bright eld optics, except Fig. 16 by epiuorescence microscopy. Figs 111. Specimens from Endoume, Marseille, France. Figs 16. T. teredo. Figs 711. T. robustum. Fig. 12.
(continued)
231
53, 57). The rst apical rib emerged in the dextrolateral side from the base of the apical groove. Each rib
emerged at each side of the basis of the apical groove
and converged between the sinistro-lateral and dorsal
sides. The last pair of apical ribs joined in a triangular
structure (Figs 48, 53, 57).
Differences between T. teredo and T. robustum
As reported above, under light microscopy T. teredo was usually longer than T. robustum. The
longitudinal outline of T. teredo was linear, with
almost parallel margins, a circular transversal section, a relatively large hyposome and a conspicuous bill-like projection. The longitudinal outline of
T. robustum was oblong, widened in the middle,
with an ellipsoidal transversal section, a small
hyposome and a less prominent bill-like projection. Based on SEM, the transversal section was
circular (Figs 5354) and ellipsoidal (Figs 5758)
in T. teredo and T. robustum, respectively.
Torodinium teredo (Figs 2729, 4647, 5152,
54) showed a larger hyposome than T. robustum
(Figs 2834, 35, 38, 41, 5556, 58). In T. teredo,
the proximal part of the anterior extension of the
sulcus and cingulum extended transversally
towards the dextral side and then described a
marked loop (Figs 52, 54). In contrast, in T. robustum the proximal part of the anterior extension of
the sulcus and cingulum extended obliquely
towards the episome (Figs 55, 58). The anterior
extension of the sulcus and cingulum was more
displaced towards the dextral side in T. teredo than
in T. robustum (Figs 52, 54, 55, 58). Consequently,
the proximal part of the anterior extension of the
cingulum and sulcus were visible in ventral view
in T. robustum (Fig. 55) and in dorsal view in T.
teredo (Fig. 52). In the apex of T. teredo, the billlike projection was more conspicuous, overlying
the episome, and oriented between the ventral
and sinistro-lateral sides (Figs 4550, 53). The
bill-like projection of T. robustum was more
reduced, and oriented between the sinistro-lateral
and dorsal sides (Figs 4041, 57).
Morphology of Katodinium glaucum
Cells were spindle-shaped, tapering at both the apex
and the antapex, and about 3540 m long and
about 1422 m wide (Figs 5963). The cells
232
F. Gmez et al.
Figs 2534. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images focused on the hyposome of ve specimens of Torodinium. Figs 2527.
Three specimens of T. teredo. Figs 2834. Two specimens of T. robustum. The micrographs 2934 correspond to the same specimen
(also Figs 3644). Fig. 25. Ventral view. Fig. 26. Ventro-antapical view. Fig. 27. Ventral view. Fig. 28. Antapical view. Fig. 29.
Ventro-antapical view. Figs 3031. Ventral view. Fig. 32. Dorsal view. Fig. 33. Dextro-lateral view. Fig. 34. Ventral-dextro-lateral
view. ac = anterior cingulum. as = anterior sulcus. bp = bill-like projection. ci = cingulum. lc = lateral canal. lf = longitudinal
agellum. lfp = longitudinal agellar pore. sl = sulcal lip. su = sulcus. tf = transversal agellum. tfp = transversal agellum pore. Scale
bar: 5 m.
233
Figs 3550. SEM focused on the hyposome of ve specimens of Torodinium. Figs 3544. T. robustum. Micrographs 3543
correspond to the same specimen (also Figs 2934). Figs 4450. T. teredo. Fig. 35. Dextro-lateral view. Fig. 36. The arrows point
to the longitudinal striae. Fig. 37. Apex. Fig. 38. Ventral view. Fig. 39. Apex. Figs 4041. Dextro-lateral dorsal view. Figs 4243.
Apex. Fig. 44. Another specimen of T. robustum in apical view. Fig. 45. T. teredo in apical-dorsal view. Figs 4648. Another
specimen in dorsal view. Fig. 49. Another specimen in sinistro-lateral view. Fig. 50. Dorsal view. ag = apical groove. ar = apical rib. as
= anterior sulcus. bp = bill-like projection. lc = lateral canal. lr = longitudinal rib. sl = sulcal lip. su = sulcus. Scale bar: 5 m.
in the upper episome (Figs 5962). Groups of trichocysts and some rod-shaped bodies were situated
along the cell margin in the episome and the hyposome (Figs 6061). The nucleus was spherical and
located in the posterior part of the episome at the
F. Gmez et al.
51
234
52
53
55
56
57
lc
lc
ag
bp
as
ac
bp
sl
sl
as
ac
as
ag
ac
as
su
su
ci
lc
ci
lc
ac
54
58
lc
ac
as
lc
Figs 5158. Line drawings of different views of Torodinium teredo (Figs 5154) and T. robustum (Figs 5558). Figs 51, 55. Ventral
view. Figs 52, 56. Dorsal view. Figs 53, 57. Apical view. Figs 54, 58. Antapical view. ac = anterior cingulum. ag = apical groove; as =
anterior sulcus. bp = bill-like projection. ci = cingulum. lc = lateral canal. sl = sulcal lip. su = sulcus.
middle of the cell (Figs 5962). A capsule surrounded the nucleus (Figs 60, 62). The proximal
end of the cingulum was bifurcated, with a short
anterior extension almost parallel to the cingulum
(Fig. 63). The cell surface showed longitudinal ribs,
hard to see on the hyposome (Figs 63, 65). Under
SEM, the proximal end of the cingulum was bifurcated (Figs 7172). The transverse agellum
emerged from the posterior end of the bifurcation
(Fig. 71). The anterior end of the bifurcation
extended parallel to the cingulum. This structure
could be interpreted as an anterior extension of the
cingulum. However, it could also be interpreted as a
notch that invaded and dissected the proximal end of
the cingulum (Fig. 71). The apex showed a tongueshaped notch (Figs 69, 7073). It was bordered by
two longitudinal ribs, and contained ve other longitudinal ribs that converged towards a pointed end in
the dorsal side (Figs 6769, 73). From the ve longitudinal ribs, the three central ones extended posteriorly along the episome (Figs 69, 7377). This
tongue-shaped notch extended over a horseshoeshaped apical groove with the ends oriented towards
the ventral side (Figs 69, 73). The cell surface of the
episome contained 24 equidistant longitudinal ribs
(Figs 73, 77). Those longitudinal ribs ended at the
basis of the apical groove, with the exception of
three ribs that extended towards the pointed end of
the tongue-shaped notch (Figs 7374). The texture
of the surface between the ribs was rugose, with two
or three transversal granules between each two ribs
(Figs 7374).
Molecular phylogeny
We obtained sequences of Torodinium from two
samples. One sample (#FG21) contained a mix of
20 specimens of T. teredo and T. robustum, collected from a pier at Marseille over ve days in
December 2007 (Figs 111). PCR amplication
and cloning provided three almost complete SSU
rDNA sequences (GenBank accession numbers
KR139781, KR139782, KR139783). These
sequences differed by 49 base pairs. The second
sample (#FG187) corresponded to a single specimen of T. robustum collected from offshore
Marseille at 55 m depth (Fig. 13). Sample
#FG187 was analysed by single-cell PCR and provided an almost complete SSU rDNA sequence
(GenBank accession number KR139784). The
sequences of T. robustum and the clones of
Torodinium spp. were 99% identical and differed
by 11 base pairs. The three clones of sample
#FG21 have been assigned to T. teredo.
We examined the phylogenetic position of
Torodinium spp. and Katodinium glaucum using a
data set including a variety of dinoagellate SSU
rDNA sequences. The Bayesian tree showed that all
Torodinium spp. sequences branched in a well-supported clade [posterior probability (PP) of 0.99]
together with several environmental sequences
(Fig. 78). The new sequence of T. robustum was
very similar to two sequences of T. robustum from
the NW Mediterranean Sea available in GenBank
(KP7901667) and an environmental clone
(KJ762990) retrieved from California off San
235
Figs 5974. LM (Figs 5965) and SEM (Figs 6674) images of Katodinium glaucum from South Japan. Fig. 59. Specimen with a
large vacuole. Figs 6061. Another specimen. Note the capsule of the nucleus, the rod-shaped bodies, refractile bodies and
trichocysts. Figs 6263. Another specimen. Note the longitudinal ribs and the bifurcation of the proximal end of the cingulum,
named anterior cingular extension. Figs 6466. Specimen undergoing binary division. Fig. 67. Ventral view. Fig. 68. Dextro-lateral
view. Fig. 69. Dorsal-apical view. Fig. 70. Ventral view. Figs 7172. Sinistro-lateral and ventral view. The inset shows the proximal
end of the cingulum. Figs 7374. Detail of the apex. ac = anterior extension of the cingulum. ag = apical groove. ci = cingulum. lf =
longitudinal agellum. lr = longitudinal rib. n = nucleus. rb = refractile body. rsb = rod-shaped body. su = sulcus. tf = transversal
agellum. tr = trichocyst. v = food vacuole. Scale bars: 10 m.
F. Gmez et al.
75
236
76
ag
lr
rsb
77
tf
tf
lf
0.88
1
1
0.94
0.76
1
Cochlodinium sp. DQ915170
Cochlodinium polykrikoides EU418944
Amphidinium herdmanii AF274253
0.78
Karenia brevis AF352818
0.97
Karenia papilionacea HM067005
Karenia bidigitata HM067002
Brachidinium capitatum HM066998
Ceratoperidinium falcatum KP790150
0.98
Prorocentrum micans AY585526
Prorocentrum minimum DQ336072
0.98
Gyrodinium fusiforme AB120002
0.96
Gyrodinium spirale AB120001
Gyrodinium dominans FN669510
Gyrodinium helveticum AB120004
0.98
Apicoporus glaber EU293235
Aduncodinium glandula LK934662
Lepidodinium viride AF022199
0.89
Gymnodinium impudicum DQ779993
0.97
0.96
Gymnodinium dorsalisulcum DQ837534
Gymnodinium dorsalisulcum LC054930
1
Dissodinium pseudolunula FJ473378
0.79
1
Chytriodinium affine FJ473380
Chytriodinium roseum FJ663049
Gymnodinium fuscum AF022194
0.86
Pheopolykrikos beauchampii DQ371294
0.88
0.89
0.89
0.85
0.83
0.84
0.54
0.92
0.93
0.88
0.76
0.64
0.94
0.74
0.73
0.9
0.7
0.73
0.85
Fig. 78. Bayesian phylogenetic tree of dinoagellate SSU rDNA sequences, based on 1584 aligned positions. Names in bold
represent sequences obtained in this study. Numbers at nodes are posterior probabilities (values <0.50 are omitted). The scale bar
represents the number of substitutions for a unit branch length.
237
based exclusively on the illustrations from other
authors (i.e. Gymnodinium fulgens Kof. & Swezy,
Gyrodinium falcatum Kof. & Swezy). In the case of
Torodinium, Kofoid & Swezy (1921, p. 390) reported
we have found only the stouter of these two species,
Torodinium robustum, in which we include the rst
two of Schtts gures (1895, pl. 23, gs 74, 13).
Kofoid & Swezy (1921) described the genus
Torodinium with T. teredo as type species, based on
the illustrations of Gymnodinium teredo in Schtt
(1895). However, it is questionable to propose a new
genus and species with no personal observations of
the type species. In that case, Kofoid & Swezy were
right and the SSU rDNA molecular phylogeny conrms that T. robustum and T. teredo are independent
species (Fig. 78).
Unarmoured dinoagellates tend to show high morphological variability, especially in the extension of
the cell body (Gmez et al., 2004, 2005). Thus, the
relative elongation is a poor diagnostic criterion for
species separation. Kofoid & Swezy (1921) established T. teredo for specimens with a length greater
than 4 transdiameters, and less than 3.5 transdiameters
for T. robustum. The rst problem of this diagnostic
criterion is the discrimination of specimens with ratios
between 3.5 and 4 length-transdiameter. In most
recent literature, this has been solved by assigning to
T. teredo specimens with cell length > 3 width
(Steidinger & Tangen, 1997). The difculty is to
establish where the dorsoventral or lateral sides are.
Kofoid & Swezy (1921) erroneously used the term
transdiameter (= width) for the cell depth [i.e. the
length along the lateral sides (ventral to dorsal
distance)].
The distinction between the two species proposed by Kofoid & Swezy was not restricted to
only one morphometric character (length-depth
ratio). They added that T. robustum possessed an
apex with the apical groovereversed terminal apical loop of the sulcus, which was absent in T.
teredo. It should be noted that apparently Kofoid
& Swezy (1921) did not examine specimens of T.
teredo and this was based on Schtts illustrations.
Kofoid & Swezy and later authors represented the
apical groove of T. robustum as a looping of the
sulcus in the apex, while the type species lacked
the apical groove (Figs 7990). Elbrchter (1979)
illustrated T. robustum with the apical groove as an
anterior extension of the sulcus (Fig. 86), which
was absent in T. teredo (Fig. 85). Torodinium
teredo and T. robustum are closely related in the
SSU rDNA molecular phylogeny, so that the
absence of the apical groove in one of the species
would be very unusual. In contrast to previous
studies exclusively based on LM observations, we
have to consider that both Torodinium species may
possess an apical groove which is independent of
the sulcus (Figs 39, 44).
F. Gmez et al.
238
80
79
Rh
82
sulc.
84
83
rod.
c
Cp
gir.
epi.
pus.
81
rod.
n.
sulc.
gir.
qG
hyp.
tr. fl.
long. fl.
qF
gir.
hyp.
gir.
hyp.
85
86
87
88
89
90
Figs 7990. Line drawings of Torodinium teredo and T. robustum in the literature. Fig. 79. Gymnodinium teredo redrawn from
Paulsen (1908). Figs 8082. T. robustum redrawn from Kofoid & Swezy (1921). Fig. 80. Ventral view. Fig. 81. Dextro-lateral view.
Fig. 82. Sinistro-lateral view. Fig. 83. T. teredo redrawn from Kofoid & Swezy (1921). Fig. 84. T. robustum redrawn from Lebour
(1925). Fig. 85. T. teredo redrawn from Elbrchter (1979). Fig. 86. T. robustum redrawn from Elbrchter (1979). Fig. 87. T. robustum
redrawn from Dodge (1982). Fig. 88. T. robustum redrawn from Sournia (1986). Fig. 89. T. robustum redrawn from Hansen & Larsen
(1992). Fig. 90. T. teredo redrawn from Steidinger & Tangen (1997).
91
96
92
239
94
93
95
97
98
99
100
Figs 91100. Line drawings of Katodinium nieuportense, Lebouridinium glaucum, Gymnodinium vesticii and Amphidinium
extensum. Fig. 91. Katodinium nieuportense redrawn from Conrad (1926). Fig. 92. Spirodinium glaucum redrawn from Lebour
(1917). Fig. 93. Gyrodinium glaucum redrawn from Lebour (1925). Fig. 94. G. glaucum redrawn from Kofoid & Swezy (1921).
Fig. 95. K. glaucum redrawn from Elbrchter (1979). Fig. 96. Gyrodinium glaucum redrawn from Dodge (1982). Fig. 97. K. glaucum
redrawn from Steidinger & Tangen (1997). Fig. 98. Gymnodinium vesticii redrawn from Paulsen (1908). Fig. 99. G. vesticii
redrawn from Kofoid & Swezy (1921). Fig. 100. Amphidinium extensum redrawn from Lebour (1925).
Torodinium is the only known genus with extensions of both sulcus and cingulum in the episome
(Figs 35, 52). Another distinctive character of
Torodinium is the sulcal lip (Figs 2627). A tentatively analogous feature has been reported as a
tube-like structure in the genus Takayama de
Salas, Bolch, L. Botes & Hallegr. (de Salas
et al., 2003).
Kofoid & Swezy (1921, p. 391) reported that
From the anterior agellar pore there runs anteriorly at the left of the nucleus a slender canal,
the anterior pusule. The lateral canal was erroneously reported in further literature as reaching
the cingulum, reaching the anterior agellar pore
or being confused with the sulcus (Figs 6470).
All previous studies have illustrated the lateral
canal in contact with the cingulum (Lebour, 1925;
F. Gmez et al.
gymnodinioid dinoagellates (Persson et al., 2013).
Gymnodinioid dinoagellates typically ingest their
prey by direct engulfment through the sulcal area in
the hyposome [e.g. Gyrodinium spirale (Bergh)
Kof. & Swezy; Hansen, 1992]. However,
Torodinium has a minute hyposome and posterior
sulcus, probably insufcient for the ingestion of
large prey. The lateral canal is a structure unknown
in any other dinoagellate and its function remains
uncertain. It can be hypothesized that the body
extension that emerged from the hyposome may
facilitate prey capture and the subsequent ingestion
through the lateral canal (Figs 33, 35).
The apex of Torodinium is also highly distinctive.
Schtt (1895) illustrated a group of plastids around a
central plastid or oil globule forming a star of eight or
nine rays, further re-drawn by other authors (Figs 60,
6365). This unusual star-shaped distribution of the
plastids coincides with the apical ribs that form the
bill-like projection (Fig. 48). In one of the earliest
dinoagellate studies, Schtt (1895) was probably
confusing the apical ribs with plastids. The function
of the bill-like projection is unknown.
Previous observations of Lebouridinium
Our observations of Lebouridinium glaucum unequivocally correspond to the taxon described as
Spirodinium glaucum by Lebour (1917, 1925)
(Figs 9293). However, L. glaucum have been
reported earlier in the literature because it is a common
species (Lebour, 1917). Schtt (1895) described
Gymnodinium vesticii F. Schtt with a larger episome, lacking the surface striae and with an intrusion
of the sulcus into the episome (Fig. 98). Later, Kofoid
& Swezy (1921), in the absence of personal observations, added surface striations to the illustration of G.
vesticii (Fig. 99). Lebour (1925, p. 50) reported on G.
vesticii This species is not sufciently dened, but
bears so strong a resemblance to Gyrodinium glaucum
if turned upside down that one does not feel justied in
regarding it as a Gymnodinium until the agella have
been described. Even assuming that the orientation of
G. vesticii was turned upside down and it is covered
with surface striations, the prominent anterior extension of the sulcus and the low cingular displacement
do not indicate L. glaucum. Amphidinium extensum A.
Wulff was described from four illustrations in dorsal
view, lacking information on the sulcus or agella
(Lebour, 1925) (Fig. 100). Due to the poor descriptions, it is difcult to determine whether G. vesticii or
A. extensum corresponded to the earlier observations
of L. glaucum and, consequently, if any of these taxa
have priority versus Spirodinium glaucum.
Kofoid & Swezy (1921) and Elbrchter (1979)
illustrated Lebouridinium glaucum with an intrusion
of the sulcus in the episome (Figs 9495). However,
we did not observe that feature (Figs 7576). We
240
observed by light and scanning electron microscopy
(Figs 63, 7172) that the proximal end of the cingulum showed a short bifurcation or, alternatively, a
leftwards notch that transversally divided the cingulum (Figs 7576). This feature was not reported in the
literature. The tongue-shaped notch (Figs 9495) was
rst reported by Takayama (1985, 1998; Fig. 97).
Evolutionary afnities of Lebouridinium
The morphology of Lebouridinium glaucum is very
different from the type of Katodinium, K. nieuportense (Fig. 91), an insufciently described species
that is only known from the original description
(Conrad, 1926). Some morphological features such
as the cingular displacement, longitudinal ribs, trichocysts, rod-shaped and refractile bodies and a capsule
that surrounded the spherical nucleus resemble the
type of Gyrodinium (Hansen & Daugbjerg, 2004;
Takano & Horiguchi, 2004). However, other features
such as the apical groove, tongue-shaped notch or the
cingular structure, as well as the molecular data, do
not support a relationship between Lebouridinium and
Gyrodinium (Fig. 78; Kim & Kim, 2007). Since the
earlier studies, the small hyposome of L. glaucum
invited consideration of a relationship with
Torodinium (Lebour, 1917; Kofoid & Swezy, 1921).
Re et al. (2015) reported that Torodinium robustum
and L. glaucum branched together in the SSU rDNA
phylogenetic analysis, although with weak statistical
support (bootstrap value < 80%). In our SSU rDNA
phylogeny, including more sequences of Torodinium
and environmental clones, we did not nd a relationship between Torodinium spp. and L. glaucum
(Fig. 78). The detailed study of the morphology of
Torodinium and Lebouridinium does not reveal similarities in the distinctive diagnostic characters
between the two genera. Morphological features
such as the reduced hyposome or the cell surface
covered with longitudinal ribs are common characters
in the unarmoured dinoagellates (Takano &
Horiguchi, 2004; Gmez et al., 2015).
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conict of interest was reported by the
author(s).
FUNDING
F.G. is supported by the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de
Desenvolvimento Cientco e Tecnolgico (grant number
BJT 370646/201314). We acknowledge nancial support
from the French CNRS, the European Research Council
under the European Unions Seventh Framework Program
ERC Grant Agreement 322669 ProtistWorld, and Ile de
France (SESAME project 13016398 Unicell).
REFERENCES
Calado, A.J. (2011). On the identity of the freshwater dinoagellate
Glenodinium edax, with a discussion on the genera Tyrannodinium
and Katodinium, and the description of Opisthoaulax gen. nov.
Phycologia, 50: 641649.
Conrad, W. (1926). Recherches sur les agellates de nos eaux
saumtres. 1e partie: dinoagellates. Archiv fr Protistenkunde,
55: 63100.
Daugbjerg, N., Hansen, G., Larsen, J. & Moestrup, . (2000).
Phylogeny of some of the major genera of dinoagellates based
on ultrastructure and partial LSU rDNA sequence data, including
the erection of three new genera of unarmoured dinoagellates.
Phycologia, 39: 302317.
De Salas, M.F., Bolch, C.J.S., Botes, L., Nash, G., Wright, S.W. &
Hallegraeff, G.M. (2003). Takayama gen. nov. (Gymnodiniales,
Dinophyceae), a new genus of unarmoured dinoagellates with
sigmoid apical grooves, including the description of two new
species. Journal of Phycology, 39: 12331246.
Dodge, J.D. (1982). Marine dinoagellates of the British Isles. Her
Majestys Stationery Ofce, London.
Edgar, R.C. (2004). MUSCLE: multiple sequence alignment with
high accuracy and high throughput. Nucleic Acids Research, 32:
17921797.
Elbrchter, M. (1979). On the taxonomy of unarmoured dinophytes
(Dinophyta) from the Northwest African upwelling region.
Meteor Forschungs-Ergebnisse, Reihe D, 31: 122.
Grate-Lizrraga, I. & Mucio-Mrquez, R.E. (2013). New data on
the distribution of Torodinium robustum and T. teredo
(Dinophyceae: Gymnodiniales) in the Gulf of California. Check
List, 9: 809812.
Gmez, F. (2009). Torodinium and Pavillardia (Gymnodiniales,
Dinophyceae): two unarmoured dinoagellates with a body extension, collected from the open Pacic Ocean. Protistology, 6: 131135.
Gmez, F., Nagahama, Y., Fukuyo, Y. & Furuya, K. (2004).
Observations on Ceratoperidinium (Dinophyceae). Phycologia,
43: 416421.
Gmez, F., Nagahama, Y., Takayama, H. & Furuya, K. (2005). Is
Karenia a synonym of AsterodiniumBrachidinium? (Gymnodiniales, Dinophyceae). Acta Botanica Croatica, 64: 263274.
Gmez, F., Lpez-Garca, P., Takayama, H. & Moreira, D. (2015).
Balechina and the new genus Cucumeridinium gen. nov.
(Dinophyceae), unarmoured dinoagellates with thick cell coverings. Journal of Phycology 51: 10881105.
Hansen, G. (1995). Analysis of the thecal plate pattern in the dinoagellate Heterocapsa rotundata (Lohmann) comb. nov.
(=Katodinium rotundatum (Lohmann) Loeblich). Phycologia,
34: 166170.
Hansen, G. & Larsen, J. (1992). Dinoagellater i danske farvande. In
Plankton i de indre danske farvande (Thomsen, H.A., editor), 45
155. Havforskning fra Miljstyrelsen, n. 11, Copenhagen.
Hansen, G. & Daugbjerg, N. (2004). Ultrastructure of Gyrodinium
spirale, the type species of Gyrodinium (Dinophyceae), including
a phylogeny of G. dominans, G. rubrum and G. spirale deduced
from partial LSU rDNA sequences. Protist, 155: 271294.
Hansen, P.J. (1992). Prey size selection, feeding rates and growth
dynamics of heterotrophic dinoagellates with special emphasis
on Gyrodinium spirale. Marine Biology, 114: 327334.
Kang, N.S., Jeong, H.J., Moestrup, ., Jang, T.Y., Lee, S.Y. & Lee,
M.J. (2015). Aduncodinium gen. nov. and A. glandula comb. nov.
241
(Dinophyceae, Pesteriaceae), from coastal waters off Korea: morphology and molecular characterization. Harmful Algae, 41: 2537.
Kim, K.-Y. & Kim, C.-H. (2007). Phylogenetic relationships among
diverse dinoagellate species occurring in coastal waters off Korea
inferred from large subunit ribosomal DNA sequence data. Algae,
22: 5767.
Klut, M.E., Bisalputra, T. & Antia, N.J. (1987). Some observations
on the structure and function of the dinoagellate pusule.
Canadian Journal of Botany, 65: 736744.
Kofoid, C.A. & Swezy, O. (1921). The free-living unarmoured
Dinoagellata. Memoirs of the University of California, 5: 1562.
Lebour, M.V. (1917). The Peridiniales of Plymouth Sound from the
region beyond the breakwater. Journal of the Marine Biological
Association, Plymouth, 11: 183200.
Lebour, M.V. (1925). The Dinoagellates of Northern Seas. Marine
Biological Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth.
Lpez-Garca, P., Rodrguez-Valera, F., Pedrs-Ali, C. & Moreira,
D. (2001). Unexpected diversity of small eukaryotes in deep-sea
Antarctic plankton. Nature, 409: 603607.
Murray, S., de Salas, M., Luong-Van, J. & Hallegraeff, G. (2007).
Phylogenetic study of Gymnodinium dorsalisulcum comb. nov.
from tropical Australian coastal waters (Dinophyceae).
Phycological Research, 55: 176184.
Paulsen, O. (1908). Peridiniales. In Nordisches Plankton (Brandt,
K. & Apstein, C., editors), 1124. Lepsius & Tischer, Leipzig.
Persson, A., Smith, B.C., Morton, S., Shuler A. & Wikfors, G.
H. (2013). Sexual life stages and temperature dependent morphological changes allow cryptic occurrence of the Florida red tide
dinoagellate Karenia brevis. Harmful Algae, 30: 19.
Philippe, H. (1993). MUST, a computer package of management
utilities for sequences and trees. Nucleic Acids Research, 21:
52645272.
Pouchet, G. (1885). Nouvelle contribution lhistoire des
Pridiniens marins. Journal de lAnatomie et de la Physiologie
Normale et Pathologique de lHomme et des Animaux, Paris,
21: 2888.
Re, A., Camp, J. & Garcs, E. (2015). Diversity and phylogeny of
Gymnodiniales (Dinophyceae) from the NW Mediterranean Sea
revealed by a morphological and molecular approach. Protist, 166:
234263.
Ronquist, F., Teslenko, M., van der Mark, P., Ayres, D.L., Darling,
A., Hhna, S., Larget, B., Liu, L., Suchard, M.A. & Huelsenbeck,
J.P. (2012). MrBayes 3.2: efcient Bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Systematics
Biology, 61: 539542.
Saitou, N. & Nei, M. (1987). The neighbor-joining method: a new
method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Molecular Biology
and Evolution, 4: 406425.
Schtt, F. (1895). Die Peridinien der Plankton-Expedition.
Ergebnisse der Plankton-Expedition der Humboldt-Stiftung, 4:
1170.
Sournia, A. (1986). Atlas du phytoplancton marin. Volume I:
Cyanophyces, Dictyophyces, Dinophyces, Raphidophyces.
ditions du CNRS, Paris.
Steidinger, K.A. & Tangen, K. (1997). Dinoagellates. In
Identifying Marine Phytoplankton (Tomas, C.R., editor), 387
598. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.
Takano, Y. & Horiguchi, T. (2004). Surface ultrastructure and molecular phylogenetics of four unarmored heterotrophic dinoagellates, including the type species of the genus Gyrodinium
(Dinophyceae). Phycological Research, 52: 107116.
Takayama, H. (1985). Apical grooves of unarmored dinoagellates.
Bulletin of the Plankton Society of Japan, 32: 129137.
Takayama, H. (1998). Morphological and taxonomical studies on
the free-living unarmored dinoagellates occurring in the Seto
Inland Sea and adjacent waters. Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of Tokyo, Tokyo.