Shining a Light on Exploitative Host Control in a Photosynthetic Endosymbiosis

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shining a Light on Exploitative Host Control in a Photosynthetic Endosymbiosis

AU - Lowe, Christopher D

AU - Minter, Ewan J

AU - Cameron, Duncan D

AU - Brockhurst, Michael A

N1 - © 2016 The Authors.

PY - 2016/1/25

Y1 - 2016/1/25

N2 - Endosymbiosis allows hosts to acquire new functional traits such that the combined host and endosymbiont can exploit vacant ecological niches and occupy novel environments [1, 2]; consequently, endosymbiosis affects the structure and function of ecosystems [3, 4]. However, for many endosymbioses, it is unknown whether their evolutionary basis is mutualism or exploitation [5-9]. We estimated the fitness consequences of symbiosis using the interaction between the protist host Paramecium bursaria and the algal symbiont Chlorella sp. [10]. Host fitness was strongly context dependent: whereas hosts benefited from symbiosis at high light intensity, carrying endosymbionts was costly to hosts in the dark and conferred no benefit over growing autonomously at intermediate light levels. Autonomous Chlorella densities increased monotonically with light intensity, whereas per-host symbiont load and symbiont abundance peaked at intermediate light levels and were lowest at high light intensity. This suggests that hosts controlled the costs of symbiosis by manipulating symbiont load according to light intensity. Photosynthetic efficiency was consistently lower for symbiotic compared to autonomous algae, suggesting nutritional constraints upon algae in symbiosis. At intermediate light levels, we observed the establishment of small populations of free-living algae alongside the hosts with endosymbionts, suggesting that symbionts could escape symbiosis, but only under conditions where hosts didn't benefit from symbiosis. Together, these data suggest that hosts exerted strong control over endosymbionts and that there were no conditions where this nutritional symbiosis was mutually beneficial. Our findings support theoretical predictions (e.g., [5, 9]) that controlled exploitation is an important evolutionary pathway toward stable endosymbiosis.

AB - Endosymbiosis allows hosts to acquire new functional traits such that the combined host and endosymbiont can exploit vacant ecological niches and occupy novel environments [1, 2]; consequently, endosymbiosis affects the structure and function of ecosystems [3, 4]. However, for many endosymbioses, it is unknown whether their evolutionary basis is mutualism or exploitation [5-9]. We estimated the fitness consequences of symbiosis using the interaction between the protist host Paramecium bursaria and the algal symbiont Chlorella sp. [10]. Host fitness was strongly context dependent: whereas hosts benefited from symbiosis at high light intensity, carrying endosymbionts was costly to hosts in the dark and conferred no benefit over growing autonomously at intermediate light levels. Autonomous Chlorella densities increased monotonically with light intensity, whereas per-host symbiont load and symbiont abundance peaked at intermediate light levels and were lowest at high light intensity. This suggests that hosts controlled the costs of symbiosis by manipulating symbiont load according to light intensity. Photosynthetic efficiency was consistently lower for symbiotic compared to autonomous algae, suggesting nutritional constraints upon algae in symbiosis. At intermediate light levels, we observed the establishment of small populations of free-living algae alongside the hosts with endosymbionts, suggesting that symbionts could escape symbiosis, but only under conditions where hosts didn't benefit from symbiosis. Together, these data suggest that hosts exerted strong control over endosymbionts and that there were no conditions where this nutritional symbiosis was mutually beneficial. Our findings support theoretical predictions (e.g., [5, 9]) that controlled exploitation is an important evolutionary pathway toward stable endosymbiosis.

U2 - 10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.052

DO - 10.1016/j.cub.2015.11.052

M3 - Article

C2 - 26748854

SN - 0960-9822

VL - 26

SP - 207

EP - 211

JO - Current Biology

JF - Current Biology

IS - 2

ER -