Variable host responses mediate host preference in marine flatworm-snail symbioses.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Author(s): Lee J;Lee J; Davidson TM; Davidson TM; Torchin ME; Torchin ME
  • Source:
    PloS one [PLoS One] 2021 Mar 02; Vol. 16 (3), pp. e0247551. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Mar 02 (Print Publication: 2021).
  • Publication Type:
    Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
  • Language:
    English
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: Public Library of Science Country of Publication: United States NLM ID: 101285081 Publication Model: eCollection Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1932-6203 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 19326203 NLM ISO Abbreviation: PLoS One Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: San Francisco, CA : Public Library of Science
    • Subject Terms:
      Aquatic Organisms/*physiology ; Cestode Infections/*epidemiology ; Host-Parasite Interactions/*physiology ; Platyhelminths/*physiology ; Snails/*growth & development ; Snails/*parasitology ; Symbiosis/*physiology; Animals ; Biological Evolution ; Cestode Infections/parasitology ; Ecosystem ; Oceans and Seas ; Panama ; Phenotype ; Prevalence
    • Abstract:
      Host preference of symbionts evolves from fitness trade-offs. However, it is often unclear how interspecific variations in host response traits influence this evolutionary process. Using the association between the polyclad flatworm Paraprostatum echinolittorinae and its intertidal snail hosts on the Pacific Coast of Panama, we assessed how a symbiont's host preference is associated with varying host defenses and post-infestation performances. We first characterized the prevalence and intensity of worm infestation in five snail hosts (Tegula pellisserpentis, Nerita scabricosta, N. funiculata, Planaxis planicostatus, and Cerithium stercusmuscarum). We then used manipulative experiments to test flatworm's host choice, hosts' behavioral rejection of flatworms, and hosts' growth and survival following the infestation. In the field, flatworms were orders of magnitude more prevalent and dense in T. pellisserpentis, N. scabricosta, N. funiculata than P. planicostatus and C. stercusmuscarum, although the three former hosts were not necessarily more abundant. The results from our laboratory host selection trials mirrored these patterns; flatworms were 3 to 14 times more likely to choose T. pellisserpentis, N. scabricosta, N. funiculata over P. planicostatus and C. stercusmuscarum. The less preferred hosts frequently rejected flatworms via mantle contractions and foot withdrawals, which reduced the infestation rate by 39%-67%. These behaviors were less frequent or absent in the preferred hosts. Flatworm infestation variably influenced host performances in the field, negligibly affecting the growth and survival of T. pellisserpentis and N. funiculata but reducing the growth of P. planicostatus. Flatworms thus preferred less defended hosts that can also support higher worm densities without being harmed. Stable isotope analysis further revealed that flatworms are unlikely to feed on snail tissues and may live as a commensal in their preferred hosts. Our study demonstrates that host response traits can modulate a symbiont's host choice and calls for more explicit considerations of host response variability in host preference research.
      Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
    • References:
      Evolution. 2010 Oct;64(10):3047-56. (PMID: 20482611)
      Ecol Lett. 2010 Mar;13(3):383-93. (PMID: 20100245)
      J Anim Ecol. 2011 May;80(3):508-18. (PMID: 21244420)
      Trends Ecol Evol. 1994 Jun;9(6):214-7. (PMID: 21236825)
      Evol Lett. 2018 Jul 11;2(4):390-405. (PMID: 30283690)
      Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Jul 8;105(27):9256-61. (PMID: 18591663)
      Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Mar;24(3):127-35. (PMID: 19185386)
      Oecologia. 2003 Aug;136(3):402-11. (PMID: 12756526)
      Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009 Jan 12;364(1513):37-49. (PMID: 18926971)
      PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51012. (PMID: 23272084)
      J Parasitol. 2008 Feb;94(1):7-12. (PMID: 18372615)
      Zoolog Sci. 2003 Mar;20(3):357-69. (PMID: 12692396)
      Front Plant Sci. 2020 Nov 06;11:594663. (PMID: 33240306)
      J Fish Biol. 2019 Jun;94(6):937-947. (PMID: 30676646)
      Oecologia. 2014 Feb;174(2):501-10. (PMID: 24072440)
      Evolution. 2017 May;71(5):1222-1231. (PMID: 28252804)
      Trends Microbiol. 2003 Mar;11(3):105-8. (PMID: 12648937)
      PLoS One. 2011 Mar 07;6(3):e17681. (PMID: 21408172)
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20210302 Date Completed: 20210913 Latest Revision: 20210913
    • Publication Date:
      20221213
    • Accession Number:
      PMC7924752
    • Accession Number:
      10.1371/journal.pone.0247551
    • Accession Number:
      33651807