After recently reviewing the paper by Rosenberg, E., et al. published in 2009, titled ‘The role of microorganisms in coral bleaching’ which held the view that high temperatures act upon the coral microorganisms as well as the host, causing a change in microbial community that can either directly or indirectly lead to coral bleaching; I have read a paper from 2008 that opposes the idea that bacteria are the primary cause of coral bleaching.
It is well documented that during times when the sea surface temperature is warm, symbiont photosynthesis is reduced due to an amplified susceptibility to photo-inhibition, which leads directly to active oxygen production and results in the breakdown of the symbiosis. Alternative recent studies have proposed that bacterial pathogens are the primary source of bleaching in reef-building corals. The study explained within this paper aimed to investigate the in situ bacterial involvement, and in situ coral microbial ecology, in ecological patterns of bleaching O. patagonica across the Israeli coastline.
Extensive monitoring of O. patagonica during the bleaching event of 2005 (14/06/2005-22/08/2005) took place along the Israeli Mediterranean Sea. Both bleached and non bleached corals were monitored with samples taken every 2 weeks at Sdot Yam as well as Ashkelon, Bat Yam and Acziv; giving a total of over 140 samples. From each colony 3 replicate core samples were taken from each tissue region. Regions of sampling were designated either bleached or unbleached tissue- and bleached tissue cores were taken around the bleached lesion to ensure both bleached tissue and the active region of bleaching were sampled. Flourescent In Situ Hybridization (FISH) was used with oligonucleotide probes and coupled with spectral imaging to explore identity and structural complexity of the microbial communities. The authors also used transmission electron microscopy to examine intracellular bacterial proliferation. They decalcified the coral cores in 20% EDTA and stained 1μm thin tissue sections with 1% Toluidine blue. Samples were photographed using standard light microscopy, following which ultra-thin sections were viewed in transmission electron microscope at acceleration voltage 90kV and images taken.
The results showed that V. sholoi is not associated with O. patagonica bleaching. No evidence of bacterial populations was found associated with any of the 48 bleached coral samples, 48 samples of unbleached tissue or 48 samples of healthy corals during their study. Each sample was probed with a general probe mix and a Vibrio sp probe, with a resulting 144 FISH experiments conducted on each region type; FISH was even repeated on arbitrarily selected samples. Bacterial populations penetrating or multiplying were not found within either the epithelium or gastrodermis of the bleached regions. The only microbial communities found interacting with and in close association with the tissue layers of field bleached corals were members of the endolithic community. Endolithic communities were found not only on the bleached corals but also healthy corals. They therefore suggest that there is no evidence to support a primary role of bacteria in causing coral bleaching as in the basis of the ‘Bacterial Bleaching Hypothesis’.
If bacteria do not play a primary but rather secondary role during coral bleaching or some diseases (being corals are susceptible to microbial attack during stress) it needs to be determined if the use of microbial remedies on a local or regional scale could reduce the impact of disease events.
A review of:
Ainsworth, T. D., Fine, M., Roff, G., and Hoegh-Guldberg, O. (2008). Bacteria are not the primary cause of bleaching in the Mediterranean coral Oculina patagonica. The ISME Journal. Vol. 2. pp. 67-73.
6 comments:
This is very interesting, the evidence that coral bleaching was caused by bacteria was so convincing. however maybe the bacteria act at certain stages or times of year, did the paper discuss this? And was it only V. sholoi that was looked for? there could be other bacteria causing the bleaching. I think the idea of treating corals for bacterial infection could work but is a trastic treatment in terms of knock on effects and therefore other options such as probiotics should be looked into.
This is definately a very relevant topic at the moment! Ive done a lot of reading about coral bleaching, and personally i think it is more down to the symbiotic dinoflagellate and the oxidative stress it is under during periods of high temperature. However I do think that the surface microbial community have an input, they contribute to the coral mucus which provides some protection so would definately affect the extent of bleaching, although they may not be the direct cause!
mmh...tricky problem...
A big bunch of Rosenberg papers states just the opposite, they are all about O. patagonica and they look very persuasive as well...
Here some titles:
- Penetration of the coral-bleaching bacterium Vibrio shiloi into Oculina patagonica (2000).
- Bleaching of the coral Oculina patagonica by Vibrio AK-1 (1997).
- Effect of temperature on bleaching of the coral Oculina patagonica by Vibrio AK-1 (1998).
- Vibrio shiloi sp. nov., the causative agent of bleaching of the coral Oculina patagonica (2001).
- The Vibrio shiloi/Oculina patagonica model system of coral bleaching (2004).
But maybe, as Colin said, it's just rubbish? :)
I am torn between the two sides personally, i still can't choose if it is just the coral microbes causing bleaching or environmental stresses; instead, i am beginning to think it is a mix of the two, and that only if certain environmental factors are weakening the coral, then opportunistic pathogens will take over.
I think the subject has become a struggle to get to the bottom of as Rosenberg is a highly commended researcher with lots of critics to his work- from what Colin said it seems to be more of a case of him being to proud to admit some of his studies could have easily been a fluke.
Giuseppe and Josh - I' m glad to have provoked some debate on this! Just to clarify, I mentioned some of the criticism that the papers by Rosenerg's group had received, but I wouldn't want that to be interpreted as meaning it is "rubbish" or "a fluke". Perhaps I overstated it! This paper by Ainsworth has some equally hard to explain results. the fact that she never found any bacteria at all seems hard to understand and seems to contradict several studies. however, I think she focussed entirely on bacteria that had penetrated the tissue and didn't look at mucus bacteria.
Ive defintaley got the same opinion as Josh, Ive read a few papers that argue both cases, but none seem to think that it can be a combination of both, only one or the other! There seems to be so much evidence for both sides of the argument that I cant help thinking that both must be occuring! I dont see why it has to be one or the other!
Post a Comment