Approximation to the phylogenetic position and morphological variability of Levanderina fissa in Acapulco Bay, with observations on diatom feeding behavior
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Levanderina fissa, a globally distributed mixotrophic dinoflagellate, is known for its ability to photosynthesize and phagocytize microorganisms. This study aims to approximate the phylogenetic position and explore the morphological variability of L. fissa in Acapulco Bay, Mexico, while providing observations on its diatom feeding behavior. Phylogenetic analysis based on 28S and 18S ribosomal DNA sequences suggests the existence of a monophyletic group within the Gymnodiniales, though with low phylogenetic resolution, indicating potential cryptic species within the genus. Morphological analysis reveals variability that may be influenced by regional environmental factors. Observations on diatom ingestion provide further, albeit limited, insights into the mixotrophic behavior of L. fissa. These findings emphasize the need for further research to better understand the species' ecological role and phylogenetic position, particularly concerning its feeding strategies in tropical ecosystems.
Article activity feed
-
-
Having received reviewer comments, it is clear the work requires additional experimental work. The study is very small and as pointed out by the reviewers requires more work, right now it seems like a good starting point for more work, but seems not sufficient for a publication with the current amount included.
-
Comments to Author
The authors have isolated as number of cells of the dinoflagellate Levanderina fissa from Acapulco Bay ínto culture and studied the strains with a number of methods. The text is well written but the scientific content is low and of little significance. What has been accomplished with the present study? The authors have shown that the tropical Acapulco cells are slightly larger than those reported from the type locality in Finland by Moestrup et al., and they have found a genetic difference of 1.3-2.4 % between the Acapulco material and the cells in GenBank. However, the authors need to use their cultures to do a more conclusive study, for comparison with cultures available from elsewhere. The authors need to use additional genes, for example ITS, to obtain conclusive information on significant …
Comments to Author
The authors have isolated as number of cells of the dinoflagellate Levanderina fissa from Acapulco Bay ínto culture and studied the strains with a number of methods. The text is well written but the scientific content is low and of little significance. What has been accomplished with the present study? The authors have shown that the tropical Acapulco cells are slightly larger than those reported from the type locality in Finland by Moestrup et al., and they have found a genetic difference of 1.3-2.4 % between the Acapulco material and the cells in GenBank. However, the authors need to use their cultures to do a more conclusive study, for comparison with cultures available from elsewhere. The authors need to use additional genes, for example ITS, to obtain conclusive information on significant variation within what is presently called Levanderina fissa. Are the Acapulco strains a tropical variety. This is possible but this needs to be proved using much more data. The TEM study also needs to be redone, using more up-to-date fixation protocols. It is unlikely that the diatom frustule has been dissolved by the dinoflagellate in the cell illustrated in Fig. 3, while the diatom cytoplasm has been retained. The opposite is more likely, since diatom frustules are difficult to dissolve and are therefore usually discarded from cells phagocytizing diatoms. A food vacuole membrane has not been retained in the cell in Fig. 3F, probably because of the suboptimal fixation method used, and this prevents proper interpretation of the micrograph. It will, however, be very interesting to do a proper study of food uptake in Levanderina, by feeding it with the diatom culture established by the authors. If some details of the uptake process are obtained first by light microscopy, it should be possible to obtain further details from TEM sctions. But use thinner sections, 60 nm instead of 100 nm. Further: Line 109 Hansen & Daugbjerg should not be in brackets In Fig 2 uncatenatum should be uncatenum, a commonly repeated mistake. The legend to Fig. 2 is probably only understandable by persons with a knowledge of Levanderina. It should be stated that all strains within the Levanderina clade were identified as Levanderina fissa by Moestrup et al. It is confusing that the old names have been retained. The legend mentions asterisks but I see no asterisks in the figure. Table 1 Woloshinsky tenuissima should be Woloszynskia tenuissima, or the more up-to-date name Borghiella ternuissima.
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Poor
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Satisfactory
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Partially support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
No: Not applicable
-
Comments to Author
The present manuscript addresses a phylogenetic and morphological approximation to study an uncommon dinoflagellate (Levanderina fissa) including some feeding behavior. This is where my first conflicts with the article begin, since if the authors had wanted to evaluate the mixotrophic character of the species, they could have measured some ingestion rates to see more precisely the capacity to remove species from the environment, but they only wanted to check if it had a mixotrophic or heterotrophic feeding behavior, being the latter what is mainly revealed, by checking the consumption on the diatom Minutocellus polymorphus. The results are presented in a simple way with only three figures, where the relevant information apart from the microphotographs presented, goes hand in hand with the phylogenetic …
Comments to Author
The present manuscript addresses a phylogenetic and morphological approximation to study an uncommon dinoflagellate (Levanderina fissa) including some feeding behavior. This is where my first conflicts with the article begin, since if the authors had wanted to evaluate the mixotrophic character of the species, they could have measured some ingestion rates to see more precisely the capacity to remove species from the environment, but they only wanted to check if it had a mixotrophic or heterotrophic feeding behavior, being the latter what is mainly revealed, by checking the consumption on the diatom Minutocellus polymorphus. The results are presented in a simple way with only three figures, where the relevant information apart from the microphotographs presented, goes hand in hand with the phylogenetic analysis presented, which indicates the existence of a monophyletic group and places a lot of emphasis on the morphological analysis carried out with cultivated and field species. The paper is very simple and does not go much further than the aspects already mentioned, it simply seeks to expand the information available on the species Levanderina fissa, on which there are not many previous studies, so the contribution if measured in this way would be done. But what is reported and summarized in the paper is more suitable for a short paper than anything else. The scientific literature available for the genus is scarce, but according to what has been proposed and addressed in the study, it is sufficient. I think the whole manuscript is very well done, but I would have gone a bit deeper to demonstrate more solid results to leave it as an MS, rather than a short paper. From the introduction to the discussion to the results and conclusions, I have only minor and specific comments which I will detail below, but my suggestion is to accept the MS because I do not see that it can go further, with what is stated and explained in the objectives of the manuscript. Minor comments: Line 38: Some possess (I think actually is mostly, not some because there is a lot of dinoflagellate species with this capability.) Line 40: Mixotrophy (You need to add some references here, after mixotrophy . For example Mitra (2018)(DOI 10.1038/scientificamerican0418-26). Leles et al., (2017) (https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/epdf/10.1098/rspb.2017.0664) Hansen et al., (2019)(https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809633-8.20685-7) Line 42: In the references , please add here more new references. You have quite recent papers about this. Line 86 and 87: Use super index
Please rate the manuscript for methodological rigour
Good
Please rate the quality of the presentation and structure of the manuscript
Good
To what extent are the conclusions supported by the data?
Strongly support
Do you have any concerns of possible image manipulation, plagiarism or any other unethical practices?
No
Is there a potential financial or other conflict of interest between yourself and the author(s)?
No
If this manuscript involves human and/or animal work, have the subjects been treated in an ethical manner and the authors complied with the appropriate guidelines?
Yes
-
-
It appears that the methods are duplicated. Can you please revise this prior to be send out to reviewers. Many thanks
-