Meet the Xeno­phyophores!

Ed­i­to­r­ial note: We reprint this ar­ti­cle by per­mis­sion of the au­thor. It first ap­peared on Au­gust 27, 2014, in his blog, The Echioblog. We have a long-stand­ing fas­ci­na­tion with this topic and have pre­vi­ously posted a piece about it here.

by Chris Mah

So, fol­low­ing up with all of the NOAA deep-sea Okeanos Ex­plorer stuff, I've found that I am just fas­ci­nated  by these things called xeno­phyophores! The name means "Bearer of for­eign bod­ies" and a 'por­trait gallery' is found here. But what are they? To put it sim­ply, they are gi­ant, deep-sea amoe­bas that live in large, sed­i­ment "hous­es" called "tests" (sim­i­lar to the way that echin­o­derm ske­le­tons are also known as tests).

Fig­ure 1. Xeno­phyophore from the Gulf of Me­xi­co. NOAA photo li­brary

Foot­note on the clas­si­fi­ca­tion: a quick sur­vey of the va­ri­ous Pro­tist clas­si­fi­ca­tions tells me that even call­ing these or­gan­isms "amoe­bas" is prob­a­bly in­cor­rect. But the nu­an­ces of this dy­namic are for an­other day. This one group, the xeno­phyophorea live in the deep-sea ... deep in the deep-sea! Xeno­phyophores were ob­served as deep as 10 km (over 6 miles! ) in the deep­est of ma­rine trenches (the Mar­i­ana Trench ) and oc­cur in al­most all of the world's oceans (ex­cept the Arc­tic ). They are con­sid­ered among the world's largest liv­ing sin­gle celled or­gan­isms.

Fig­ure 2. A xeno­phyophore from the Gala­pa­gos Rift. NOAA photo li­brary

Xeno­phyophores cre­ate these large tests which they in­ha­bit. The tests come in a va­ri­ety of forms. There are 42 known species in 13 gen­era. As I un­der­stand it, xe­no­phy­o­pho­res are con­sid­ered as a sub­group within the fo­ra­mi­ni­fe­ra (these are amoeba-like uni­cel­lu­lar or­gan­isms with tests).

Here's a va­ri­ety of xeno­phyophore tests spied by the Oke­­anos Ex­plorer (Fig­ures 1 + 2)... but other pat­terns in­clude big leafy struc­tures and more net­work-like ar­rays of tubes. They vary quite a bit.

Here's some fun facts!  Sev­eral dif­fer­ent sources in­clud­ing the 'Pa­le­oe­col­ogy and Ecol­ogy of Xe­no­phy­o­pho­res' by Lisa Levin and oth­ers cited be­low.

1. How Big Are They?  So, here's the thing. I've read plenty of ac­counts that jump to the con­clu­sion "These are the mon­ster amoe­bas!" But what a lot of these ac­counts seem to for­get is that the large sizes con­sid­ered by a lot of pop­u­lar ac­counts are the tests (i.e., the skele­tons). To be sure, these struc­tures can be pretty big (for some­thing made by amoe­bas! ) The ex­am­ple be­low is ap­par­ent­ly about 20 cm (al­most a foot! ) across! (Fig­ure 3)

Fig­ure 3. A large 20-cm wide xeno­phyophore from the Mid-At­lantic Ridge. CC BY 2.0 NOAA Photo Li­brary

Most of the ac­counts I've read sort of as­sume (and I sup­pose this is rea­son­able ) that the an­i­mal in­hab­its all of the test all the time, or per­haps with pseudopods or ten­tacles ex­tended through­out? Frankly, none of the ac­counts I read could clar­ify how much of the test the ac­tu­al or­gan­ism in­hab­its. How­ever, One es­ti­mate in­di­cates that the test vol­ume might be as lit­tle as 1% "pro­to­plasm" (which if I un­der­stand the ter­mi­nol­ogy in­cludes cy­to­plasm, etc.). So, the ac­tual or­gan­isms are prob­a­bly not as mon­strous as some folks would think. I would imag­ine it's quite dif­fi­cult to mea­sure an amoeba for some­thing like this.

2. What Do They Eat?  So, when you think of big deep-sea amoe­bas, per­haps au­to­mat­i­cally we think "Oh wow! Wouldn't it be neat if they ac­tu­ally could eat an­i­mals?" Just like in the movies?  And in truth, there are ma­rine amoe­bas which prob­a­bly de­vour an­i­mals, but to date very lit­tle evi­den­ce is avail­able on the full range of what xeno­phyophores ac­tu­ally eat. And the truth is sadly not li­kely to be as ro­man­tic as some would think.

Fig­ure 4. Scan­ning elec­tron mi­cro­graph of ster­comes in the xeno­phyophore Sy­ringam­mina cor­bicula. CC BY-NC 2.0 Su­san Richard­son

One pa­per by Lau­reil­lard, Me­janelle and Sibuet from 2004 stud­ied the xeno­phyophore Sy­rin­gam­mi­na cor­bic­ula. The xeno­phyophores were found en­riched in tri­a­cyl­glyc­erols, en­ergy stor­age lipids in an­i­mals, and con­tained a higher level of bac­te­r­ial fatty acids than those in ref­er­ence se­di­ment. Their study showed that bac­te­ria were present on S. cor­bic­ula in great abun­dance.

Xeno­phyophores have strings of mu­cus which are de­ploy­ed along the test which build up fe­ces and sed­i­ment called ster­comes. It was sug­gested that a flora of these bac­te­ria is present in abun­dance on these mu­cous threads. Per­haps be­ing farmed and be­ing uti­lized as a source of food. Their mu­cous threads also are con­stantly pulling and trap­ping par­ti­cles from the sur­round­ing area, pre­sum­ably in part to pro­vide fur­ther nu­tri­tion. Fig­ure 4 shows an Scan­ning Elec­tron Mi­cro­scope Im­age of a ster­come show­ing up close de­tails of what's on them. There seems to be a heavy de­pen­den­ce on poop and other "ma­rine snow" that falls to the bot­tom as well as bacterial/microbial growth. But very lit­tle is known about feed­ing in xeno­phyophores, so who knows what else they do?

3. What are those struc­tures (tests) made of?  The tests on Xeno­phyophores are made up of a patch­work of dif­fer­ent bits. Sed­i­ment, but also the shells of other ma­rine or­gan­isms such as ra­di­o­la­ri­ans, other foraminifer­ans, and so on...

The test is the outer "crunchy" layer... Within the test are a se­ries of tubes called granel­lae, through which the animal's cy­to­plasm, etc. flow through. These tests are ac­tu­ally an im­por­tant part of the xe­no­phy­o­pho­res' eco­log­i­cal role, as they pro­vide habi­tats and such.

4. Ecol­ogy!  Prob­a­bly the most in­ter­est­ing thing that I've picked up about xeno­phyophores? It's how po­ten­tially im­por­tant they are to deep-sea ecosys­tems. Xenos are very abun­dant in the deep-sea, some­times reach­ing up to 2,000 per 100 square me­ters! Lisa Levin pub­lished this neat pa­per in 1991 about their roles in deep-sea com­mu­ni­ties. Ba­si­cally it turns out that where xenos are found, there are hotspots of an­i­mal di­ver­sity.

Fig­ure 5. Two big xeno­phyophore tests with brit­tle stars on them. Source

Why might a clus­ter of xeno­phyophore tests rep­re­sent a hotspot of an­i­mal di­ver­sity? They ap­par­ently present both food and habi­tats for a plethora of deep-sea ani­mals! Ex­am­ples of how an­i­mals use these tests? Here you are:

  • Habi­tats for worms, cope­pods, crus­taceans, ophi­uroids, and even snail em­bryos!
  • Peanut worms that live in "dead" tests
  • Eggs from var­i­ous an­i­mals (worms or snails) on xeno­phyophore tests.
  • Sus­pen­sion feed­ing colo­nial an­i­mals called bry­ozoans some­times are found "in­ter­grown" on tests
  • Some xeno­phyophores found on sea urchins.
  • Some am­phi­pod crus­taceans are thought to prey on the xeno­phyophores
  • Plus other more! Possibly/probably as­so­ci­ated with the bac­te­ria grow­ing on the sur­face.
     

5. Mys­tery fos­sils: xeno­phyophores?  So, one of the afore­men­tioned ar­ti­cles by Levin on xe­no­phy­o­phore pa­le­oe­col­ogy makes the case that tests and other mod­ern ex­am­ples of sed­i­ment struc­tures by these or­gan­isms can ex­plain var­i­ous trace fos­sils, and other mys­te­ri­ous fos­sil struc­tures.

Fig­ure 6. ROV Deep Dis­cover find­ing of a set of Pa­le­o­d­ic­tyon holes. Im­age cour­tesy of NOAA Okeanos Ex­plorer Pro­gram, Gulf of Mex­ico 2014 Ex­pe­di­tion. Source

Per­haps one of the best known is that of the fos­sil ich­no­ge­nus Pa­le­o­d­ic­tyon (like an or­gan­ism name but for a tra­ce fos­sil ) ! Pa­le­o­d­ic­tyon was fa­mously stud­ied by oce­a­no­gra­pher Pe­ter Rona who made it an ob­ses­sion of his ca­reer. It has been cov­ered by many other nat­ural his­tory blogs such as this and this. Ba­si­cally, a trace fos­sil which looks like this (Fig­ure 6). This is seen through­out the deep-sea in many places. The im­age is from the Gulf of Mex­ico but its been seen through­out the deep-sea, some­times as deep as 3700 me­ters!

It's also been seen in the fos­sil record dat­ing back to the Pa­le­o­zoic.  The par­al­lel and sim­i­lar ap­pear­ance has led to much de­bate over whether the same type of or­gan­ism has cre­ated these pat­terns in the sed­i­ment, namely, did a xeno­phyophore or some­thing sim­i­lar cre­ate them?  And any­way, there's a lot more on them in this re­gard and there seem to be more ques­tions than an­swers. A neat group of crit­ters! (can I use that for amoe­bas? )

 

Chris Mah

Chris Mah is an in­ver­te­brate zo­ol­o­gist and echin­o­derm re­sear­cher at the Na­tional Mu­seum of Nat­ural His­tory, spe­cial­iz­ing in sea stars (aka starfish or as­ter­oids). He has an ap­pre­ci­a­tion for weird­ness and loves the ad­ven­ture of dis­cov­er­ing new starfish and un­der­stand­ing their sto­ries.

 

Other Posts

  • Stops Mak­ing Sense

    by Christoph — One of the most con­vinc­ing ar­guments for a com­mon ori­gin of all known life forms on this pla­net is that they all use the same ge­net­ic code. In my un­der­stand­ing, the ar­gu­ment is strength­en­ed, per­haps some­what coun­ter‑­in­tuiti­ve­ly, by the nu­mer­ous find­ings that and how ma­ny life forms mo­di­fy the ca­no­ni­cal ge­net­ic code in ways that suit them...

  • Ocean's Tini­est Preda­tor

    by Christoph — In pop­u­lar terms, the ma­rine food chain goes like this: "phy­to­plank­ton feed the zoo­plank­ton that feed the small fish (lar­vae) and crus­taceans that feed the larger fish that feed the even big­ger fish that feed us". Thus we have us, Homo sapi­ens, to­gether with the great white shark, Car­char­o­don car­charias, and...

  • Nu­clear Op­tion

    by Elio — Some ma­rine an­i­mals — clams, flat­worms, and hy­dras — have green body parts al­though that is not their true color. Rather, they look green be­cause they have in­gested mi­cro­scopic al­gae. In­side the an­i­mals, the al­gae act as pho­to­syn­thetic sym­bionts, tiny gar­dens that pro­vide their host with prod­ucts of their...

  • The Who-Ate-Whom of Terms in Bi­ol­ogy: Vi­rovory

    by Christoph — Like with the cus­to­ma­ry New Year's Eve fire­works, eve­ry year we bio­lo­gists are blessed with hi­ther­to un­known or lar­ge­ly un­com­mon sci­en­ti­fic terms. Some stick, oth­ers blaze away like said fire­works. How would you guess the term "vi­ro­vo­ry," which was ad­ded to Wi­ki­pe­dia on 29 Decem­ber 2022, will fare?