Find­ing the ac­tual nee­dle in a vir­tual haystack

by Christoph

For ecol­o­gists, there are two ap­proaches to as­sess­ing bio­di­ver­sity of a sam­pling site, be it solid rock, soil, fresh wa­ter, ma­rine wa­ter, air, etc. The tra­di­tional ap­proach is to record in the field, ob­serve and count, and take sam­ples for fur­ther study in the lab­o­ra­tory, in­clud­ing cul­ti­va­tion and DNA se­quenc­ing. In the other ap­proach, re­cently in­tro­duced by Me­chas, bio­di­ver­sity is as­sessed by global se­quenc­ing of en­vi­ron­men­tal DNA (eDNA) col­lected from a sam­pling site and its tax­o­nomic clas­si­fi­ca­tion and quan­tifi­ca­tion by bioin­for­mat­ics (key­word: metabar­cod­ing). When an­alyzing the re­sult­ing vo­lu­mi­nous datasets, opera­tional tax­o­nomic units (OTUs) of­ten pop up that cor­re­spond to known taxa/species never be­fore found at the sam­pling site − the topic that brought you here − in ad­di­tion to un­known taxa/species, of course.

Fig­ure 1. © View of the Bassa Nera from an ad­ja­cent moun­tain (click here for a ge­o­graph­i­cal overview by Gar­cés-Pas­tor et al. (2019)). Fron­tispiece: View of the Bassa Nera (on the right). Source

Re­cently, Gar­cés-Pas­tor et al. (2019) re­ported mi­crog­natho­zoan eDNA in a metabar­cod­ing study of a high-el­e­va­tion peat bog in the Pyre­nees, Spain. Us­ing uni­ver­sal 18S rRNA primers, the au­thors found mi­crog­natho­zoan eDNA as one of the "20 most abun­dant 18S MO­TUs [mol­e­c­u­lar op­er­a­tional tax­o­nomic units] for the fen mi­cro­hab­i­tat". The mi­crog­natho­zoan in ques­tion was Limnog­nathia maer­ski, dis­cov­ered in sub­merged mosses at a cold fresh­wa­ter spring in Disko Is­land, Green­land, in the mid-90s and for­mally de­scribed by Kris­tensen & Funch (2000). L. maer­ski is so far the only species in the phy­lum Micrognatho­zoa, a sis­ter clade of the Ro­tifera, and has only been found on Île de la Pos­ses­sion, sub-Antarc­tic In­dian Ocean and a few other dis­parate places (a bit more on Limnog­nathia bi­ol­ogy be­low).

De­spite the high num­ber of reads Gar­cés-Pas­tor et al. (2019) took their dis­cov­ery with cau­tion, as its lo­ca­tion lay far from known mi­crog­natho­zoan lo­cal­i­ties and there were no spec­i­mens. But based on this eDNA ev­i­dence from the Pyre­nees an ex­pe­di­tion there was planned to find the ac­tual nee­dle in the vir­tual haystack, and car­ried out.

Dur­ing this ex­pe­di­tion, Giri­bet et al. (2023) − two of the co‑authors were also in­volved in the pre­vi­ous eDNA study − sam­pled 15 sites along the edge of the Bassa Nera peat bog (Fig­ure 1) over four days of re­peated sam­pling. They found Mi­crog­natho­zoa in sam­ples of only one of the sites, 62 spec­i­mens in to­tal (Fig­ure 2B). "Find­ing" meant squeez­ing sub­merged Sphag­num mosses − typ­i­cal in­hab­i­tants of peat bogs and pre­ferred source for col­lect­ing tardi­grades − and con­cen­trat­ing the fauna on a 30 μm mesh be­fore trans­fer­ring it to mul­ti­ple small con­tain­ers (50–250 ml). Then, the fil­tered squeezed sam­ples were brought to an im­pro­vised lab and ex­am­ined alive un­der the stere­omi­cro­scope. They do not say how many hours they spent at the microscope(s), nor how many or­gan­isms they had to look through in to­tal. But even with­out ex­act quan­tifi­ca­tion it is clear that the mi­crog­natho­zoan found in low num­bers only at one of the 15 not far apart sam­pling sites is a rare find. It is thus the first docu­mented case of a mi­crog­natho­zoan de­tected with eDNA and later found in the wild and the first con­firmed mi­crog­natho­zoan out­side Green­land and Île de la Pos­ses­sion (they later learned that mi­crog­natho­zoan eDNA was also found in a 2020 sur­vey of the Danube river, Eu­rope (PDF)). Mi­crog­natho­zoa ap­par­ently have a world­wide but highly patchy dis­tri­b­u­tion. The adage 'Every­thing is every­where: but the en­vi­ron­ment se­lects' comes to mind... 

Fig­ure 2. (B) Spec­i­men of Limnog­nathia sp. col­lected in the wa­ter sam­ples (an­te­rior end is on top). Source. © Anatom­i­cal di­a­gram of Limnog­nathia maer­ski. The cilia on the fore­head cre­ate a cur­rent that moves food par­ti­cles to­wards the mouth. The ven­tral cilia move the an­i­mal. Adapted from a di­a­gram on the alchetron.com web­site.

Limnog­nathia maer­ski and the anatom­i­cally very sim­i­lar Limnog­nathia sp. found in the Bassa Nera peat bog are multi‑cellular an­i­mals be­long­ing to the phy­lum Mi­crog­natho­zoa. Their bi­laterial body plan is read­ily seen in Fig­ure 2C. Note the sym­met­ri­cally arranged eyes, eggs, and proto‑nephridia (kid­neys). Fig­ure 2A un­for­tu­nately lacks a scale, but it can be as­sumed that the an­i­mal is ~100 µm long like Limno­gna­thia maer­ski. As in the ro­tifers ('wheel an­i­mals' af­ter the corona around the mouth), the mouth parts of the mi­crog­natho­zoans (jaw an­i­mals) are par­ticularly con­spic­u­ous and the jaws struc­turally very com­plex (see de­tails here). They are quite dif­fer­ent from the "mouth parts" of single‑celled cil­i­ates (oral groove/vestibulum, buc­cal over­ture, cell mouth/cyto­stome).

Are you sur­prised to find a meta­zoan here at Small Things Con­sid­ered ? First, Limnog­nathia has a body length of ~100 µm, which is truly mi­cro­scopic or "mi­cro­bial," and thus much the same size as the large, single‑celled pro­tist Para­me­cium bur­saria (80−150 µm cell length), and just a tad smaller than the Kikiki huna fairyfly wasp (~150 µm body length). On the other hand, we know of large sin­gle-celled bac­te­ria that we con­sider Small Things, for ex­am­ple Thiomarga­rita nami­bi­en­sis (100–300 µm ⌀) or Achro­matium ox­al­iferum (30×125 µm).

Sec­ond, we at STC have never been too picky about the term "mi­crobes" in the past, and Merry once wrote fondly of the phy­lo­ge­netic sis­ter clan of the mi­crog­natho­zoans, the Scan­dalous Bdel­loid Ro­tifers (0.1–0.5 mm body length). Only the other much beloved tiny an­i­mals, the tardi­grades (0.5‒1 mm body length), have not made it to "hon­orary mi­crobe" sta­tus with us, they are sim­ply too big some­how. But then there are the myx­o­zoans, which Roberto pointed out to me while edit­ing this post. These minute an­i­mals(!) have hardly more than 10 cells and reach lengths of ~10 µm (see here in STC). In com­par­i­son, Limnog­nathia is a real mon­ster! And it is re­ally not very clever to clas­sify "mi­crobes" by their size alone, un­der the mi­cro­scope you will find all life forms.

Third, the tiny crea­tures that An­tonie van Leeuwen­hoek saw in his mi­cro­scope, he called klei­jne dierkens. Henry Old­en­burg, the sec­re­tary of the Royal So­ci­ety in Lon­don, UK who took care of Antonie's let­ters, trans­lated klei­jne dierkens as an­i­mal­cules, lit­tle an­i­mals. Among them were, as we know to­day, ro­tifers, that is, an­i­mals. If that is not suf­fi­cient rea­son to treat Limnog­nathia here!

Giri­bet et al. (2023) com­ment on the ever-in­creas­ing dif­fi­culty of ob­tain­ing data sets from pub­lished stud­ies for meta‑studies by oth­ers, and they are not alone with these com­plaints: "Thus, un­ex­pected find­ings in metabar­cod­ing stud­ies, rather than be­ing dis­missed as ar­ti­fac­tual or question­able, can pro­vide a map to lo­cate and dis­cover rare spec­i­mens, in­clud­ing the dis­cov­ery of novel taxa in new re­gions. These trea­sure maps may, how­ever, be hid­den in the un­fil­tered data sets or sup­ple­men­tary ma­te­ri­als of pub­lished stud­ies or sci­en­tific re­ports, and thus im­proved data vis­i­bil­ity and col­lab­o­ra­tion across dis­ci­plines are key fac­tors for these trea­sures to be found and to be­gin the trea­sure hunt." For­tu­nately, their trea­sure hunt for the liv­ing Limnog­nathia nee­dle was suc­cess­ful in the peat bog and it did not re­main as just a cou­ple of files in the haystack of se­quence data.
 

Do you want to com­ment on this post? We would be happy about it! Please com­ment on mastodon or bluesky.

Other Posts

  • (More than just) a Whiff of Tax­on­omy – Salta­torel­lus ferox

    by Christoph — Last sum­mer, I stum­bled upon the name «Sal­ta­to­rel­lus» when look­ing at a photo from a pos­ter ses­sion of a mi­cro­bio­lo­gy con­gress. I found that name so char­ming! Stage names of jugg­lers and cir­cus ar­tists who per­form au­da­cious jumps and da­ring so­mer­saults came to my mind. And in­deed, the name 'Sal­ta­to­rel­lus fe­rox' was gi­ven to a bac­te­rium...

  • The Tale of a Tube­worm and a Biofilm

    by Jor­dan Kesner, Bryan Han­cock, and Nicole Nal­ban­dian — The oceans of our world har­bor an in­cred­i­ble di­ver­sity of life, the vast ma­jor­ity of which has yet to be ob­served or char­ac­ter­ized. This is part of what makes the study of ma­rine bi­ol­ogy so ex­cit­ing; there is, in essence, an end­less sea of new and ex­cit­ing un­der­wa­ter dis­cov­er­ies to...

  • Pro­grammed Cell Death

    by S. Mar­vin Fried­man — Gone are the days when bac­te­ria were thought to just grow and di­vide and not bother to con­verse with one an­other. That sim­ple idea has pro­duced moun­tains of data and most of what we know about bac­te­r­ial phys­i­ol­ogy is based on this no­tion. It turns out, as we know now…

  • An­i­mat­ing the Inan­i­mate

    by Marcelo Bar­ros and Brana Vla­sic — Con­crete is the most widely used build­ing ma­te­r­ial in the world, with un­told amounts be­ing pro­duced yearly. It has al­ways been re­garded as a strong, solid, im­pen­e­tra­ble, al­most in­de­struc­tible ma­te­r­ial yet it can make cracks that are vul­ner­a­ble to pen­e­tra­tion by wa­ter. As the re­sult, struc­tures of great eco­nomic and…

  • City, Biofilm of Hu­mans (Part I)

    by Roberto — The ti­tle of today's post is a twist on the opin­ion ar­ti­cle Paula Wat­nick and I wrote at the turn of the cen­tury: Biofilm, City of Mi­crobes. As I con­tem­plate pop­u­la­tion dy­nam­ics, from bac­te­ria to hu­mans, I am in­creas­ingly con­vinced that hu­man cities and mi­cro­bial biofilms man­i­fest some sim­i­lar at­trib­utes.