Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Parasitology logoLink to Parasitology
. 2020 Dec 23;148(5):532–538. doi: 10.1017/S0031182020002383

Environmental factors drive the release of Perkinsus marinus from infected oysters

Sarah A Gignoux-Wolfsohn 1,2,✉, Matilda S R Newcomb 1, Gregory M Ruiz 2, Katrina M Pagenkopp Lohan 1
PMCID: PMC10950379  PMID: 33353569

Abstract

Since the discovery of Perkinsus marinus as the cause of dermo disease in Crassostrea virginica, salinity and temperature have been identified as the main environmental drivers of parasite prevalence. However, little is known about how these variables affect the movement of the parasite from host to water column. In order to elucidate how environmental factors can influence the abundance of this parasite in the water column, we conducted a series of experiments testing the effects of time of day, temperature and salinity on the release of P. marinus cells from infected oysters. We found that P. marinus cells were released on a diurnal cycle, with most cells released during the hottest and brightest period of the day (12:00–18:00). Temperature also had a strong and immediate effect on the number of cells released, but salinity did not, only influencing the intensity of infection over the course of several months. Taken together, our results demonstrate that (1) the number of parasites in the water column fluctuates according to a diurnal cycle, (2) temperature and salinity act on different timescales to influence parasite abundance, and (3) live infected oysters may substantially contribute to the abundance of transmissive parasites in the water column under particular environmental conditions.

Introduction

Perkinsus marinus is a protistan parasite that infects the eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica) and is notorious for causing dermo disease (Mackin, 1951; Ray, 1954). It was first identified in the 1940s after causing severe mass mortalities of wild oyster populations in the Gulf of Mexico (Ray, 1954). Its current geographic range spans the east coast of the Americas, from northern South America (da Silva et al., 2013), to the Gulf of Maine (Cook et al., 1998), including Central America (Pagenkopp Lohan et al., 2016), and the Gulf of Mexico (Ray, 1954). In the wild, infective P. marinus cells are taken into the oyster through filter feeding, with many infections occurring through the mantle from infected pseudofeces (particles that accumulate near the mantle after being expelled by the oyster without digestion) (Allam et al., 2013; Ben-Horin et al., 2015). While P. marinus epizootics have historically resulted in the collapse of entire oyster reefs (Hewatt and Andrews, 1954), enzootic populations of the parasite are currently common (Calvo et al., 2003). Low-level infections can be sustained for years with only slight effects on growth and reproduction (Ray, 1954; Sunila and LaBanca, 2003), with parasites building up over time in older oysters (Andrews and Hewatt, 1957).

On oyster reefs, P. marinus prevalence, intensity and resulting oyster mortality increase with temperature and salinity (Ray, 1954; Andrews, 1988). Epizootics are therefore seasonally cyclical, with the highest prevalence and intensity in summer and fall months (Andrews and Hewatt, 1957) and lowest in winter months (Andrews, 1965). The severity of outbreaks also varies across years, with particularly intense outbreaks after La Niña events, when both temperature and salinity increase (Soniat et al., 2005). Geographic variation in temperature and salinity also drives P. marinus distribution, with warming sea temperatures likely contributing to the northern range expansion of P. marinus (Ford, 1996; Cook et al., 1998; Ford and Chintala, 2006). In the laboratory, Chu and coworkers found that both higher temperature (Chu and La Peyre, 1993) and salinity (Chu et al., 1993) increased infection prevalence and intensity in oysters challenged with P. marinus. In the same experiments, temperature and salinity also altered the presumed cellular defences of the hosts, such as the abundance of haemocytes, suggesting a potential impact on host immune processes. In culture, high temperature and salinity influenced two infectious stages of P. marinus: increasing development of P. marinus hypnospores (Chu and Greene, 1989b) and metabolic activity and proliferation of trophozoites (La Peyre et al., 2008), with salinities below 7 ppt causing severe reductions in viability (La Peyre et al., 2006).

In the wild, P. marinus is believed to be primarily transmitted between oysters through the water column (Ray, 1954). The parasite is able to survive for weeks outside the host due to its ability to synthesize fatty acids, facilitating both short and long distance (i.e. reef-to-reef) transmission (Chu et al., 2002). Transmission can also occur through ectoparasitic snails feeding on infected oysters (White et al., 1987). Live P. marinus cells have been found in the stomachs of multiple species of snails and fish, and on the setae of mud crabs (Andrews et al., 1962), although the relative frequency of transmission by animal vector vs through the water column is unknown. Even with continuous exposure, detectable infections develop slowly, likely because a high infective dose is required (Bidegain et al., 2016). While timing can vary, naive oysters placed in water where the parasite is endemic or adjacent to heavily infected oysters will generally develop visible infections over the course of weeks (Ray, 1954; Andrews, 1965). For this reason, understanding the factors that contribute to the abundance of infective particles in the water column is crucial to understanding disease dynamics, including rates of infection.

The majority of infective P. marinus in the water column is historically believed to come primarily from the death of heavily infected oysters, as the abundance of free-living parasites is highly correlated with oyster mortality (Calvo et al., 2003; Audemard et al., 2006). Large numbers of cells are released from dead and dying oysters, especially when tissues are shredded by scavengers, providing a logical mechanism for these observed patterns (Hoese, 1962). However, death of heavily infected oysters is not the only avenue for the reintroduction of P. marinus cells to the water column, and live cells can be released from infected oysters in pseudofeces (Bushek et al., 2002). In the wild, parasite abundance is not only correlated with mortality but also with weighted prevalence in live oysters, suggesting that heavily infected live oysters may also contribute significantly to P. marinus abundance in the water (Audemard et al., 2006). In addition, naïve oysters can pick up infections from the water even when oyster mortality is low (Calvo et al., 2003). Because infection and development of disease signs happen over the course of weeks and months, studies of P. marinus abundance in the water column have focused on these time scales (Calvo et al., 2003; Audemard et al., 2006). However, on shallow tidal oyster reefs, environmental parameters such as temperature and salinity often fluctuate over much shorter timescales. Little is known about how short-term changes in these parameters affect the release of P. marinus cells from live oysters. Here, we conducted two experiments to examine the effects of time of day, salinity and temperature on the release of P. marinus from infected oysters. We found that both time of day and temperature strongly influenced the number of cells released. Further, we found that while generally more cells were released from dead or dying oysters than from live oysters, similar numbers of cells can be released from live oysters at high water temperatures. We surmise that live oysters contribute significantly to the population of P. marinus in the water column and should be considered in transmission dynamics.

Materials and methods

Experimental oysters

In order to measure the release of P. marinus by infected oysters, we obtained 200 wild oysters (C. virginica) from the Nanticoke River, Maryland in July 2019. Mean fall salinity for this location is 9.98 ppt (s.d. 3.47) and temperature is 23.5°C (s.d. 1.75). We measure the intensity of Perkinsus infections using the Mackin scale (Ray, 1954), which rates infection from 1 (light infection) to 5 (very heavy infection). This location was chosen due to previous findings of high prevalence, oysters from this river had a 73% prevalence in 2018, with one of the highest recorded mean intensities in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay (2.3 on the Mackin scale) (Tarnowski, 2018). Oysters had a mean two-dimensional area of 76.46 cm (s.d. 20.82) and mean wet weight (including shell) of 237.21 g (s.d. 92.46). Prior to the start of the experiments, we sacrificed 55 oysters and measured P. marinus infection using Ray's Fluid Thioglycollate Method (RFTM) as described below. We found a prevalence of 43% and a mean intensity of 0.75 (s.d. 1.16). The remaining oysters were randomly divided into three groups kept in Rhode River water at different salinities: low (5–10 ppt), medium (10–15 ppt) and high (20–25 ppt) manipulated by adding freshwater or aquarium salt (Instant Ocean, Blacksburg, VA, USA) as needed (Fig. S1A). These levels were chosen to mimic the extremes of the salinity range found in the Maryland portion of the Chesapeake Bay. All oysters were fed Frozen Shellfish Diet for Broodstock (Reed Mariculture, Campbell, CA, USA) until the start of Experiment #1. The authors assert that all procedures contributing to this work comply with the ethical standards of the relevant national and institutional guides on the care and use of laboratory animals.

Experiment #1: effect of salinity and time of day on P. marinus release over 24 h

In order to test the effect of salinity on the release of P. marinus cells over a short period of time, we took oysters (N = 36) from the medium salinity holding treatment and placed them in Rhode River water adjusted to three salinity levels (n = 12), low (5 ppt), medium (15 ppt) and high (25 ppt) as above (Fig. S1). Water was filtered through a 1 μm mesh filter to ensure that no P. marinus cells were introduced via the water. Oysters were acclimated to their experimental salinity levels over the course of 2 days. At the start of the experiment (24:00 on 14 August 2019), oysters were placed in individual 1 L containers with water and an air stone. To ensure continuous filtration by the oysters, the pre-filtered water was supplemented with a small amount of dilute shellfish diet (Ehrich and Harris, 2015). The mesocosms were placed outside of the wetlab at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) in the shade in order to mimic the change in water temperature over a 24 h period. To monitor the temperature throughout the experiment, HOBO sensors were randomly placed in three containers and began temperature measurements at 0:00. The water was sampled as described below and replaced with new water every 6 h, resulting in four sampling points (Fig. S1A). All oysters were sacrificed for RFTM at the end of the experiment.

Experiment #2: effect of temperature on P. marinus release

In order to test the long-term effects of salinity on P. marinus release, the surviving oysters in the high (n = 35) and low (n = 36) salinity holding treatments were kept for 2 months before the start of Experiment #2 in 1135 L tanks where water was changed and salinity was adjusted every 3 days. Oysters were labelled with bee tags (Better Bee Greenwich, NY, USA) in order to identify the individuals. To measure short-term temperature impacts on Perkinsus release, each oyster was placed in an individual 1 L container with filtered water for a 6 h period on four separate days (hereafter referred to as trials). Trials were conducted in water at either high or low salinities consistent with the long-term salinity treatments. Individual containers were placed in a communal water bath to ensure consistent temperatures across replicates. Oysters were kept in communal holding tanks inside at appropriate salinity levels and ambient temperature between trials with timed artificial lights. All trials ran from 9:00 to 15:00 inside the wetlab at SERC under artificial light (Fig. S1B). At the conclusion of each 6 h trial, the oyster was removed and the entire contents of the container were sampled, including water and any particles, feces and pseudofeces. All oysters experienced a total of four trials: two trials where the water temperature was held at ambient temperatures (23–25°C) followed by two trials where the water bath was heated (30–32°C) (Fig. S1B). We chose to measure the same oysters multiple times in order to minimize the effects of individual variability in release. We conducted ambient trials prior to heated trials in order to minimize any carry-over effects of heating. While oysters are constantly releasing P. marinus cells, the parasite is also reproducing inside the oyster, and so we would not expect to see any reduction in release over time. Due to space constraints, oysters were divided into two groups and trials were run on separate days. For heated treatments, temperature was slowly ramped up and down over the course of 24 h to not shock the oysters. For a given group, trials were always separated by a minimum of 3 days.

Sampling and analysis

In order to count the number of pathogens released into the water column in both experiments, the 1 L container was shaken and 500 mL was removed and filtered through a 0.45 μm Whatman filter (Cytiva Life Sciences, Marlborough, MA, USA) using a glass filter apparatus that was rinsed with bleach in between samples. To measure oyster infection at the end of each experiment, oysters were sacrificed and a piece of anal and mantle tissue was placed in RFTM media. We incubated the filters and tissue in Ray's Fluid Thioglycollate Media (RFTM) at 27°C for 5–7 days. RFTM media causes viable Perkinsus sp. cells to enlarge making them visible under a dissecting microscope (Dungan and Bushek, 2015). We placed tissue or filters on a microscope slide and stained with 2–5 drops of Lugol's iodine (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Staining with Lugol's solution allows visualization of cells under a dissecting microscope. For tissue samples, we utilized the Mackin Scale, which quantifies infection intensity on a scale from 1 to 5, with 0 indicating no infection (Ray, 1954). For filters where total number of cells was <~500, we counted all cells. For the 12 filters with a high abundance of cells (>500), we took eight pictures of random locations on the filter at 4× magnification and counted the number of cells using IMAGEJ (Schindelin et al., 2012). At 4× magnification, the filter contains 72 frames, so we multiplied these numbers by 9 to estimate the total number of cells across the entire filter.

Statistics

We looked at the effect of salinity in Experiments #1 and #2 on the number of cells released (log transformed) using analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) with Mackin score of tissue as a covariate. We conducted a logistic regression with Mackin score as an ordinal response using the polr function in the R package MASS (Ripley et al., 2013) to measure the effect of salinity on the intensity of oyster infection for Experiment #2. To confirm that this result was unlikely to be due to uneven distribution of infected oysters into the two treatments, we ran 10 000 simulations randomly distributing 71 oysters into two buckets with a disease rate that follows a binomial distribution with P = 0.43. We used separate GLMMs with a Poisson distribution and ‘replicate’ as a random effect in the R package lme4 (Bates et al., 2018) to look at the effect of time of day, temperature and sunlight on the number of cells released in Experiment #1. To look at the effect of temperature in Experiment #2 for a given oyster, we first averaged the number of cells observed in the two trials (for each oyster, two ambient and two heated). We then subtracted the ambient average from the heated average. In order to transform the data, we added 105 to every value to make all values positive and conducted a Box–Cox transformation in the r package MASS using a λ of 0.033. We then conducted a one-sample t-test with a null hypothesis of no difference. Finally, to compare the number of cells released by survivors (n = 19) and non-survivors (n = 52) in Experiment #2, we first took the maximum of all available values then conducted a glm with a Gaussian distribution, with ‘treatment’ and ‘survival’ as factors. We conducted a Tukey HSD test using the R package multcomp. All graphs were made using ggplot2 (Wickham, 2009).

Results

Salinity

In Experiment #1, where oysters were exposed to three salinity levels for 3 days, salinity had no effect on the number of P. marinus cells released (ANCOVA d.f. = 6,130, P = 0.17). In Experiment #2, where oysters were held at two levels of salinity for 4 months, salinity also had no effect on the number of cells released (ANCOVA d.f. = 2,45, P = 0.08). Salinity did, however, have a significant effect on the final intensity of P. marinus infections within oyster tissues – while all oysters were infected (100% prevalence), oysters in the high salinity treatment (20–25 ppt) had significantly higher intensity infections at the end of this period (Fig. 1, logistic regression P = 7.47 × 10−06). The probability that the starting prevalence would differ between the two treatments by more than 20%, and therefore drive the final results was 1%.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.

Open in a new tab

Salinity treatments affected the final intensity of infection of oyster tissues. Histogram showing the number (frequency) of oysters from Experiment #2 with each Mackin score broken up by salinity treatment (across temperature treatments). We combined 4 and 5 due to the few number of 5s observed. Low salinity water was maintained between 5 and 10 ppt and high salinity water was maintained between 20 and 25 ppt.

Diurnal cycle

Oysters used in Experiment #1, where water was sampled four times over a 24 h period, had a prevalence of 39% (14/36) and a mean intensity of 3.18. Perkinsus marinus cells were released from nine oysters during at least one of the four sampled time points, with six oysters releasing cells at two timepoints. Cells were only released from infected oysters (i.e. those with a Mackin score >0). We did not find a significant relationship between oyster size and total number of cells released (glm, P = 0.498). Because there was no effect of salinity on the number of cells released, salinity was excluded from further analyses. Across all individuals, we observed a diurnal cycle of P. marinus release, with the greatest number of cells released between 12:00 and 18:00. For seven out of nine oysters, the majority of parasite cells were released during this time period (Fig. 2). The observed effect of time of day on release was correlated to both measured temperature (glmm, P < 2 × 10−16) and inferred sunlight based on the angle of the sun (glmm, P < 2 × 10−16), with both variables peaking at 18:00 (Fig. 2, Fig. S2).

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2.

Open in a new tab

Time of day drove P. marinus release. Nine of the oysters used in Experiment #1 released cells. Number of cells found during a timepoint is coloured by oyster replicate and points are connected by lines. The time when the sample was taken is shown, meaning that cells were released in the 6 h period beforehand. Temperature (°C) as measured by a hobo datalogger is displayed on the right y-axis and denoted by triangles.

Temperature

In Experiment #2, we compared the number of parasite cells released when oysters were in ambient (23–25°C) vs heated (30–32°C) water temperatures. For 76% (36 out of 47) of the oysters that survived to the end of the experiment, more P. marinus cells were released in heated water than in ambient water (Fig. 3, one-sample t-test, d.f. = 46, P = 0.036). Neither salinity nor Mackin score of the oyster influenced this change in release [ANOVA, d.f. = 40, P = 0.418 (Mackin score), P = 0.99 (salinity)].

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3.

Open in a new tab

Most oysters released more cells in the heated than ambient treatments. Difference between mean heat and mean ambient cells released for each individual oyster in Experiment #2 shown by bar. Difference was calculated as mean heated cells released − mean ambient cells released for each oyster. Plotted values are the log10 of the absolute value of that difference then adjusted by sign depending on non-adjusted direction of change (i.e. negative differences remain negative). Oysters with no difference are displayed as 0.

Survival

There were no mortalities in Experiment #1. In Experiment #2, 27% (19 out of 71) of oysters died before the conclusion of the experiment and were excluded from the analyses presented above. Salinity did not impact mortality (11 non-survivors were in high salinity and eight were in low salinity). Fourteen oysters died in the first 20 days of the experiment before being exposed to elevated temperatures and two oysters died after being exposed to one heated trial. We were only able to collect tissues from five of the oysters that died, four of which had a Mackin score ⩾4. In order to compare cells released from survivors and non-survivors, we calculated the maximum number of cells for each oyster and compared across treatments in order to eliminate issues with the number of datapoints (e.g. oysters that died after one trial compared to oysters that survived all four). For 76% (39 out of 51) of survivors, the maximum number of cells were released during a heated trial. The highest maximum observed was by a non-survivor in a heated trial (70 173 cells, Fig. 4). Overall, non-survivors in heated treatments had significantly higher maxima than all survivors as well as non-survivors in ambient treatments (Fig. 4, glm, interaction P < 0.001, Tukey HSD). However, the highest maximum for survivors (14 247 cells released in a heated treatment) was higher than the maxima of 14 non-survivors.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4.

Open in a new tab

Heated non-survivors released the highest maximum number of cells. Boxplots display mean maxima for a given treatment with outliers indicated by dots. Letters (A and B) are results of Tukey HSD post-hoc test.

Discussion

Release of P. marinus cells from infected oysters determines the abundance of infectious cells in the water column and the likelihood of new infections. Variation in the rate of release can therefore drive overall disease dynamics, particularly within reefs. We build upon previous work showing that viable infective P. marinus cells can be released from live infected oysters in feces and pseudofeces (Bushek et al., 2002). By sampling all water surrounding the oyster including (but not limited to) any feces and pseudofeces released during the experiment, we were able to more reliably estimate the number of cells released by a given oyster over time. We examined the influence of environmental factors on the rate of release and directly compared the number of P. marinus cells released from live to dead and dying oysters. We find that time of day and temperature, but not salinity, have strong effects on the number of cells released in a 6 h period (Figs 2 and 3). Because oysters live in estuaries, where temperature and salinity change on daily to yearly cycles, it is important to understand how these factors influence the parasite abundance in the water column on different time scales and the consequences for transmission and disease dynamics in host populations. Our results suggest that temperature may be an important driver of parasite abundance in the water column at short time scales, in addition to those previously reported for seasonal and annual scales. More broadly, our data demonstrate that large numbers of parasite cells were released from both live and dead oysters, suggesting that live oysters should not be discounted as significant contributors to P. marinus abundance in the water column (Fig. 4).

Salinity has consistently been identified as an important driver of P. marinus distribution and dynamics (Mackin, 1951; Ray, 1954; Soniat et al., 2005). In the field, naive oysters placed in regions with high salinity developed higher intensity infections than those placed in regions with low salinity (Paynter and Burreson, 1991), either due to higher abundances of P. marinus in the water column leading to increased infection pressure, higher pathogenicity and/or a higher reproduction rate within the oyster. When oysters are inoculated with a standard number of P. marinus cells and placed in a closed system, higher salinity increases the intensity of infections over the course of several weeks, suggesting that the main effect of salinity is on P. marinus reproduction within the oyster host (Fisher et al., 1992; Chu et al., 1993; Ragone Calvo and Burreson, 1993). Our result that oysters in the high salinity treatment had higher intensity infections after 4 months corroborates this finding – while we did not use a fully closed system, water in the holding tank was changed infrequently (biweekly) and we therefore assume that the vast majority (if not all) of new infections were acquired from neighbouring oysters rather than the incoming water. Together, these findings suggest that the main effects of salinity on P. marinus–C. virginica interactions are on the increased abundance of the parasite inside the oyster rather than on increased infectivity or behaviour in the water column. Whether this effect is due to a reduction of oyster defence/immunity or an increase in parasite reproduction rate due to higher parasite fitness should be further investigated. Both of our experiments demonstrated that when infection intensity is accounted for, salinity does not impact the rate at which P. marinus cells are released over the course of several hours. Therefore, increased abundance of P. marinus in high salinity water is likely due to an increase in the intensity of infections resulting in higher numbers of P. marinus cells released into the water column. While in vitro low salinity (7 ppt) has been shown to reduce the viability of P. marinus (La Peyre et al., 2006), we did not see an impact of the low salinity treatment on the number of P. marinus cells released in either experiment. This could be because our low salinity treatment was not low enough to reduce viability, or because those cells released in the low salinity treatment would not have been viable if they remained at that salinity for a longer period of time rather than being put into RFTM media after 6 h.

Our observed diurnal cycle of P. marinus release was correlated with both water temperature and solar exposure, factors that could influence both host and parasite processes. Oysters have been shown to display both daily and seasonal cycles of feeding activity, but this is the first study to look for daily cycles of P. marinus release into the water column. Work on Crassostrea gigas has confirmed the presence of an endogenous circadian rhythm that can be influenced by season (Mat et al., 2012), light and tidal cycle (Tran et al., 2011). This circadian rhythm could be driving oyster feeding and defecation and therefore the release of P. marinus cells observed here. Temperature is also a strong driver of oyster behaviour and interacts with these other influences on circadian rhythm. Early experiments by Galtsoff on C. virginica from the Chesapeake Bay found the rate of water intake is dependent on temperature, with oysters remaining closed below temperatures of 5°C (Galtsoff, 1928). These results have been replicated by Comeau et al. (2012) who found that C. virginica from the Gulf of St. Lawrence increase the number of valve openings (and therefore water filtration) as water temperatures warm in the spring. Interestingly, however, once oysters entered an ‘active’ period in the spring, temperature no longer exerted an influence on opening, with oysters staying open for periods of time ranging from 1 min to 13.8 days. During the active period, oysters did exhibit a diurnal cycle independent of temperature, with both length of time and degree of valve openness peaking at 18:00 h (Comeau et al., 2012). Time of day alone could therefore explain our finding that maximum release of Perkinsus cells occurred between 12:00 and 18:00 h irrespective of temperature. However, our oysters and P. marinus also experienced a much greater fluctuation in temperatures over a 24 h period than the oysters studied by Comeau et al., and these more drastic changes in temperature likely influenced P. marinus release in addition to time of day.

Experiment #2 allowed us to test the effects of temperature on P. marinus release regardless of time of day, demonstrating that temperature alone increases the rate of P. marinus release. Temperature is known to be an important driver of P. marinus reproduction and infectivity both in vitro (Chu and Greene, 1989a; Chu and Volety, 1997) and in vivo (Fisher et al., 1992; Calvo et al., 2003), and could therefore alter pathogen behaviour or reproduction leading to increases in release. By counting the number of P. marinus cells released from a given oyster in both ambient and heated environments, we controlled for the significant individual variation observed in Experiment #1 and the strong influence of infection intensity on the number of cells released. This experimental design allowed us to get reliable estimates of the increase in the number of cells released due to increased temperature. The water temperature fluctuations in Experiment #1 were consistent with temperatures experienced by intertidal oysters in shallow embayments of the Chesapeake Bay during summer months (Maryland Department of Natural Resources). In the wild, both mean temperature and temperature variability will be highly dependent on location within the estuarine environment and relation to tidal height (i.e. subtidal vs intertidal and amount of time spent out of water). Previous work has found that intertidal oysters have higher prevalence and intensity of Perkinsus infections than subtidal oysters (Malek and Byers, 2017), with a positive correlation between intensity and air temperature (Malek and Byers, 2018), indicating that the higher temperatures experienced when out of the water contribute to intensity. Some of the spatial heterogeneity of Perkinsus abundance in estuaries is likely driven by a combination of spatial and temporal variability in temperature (Malek and Breitburg, 2016). In order to accurately capture the maximum P. marinus abundance in the water column at a given location, water sampling should occur in the afternoon close to the hottest part of the day.

Previous research demonstrated that infective P. marinus cells are released through feces and pseudofeces of live oysters (Bushek et al., 2002). However, this release was assumed to be negligible when compared to release by the scavenging and disintegration of infected dead oyster tissue (Calvo et al., 2003; Audemard et al., 2006). We found that while more cells are generally released from dead and dying oysters than live oysters, live oysters are capable of releasing tens of thousands of cells over the course of 6 h and should therefore be considered a major contributor to the number of parasites in the water column. Given our finding that live oysters release more cells at higher temperatures, the relative contributions that live and dead oysters make to parasites in the water column may be heavily temperature-dependent. As climate change raises water temperatures, we would expect the number of cells released from live oysters to increase, further threatening oyster populations. In addition, this effect could fundamentally alter large-scale disease processes if in the future the majority of cells were released from live oysters. More work is needed to both understand baseline dynamics and predict future changes. In this experiment, the cause of death was not always obvious as many oysters died before tissue could be collected for RFTM. However, four out of the five non-survivors that were assayed had heavy infections suggesting that the parasite played a role in mortality. While release from dead and dying oysters may result in a spike of P. marinus cells in the water, live oysters have the potential to contribute to a steadier release of cells for a longer period of time. Seven of the survivors released cells at all four timepoints assayed. Furthermore, infective cells were consistently released from live oysters with low intensity. Once a dead oyster has disintegrated or been eaten, it no longer acts as a source for the water-borne parasite population, whereas live oysters may contribute to this population to varying degrees for an entire season. Over the course of several years, live oysters harbouring low-level infections could result in the release of equivalent or larger amounts of P. marinus cells than oysters that quickly develop a high-intensity infection and die in one season. Live infected oysters should therefore be considered as a significant contributor to enzootic P. marinus populations in the water column.

While temperature and salinity are often cited as the two main environmental factors that influence P. marinus abundance and infectivity, our results show that they operate on different components of the P. marinus–C. virginica interaction and at different timescales. Further work is needed to understand when and how temperature and salinity influence the host and parasite individually resulting in the patterns observed here and by others. Controlled and fully crossed experiments are needed to tease out the interactive effects between light, time of day and temperature, which likely influence both the host and parasite in ways not fully captured by our experiments. In addition, future experiments should (1) keep temperature more tightly controlled, (2) examine a wider range of temperatures and (3) alter the length of the experiments to test the effect of duration of temperature changes on the release of parasite cells.

Seven pathogenic species of Perkinsus have been identified to date, infecting a wide variety of hosts (Villalba et al., 2004). While P. marinus is the dominant species in Chesapeake Bay populations of C. virginica, P. chesapeaki has also been found in these oysters, albeit at much lower prevalence and intensity (Reece et al., 2008). We assumed that the Perkinsus cells detected here using RFTM were P. marinus, based on previous work showing this is the dominant parasite in oysters of this region (Gignoux-Wolfsohn unpublished data; Reece et al., 2008). Future work should use molecular methods to both identify the species released from experimental oysters and test if P. chesapeaki and other species exhibit similar rates of release to P. marinus.

In summary, we measured the effects of environmental factors and time of day on the release of P. marinus cells from C. virginica. We found that temperature and time of day had strong effects on the number of parasites released, but that salinity only influenced the abundance of the parasite within its host. Furthermore, we found that live oysters can release numbers of P. marinus cells that are comparable to the amount released from dead and dying oysters. These factors should all be taken into consideration when estimating the population of free-living P. marinus in the water column and variations in this population over both hourly and seasonal timescales.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Teresa Vaillancourt and Kristina Borst for assistance with Experiment #2, George Smith for experiment construction advice, Shannon Hood for help in procuring infected oysters, and Erik Holum and Simon Roberts for help with automating image analysis and statistics.

Ethical standards

Not applicable.

Supplementary material

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182020002383.

S0031182020002383sup001.docx (161.6KB, docx)

click here to view supplementary material

Data

All analyses are available on GitHub https://github.com/sagw/DE2019. Raw will be made available on Figshare.

Financial support

Funding came from Hunterdon funds to K.M.P.L. and G.M.R. K.M.P.L. was supported as a Robert and Arlene Kogod Secretarial Scholar. M.S.R.N. was supported by an NSF REU. S.A.G.-W. was supported by a Smithsonian Institutional Fellowship.

Conflict of interest

None.

References

  1. Allam B, Carden WE, Ward JE, Ralph G, Winnicki S and Pales Espinosa E (2013) Early host-pathogen interactions in marine bivalves: evidence that the alveolate parasite Perkinsus marinus infects through the oyster mantle during rejection of pseudofeces. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 113, 26–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Andrews JD (1965) Infection experiments in nature with Dermocystidium marinum in Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Science 6, 60–67. [Google Scholar]
  3. Andrews JD (1988) Epizootiology of the disease caused by the oyster pathogen Perkinsus marinus and its effects on the oyster industry. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 18, 47–63. [Google Scholar]
  4. Andrews JD and Hewatt WG (1957) Oyster mortality studies in Virginia. II. The fungus disease caused by Dermocystidium marinum in oysters of Chesapeake bay. Ecological Monographs 27, 1–25. [Google Scholar]
  5. Andrews JD, Hoese HD and Wood JL (1962) Oyster mortality studies in Virginia 0.3. Epizootiology of a disease caused by Haplosporidium costale Wood and Andrews. Journal of Insect Pathology 4, 327. [Google Scholar]
  6. Audemard C, Ragone Calvo LM, Paynter KT, Reece KS and Burreson EM (2006) Real-time PCR investigation of parasite ecology: in situ determination of oyster parasite Perkinsus marinus transmission dynamics in lower Chesapeake Bay. Parasitology 132, 827–842. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bates D, Maechler M, Bolker B, Walker S, Christensen RHB, Singmann H, Dai B, Scheipl F, Grothendieck G and Green P (2018) Package ‘lme4’. Version 1, 17.
  8. Ben-Horin T, Bidegain G, Huey L, Narvaez DA and Bushek D (2015) Parasite transmission through suspension feeding. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 131, 155–176. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bidegain G, Powell EN, Klinck JM, Ben-Horin T and Hofmann EE (2016) Microparasitic disease dynamics in benthic suspension feeders: infective dose, non-focal hosts, and particle diffusion. Ecological Modelling 328, 44–61. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bushek D, Ford SE and Chintala MM (2002) Comparison of in vitro-cultured and wild-type Perkinsus marinus. III. Fecal elimination and its role in transmission. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 51, 217–225. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Calvo LMR, Dungan CF, Roberson BS and Burreson EM (2003) Systematic evaluation of factors controlling Perkinsus marinus transmission dynamics in lower Chesapeake Bay. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 56, 75–86. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chu FE and Greene KH (1989a) Effect of temperature and salinity on in vitro culture of the oyster pathogen, Perkinus marinus (Apicomplexa: Perkinsea). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 53, 260–268. [Google Scholar]
  13. Chu FLE and Greene KH (1989b) Effect of temperature and salinity on in vitro culture of the oyster pathogen, Perkinsus-marinus (Apicomplexa – Perkinsea). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 53, 260–268. [Google Scholar]
  14. Chu FE and La Peyre JF (1993) Perkinsus marinus susceptibility and defense-related activities in eastern oysters Crassostrea virginica: temperature effects. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 16, 223–234. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chu FE and Volety AK (1997) Disease processes of the parasite Perkinsus marinus in eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica: minimum dose for infection initiation, and interaction of temperature, salinity, and infective cell dose. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 28, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  16. Chu FE, La Peyre JF and Burreson CS (1993) Perkinsus marinus infection and potential defense-related activities in eastern oysters, Cassostrea virginica: salinity effects. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 62, 226–232. [Google Scholar]
  17. Chu FE, Lund E, Soudant P and Harvey E (2002) De novo arachidonic acid synthesis in Perkinsus marinus, a protozoan parasite of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Molecular and Biochemical Parasitology 119, 179–190. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Comeau LA, Mayrand É and Mallet A (2012) Winter quiescence and spring awakening of the Eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica at its northernmost distribution limit. Marine Biology 159, 2269–2279. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cook T, Folli M, Klinck J, Ford SE and Miller JR (1998) The relationship between increasing sea-surface temperature and the northward spread of Perkinsus marinus (Dermo) disease epizootics in oysters. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 46, 587–597. [Google Scholar]
  20. da Silva PM, Vianna RT, Guertler C, Ferreira LP, Santana LN, Fernandez-Boo S, Ramilo A, Cao A and Villalba A (2013) First report of the protozoan parasite Perkinsus marinus in South America, infecting mangrove oysters Crassostrea rhizophorae from the Paraiba River (NE, Brazil). Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 113, 96–103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dungan CF and Bushek D (2015) Development and applications of Ray's fluid thioglycollate media for detection and manipulation of Perkinsus spp. pathogens of marine molluscs. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 131, 68–82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ehrich MK and Harris LA (2015) A review of existing eastern oyster filtration rate models. Ecological Modelling 297, 201–212. [Google Scholar]
  23. Fisher WS, Gauthier JD and Winstead JT (1992) Infection intensity of Perkinsus marinus disease in Crassostrea virginica (Gmelin, 1791) from the Gulf of Mexico maintained under different laboratory conditions. Journal of Shellfish Research 11, 363–369. [Google Scholar]
  24. Ford SE (1996) Range extension by the oyster parasite Perkinsus marinus into the northeastern United States: response to climate change? Oceanographic Literature Review 12, 1265. [Google Scholar]
  25. Ford SE and Chintala MM (2006) Northward expansion of a marine parasite: testing the role of temperature adaptation. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 339, 226–235. [Google Scholar]
  26. Galtsoff PS (1928) The effect of temperature on the mechanical activity of the gills of the oyster (Ostrea virginica Gm.). The Journal of General Physiology 11, 415–431. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hewatt WG and Andrews JD (1954) Oyster mortality studies in Virginia. 1. Mortality of oysters in trays at Gloucester Point, York River. Texas Journal of Science 2, 121. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoese HD (1962) Studies on oyster scavengers and their relations to the fungus Dermocystidium marinum. Proceedings of the National Shellfisheries Association 53, 161. [Google Scholar]
  29. La Peyre M, Casas SM and La Peyre JF (2006) Salinity effects on viability, metabolic activity and proliferation of three Perkinsus species. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 71, 59–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. La Peyre MK, Casas SM, Villalba A and La Peyre JF (2008) Determination of the effects of temperature on viability, metabolic activity and proliferation of two Perkinsus species, and its significance to understanding seasonal cycles of perkinsosis. Parasitology 135, 505–519. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Mackin JG (1951) Histopathology of infection of Crassostrea virginica by Dermocystidium marinum Mackin, Owen, and Collier. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean 1, 72–87. [Google Scholar]
  32. Malek JC and Breitburg DL (2016) Effects of air-exposure gradients on spatial infection patterns of Perkinsus marinus in the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 118, 139–151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Malek JC and Byers JE (2017) The effects of tidal elevation on parasite heterogeneity and co-infection in the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 494, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
  34. Malek JC and Byers JE (2018) Responses of an oyster host (Crassostrea virginica) and its protozoan parasite (Perkinsus marinus) to increasing air temperature. PeerJ 6, e5046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Eyes on the Bay. www.eyesonthebay.net
  36. Mat AM, Massabuau JC, Ciret P and Tran D (2012) Evidence for a plastic dual circadian rhythm in the oyster Crassostrea gigas. Chronobiology International 29, 857–867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pagenkopp Lohan KM, Hill-Spanik KM, Torchin ME, Aquirre-Macedo M, Fleischer RC and Ruiz GM (2016) Richness and distribution of tropical oyster parasites in two oceans. Parasitology 143, 1119–1132. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Paynter KT and Burreson EM (1991) Effects of Perkinsus marinus infection in the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica: II. Disease development and impact on growth rate at different salinities. Journal of Shellfish Research 10, 425–431. [Google Scholar]
  39. Ragone Calvo LM and Burreson EM (1993) Effect of salinity on infection progression and pathogenicity of Perkinsus marinus in the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica (gmelin). Journal of Shellfish Research 12, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  40. Ray SM (1954) Biological studies of Dermocystidium marinum a Fungus Parasite of Oysters. Biology, Doctor of Philosophy dissertation. Houston, Texas: The Rice Institute. [Google Scholar]
  41. Reece KS, Dungan CF and Burreson EM (2008) Molecular epizootiology of Perkinsus marinus and P. chesapeaki infections among wild oysters and clams in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 82, 237–248. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ripley B, Venables B, Bates DM, Hornik K, Gebhardt A, Firth D and Ripley MB (2013) Package ‘mass’. Cran R 538.
  43. Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, Preibisch S, Rueden C, Saalfeld S and Schmid B (2012) Fiji: an open-source platform for biological-image analysis. Nature Methods 9, 676–682. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Soniat TM, Klinck JM, Powell EN and Hofmann EE (2005) Understanding the success and failure of oyster populations: climatic cycles and Perkinsus marinus. Journal of Shellfish Research 24, 83–93. [Google Scholar]
  45. Sunila I and LaBanca J (2003) Apoptosis in the pathogenesis of infectious diseases of the eastern oyster Crassostrea virginica. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 56, 163–170. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Tarnowski M (2018) Maryland Oyster Population Status Report. Maryland Department of Natural Resources Shellfish Division of Cooperative Oxford Laboratory.
  47. Tran D, Nadau A, Durrieu G, Ciret P, Parisot JP and Massabuau JC (2011) Field chronobiology of a molluscan bivalve: how the moon and sun cycles interact to drive oyster activity rhythms. Chronobiology International 28, 307–317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Villalba A, Reece KS, Camino Ordás M, Casas SM and Figueras A (2004) Perkinsosis in molluscs: a review. Aquatic Living Resources 17, 411–432. [Google Scholar]
  49. White ME, Powell EN, Ray SM and Wilson EA (1987) Host-to host transmission of Perkinsus marinus in oyster (Crassostrea virginica) populations by the ectoparasitic snail Boonea impressa (Pyramidellidae). Journal of Shellfish Research 6, 1–5. [Google Scholar]
  50. Wickham H (2009) ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

For supplementary material accompanying this paper visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031182020002383.

S0031182020002383sup001.docx (161.6KB, docx)

click here to view supplementary material

Data Availability Statement

All analyses are available on GitHub https://github.com/sagw/DE2019. Raw will be made available on Figshare.

Articles from Parasitology are provided here courtesy of Cambridge University Press

RESOURCES