Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Aug 21;20(8):e0330757. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330757

Sensory discrimination of chemical and temperature stimuli in the acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis

Nikita Komarov 1, Christopher Aeschbacher 1, Laurent Sauterel 1, Evan Zuercher 1, Xavier Bailly 2,*, Pedro Martinez 3,4,*, Simon G Sprecher 1,*
Editor: Phuping Sucharitakul5
PMCID: PMC12370049  PMID: 40839617

Abstract

Environmental cues provide critical sensory information for the survival of animals. Understanding how distinct sensory cues elicit or modulate certain behaviour thus provides insights into the adaptations to rapid and continuous changes in the surrounding world. Intertidal ecosystems are particularly exposed to environmental fluctuations. Due to changing exposure to seawater, animals are subjected to continuous fluctuations of temperature or salinity during the course of day-night and tidal cycles. Animals in intertidal environments show physiological and behavioural adaptations to these changes. Acoel worms constitute an important component of intertidal ecosystems. Symsagittifera roscoffensis, a well-studied species inhabiting the Atlantic coastline, has been extensively described in terms of its anatomy and development, yet its physiological responses remain poorly understood. When the acoel S. roscoffensis are exposed to daylight during the tidal cycle, these animals are found at the surface of sandy beaches, which enhance the exposure of their photosynthetic algal symbionts to light. Moreover, S. roscoffensis shows a strong positive phototaxis as well as both positive and negative geotaxis, both being evolved behavioural adaptations to enhance light exposure for its photosymbiont. Currently little is known about other sensory systems and their functions in this, or any other acoel worm. In this study, we probe sensory capabilities of S. roscoffensis focusing on chemical and temperature cues. Using two-choice and barrier assays, our findings support that S. roscoffensis shows avoidance behaviours to increased temperature and salinity, preferring cooler environments with lower salinity. We demonstrate that early branching bilaterians possess the sensory capacity to identify specific chemical and environmental stimuli, adding to the knowledge that may prove useful in understanding marine ecosystems in a period of global climate change that greatly affects aquatic environments.

Introduction

While many animals utilise external sensory organs to determine the nature of their surroundings, the compositional, morphological and anatomical organization of sensory organs varies greatly in different animal clades, including different, often unrelated genes being responsible for the same functions, indicating convergent evolution [1]. Sensory systems evolved to transduce signals of their surroundings into neuronally encoded information, which are subsequently integrated and processed in the central nervous system to ultimately elicit or modulate the response of an animal.

The highly variable environmental physical and chemical conditions of intertidal ecosystems, which are submerged at high tide and exposed to air at low tide, likely provide crucial sensory cues for animals. While desiccation as well as fluctuations in temperature and salinity are stressors for animals living in the intertidal zones, certain physiological adaptations also provide advantages to optimise exposure to light. One example of such specialisation can be found in several intertidal inhabitants such as the acoel worms. The phylogenetic position of acoels, along with the fact that some species live in close association with algae, has made them of particular interest in the fields of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) and comparative physiology. However, most existing studies on these animals focus on developmental and anatomical aspects, with relatively few addressing their physiology or the influence of environmental conditions on behavior, survival, or the dynamics of the host–algae association. To address this gap, we initiated a series of experiments aimed at testing the effects of various chemicals on these animals. Most of the compounds we tested—such as variations in salinity and temperature—are highly relevant to the rapidly changing conditions in coastal environments, where many acoel species naturally occur. In this context, understanding the response of intertidal acoels should illuminate previously unknown aspects of their physiology. We have selected, as mentioned, the acoel flatworm Symsagittifera roscoffensis who lives in the Atlantic Coast and is currently subjected to different environmental, human-derived, challenges. This millimetre-scale worm lives in the intertidal zones of the Atlantic coasts of Europe, in a photosymbiotic relationship with the algae species Tetraselmis convolutae [2], which it locates at the juvenile stage through unknown means, and has captivated marine research since the 19th century [3,4]. Phylogenetically, it belongs to the phylum Xenacoelomorpha [5] that diversified very early on within the Bilaterian lineage [6], though the precise phylogenetic placement of Xenacoelomorpha remains debated. As one of the few well-known bilaterian organisms capable of photosynthesis through photosymbiosis, S. roscoffensis challenges some conventional metabolic principles such as reliance on the symbiont for amino acid (AA) synthesis [7], born from the need to integrate processes occurring in two organisms under changing (daily or seasonally) environments, all of which has resulted in significant attention garnered from the fields of marine biology, ecology, and physiology [8,9]. Although the algal symbiont supplies S. roscoffensis with most of its energy and nutrients [10], it is still unclear whether the acoel also needs to obtain extra food from its surroundings (i.e., whether it is partly mixotrophic). If so, it is not yet known what chemical cues are relevant or how a chemosensory system might guide it to those external resources. Some classical studies have examined the influence of environmental conditions on the survival of Symsagittifera roscoffensis and, in this context, on the establishment and maintenance of its symbiosis with algal partners [11–15],

In many animals, chemosensation is mediated by specialised external organs such as insect antennae, vertebrate olfactory epithelia, the antennules and aesthetascs of crustaceans, or the amphid sensilla of nematodes [1]. These organs bear high densities of receptor neurons exposed to the medium and thus are considered “canonical” chemosensory structures. By contrast, no such obvious external chemosensory organs have been described in S. roscoffensis, except a some suggested through ultrastructure analysis, as well as some putative receptor genes [16–18].

Like other acoels, the S. roscoffensis possesses paired rhabdomeric eyes: cup‑shaped invaginations lined with microvillar photoreceptors that detect light direction and intensity; and a statocyst, an internal, fluid‑filled vesicle containing a statolith whose deflection under gravity provides the S.roscoffensis with information on body orientation [19–22].

While the strong phototactic behaviour as well as geotaxis of S. roscoffensis has been well investigated [21,23], comparatively little is known about other sensory capacities. Bridging this gap in knowledge may uncover how non-visual sensory modalities govern how S. roscoffensis locates and retains its algal symbiont and selects microhabitats in a highly variable intertidal environment. Establishing these capacities also provides comparative data for the early evolution of multimodal sensory integration in bilaterians.

Here, we try to remedy this lack of information by investigating the chemosensory and thermosensory sensitivities of S. roscoffensis by examining a variety of chemical and environmental modalities to determine the functional significance of identified sensory sensilla [16,24].

Given that this worm lives in an aquatic, intertidal, environment, where changes of physical parameters or chemical composition are most probable (e.g., light intensity, UV radiation, temperature, oxygen, and salinity [25]), we hypothesised that S. roscoffensis should be capable of sensing not only environmental stimuli such as temperature, and salinity, but are also able to respond to chemical cues, including potentially those emitted by their internal symbionts (and their free-living relatives) or other species occupying their same ecological niche.

Results

The chemosensory behaviours in S. roscoffensis remains currently understudied. In order to gain insights into the chemosensory capacity of S. roscoffensis we first performed two-choice assays to assess navigational responses when exposed to putatively relevant chemical cues. As first set of experiments we investigated the chemosensory behavioural response to a set of AA known to be used as neurotransmitter-precursors or neurotransmitters in both invertebrates and vertebrates [26]. While the dependence of S. roscoffensis on its symbiont to provide essential neurotransmitters remains unknown, it has been previously shown that glutamate and aspartate, two AAs that may act as neurotransmitters [27], were only detected in S. roscoffensis with symbionts, while it was absent in juvenile worms that did not yet harbour its 1 algae [28]. Other AAs that act as neurotransmitters such as glycine, or neurotransmitter precursor AAs such as tyrosine (dopamine and noradrenaline precursors), tryptophan (serotonin precursor), were not tested in regard to navigational response in previous studies. Given the conserved nature of these neurotransmitter systems in metazoans [26], it can be presumed that they are also present in Acoels. Hereby, we tested whether S. roscoffensis is able to detect and respond to the presence of these AAs (glutamate, aspartate, tryptophan, tyrosine and glycine) in the environment (water column), as there is no evidence that tryptophan, tyrosine, and glycine are provided by the symbiont, using a two-choice navigation assay, measuring preference indices at 2-, 5-, and 10-minute timepoints. We placed S.roscoffensis on dishes containing agarose (control), or dishes containing half agarose and half agarose supplemented with the given AA (Fig 1B). During 10-minute trials, we observed that the preference indices at the 10-minute timepoint for glutamine (Mean PI = −0.001, SEM = 0.103, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 4.909df1, df2 = 4, p = 0.9996) and tyrosine (Mean PI = −0.1, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 4.909df1, df2 = 4 p = 0.74) largely match those of the plain agarose control, suggesting S. roscoffensis did not prefer either side (PI = 0.03). For the AA aspartate, we observed a mild preference, albeit not showing statistically significant differences from the control (Mean PI = 0.2, SEM = 0.0895, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 4.909df1, df2 = 4 p = 0.36, Fig 1B, 1C). For glycine, we observed that there was a moderate preference across longer timepoints (PI = 0.15, SEM = 0.126, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 4.909df1, df2 = 4 p = 0.86, Fig 1C). Tryptophan, however, evoked the strongest response, with significance being reached above the 5-minute timepoint (PI = 0.46, SEM = 0.0417, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 4.909df1, df2 = 4, p < 0.0001 Fig 1B, 1C).

Fig 1. Chemosensory preference of S. roscoffensis to neurotransmitter-related amino acids.

Fig 1

A: Overview of Symsagittifera roscoffensis outlining the symbiont algae (Alg), brain (Br), eye spots (Ey), the gravisensory statocyst (St) and the putatively chemosensory frontal organ (FO). B: left: diagram of the behaviour arena indicating a two-choice set-up with one half containing plain agarose, and the other half containing agarose with dissolved test substance, in this case the indicated AA. Right: preference indices for indicated test AAs compared with the “nutrient plain” agarose control (purple) at the 5-minute timepoint, all trials displayed with min-max bars. C: Summary of the PIs shown as time-series across tested AAs, mean with SEM. N = 10 for all tests. **** - p < 0.0001, ns where not shown, Brown-Forsythe and Welch ANOVA test with Dunnet’s T3 multiple comparisons test against the control group.

Considering the dynamic nature with varying salinity in intertidal waters due to evaporation and temperature changes during low tides, it has been shown that during low tides the salinity of sea water can change by up to 300% [29]. Since this is directly related to the environment of the acoel, we hypothesised that they may seek specific salinity levels, suggesting an ability to sense this modality. Therefore, we asked whether changes in salinity of the substrate would result in a preference phenotype.

Here, S. roscoffensis were given a choice between a plain agarose/dH2O substrate and agarose with dissolved artificial sea water (ASW) adjusted to 34 ppm salinity using a refractometer, to reflect the salinity of the ambient sea water measured outside the Roscoff marine station (Fig 2A). We observed one-fold ASW (34 ppm) showed a mildly positive, albeit insignificant, preference index at the 10-minute timepoint (Mean PI = −0.22, SEM = 0.092, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 7.268df1, df2 = 2, p = 0.09) compared with the environmental sea water control, and across all time points (Fig 2B). However, we observed that the PI for two-fold ASW concentration (68 ppm) was significantly negative across the time series, reaching significance after the 5-minute timepoint (Mean PI = −0.45, SEM = 0.0387, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 7.268df1, df2 = 2, p < 0.0001) (Fig 2B). The concentration-dependent responses to variations in salinity thus allow us to assume a sensory ability to perceive high salt concentrations. This potentially reflects an ability to adapt to the dynamic variations in the intertidal environments where S. roscoffensis is found.

Fig 2. Behavioural responses of S. roscoffensis towards varied salinity conditions.

Fig 2

A: overview of experimental conditions showing pooled S. roscoffensis being placed on the behaviour arena comprised of plain agarose on one half, and agarose with added salt content on the other half. B: Time-series diagrams showing preference indices over time, with twofold ASW concentration showing significance beyond the 5-minute timepoint; N = 10 for all trials, mean and SEM shown. C: salinity barrier assay diagram indicating the considered “attempt” and “cross” determinants; C’: – quantification of successful crosses across the high-salinity barrier compared with a plain agarose barrier; N = 10 trials, all points and min-max bars are shown. **** - p < 0.0001, ns where not shown, Brown-Forsythe and Welch ANOVA test with Dunnet’s T3 multiple comparisons tested against the control group.

The finding that S. roscoffensis appears to prefer lower salt concentrations suggests that this condition is preferential for the acoel. However, we wanted to evaluate whether S. roscoffensis decided to avoid higher salt concentrations, or whether another physiological effect, such as reduced mobility, was at play. To test this, we developed a barrier-assay, in which we took advantage of the known strong positive phototaxis behaviour of S. roscoffensis. In short, we removed a 1 cm agarose strip in the middle of the plain agarose plate and replaced it with agarose containing twofold ASW. Subsequently a group of S. roscoffensis was placed on one side of the strip while a LED lamp was placed, laterally, at the opposing side with the aim of inducing the acoels to cross the midline attracted by the light. We recorded their movement across the high-salinity barrier during phototaxis. Here, we observed that when presented with a plain (agarose in dH2O) barrier, 73% (403/553) of S. roscoffensis attempted (evaluated by counting the encounter of S. roscoffensis with the barrier) to cross the barrier towards the light source, and 100% (403/403) of the attempts were successful, evaluated by the complete crossing of the barrier towards the light source. Meanwhile, when presented with a two-fold ASW barrier, 52% (184/352) of S. roscoffensis attempted to cross the barrier, with only 19.6% (36/184) of attempts resulting in a cross (Fig 2C), and significantly higher compared with the agarose barrier (N = 10. Agarose mean = 100 SEM = 0, 2xASW mean = 18.33 SEM = 4.417, Welch’s t test t = 18.49, df = 8, p < 0.0001). Therefore, we show that despite the presence of a highly attractive light stimulus, S. roscoffensis avoid the approach it if they encounter high salinity, suggesting a hierarchical aversion-attraction perception and decision making.

Next, since it has been shown that juvenile S. roscoffensis are attracted by the symbiont and its supernatant [14,30], we asked if adult S. roscoffensisare similarly responsive to chemical cues emitted by symbiotic and non-symbiotic algae (which also live in their surrounding waters). Thus, to probe whether the presence or absence of the symbiont T. convolutae or other, closely related algal species (C. concordia, T. chuii, and T. striata) may be used as a sensory cue, we performed similar two-choice assays, providing S. roscoffensis a choice between plain agarose and either a fresh algal culture F/2 medium, or a supernatant of an extract of algal cultures, over 10-minute trials with preference indices being measured at the 2-, 5-, and 10-minute timepoints. We observed that while there is a strong preference for pure F/2 medium, mature S. roscoffensis strongly avoid the supernatants from cultures of T. convolutae, C. concordia, T. chuii. However, they show a slight but statistically insignificant negative PI to T. striata extracts (Fig 3A). Furthermore, we utilised the same barrier decision-making assay to determine whether the presence of the T. convolutae supernatant displays similar aversive properties as compared to excessive salinity. Here, we found that only 37% (252/687) of S. roscoffensis attempted to cross the barrier, with a total success rate of 19.4% (49/252) (Fig 3B, 3D) which is significantly lower than the agarose control (N = 10. Agarose mean = 100 SEM = 0, T. convolutae mean = 15.95 SEM = 5.810, Welch’s t test t = 14.47, df = 8, p < 0.0001).

Fig 3. Behavioural tests for algal symbiont extract.

Fig 3

A: diagram showing the process of extraction of algal culture. Approximately 20 ml of algal culture was Dounce homogenised, then spun down and supernatant was used to prepare the choice assay, with half of the plate containing plain agarose, and the other half containing agarose dissolved in extracted supernatant. B: summary of behaviour phenotypes at the 10-minute timepoint, with F/2 medium by itself showing a strong attractive index, while supernatant extracted from algal cultures shows strong aversive indices; N = 10 for all trials, all points and min-max bars shown. C: time-series diagrams showing preference indices over time. F/2 medium preference is positive beyond the 5-minute timepoint, while supernatant from T. convoliutae, T. chuii, and C. concordia causes immediate strong aversion. While supernatant from T. striata also shows a mild aversion, it is not statistically significantly different from the plain control. N = 10 for all trials, mean with SEM shown. D: T. convolutae culture supernatant barrier cross assay performed similarly to the salinity barrier assay. D’: S. roscoffensis was less likely to cross the barrier towards the light when compared with a plain agarose barrier.

Apart from chemical environmental cues, temperature may act as a key determinant for an animal to navigate towards favourable conditions. Therefore, we chose to characterise whether S. roscoffensis displays also preference for specific temperature conditions. Here, we placed groups of S. roscoffensis on plates with different temperature gradients: a) high (30oC) to low (5oC), b) high to ambient (18oC), c) low to ambient, or d) ambient to ambient ranges (Fig 4A). We observed that there is, as expected, no difference in the side preference index between ambient-to-ambient areas at 10 minutes (PI = −0.01), and, similarly, no significant preference index between the low to ambient conditions compared to the ambient/ambient control at 10 minutes (Mean PI = −0.05, SEM = 0.08, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 5.592df1, df2 = 2, p = 0.9366). On the other hand, when presented with a choice between a high and low temperature, S. roscoffensis tend to show a positive PI to the low temperature side after 10 minutes compared with the ambient/ambient control (PI = −0.37, SEM = 0.074, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 5.592df1, df2 = 2, p = 0.0028). Moreover, S. roscoffensis preferred the side with ambient temperature in comparison to the side with higher temperature at the 10-minute timepoint compared with the ambient/ambient control (MeanPI = −0.30, SEM = 0.092, Brown-Forsythe ANOVA: 5.592df1, df2 = 2, p = 0.0398), suggesting an avoidance behaviour towards higher temperatures (Fig 4B, 4C). These experiments support the notion that S. roscoffensis do prefer lower temperatures over ambient or high temperatures. This in turn suggests that while low temperatures are neither attractive nor aversive, high temperature is decidedly an aversive cue, since animals show no preference between ambient and low temperatures, and only negative preference to high temperature.

Fig 4. Behaviour tests for varying temperature conditions.

Fig 4

A: diagram showing the experimental setup, with a plate being in contact with ice on one side, and a heated Peltier plate on the other. B: summary of behavioural phenotypes at the 10-minute timepoint, showing a general preference towards lower temperatures. C: individual test time-series for each condition, showing a trend for increased preference for cooler temperatures over time. N = 10 for all tests. Brown-Forsythe and Welch ANOVA test with Dunnet’s T3 multiple comparisons test against the ambient control group.

Materials and methods

Animal collection and maintenance

Adult S. roscoffensis was collected on 01.09.2023 from wild colonies from the sands in the vicinity of Roscoff (48°43’38.6“N 3°59’16.5”W) and Carantec (48°40’14.4”N 3°54’40.3”W) (Brittany, France). The collected sand was then placed in deep trays and S. roscoffensis was collected with Pasteur pipettes during low tides when S. roscoffensis display negative geotaxis. Collected S. roscoffensis were transferred into plastic containers (approximately 1000–5000 animals per container) with filtered natural sea water, continuously flowing to ensure consistent oxygenation, at constant water temperature (14 ± 1°C) and constant air temperature (18°C)at Station Biologique de Roscoff (Roscoff, Brittany, France). All experiments were performed during similar tidal and circadian conditions, between 09:00 and 15:00. All experiments were performed using animals with visible symbiont presence. Animals were not discriminated by sex. Experiments were performed between 03.09.2023 and 08.03.2023. Animals were not provided supplementary food outside of what may have been present in the surrounding water and sand.

Two-choice behaviour assays

All behaviour assays were performed using the method described in Maier et al., 2021, substituting S. roscoffensis for Drosophila larvae. In brief, 87 mm petri dishes were filled with 2% agarose diluted in distilled water and allowed to solidify for a minimum of 10 minutes. Following this, one half of the agarose layer was cut and discarded. Then, the now-empty half of the dish was filled with 2% agarose containing the substance of choice diluted in distilled water (for details, see below). S. roscoffensis were pooled in groups between 50–200 individuals and placed in the centre of the plate, with enough sea water being added to form a complete, thin, layer on top of the agarose. Experiments were monitored and the number of S. roscoffensis in each half-plate were photographed and counted after 2, 5 and 10 minutes of each trial (total 10 trials for each experiment shown). The different timepoints were selected to see an immediate response (2 minutes) and up to 10 minutes to ensure sufficient exploration time of the arena by the animals. The temperature was kept constant at ambient (18°C) ensuring no heating or cooling sources, as well as direct sunlight, were present. The plates were rotated 180° between each individual N to ensure that any potential directional lighting effect was mitigated. The position of the experimenter during each trial remained constant, with the rotation of the plates serving to mitigate any effect this may have caused. S. roscoffensis on each side were then manually counted in a blinded fashion (i.e., the counter was not aware of which experiment, timepoint, or the stimulus side they were counting). No monitoring for activity was performed during the trials, and a preference index was calculated using the following formula:

PI= N animals on test half−N animals on plain halfNtotal animals

The chemicals used were of the highest purity available, as follows:

Amino Acid assays: L-Glutamine (Sigma-Aldrich, 56-85-9), L-Aspartic acid (Sigma-Aldrich, 56-84-8), L-Tyrosine (Sigma-Aldrich, 60-17-4), L-Tryptophan (Sigma-Aldrich, 73-22-3), L-Glycine (Roth, 3187.3). All tests were performed at 20mM concentration.

Artificial sea water (Aquarium Sytems, Instant Ocean) diluted in distilled water to a concentration of 34 ppm (onefold) or 68 ppm (twofold).

Choice assays with culture supernatant from the classical and facultative symbiont: Tetraselmis convolutae (the classical symbiotic algae of S. roscoffensis), and Tetraselmis striata, Tetraselmis chuii and Chlamydomonas concordia, (three facultative symbionts of S. roscoffensis) were cultured in flasks containing of sea water and F/2 feeding medium (UTEX culture collection of algae) for a period of 15 days. Before collecting the supernatant, the algae were examined at the microscope to exclude any abnormalities or increased cell death. The content of the flasks was collected by means of a Douce tissue grinder following 20 passes of the pestle, before centrifuging the slurry. 87 mm petri dishes were prepared with one half containing 2% agarose in distilled water and the other half containing 2% agarose in a 25 ml mix composed of 12 ml distilled water and 13 ml supernatant solution of one of each four algae species, respectively.

Barrier assays with twofold salinity and culture supernatant from the classical symbiont

87mm dishes were prepared with 2% agarose in distilled water on both sides, with a 10 mm strip cut out from the middle, and subsequently filled with agarose containing twofold ASW or T. convolutae supernatant. An LED lamp (OSRAM LED, 80012 White) was placed at a 45° angle, 9 cm above the table at a distance such that the lamp-oriented side of the dish was illuminated at 1100 lux, the middle of the plate 840 lux and the side opposite of the lamp with 400 lux. S. roscoffensis were placed on the side of the barrier further from the light, and subsequently observed over the course of 10 minutes, with the attempts and successful crosses counted. 10 minutes were given for each trial in order to negate any effects of reduced mobility, which was not noticed by the experimenter.

Thermal preference assays

87mm petri dishes were coated with 2% agarose before being placed in a Styrofoam box for thermal insulation. One half of the petri dish was in contact either with ice water (reaching a temperature of 5oC), RT (18-21oC) or with a Peltier plate running at 24W, reaching a temperature of 30oC. The temperatures were selected to ensure sufficient difference between conditions under practical limitations. were pooled and placed in the middle of the petri dish in a similar fashion to the choice assays described above. The number of S. roscoffensis was then recorded on each side, and a preference index was calculated.

Statistical analysis

All statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 10. For each trial of each experiment, a fresh set of acoels was used, thus no worms were subjected to multiple stimulation experiments. For time trials, each time point was treated independently. Welch’s test was used to determine unequal variance within the individual experiments, and, combined with a relatively low sample size (n = 10), Dunnet’s T3 multiple comparison test was chosen. Individual statistical results are presented in the relevant results sections and figure legends.

Permits and site access

No permits were required for this work on invertebrate model animals. Site access to the Roscoff Marine Biology Station was provided and supervised by Xavier Bailly (xavier.bailly@sb-roscoff.fr).

Data availability

All behaviour data are available on Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/15470219?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6ImRiYTc3OTM0LWNkMDItNDVkMC04NzY4LWE0N2FiNDQ0NjNhOSIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJiYWQ5ZmU2NGI3ODdhMzM5YzhhY2I1ODUzODE1YmFhZSJ9.KJhEgc7RN0yJZeKa9npMKW3wBQx8lxdL_XoUNSqaPo8gY6xI2Djula4wxGVZrwfyDPuLm9oTamO9RGZXOahk4w.

Discussion

Intertidal animals are exposed to variable environmental conditions, whether daily or along the seasons [25]. These conditions have generated specific adaptations, reflected in their physiologies and their behavioural responses. Here we investigated sensory capabilities in relation to chemical and physical cues of the acoel flatworm Symsagittifera roscoffensis, an acoel living in obligatory symbiosis most of its life. Under laboratory conditions, i.e., agarose substrate vs natural sand, our findings indicate that the acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis can display distinct behavioural preferences when exposed to a range of chemical and environmental stimuli. Furthermore, the variability of chemicals used in our assays allows the uncovering of varied sets of phenomenologies. The 20mM concentration for AAs was chosen as it is the standard for small animal behaviour, such as in the Drosophila larva [31,32], or even in vertebrates, where this concentration is taken as the average that is discriminated readily by the animals [33]. It has been shown to provide sufficient responses without being toxic. While higher than the physiological concentrations or ones found in regular food, the diffusion through agarose in general is slower than in water. We do not believe that diffusion rates will differ between different AAs, as the average size is around 4Å, while agarose gel pores typically range between 30-200nM. Other factors, such as ion concentrations may be more relevant, thus for our experiments concentrations were kept equal. For instance, the differing responses to different AAs raise a question about the mechanistic nature of this response. One explanation of the positive preference towards Tryptophan, a precursor to serotonin and melatonin, may be due to either a direct behavioural decision to seek it out due to regular scarcity, or alternatively, it may be due to a continuous need in the bioavailability of serotonin in the brain, where it could modulate (as in other invertebrates) basic aspects of their physiology such as feeding, olfactory sensitivity, egg-laying, and homeostasis.

To isolate responses exclusively to the stimuli of interest, our experimental conditions therefore differ from the natural environment in which S. roscoffensis is typically found. For instance, the substrate used in our experiment was agarose, as opposed to the natural substrate of sand, which may contain a large variety of chemical and biological contaminants that could, in turn, affect the behaviour of S. roscoffensis. However, for the purposes of this study, we aimed to observe any response specifically to a narrow range of individual, ecologically relevant stimuli, rather than observing S. roscoffensis’ behaviour in the natural environment. Furthermore, we maintained a constant ambient temperature, which may not be the case in nature due to factors such as winds, waves, or clouds. Further studies may be performed to understand the impact of these factors on the responses of S. roscoffensis to varied stimuli. For example, future work could use sand as a substrate, perform chemosensory experiments under varying temperature and light conditions, or test at different points of the tidal cycle.

The aversion to increased salinity may also relate to the naturally varying changes in the habitat of the worms. During low tide, as water evaporates from the surface of the sand, salinity will increase, thus causing a changing environment for S. roscoffensis. Thus, it may be presumed that S. roscoffensis would prefer a specific level of salinity to remain in an isotonic environment and avoid a hypotonic one. However, it is known that S. roscoffensis emerges to the surface during low tide conditions, thus contraindicating an aversion to increasing salinity levels. One explanation for this may be that the strong negative geotaxis, but not positive phototaxis responses, overpower the natural aversion to increased salt levels, and the worms instead fine-tune their positioning within different levels of salinity on the surface.

The results for the responses to the symbiont supernatant also provide a surprising new perspective on the interactions between these host (worm) and the algae. While it is known that juvenile S. roscoffensis incorporate algae into their bodies, suggesting a level of attraction to any chemical cues that the algae may emit, adults show the opposite response. Firstly, we controlled for whether it is the medium of the algal culture that causes a behavioural phenotype, and, indeed, we found that it is an appetitive stimulus. However, despite this, the presence of any algal emissions, and not the algae themselves, causes a strongly aversive response. It is possible to speculate that once S. roscoffensis reach a state of maturity, including incorporating enough algae within them (with a narrow stoichiometry), a physiological switch occurs which causes them to avoid the free-living alga in their immediate environment. Perhaps, this may be in order to avoid overcrowding and allow new or growing juveniles more access to the algae, thus ensuring that the population is maintained, and self-competition is avoided. On the other hand, considering that in these experiments algal extract was used, the aversive behaviour may be due to S. roscoffensis avoiding broken (thus dead) algae, perhaps being expelled by dead S. roscoffensis. The presence of certain chemicals may thus indicate that the locality is under stress, as indicated by the liberated chemicals and metabolites from broken algae, indicating that S. roscoffensis need to hide or migrate to safer places (e.g., DMSP, dimethylsulfoniopropionate (an organosulfur compound) [34]). Further studies on adult and juvenile S. roscoffensis may provide the answers to these questions. For example, the concentration present in our tests may have been too high, resulting in the aversive response we observe, thus performing a concentration dilution series, using additional or distantly related algae, or controlling for algal cell number may prove as an interesting study in the future.

Like the responses of the salinity assays, the phenotype of high-temperature avoidance may also play a role in the navigation of S. roscoffensis on the surface during low tide. Since increasing temperature causes increased evaporation of the water, this may be an interlinked response with the avoidance of high salinity. Furthermore, higher temperatures may result in increased metabolism within the algae, or the worms themselves. Increased metabolism may result in increased stress, for example from excess oxygen production resulting in elevated oxidative stress. Thus, avoiding increased temperatures may be a physiological response to avoid excess or premature death. Contrarily, lower temperatures may instead result in a neutral preference index due to either a lack of ability to detect such temperatures, or the fact that the temperature of the water fluctuates between an average low of 9oC to an average high of 17oC across the year. Thus, the “low temperature” condition in our assay may not be sufficiently lower than the temperature experienced by S. roscoffensis in the natural environment. While in [23]an increased stress in both very low (0° C) and very high temperatures (30° C) compared to the normal condition was shown, the worms were still able to survive. It is therefore reasonable to postulate that the worms tend to seek an environment within the optimal temperature range of their physiology. In this context, it is important to point out that our work represents a good complement to the one published by Thomas and collaborators [23], where they test the response of S. roscoffensis to several physical and chemical cues. Though they use the same species, their stimuli are different than those studied by us (in their set up: light, vibration, sea water or frozen worms), bringing the study of behaviour in acoels under a more secure footing. In all, we show that early-branching bilaterians display sensory responses to a variety of stimuli, and further studies can be performed to understand how the natural environment can affect the sensory responses of S. roscoffensis.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper.

Funding Statement

The work of the current manuscript has been supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (grant 310030_219348 and IZKSZ3_218514) to SGS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Oteiza P, Baldwin MW. Evolution of sensory systems. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2021;71:52–9. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2021.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Parke M, Manton I. The specific identity of the algal symbiont in Convoluta roscoffensis. J Mar Biol Ass. 1967;47(2):445–64. doi: 10.1017/s002531540005654x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Geddes P. II. Observations on the physiology and histology of Convoluta schultzii. Proc R Soc Lond. 1879;449–57. doi: 10.1098/rspl.1878.0153 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Keeble F. Plant-Animals: a Study in Symbiosis. Nature. 1911;86:446. doi: 10.1038/086446b0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Philippe H, Brinkmann H, Copley RR, Moroz LL, Nakano H, Poustka AJ, et al. Acoelomorph flatworms are deuterostomes related to Xenoturbella. Nature. 2011;470(7333):255–8. doi: 10.1038/nature09676 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Achatz JG, Chiodin M, Salvenmoser W, Tyler S, Martinez P. The Acoela: on their kind and kinships, especially with nemertodermatids and xenoturbellids (Bilateria incertae sedis). Org Divers Evol. 2013;13(2):267–86. doi: 10.1007/s13127-012-0112-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Boyle JE, Smith DC, Harley JL. Biochemical interactions between the symbionts of Convoluta roscoffensis. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1997;189:121–35. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1975.0046 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Arboleda E, Hartenstein V, Martinez P, Reichert H, Sen S, Sprecher S, et al. An Emerging System to Study Photosymbiosis, Brain Regeneration, Chronobiology, and Behavior: The Marine Acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis. Bioessays. 2018;40(10):e1800107. doi: 10.1002/bies.201800107 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Bailly X, Martinez P, Hartenstein V, Gavilán B, Simon GS. Symsagittifera roscoffensis as a Model in Biology. Handbook of Marine Model Organisms in Experimental Biology. CRC Press; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Selosse M-A. Un exemple de symbiose algue-invertébré à Belle-Isle-en-Mer: la planaireConvoluta roscoffensiset la prasinophycéeTetraselmis convolutae. Acta Bot Gallica. 2000;147(4):323–31. doi: 10.1080/12538078.2000.10515864 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Carvalho LF, Rocha C, Fleming A, Veiga-Pires C, Aníbal J. Interception of nutrient rich submarine groundwater discharge seepage on European temperate beaches by the acoel flatworm, Symsagittifera roscoffensis. Mar Pollut Bull. 2013;75(1–2):150–6. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2013.07.045 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Pennati R, Cartelli N, Castelletti C, Ficetola GF, Bailly X, Mercurio S. Bisphenol A affects the development and the onset of photosymbiosis in the acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis. Mar Environ Res. 2024;199:106617. doi: 10.1016/j.marenvres.2024.106617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Doonan SA, Gooday GW. Ecological studies of symbiosis in Convoluta roscoffensis. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1982;8:69–73. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Douglas AE. Establishment of the symbiosis inConvoluta roscoffensis. J Mar Biol Ass. 1983;63(2):419–34. doi: 10.1017/s0025315400070776 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Dupont S, Moya A, Bailly X. Stable photosymbiotic relationship under CO₂-induced acidification in the acoel worm Symsagittifera roscoffensis. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e29568. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029568 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Bery A, Cardona A, Martinez P, Hartenstein V. Structure of the central nervous system of a juvenile acoel, Symsagittifera roscoffensis. Dev Genes Evol. 2010;220(3–4):61–76. doi: 10.1007/s00427-010-0328-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Sakagami T, Watanabe K, Hamada M, Sakamoto T, Hatabu T, Ando M. Structure of putative epidermal sensory receptors in an acoel flatworm, Praesagittifera naikaiensis. Cell Tissue Res. 2024;395(3):299–311. doi: 10.1007/s00441-024-03865-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Todt C, Tyler S. Ciliary receptors associated with the mouth and pharynx of Acoela (Acoelomorpha): a comparative ultrastructural study. Acta Zoologica. 2006;88(1):41–58. doi: 10.1111/j.1463-6395.2007.00246.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Bailly X, Laguerre L, Correc G, Dupont S, Kurth T, Pfannkuchen A, et al. The chimerical and multifaceted marine acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis: from photosymbiosis to brain regeneration. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:498. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00498 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lanfranchi A. Ultrastructure of the epidermal eyespots of an acoel platyhelminth. Tissue Cell. 1990;22(4):541–6. doi: 10.1016/0040-8166(90)90082-k [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sprecher SG, Bernardo-Garcia FJ, van Giesen L, Hartenstein V, Reichert H, Neves R, et al. Functional brain regeneration in the acoel worm Symsagittifera roscoffensis. Biol Open. 2015;4(12):1688–95. doi: 10.1242/bio.014266 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yamasu T. Fine structure and function of ocelli and sagittocysts of acoel flatworms. Hydrobiologia. 1991;227(1):273–82. doi: 10.1007/bf00027612 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Thomas NJ, Tang KW, Coates CJ. To move or not to move: taxis responses of the marine acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis to different stimuli. Mari Freshw Behav Physiol. 2024;57(1–3):17–31. doi: 10.1080/10236244.2024.2337444 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Martínez P, Hartenstein V, Sprecher SG. Xenacoelomorpha Nervous Systems. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. 2017. 10.1093/acrefore/9780190264086.013.203 [DOI]
  • 25.Adey WH, Loveland K. Chapter 2 - The Envelope: Physical Parameters and Energy State. In: Adey WH, Loveland K, editors. Dynamic Aquaria. 3rd ed. London: Academic Press; 2007. p. 13–42. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-370641-6.50011-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Roshchina VV. New Trends and Perspectives in the Evolution of Neurotransmitters in Microbial, Plant, and Animal Cells. In: Microbial Endocrinology: Interkingdom Signaling in Infectious Disease and Health. Cham: Springer; 2016. p. 25–77. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-20215-0_2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Dingledine R, McBain CJ. Glutamate and Aspartate Are the Major Excitatory Transmitters in the Brain. In: Basic Neurochemistry: Molecular, Cellular and Medical Aspects. 6th ed. Lippincott-Raven; 1999. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK28252/ [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Boyle JE, Smith DC. Biochemical interactions between the symbionts of Convoluta roscoffensis. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1975;189:121–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Geng X, Boufadel MC, Jackson NL. Evidence of salt accumulation in beach intertidal zone due to evaporation. Sci Rep. 2016;6:31486. doi: 10.1038/srep31486 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Provasoli L, Yamasu T, Manton I. Experiments on the resynthesis of symbiosis in Convoluta roscoffensis with different flagellate cultures. J Mar Biol Ass. 1968;48(2):465–78. doi: 10.1017/s0025315400034603 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Maier GL, Komarov N, Meyenhofer F, Kwon JY, Sprecher SG. Taste sensing and sugar detection mechanisms in Drosophila larval primary taste center. Elife. 2021;10:e67844. doi: 10.7554/eLife.67844 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.van Giesen L, Hernandez-Nunez L, Delasoie-Baranek S, Colombo M, Renaud P, Bruggmann R, et al. Multimodal stimulus coding by a gustatory sensory neuron in Drosophila larvae. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10687. doi: 10.1038/ncomms10687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Larsson J, Maitz A, Hernandez Salazar LT, Laska M. Gustatory responsiveness to the 20 proteinogenic amino acids in the spider monkey (Ateles geoffroyi). Physiol Behav. 2014;127:20–6. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Stal LJ, Van Bergeijk SA. Dimethylsulfoniopropionate and dimethylsulfide in the marine flatworm Convoluta roscoffensis and its algal symbiont. Mar Biol. 2001;138(1):209–16. doi: 10.1007/s002270000444 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Phuping Sucharitakul

15 May 2025

Dear Dr. Sprecher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 29 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Phuping Sucharitakul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at -->-->https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and -->-->https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf-->--> -->-->2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.-->--> -->-->3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: -->-->grants:-->-->-310030_219348 -->-->-IZKSZ3_218514-->-->to SGS by the Swiss National Science Foundation  -->-->Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." -->-->If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. -->-->Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: -->-->We would like to express our gratitude to the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for providing the funding for this project (grant 310030_219348 and IZKSZ3_218514 to SGS). We are also thankful to the University of Fribourg (UniFr), members of the Department of Biology and the Marine Station in Roscoff for their support and help throughout our research. We also thank all members of the Sprecher Lab for their invaluable feedback on our experimental design, procedures, and reporting.-->-->We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. -->-->Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: -->-->grants:-->-->-310030_219348 -->-->-IZKSZ3_218514-->-->to SGS by the Swiss National Science Foundation -->--> -->-->Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.-->--> -->-->6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.?>

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  I have no major comments on this manuscript. The claims are adequately supported by the data, the discussion is reasonably nuanced, and better knowledge of Symsagittifera's sensory preferences is a useful addition to the literature.

Minor comments:

- Not sure how feasible it is to do additional experiments for this project, so if that isn't possible, it might be worth discussing the negative results in more detail. Specifically: why did you choose 20mM for amino acids? How might the results be different at different concentrations? Might different AAs diffuse through the agarose at different rates?

- Along similar lines, perhaps the concentrations of the symbionts were too high, causing an aversive response that might be context-dependent?

- You speculate that immature animals may find the symbionts attractive. Is it possible to do this experiment?

- Perhaps it would help to add some context to the discussion - eg by explicitly comparing your results to expectations or relevant data from previous work, especially Thomas et al. 2023

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

PLoS One. 2025 Aug 21;20(8):e0330757. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330757.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


26 May 2025

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

All formatting has been amended to comply with guidelines

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

We have added a permits and site access section to the methods which reads:

Permits and site access

No permits were required for this work on invertebrate model animals. Site access to the Roscoff Marine Biology Station was provided and supervised by Xavier Bailly (xavier.bailly@sb-roscoff.fr)

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

grants:

-310030_219348

-IZKSZ3_218514

to SGS by the Swiss National Science Foundation

Please state what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

We would like to express our gratitude to the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) for providing the funding for this project (grant 310030_219348 and IZKSZ3_218514 to SGS). We are also thankful to the University of Fribourg (UniFr), members of the Department of Biology and the Marine Station in Roscoff for their support and help throughout our research. We also thank all members of the Sprecher Lab for their invaluable feedback on our experimental design, procedures, and reporting.

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

grants:

-310030_219348

-IZKSZ3_218514

to SGS by the Swiss National Science Foundation

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

We have uploaded the data to the Zenodo repository:

https://zenodo.org/records/15470219?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6ImRiYTc3OTM0LWNkMDItNDVkMC04NzY4LWE0N2FiNDQ0NjNhOSIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJiYWQ5ZmU2NGI3ODdhMzM5YzhhY2I1ODUzODE1YmFhZSJ9.KJhEgc7RN0yJZeKa9npMKW3wBQx8lxdL_XoUNSqaPo8gY6xI2Djula4wxGVZrwfyDPuLm9oTamO9RGZXOahk4w

6. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have no major comments on this manuscript. The claims are adequately supported by the data, the discussion is reasonably nuanced, and better knowledge of Symsagittifera's sensory preferences is a useful addition to the literature.

We thank the reviewer for these kind words

Minor comments:

- Not sure how feasible it is to do additional experiments for this project, so if that isn't possible, it might be worth discussing the negative results in more detail. Specifically: why did you choose 20mM for amino acids? How might the results be different at different concentrations? Might different AAs diffuse through the agarose at different rates?

Thank you for this comment. Indeed, at the moment it would not be feasible to perform additional experiments, however we believe that in the context of this study the questions are adequately investigated.

Regarding amino acid concetnration, we have added the relevant text in the discussion section which reads:

The 20mM concentration for amino acids was chosen as it is the standard for small animal behaviour, such as in the Drosophila larva, though it has been used in vertebrates as an average concentration where they are responsible (for instance in spider monkeys) References are added to the text. It has been shown to provide sufficient responses without being toxic. While higher than the physiological concentrations or ones found in regular food, the diffusion through agarose in general is slower than in water. We do not believe that diffusion rates will differ between different amino acids, as the average size is around 4Å, while agarose gel pores typically range from between 30-200nM. Other factors, such as ion concentrations may be more relevant, thus for our experiments concentrations were kept equal.

- Along similar lines, perhaps the concentrations of the symbionts were too high, causing an aversive response that might be context-dependent?

These concentrations of symbionts are the same that we are using in the laboratory (in fact, in the laboratory of Xavier Bailly) to maintain stable cultures of S. roscoffensis, able to close their life cycle. They follow similar concentrations used by Provasoli and Douglas in the past (see next comment). In this context we would call those concentrations “physiological”, in the sense that they work well and don’t produce any disruptive response.

- You speculate that immature animals may find the symbionts attractive. Is it possible to do this experiment?

- Perhaps it would help to add some context to the discussion - eg by explicitly comparing your results to expectations or relevant data from previous work, especially Thomas et al. 2023

-Correct. This experiment has been done in different laboratories, where the algae has been added to the aposymbiotic animals (hatchlings). Provasoli et al. (1968), Douglas (1983) and Arboleda et al (2018) have done, and reported, the positive results of this experiments. One of us, Dr. Xavier Bailly, has developed stable cultures of S. roscoffensis and demonstrated (unpublished, though) that these algae+host mixtures in culture are perfectly viable and hasn’t observed any toxic effect. In fact, the possibility of mixing algae and aposymbiotic hosts allowed him to maintain cultures for three years in a row (without any problem).

-Our work represents a good complement to the one published by Thomas and collaborators, where they test the response of S. roscoffensis to several physical and chemical cues. Though they use the same species, their stimuli are different than those studied by us (light, vibration, sea water or frozen worms). This complementary approach has now been stressed in the text. Perhaps the most relevant issue here, which merits further experimentation, is the response to a frozen worm versus a worm-extract. Our negative response might be the result of chemicals extracted from the animals during the maceration process. It is possible that their repellent nature would be a natural response of worms in a situation where the environment signals stress or mortality to the living specimens, thus generating a flight response from the “mortality cues”.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Attachment

Submitted filename: Reviewers response.docx

pone.0330757.s001.docx (20.7KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Phuping Sucharitakul

4 Jul 2025

Dear Dr. Sprecher,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 18 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Phuping Sucharitakul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Reviewer #2: I have not reviewed the first version of this manuscript but I was asked to gauge in on the revised version and I think the authors have addressed all the reviewers' suggestion and produced a sound manuscript.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Giorgio Gilestro

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org

Attachment

Submitted filename: review_Komarov_2025.pdf

pone.0330757.s002.pdf (283KB, pdf)
PLoS One. 2025 Aug 21;20(8):e0330757. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0330757.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


4 Aug 2025

We acknowledge the referees for their invaluable input towards improving this manuscript. Their suggestions have undoubtedly elevated the original manuscript to be more thorough, accurate, and informative. Thank you.

General comments

In this paper, the authors investigated the chemosensory (salinity, amino acids and algae) and thermosensory (temperature) capacity of wild-caught acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis in a laboratory setting. This is an exploratory study to determine whether these worms are able to detect and respond to these different stimuli. The results show that Symsagittifera roscoffensis is able to detect both chemical and physical cues, but at different levels. Only the amino acid Trytophan initiated a significant response. Only the 68 ppm salt concentration initiated a significant response. According to a following test, the initiated response seems to be aversion. For algae, F/2 medium seems to have elicited a preference response, while T. convolutae, C. concordia and T. chuii an avoidance response. According to a following test, the initiated response for the symbiont T. convolutae seems to be aversion. Finally, only the presence of high temperature elicited a response from the worms. In all cases, the worms seemed to avoid high temperatures.

Chemical and sensory ecology are important and growing fields, and I'm delighted to see the authors' interest in these still little-explored research fields. This exploratory study will help expand knowledge in these two fields, which is particularly important in the context of climate change, where aquatic environments are particularly affected. The study system chosen is very interesting and original. I applaud the authors' boldness in focusing on a lesser-known group of animals that are nonetheless the foundation of trophic webs.

However, I have a few issues that need to be addressed before publication. I also offer suggestions for improving the manuscript.

*Next time, I strongly recommend to include line numbers to facilitate communication.

Thank you for this suggestion, we have included line numbers in this revised version. The line numbers present in this response are in relation to the “track changes” version of the manuscript.

Major issues

The experiments carried out seem satisfying. However, the manuscript lacks scientific rigor. Several corrections need to be applied to meet publishable scientific quality standards.

1. The problematics/research question, aims, hypotheses, method and results should all be clearly aligned. At present, it is difficult to understand the study before reading the results. I recommend restructuring the ideas and making sure that the method (protocol) and results address the research question and objectives. A clear statement of whether the objectives have been met and whether the hypotheses are supported by the results should also be present. Without restricting authors to the classic writing format, the minimum requirements for assessing the validity of a study must be met.

Thanks for the suggestion. Yes, we are aware that the introductory paragraph was, most probably, unclear and lacking a proper explanation of the study context. We have added the following paragraph for clarity:

“The phylogenetic position of acoels, along with the fact that some species live in close association with algae, has made them of particular interest in the fields of evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo) and comparative physiology. However, most existing studies on these animals focus on developmental and anatomical aspects, with relatively few addressing their physiology or the influence of environmental conditions on behavior, survival, or the dynamics of the host–algae association. To address this gap, we initiated a series of experiments aimed at testing the effects of various chemicals on these animals. Most of the compounds we tested—such as variations in salinity and temperature—are highly relevant to the rapidly changing conditions in coastal environments, where many acoel species naturally occur.”

1. The authors mention that ASW (34ppm) is aversive. However, this is not what is measured in the experiment. It's possible that the worms simply prefer the non-salty side without necessarily avoiding the other. I suggest that the authors add some nuance to their statements and don't mix up the results with interpretation. The PI (result) indicates that more worms chose the non-salty side. The interpretation is that the salty side is aversive

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this lack of clarity. We have thus adjusted the results section involving these experiments to read as follows (Lines 166-167): “The finding that S. Roscoffensis appears to prefer lower salt concentrations suggests that this condition is preferential for the acoel”

We would like to point out, however, that the ‘aversion’ was further determined by the subsequent barrier assay experiments, where high salinity was able to negate the positive phototaxis behaviour

1 -salty side is prefered). Preference/avoidance is an interpretation of the results. This interpretation should therefore be accompanied by a "We suggest/propose that...". This is repeated for the presentation of each result. Since the results seem to be combined with the discussion, authors should check each result presented to ensure that the difference between the result and the interpretation is unambiguous.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. Indeed, the interpretation may appear somewhat liberal. We have adjusted the text in the following places to remedy this:

Line 133: ...largely match those of the plain agarose control, suggesting animals did not prefer either side

Line 138: we observed that there was a moderate preference across the longer timescale

Line 154: We observed one-fold ASW (34ppm) showed a mildly positive, albeit insignificant, preference index

Line 158: we observed that the PI for two-fold ASW concentration (68ppm) was significantly negative across the time series

Line 159: However, they show a slight but statistically insignificant avoidance negative PI of to T. striata extracts

Line 213: No difference in the side preference index

Line 215: no significant preference index

Line 218-219: S. roscoffensis the animals tend to prefer show a positive PI to the low temperature side

1. The discussion lacks references. Some paragraphs have 0 to 1 references. With less than 2 or 3 sources, it's difficult to have a deep analysis of the situation. It would be useful to use a variety of references and examples to deepen the ideas. If there are no references on this species, which seems understudied according to the authors, the examples may come from similar species or those living in similar environments.

We agree with the reviewer that the number of references is sparse, however this is, indeed, due to a severe lack of modern (<50 years) research conducted on this topic, in this scenario, in marine animals. We have now included, to our knowledge, all relevant references that are available, and in turn focused the discussion on exploring the potential significance of our results

The findings should also be put into a broad context. Does it support existing literature or not? If not, why not?

1. The discussion should contain the limits/caveat of the experiment. Scientific rigor requires the assessment of limits. The authors should describe some shortcomings that may affect data interpretation, e.g. :

What are the confounding factors? What are the differences between the laboratory and the natural environment? What could have been improved? What should be tested to verify interpretations? What lacked precision?

Thank you for pointing this out. We have adjusted the discussion section in order to address the reviewer’s concerns:

Line 347: Under laboratory conditions, i.e. agarose substrate vs natural sand, our findings indicate...

Lines 367-378: To isolate responses exclusively to the stimuli of interest, our experimental conditions therefore differ from the natural environment in which S. roscoffensis is typically found. For instance, the substrate used in our experiment was agarose, as opposed to the natural substrate of sand, which may contain a large variety of chemical and biological contaminants that could, in turn, affect the behaviour of the animals. However, for the purposes of this study, we aimed to observe any response specifically to a narrow range of individual, ecologically relevant stimuli, rather than observing the animals’ behaviour in the natural environment. Furthermore, we maintained a constant ambient temperature, which may not be the case in nature due to factors such as winds, waves, or clouds. Further studies may be performed to understand the impact of these factors on the responses of S. roscoffensis to varied stimuli. For example, future work could use sand as a substrate, perform chemosensory experiments under varying temperature and light conditions, or test at different points of the tidal cycle.

Without invalidating their study, the authors must discuss certain points, as no study is perfect.

The method is missing a section on statistical analysis. Without this section, it is not possible to assess the validity and reliability of the results and conclusions drawn by the authors. I will, however, make a few comments based on what is mentioned in the figure titles. Was Dunnet's T3 multiple comparisons test carried out for each time (2, 5, 10 min) separately?

Why did the authors choose these tests? Were the application conditions respected? These details should be included in the method.

Did a single worm do several trials (tyrosine, glutamine, etc.)? If so, were the worms always in the same group? If the groups remain the same, it should be added to the model as a random factor since the analyses are based on repeated measures (One-way repeated measures ANOVA or GLMM).

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this critical omission. We have now added a statistical analysis section to the methods:

Statistical analysis:

All statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 10. For each trial of each experiment, a fresh set of acoels was used, thus no worms were subjected to multiple stimulation experiments. For time trials, each time point was treated independently. Welch’s test was used to determine unequal variance within the individual groups, and, combined with a relatively low sample size (n=10), Dunnet’s T3 multiple comparison test was chosen. Individual statistical results are presented in the relevant results sections and figure legends.

Minor issues

1. I suggest that authors proofread the entire text to correct spelling, grammatical and wording errors. To facilitate correction, authors can read the text starting from the end, or ask a third party who was not involved in drafting to read the text. In addition, certain scientific words relating to animal behaviour are not used correctly. Authors need to revise certain definitions and ensure that the scientific terms used support exactly what they mean.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have ensured to correct a number of spelling and grammatical errors, including those found in scientific terms

1. Authors will have to modify the formatting of references to meet the journal's requirements :

References are listed at the end of the manuscript and numbered in the order that they appear in the text. In the text, cite the reference number in square brackets (e.g., “We used the techniques developed by our colleagues [19] to analyze the data”). PLOS uses the numbered citation (citation-sequence) method and first six authors, et al.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-introduction

We have now ensured that the reference style meets the journal requirement

Abstract (page 2)

1. In the second sentence, the authors mention that "understanding how distinct sensory cues elicit or modulate certain behaviour thus provides insights into the neuronal adaptations to rapid and continuous changes in the surrounding world". However, there is no reference to neuronal adaptation afterwards, although this seems to be an important subject of the study they way it is mentionned. I consider this paper to be in the field of animal behaviour rather than neuroscience. Authors should be careful about the scope of their claims.

We thank the reviewer for pointing this out, and have removed “neuronal” from the sentence in question to ensure that the scope of the study remains focused.

1. When stating the general problem (lack of knowledge on other sensory systems), I recommend giving a short explanation on why bridging the gap matters, to give more context and justify the purpose of the study.

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion, and have now added a section to the introduction to address this (lines 92-94): Bridging this gap in knowledge may uncover how non-visual sensory modalities govern how S. roscoffensis locates and retains its algal symbiont and selects microhabitats in a highly variable intertidal environment. Establishing these capacities also provides comparative data for the early evolution of multimodal sensory integration in bilaterians.

1. While keeping this section concise with the main result, I suggest going into a little more detail. The method and main results should be incorporated to quickly understand the study when first reading the abstract. I suggest integrating the approach and the main results in a single sentence (e.g. Using XXX method, we found YYY).

Thank you for this suggestion. The end of the abstract now reads (Lines 35-37): Using two-choice and barrier assays, our findings support that S. roscoffensis shows avoidance behaviours to increased temperature and high salinity, preferring cooler environments with lower salinity.

1. What does the main result reveals? The aim of the study seems to be to explore the yet unknown sensory systems of S. roscoffensis. What do the results reveal about this? Does it suggest that S. roscoffensis can detect chemical and thermal cues?

I suggest adding a final sentence or two about the wider context of the results. For example, but without limitation, authors could mention:

-What the results demonstrate;

-What are the advances/implications in relation to previous works;

- How does the results change the understanding of this field (sensory ecology or neuronal adaptations) / how significant are the results?

Since these additions are likely to increase the size of the abstract, I suggest cutting into the study backgroud, which currently takes up a lot of space compared to the results (i.e. everything before "Currently little is known about...").

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added the following sentence at the end of the abstract:

We demonstrate that early-branching bilaterians possess the sensory capacity to identify specific chemical and environmental stimuli, adding to the knowledge that

1. "is" should be changed for "are" in the following sentence : "When the acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis is exposed…"

We have made this correction, thank you.

1. The study topic is truly interesting and captivating. I think it's worth extending the introduction a little to take the time to properly introduce the concepts and justify the aim of the study.

Thank you for your suggestion, as per the previous comment, we have extended the introduction to include more background and justification for the study.

Introduction

1. Page 3 : The first paragraph of the introduction should include at least one or two references. An interesting way of inserting them is to add examples to support the facts.

Thank you for this suggestion. We have added a recent reference to the review by Oteiza and Baldwin (2021) to point out that despite the variability the phenotypes are typically conserved (lines 47-49):

While many animals utilise external sensory organs to determine the nature of their surroundings, the compositional, morphological and anatomical organization of sensory organs varies greatly in different animal clades, including different, often unrelated genes being responsible for the same functions, indicating

Attachment

Submitted filename: Rebuttal 2.docx

pone.0330757.s003.docx (1.3MB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Phuping Sucharitakul

6 Aug 2025

Sensory discrimination of chemical and temperature stimuli in the acoel Symsagittifera roscoffensis

PONE-D-25-05435R2

Dear Dr. Sprecher,

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Phuping Sucharitakul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Phuping Sucharitakul

PONE-D-25-05435R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Sprecher,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Phuping Sucharitakul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Reviewers response.docx

    pone.0330757.s001.docx (20.7KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: review_Komarov_2025.pdf

    pone.0330757.s002.pdf (283KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Rebuttal 2.docx

    pone.0330757.s003.docx (1.3MB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper.

    All behaviour data are available on Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/15470219?token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6ImRiYTc3OTM0LWNkMDItNDVkMC04NzY4LWE0N2FiNDQ0NjNhOSIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJiYWQ5ZmU2NGI3ODdhMzM5YzhhY2I1ODUzODE1YmFhZSJ9.KJhEgc7RN0yJZeKa9npMKW3wBQx8lxdL_XoUNSqaPo8gY6xI2Djula4wxGVZrwfyDPuLm9oTamO9RGZXOahk4w.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES