Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2019 Sep 30;14(9):e0223214. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223214

The effect of bacteria on planula-larvae settlement and metamorphosis in the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum

Isabel Freire 1, Eldad Gutner-Hoch 2,¤, Andrea Muras 1, Yehuda Benayahu 3, Ana Otero 1,*
Editor: Hector Escriva4
PMCID: PMC6768449  PMID: 31568517

Abstract

While increasing evidence supports a key role of bacteria in coral larvae settlement and development, the relative importance of environmentally-acquired versus vertically-transferred bacterial population is not clear. Here we have attempted to elucidate the role of post-brooding-acquired bacteria on the development of planula-larvae of the octocoral Rhytisma f. fulvum, in an in vitro cultivation system employing different types of filtered (FSW) and autoclaved (ASW) seawater and with the addition of native bacteria. A good development of larvae was obtained in polystyrene 6-well cell culture plates in the absence of natural reef substrata, achieving a 60–80% of larvae entering metamorphosis after 32 days, even in bacteria-free seawater, indicating that the bacteria acquired during the brooding period are sufficient to support planulae development. No significant difference in planulae attachment and development was observed when using 0.45 μm or 0.22 μm FSW, although autoclaving the 0.45 μm FSW negatively affected larval development, indicating the presence of beneficial bacteria. Autoclaving the different FSW homogenized the development of the larvae among the different treatments. The addition of bacterial strains isolated from the different FSW did not cause any significant effect on planulae development, although some specific strains of the genus Alteromonas seem to be beneficial for larvae development. Light was beneficial for planulae development after day 20, although no Symbiodinium cells could be observed, indicating either that light acts as a positive cue for larval development or the presence of beneficial phototrophic bacteria in the coral microbiome. The feasibility of obtaining advanced metamorphosed larvae in sterilized water provides an invaluable tool for studying the physiological role of the bacterial symbionts in the coral holobiont and the specificity of bacteria-coral interactions.

Introduction

Coral reefs are suffering substantial degradation at a global scale [1]. It is estimated that ~60% of the reefs are already daged either directly as the result of human activities or indirectly by factors derived from global climate change, such as ocean acidification and changes in temperature, salinity, or light [23]. In addition to their ecological significance, coral reefs constitute an invaluable economic resource, with plethora of natural products of biotechnological and pharmaceutical interest having been isolated from reef organisms, featuring anti-cancer, anti-microbial, anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties [48]. Consequently, establishing in-vitro cultivation systems that will allow the identification of the factors that determine the successful settlement and development of coral planulae-larvae is of prime importance to the on-going world-wide efforts for reef conservation [910].

One of the key aspects in coral life cycle and development is that of the interaction with their associated microorganisms. The coral holobiont is a complex symbiotic system that encompasses symbiotic dinoflagellate algae, bacteria, fungi, viruses, and other protists [1113]. However, while the symbiotic relationship between the endosymbiotic dinoflagellate algae (zooxanthellae) and their coral host has been studied in depth [11, 1416], the complex mechanisms controlling coral-bacteria interactions are still poorly understood. In particular, the specificity of the coral-bacteria association remains unclear, despite numerous studies having indicated a crucial role of bacteria for the well-being of corals [1718]. High-throughput sequencing techniques have revealed the high bacterial diversity harboured by adult corals, with an increasing evidence of the existence of a species-specific “core microbiome” that seems to be regulated by the host through different mechanisms [1922]. The coral probiotic theory [23], has led to the term "Beneficial Microorganisms for Corals" (BMCs) being coined, aimed at defining the specific bacterial symbionts that may promote coral health, and thus be of potential use as environmental probiotics to reverse dysbiosis [13]. The potential functions of this beneficial microbiota include carbon, nitrogen and sulphur cycling [24], as well as the production of anti-microbial compounds [25], thereby facilitating pathogen control.

Since the settlement and metamorphosis of coral planula-larvae are known to be governed by environmental cues, several studies have examined the role of bacteria in these processes, mainly for stony coral species. The best-known source of chemical morphogens for coral planulae are the crustaceous coralline algae (CCA) [2628]. However, the nature of the biochemical cues present in CCA is not clear and may be partially derived from the presence of epiphytic bacteria [29]. Bacterial biofilms also produce cues for the settlement process that can be recognised by planulae [2932], as previously reported for various marine invertebrates [3334]. Indeed, the addition of antibiotics has been shown to block settlement and development in several Octocorallia species [35]. The nature of the biochemical and/or physical cues present in microbial biofilms remains elusive [3637]. In many cases the percentage of settlement induced by monospecific bacterial strains was lower than that resulting from natural, multispecies films [3233]. It is however possible that specific types of bacteria may be responsible for facilitating settlement and metamorphosis [3638]. Members of the Roseobacter clade, a group frequently associated with stony corals [39], have been found to be constantly present in their planula-larvae [4042], constituting up to 70% of the SSU rDNA sequences obtained [43]. Bacteria belonging to the genera Alteromonas, Shewanella and Marinobacter have also been associated with planulae or coral gametes in stony corals [4142]. In other cases, members of the genera Burkholderia, Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Ralstonia and Bacillus have been reported to be transmitted vertically to their gametes [44]. A number of publications have also focused on the mode of transmission of the potentially beneficial bacteria to planulae [40, 42]. Several studies have demonstrated that, independent of the reproductive strategy of the corals, specific, potentially beneficial bacteria are transferred vertically to the next generation during gamete or planulae release [4142, 44]. In other cases, the bacterial populations seem to become established post spawning, according to the water bacterial community structure [4345]. However, these studies, that indicate the importance of the presence of core bacteria genus, have been carried out with stony corals, with little information being available on the role of bacteria on Octocorallia settlement and metamorphosis [46], despite the importance of this group for the structure and trophic dynamics of coral reefs [47]. Moreover, most studies of this type are observational, with samples being obtained from the nature, without evaluating the performance of the analysed larvae for long periods.

Preliminary studies have indicated the relevance of bacteria for the settlement and development of zooxanthellate and azooxanthellate planulae of different octocoral species, since both processes are halted in the presence of antibiotics [35]. The overall goal of the current study was thus to evaluate the relevance of the presence of bacteria as BMCs for the settlement and development of octocoral planulae. Most studies to date have used next-generation high-throughput sequencing techniques in order to identify core microbiome species in the coral larvae or gametes, without examining the development of the larvae [4145]. Here, however, we employed an experimental approach by cultivating the planulae in seawater filtered through different filter pore-sizes and/or autoclaved to limit the presence of bacteria, and consequently evaluate their effect on the development of the planulae. The effect of the addition of specific native bacteria to the seawater was also examined. Experiments were performed with planulae of the Red Sea octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum (formerly Parerythropodium fulvum fulvum) [28, 35, 47]. R. f. fulvum is a zooxanthellate species, being one of the first species to recolonise areas where corals have died or damaged areas of reefs. This species is a surface-brooder: fertilized eggs cleave on the surface of the female colonies while entangled in a mucoid suspension [35, 47]. Our findings confirmed that bacteria acquired during the brooding period seem to be sufficient to support planulae development since mature larvae development could be achieved in sterilized seawater in plastic cell culture plates without the addition of natural coral substrata. Nevertheless, the results indicate the presence of bacteria in the 0.45 μm FSW that were beneficial for planulae metamorphosis. This culture system constitutes a valuable experimental model for further studies regarding changes in the planulae-associated microbiome during growth.

Materials and methods

Planula larvae collection

Planula larvae of the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum (Forskål 1975) were collected by scuba diving at 4–6 m depth in Eilat (northern Red Sea, Israel, 29°30′N, 034°55′E) during three different spawning events: July-2014, July-2015 and July-2016. The collection of animals complied with a permit issued by the Israel Nature and National Parks Protection Authority. The planulae were collected into zip-lock bags with a plastic transfer pipette. In the laboratory, they were washed several times with seawater passed through 0.45 μm pore filter before being distributed into the culture units. The experiments were initiated within 24 hours of planulae collection. The work was performed in the Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences (IUI, Eilat, Red Sea, Israel 29°30´N; 34°56´E).

Culture water preparation

Ten litres of surface seawater were collected from the same location as that where larvae were harvested. Seawater was sequentially filtered with a 1.2 μm, GF/C or 2.7 μm, GF/D filter (WhatmanTM, Maidstone, UK)], and/or 0.45 μm and 0.2 μm cellulose nitrate filters (Sartorius, Stedim Biotech GmbH). All processes were carried out using autoclaved Erlenmeyer glass flasks. No cultivable bacteria could be observed in the 0.22 μm FSW. The concentration of cultivable bacterial in the 1.2 μm FSW was 1.95 ± 0.15 * 105 CFU/mL in Marine Agar (MA, Difco) and 2.27 ± 0.03 * 105 CFU/mL in Tryptone Soy Agar (Difco) adjusted to 1% NaCl (TSA-1). The number of cultivable bacteria in the 0.45 μm FSW was 3.4 *104 CFU/mL independently of the culture medium used. CFUs were measured by re-suspending the bacteria retained in the filters in sterilized seawater. Direct enumeration of CFUs in the water yielded high variability and lower counts, indicating low homogeneity of the sample and/or the presence of bacteria attached to particulate material.

Native bacterial isolation and identification

Cellulose nitrate filters (0.45 μm and 0.2 μm) were re-suspended in autoclaved seawater and aliquots were plated on MA and TSA-1 and incubated for 7–10 days at 25°C in the dark. In order to examine the effect of these isolates on coral larvae settlement, selected isolates were incubated on 10 mL Marine Broth or TSB-1 in 25 mL Erlenmeyer flasks in a shaker for 24–48 hours at 25°C. Bacterial cells were harvested by centrifugation and washed 3 times with autoclaved seawater in order to remove any organic trace from the culture medium. Bacteria were added to the planulae cultures at a final concentration of 103 CFU/mL with every water exchange. Cell density was estimated as optical density at 600 nm, after generating CFU/OD calibrating curves for each species.

An additional experiment was carried out with larvae obtained in 2015 in which the wells were pre-conditioned with bacterial biofilm before the planulae were added [48]. Different volumes (50, 100 and 200 μL) of bacterial suspensions is sterilized sweater were obtained as explained above and were inoculated in in the wells containing 5 mL of sterilizes sea water. Plates were incubated 25°C for 48 hours in order to allow the attachment of the bacteria. Water was gently removed from the wells and refilled with 0.45 μm FSW for the cultivation of the planulae.

The identification of strains was based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Bacterial DNA was extracted using a Wizard DNA Purification Kit (Promega, Southampton, UK) as per manufacturer´s instructions. The amplification of 16S rDNA gene sequences were done by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with the primers 96bfm (5’-GAGTTTGATYHTGGCTCAG-3’) and 1152uR (5’-ACGGHTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3’) [49], the GoTaq DNA Polymerase (Promega, Southampton, UK). PCR were carried out under the following standard conditions: initial step of 96°C for 2 min followed by 35 cycles of 95°C for 1 min, 53°C for 30 s and 72°C for 2 min [50]. The 16S rRNA sequences were identified using the web-based tool EzTaxon (https://www.ezbiocloud.net/).

Larvae cultivation

Planula cultures were carried out in untreated 6-well tissue polystyrene culture plates (Jet Biofil®) containing 10 coral larvae per replicate (n = 3) with a final larvae concentration, 1 larvae/mL. All bioassays with coral larvae were carried out at 24±1°C in an incubator. In some experiments the cultures were maintained under a 12:12 light:dark cycle. 50% of the volume of the cultures was exchanged on alternate days. The same batch of FSW or ASW was used for the whole duration of each experiment. No evaporation was observed in the cultures throughout the experiments. Some experiments were also carried out in sterilized 60 mm glass Petri dishes with 10 mL of sea water and a concentration of 10 planula-larvae per mL.

Planulae settlement and development was monitored daily or every 2 days using a stereoscopic microscope. Development was classified into four different categories: pre-metamorphosed; early metamorphosed and advanced metamorphosed, subdivided according to polyps with short or long tentacles (Fig 1). The pre-metamorphosed larvae comprised of coccoid or swimming stage larvae. The early metamorphosed comprised under-developed polyps, usually attached and with only the paddle-disc visible. the advanced metamorphosed stages are fully developed polyps with feather-like tentacles (short or long).

Fig 1. Morphological classification of R. f. fulvum planulae early developmental stages.

Fig 1

The planulae were classified into four main developmental stages: pre-metamorphosed, early metamorphosed, advanced metamorphosed polyps with short tentacles and advanced ones with long tentacles.

Statistical analysis and data treatment

The statistical analysis was performed in R software (version 3.3.1) using “coin” package [51] and function Wilcox_test. Since the data did not fulfill the conditions of normality and homoscedasticity, and could not be improved by transformation, they were analyzed using the non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test with exact distribution of the statistic due to the limited data available. To determine the effect of water exchange and autoclaved water, we took into account the 12 values obtained from the four different types of water considered in the study, in order to obtain at least a minimum sample size. The remainder of the analyses were computed with six values, three for each of the conditions considered here.

Results

The influence of culture conditions and water treatment on larvae survival and development

The response of R. f. fulvum planulae to the effect of filtering the seawater (FSW) through 1.2, 0.45 and 0.22 μm pore filters or autoclaving it (ASW) was assessed in polystyrene 6-well tissue culture plates within 24 hours of being harvested from the environment. Despite previous reports had indicated that planulae settlement can occur within 24–48 hours following transfer to suitable conditions [29, 35], no settlement signs could be observed in the first 48 hours in an initial experiment carried out with planulae harvested in June 2014 (S1 Fig) or in any of the subsequent experiments carried out in 2015 and 2016, independently of the water treatment applied. The 2014 cultures were maintained without water change and all planulae were dead by day 12 of incubation (S1 Fig). Nevertheless, the results of these preliminary experiments indicated that larvae maintained under dark conditions presented a better survival trend than those maintained under light:dark (L:D) cycles, since all larvae were alive by day 6 in the dark, regardles the water treatment, while 50% of the larvae were aleady dead in some of the treatments in L:D cycles (S1 Fig. Also, the 0.45 μm FSW presented a better survival trend since the number of live larvae on day 10 was significantly higher that with the other water treatments (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test, p<0.01, S1 Fig).

The same experiment was repeated with planulae harvested in July 2015. The cultures were maintained for 32 days by exchanging of 50% of the culture water under light:dark diurnal cycles. Under such conditions the lowest final survival rate (70%) was obtained with ASW, while 1.2 μm FSW produced the highest survival values (93.3% ± 5.8, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test, p<0.01, Fig 2). No difference in survival (80%) was noted between 0.22 and 0.45 μm FSW after 32 days of incubation (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney Test, p>0.05). No improvement in survival or attachment was observed when the same cultures were carried out in glass Petri dishes at the same planulae density (S2 Fig). Regarding metamorphosis of the planulae, despite the absence of a CCA substratum, a high number of metamorphosed planulae was observed in the cultures after 32 days of incubation, with values higher than 50% in all treatments (Fig 3). In this experiment all planulae from the same treatment were classified together and the advanced metamorphosed stage was differentiated between short and long-tentacle stages as in later experiments. The best results were obtained with 0.22 μm FSW, achieving a 72.4% rate of metamorphosed planulae, mainly in advanced stage, in comparison to 55% obtained with 0.45 μm FSW and 57.1% with ASW (Fig 3). Metamorphosis of planulae maintained in 1.2 μm FSW was even lower, reaching only 50% (Fig 3). Survival rates higher than 20% were obtained on day 32 in the same experiment for larvae that were maintained without water exchange (S3, Fig) for comparison with the 2014 experiments, when all larvae were dead by day 12 (S1, Fig) thus indicating strong annual variations in planulae performance. Nevertheless, poor development was observed in stagnant cultures, with none entering the advanced metamorphic stage.

Fig 2. Average number of live planulae of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum over time in cultures maintained with different levels of filtered seawater (FSW) and autoclaved seawater (ASW).

Fig 2

Cultures were maintained with water exchange of 50% of the volume of the cultures on alternative and under light:dark cycles (12:12 hours). The experiment was performed with planulae harvested in 2015. Data are shown as means ± S.D, (n = 3, 10 planulae per replicate).

Fig 3. Development of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum planulae on day 32 of incubation.

Fig 3

Planulae were maintained with different levels of filtered seawater (FSW) and autoclaved seawater (ASW) with water change on alternative days. Results correspond to the same experiment shown in Fig 1. Planulae development was classified into three stages: pre-metamorphosed (open bars); early metamorphosis (grey bars); and advanced metamorphosed (dark bars). Cultures were maintained under light:dark cycle (12:12 hours). The advanced metamorphosis stage corresponds to the Advanced-short plus Advanced-long stages described in Materials and Methods. Percentages were calculated on the basis of the analysis of all survived larvae.

On the basis of the higher survival values obtained in the 2014 experiment carried out under stagnant conditions during the first days of cultivation when the planulae were maintained in the dark in comparison with those maintained under L:D diurnal cycles (S1 Fig), the effect of maintaining the cultures in the dark or under L:D cycles and with three different water treatments (2.7, 0.45 or 0.22 μm FSW) was determined with a batch of planulae obtained in June 2016 (Fig 4). The pore-size of the largest filter was increased to 2.7 μm in comparison with previous experiments (1.2 μm) in order to allow the presence of small phytoplankton cells in the culture water that could be beneficial for planulae development. In this experiment, 100% survival was observed in all treatments on day 35 of incubation regardless the light regime. Notably, significant differences in the evolution of the percentage of metamorphosed lavae were recorded in relation to light conditions (Fig 4). Darkness seemed to initially stimulate metamorphosis, since the number of metamorphosed planulae in cultures maintained under such conditions on day 20 was twice the number obtained in normal light-dark maintained cultures (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p<0.01, Fig 4), but clearly decreased thereafter, indicating a regression of the initial attachment states. On the contrary, cultures maintained under light:dark conditions presented a continuous increase in the number of metamorphosed planulae, indicating that light promotes the achievement of full metamorphosis. Nevertheless, no statistically differences in the total metamorphosed larvae were observed between dark and light-dark maintained cultures by the end of the experiment (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.8). Metamorphosis was accelerated after day 20 in the 0.45 and 0.22 FSW cultures maintained under a light:dark cycles, achieving 76.7% ± 20.8 and 73.3% ± 28.9 metamorphosed larvae on day 35 respectively, with no significant differences among them (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p = 1). These values were higher than those obtained in the dark maintained cultures, 63.3% ± 37.9 for 0.45 FSW and 53.3%± 15.3 for 0.22 FSW but the differences were not statistically significant (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p>0.6). Only in the 2.7 μm FSW did the dark-maintained cultures display a better rate of total metamorphosed larvae on day 35, (66.6% ± 15.3) than in the light-dark cycles (43.3% ± 10, Fig 4), although differences were not statistically significant (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.4). When the level of development of the metamorphosed larvae is considered, the best metamorphosed cultures were those maintained in 0.45 FSW in a light:dark cycle, with 63.3% of the planulae reaching the advanced, long-tentacle metamorphic stage at day 35, compared to 3.3% of those in the dark (Fig 5), although none of these differences were statistically significant) (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p>0.1). Despite the similarity in the percentage of total metamorphosis, the percentage of primary polyps with long tentacles under a light:dark cycles on day 35 was also significantly higher in the 0.45 FSW treatment than in the 0.22 FSW (63.3% vs. 26.7%, respectively) (Fig 5). When examined under a fluorescence microscope, no zooxanthellae could be observed in any of the cultures after 35 days, indicating that the symbiotic algae are not required, at least for the initial metamorphic stages.

Fig 4. Number of metamorphosed Rhytisma. fulvum fulvum planulae in cultures maintained with different pore-size filtered seawater (FSW).

Fig 4

Seawater was filtered through 2.7 μm, 0.45 μm, 0.22 μm. For the cultures maintained in a light:dark cycle the effect of autoclaving the different FSW was also determined. Survival was 100% in all treatments on day 35. Half of the culture water was exchanged on alternative days. The experiment was performed with planulae harvested in 2016. Data are shown as means ± S.D. (n = 3, 10 planulae per replicate).

Fig 5. Development stages achieved by Rhytisma fulvum fulvum on days 20 and 35 of culture under different water treatments and light conditions.

Fig 5

Cultures are the same shown in Fig 3. Data are presented as percentage of total (n = 3, 10 larvae per culture unit, no dead larvae observed during the period). Planulae were classified into pre-metamorphosed (open bars), early metamorphosed (striped bars), advanced metamorphosed with short tentacles (AD-S, grey bars) and advanced metamorphosed with long tentacles (AD-L, black bars). Data are shown as means ± S.D. (n = 3, 10 planulae per replicate).

The three types of FSW were also tested with or without autoclaving under light:dark (12: 12 h) cycles, in order to determine whether the observed differences were derived from the presence of live bacteria (Fig 4). Autoclaving the different FSW homogenized the development of the larvae among the different treatments, achieving values of total metamorphosis of 73.3% ±15.3 for 2.7 μm FSW, 80% ± 10 for 0.45 μm FSW and 66.7% ± 35.1 for 0.22 μm after 35 days of incubation with no statistically significant differences among them (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.4, Fig 4). When comparing between the autoclaved FSW and the non-autoclaved, the autoclaving of water clearly improved metamorphosis in the 2.7 μm FSW, increasing from 43.3% ± 0.58 to 73.3% ± 15.3, although this difference was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.1, Fig 4). Regarding the developmental stages achieved in the different treatments (Fig 5), the number of primary polyps with long tentacles at the end of the experiment in the autoclaved seawater treatments were in the range 36.7–43.3%, regardless of the filter used in the pre-treatment, with no statistical difference among them (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.3, Fig 5). Although autoclaving the different FSW did not produce statistically significant differences in comparison with the non-autoclaved counterparts (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test, p = 0.3, Fig 5), the number of primary polyps with long tentacles increased from 26.7% ± 15.3 to 40%± 17.3 the autoclaving the 0.22 μm FSW (Fig 5). In contrast, autoclaving the 0.45 μm FSW seem to negatively affected the planulae, since the number of primary polyps with long tentacles decreased from 63.3% ± 25.2 to 36.7% ± 15.3, although featuring a similar rate of total metamorphosis (Fig 5). These results indicate that the beneficial effects of the 0.45 μm FSW may be derived from the presence of live bacteria in the water.

Effect of native bacteria on coral larvae survival

Following our findings indicating the possible presence of beneficial bacteria for the induction of metamorphosis in the 0.45 μm FSW, we isolated bacteria from the 0.45 and 0.22 filters, representative of the bacteria in the 1.2 μm and 0.45 μm FSW respectively and examined the effect of the addition of 103 CFUs mL-1 on the planulae. Several Gram-negative isolates, belonging to the Alpha-proteobacteria, including two members of the Roseobacter clade (Ruegeria mobilis and Mameliella atlantica) and to the Gamma-proteobacteria (genera Alcanivorax, Marinobacter, Alteromonas and Vibrio) (S1 Table) and two Gram-positive isolates belonging to the genera Kokuria (isolate A2) and Planomicrobium (isolate 23) were tested. Several experiments carried out in 2014 and 2015 in which the bacteria were added to the larvae cultures and maintained without water exchange (S4 Fig. and S5 Fig.) indicated that the addition of specific bacteria could greatly improve the survival under such conditions, probably by helping in maintaining the water quality within acceptable physiological values. The strains Alteromonas macleodii (P9) and Ruegeria mobilis (1) allowed achieving survival values in the range of 80–90% in comparison with a 17% of survived larvae in the control cultures without water exchange after 32 days in the 2015 experiment (S5 Fig) (Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, p<0.01), while in the 2014 experiment 76% of the larvae were alive after 12 days, while all the larvae in the control cultures were dead (S4 Fig). In an additional experiment in which the effect of bacteria was tested with our without water exchange for the 2015 larvae, A. macleodii P9 positively affected bot, larval survival and development in the cultures maintained without water exchange, allowing to achieve a 93% of early metamorphosed larvae in comparison with th4 40% in the control cultures (S6 Fig.). This beneficial effect disappeared with water exchange (S6 Fig). Since the presence of bacterial biofilm has been described as necessary for planulae attachment and metamorphic development, we also attempted to pre-condition the cell culture units [48] with biofilms of two native Alteromonas macleodii strains (strains M1 and P14) and several marine strains that are strong biofilm formers: Pseudoalteromonas flavipulchra, Pseudoalteromonas maricaloris [29,30, 36, 52, 53], Vibrio tubiashi and Vibrio aestuarianus [54]. None of the tested strains induced planulae attachment in comparison with control cultures.

The effect of the addition of native bacteria was tested on planulae obtained in 2016 with water exchange performed on alternative days. Bacteria were added with every water exchange. In this experiment 0.22 μm FSW was used in order to reduce potential noise generated by the continuous addition of bacteria with the water. No mortality was recorded in any of the treatments, including the control that was maintained with bacteria-free water, indicating that the exogenous addition of bacteria is not essential for survival and metamorphosis, at least when the initial physiological and/or microbiological state of the larvae is adequate. The addition of bacteria did not significantly change the number of fully metamorphosed planulae which reached values between 56.7 and 76.7% on day 35 (Wilcoxon-Mann Whitney test p>0.1, Fig 6A). As observed in the 2015 experiment (Fig 4), a steep increase in development was observed from days 18–20 (Fig 6A). Only non-statistically significant differences were found in the metamorphosis stage of planulae in the presence of bacteria (Fig 6B). A. macleodii M1 produced a higher number of primary polyps with long tentacles (5.33±1.15) than the control (2.67±1.53) on day 35, while producing the same number of metamorphosed planulae (Fig 6B). The Roseobacter clade member R. mobilis 1 also led to a higher number of long-tentacle primary polyps (4.67±2.89) but the total number of attached larvae was lower with this strain in comparison with the bacteria-free control. Minor beneficial effects were noted with the addition of V. nereis 37 (long-tentacle: 4.33±1.43) and A. macleodii P9 (long-tentacle: 4±1.73).

Fig 6. The effect of native bacteria (103 CFU mL-1) on the metamorphosis of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum coral planulae.

Fig 6

Planulae harvested in 2016 were maintained with water exchange on alternative days and under a 12L:12D h photoperiod condition. All planulae were alive after 35 days of incubation. A. Total metamorphosed planulae on days 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 20, 25, 29 and 35 of the experiment. B. Developmental stages on days 20, 25, 29 and 35. Planulae were classified into four stages: pre-metamorphosis (open bars), early metamorphosis (stippled bars); advanced metamorphosis with short tentacles (grey bars); and advanced metamorphosis with long tentacles (black bars). Data are presented as means ± S.D, n = 3, 10 individuals per replicate).

Discussion

Understanding the contribution of the biological and physico-chemical factors that control coral-planulae settlement and metamorphosis is critical for identifying the main elements affecting coral population dynamics, and for future modelling of the effects of climate change and human disturbances on coral reefs. Increasing evidence points to a crucial role of bacterial biofilms in the recruitment of marine invertebrate-larvae [38], including coral planulae [29, 32, 52]. The relative importance of environmentally-acquired versus vertically-transferred bacterial populations for larval settlement and development is not yet fully understood. Most studies are focused on metagenomic analysis of stony coral colonies and larvae [4145], or testing the effect of particular bacteria on very early development [29, 32, 46, 52]. It is also necessary to establish simple and reliable culture protocols that allow the study of the changes in the coral larvae microbiome during different development phases under controlled conditions. The current study thus sought to elucidate the role of bacteria in the metamorphosis of octocoral R. f. fulvum planulae employing different types of filtered and autoclaved seawater and through the addition of native bacteria. To date most studies seeking to identify the cues controlling larval settlement have used short incubation periods (from 24–48 hours to a few days) [29, 52]. Consequently, little information is available regarding the long-term effect of bacteria and incubation conditions on larval settlement and metamorphosis.

In contrast to previous results that reported attachment of R. f. fulvum within 24–48 hours in the presence of natural reef substrata [28, 35], the first attached larvae in the cell culture wells were observed on day 4–6, independently of the water treatment and light regime applied (Fig 4). Indeed, in the presence of crustose coralline algae, R. f. fulvum planulae settle exclusively on this substratum, avoiding glass or plastic surfaces, with a clear preference for live corals instead of bleached fragments [28]. In our case, although the absence of coral substrate may have been the cause of the delayed settlement of the larvae, the presence of organic coral substrata or the associated bacteria does not seem to be necessary to achieve a good development rate of the planulae. Values of 60–85% of metamorphosed larvae were obtained in the plastic cell culture wells after 20 days of incubation in the dark, and 40–50% in light-dark diurnal cycles even with autoclaved water (Figs 4 and 5). Notably, the value of metamorphosed R. f. fulvum planulae reported in larger aquaria (5 litres, 100 planulae per litre) in the presence of live natural reef substratum was 58% after the same incubation period [35]. A good metamorphic rate was also obtained in the plastic cell-culture plates, with long tentacle primary polyps being observed on day 20 of incubation even with 0.22 FWS (Fig 6), whereas similar results were obtained only after two months of incubation in larger culture systems [36]. The ecological relevance of bacterial cues for larval attachment has been questioned recently, while the importance of CCA-derived cues seems to be confirmed [27]. As for R. f. fulvum planulae [28], the presence of CCA biofilm has been reported to clearly stimulate larval settlement in the planulae of the octocoral Sinularia polydactyla, that could not be achieved on a plastic surface [46]. In the current study, successful attachment and metamorphosis were achieved even in the absence of calcareous substrates, and no differences were found between plastic and glass surfaces, which suggests that settlement cues should be species-specific or strongly dependent on experimental conditions. The number of planulae that can be harvested from the environment is often a limiting factor in coral research. Therefore, these results demonstrate that, at least for R. f. fulvum, cell culture plates can be used as a simple, convenient experimental method that allows testing a large number of conditions with a limited number of planulae, as far as water conditions are maintained within appropriate values.

Previous reports demonstrated that the addition of antibiotics completely halted the development of R. f. fulvum development, indicating that bacteria are necessary for the metamorphic process [35]. Our results strongly support the idea that the bacteria acquired during brooding are sufficient to support larval settlement and development in R. f. fulvum, in the view of the acceptable metamorphic rates obtained in the cultures maintained with the bacteria-free 0.22 FSA and ASW (Figs 4 and 5). In the case of R. f. fulvum, the very specific antimicrobial activity found in larvae and adults may be related to the selection of certain beneficial bacteria to be closely associated with their coral host, as well as excluding potentially pathogenic bacteria [55]. Indeed, bacterial symbionts seem to be transferred vertically in brooding corals [41], whereas broadcast-spawning corals seem to acquire their associated bacterial communities post-settlement [43, 45]. However, adult corals may release specific genera of bacteria during the spawning events in order to benefit the fitness of their sexual progeny [42]. In any case, a higher percentage of metamorphosed planulae with long tentacles was obtained with the 0.45 μm FSW in comparison with the 0.22 μm FSW (Fig 5). Although this beneficial effect should be confirmed in further experiments, in the view of the observed yearly differences in larvae performance, and with a higher number of replicates, in order to allow a more reliable statistical analysis, the beneficial effect of the 0.45 μm FSW depended on the presence of live bacteria in the seawater, since autoclaving the 0.45 μm FSW negatively affected larval development (Fig 5). Such a beneficial effect may be related to different positive effects, such as competitive interactions in the bacterial population that results in the exclusion of pathogens, a direct probiotic effect or the stabilisation of the water chemistry. The analysis of the evolution of the species composition of the coral-associated microbiome under different culture conditions with metagenomics techniques will surely add valuable information for assessing the role of bacteria on coral development.

A comparison of the results obtained with and without light revealed a clear two-stage pattern of the planulae metamorphosis in R. f. fulvum. Settlement was initially accelerated in the dark, but the cultures underwent a reversion in development after day 20, regardless the type of water used for maintaining the cultures (Fig 4). This stimulation of development in the dark can be related to a preference of the planulae to settle on the dark side of natural substratum [28]. In contrast, settlement and metamorphosis were clearly seen to accelerate after day 20 in the cultures maintained with 0.22 μm FSW in the light (Figs 4 and 6). A less marked trend was also observed in cultures maintained with 0.45 μm FSW in the light, starting on day 16 (Fig 4). Autoclaving the water seem to produce a more continuous trend in the rate of total metamorphosed planulae (Fig 4). Although light can be used as a positive cue for larvae development in several cnidarians species [28] we cannot exclude that light acts through the stimulation of the microbial component of the holobiont. R. f. fulvum planulae are devoid of the photosynthetic algal symbiont upon release [35]. Similarly, in our cultures, fluorescence microscopy did not reveal the presence of any algal cells in the metamorphosed planulae, suggesting that despite R. f. fulvum being a zooxanthellate species, establishment of algal symbiosis is not required for the initial metamorphosis stages. We cannot completely disregard the idea that the beneficial effect of light seen after day 16–20 on the larval development may be due to the presence of phototrophic bacteria in the holobiont. Indeed, the Cellvibrionales BD1-7 (previously Alteromonadales), a phototrophic, proteorhodopsin-containing group, is among the most abundant bacterial taxa associated to Mediterranean octocorals [22]. In contrast, the initial higher metamorphic rate of planulae maintained in the dark could be related to their preference for micro-habitats of low light intensity [28, 56]. The use of 2.7 FSW was clearly detrimental to larval development only under light conditions, but development improved when the water was autoclaved (Fig 4), indicating the possible presence of photosynthetic microorganisms detrimental to larval development in the 2.7 FSW. Such microorganisms might either compete for some limiting nutrient or produce a toxic compound. The presence of algae has been previously described to reduce the survivorship and settlement success of planulae, indicating the complexity of microbial dynamics in coral development [57]. Further experiments are required in order to elucidate if the beneficial effect of light on larval development is derived from the presence of beneficial phototrophic bacteria.

Despite some specific bacteria had a beneficial effect on larval survival when the water quality of the cultures was not controlled (S4 Fig., S5 Fig. and S6 Fig.), this beneficial effect disappeared almost completely under favourable conditions. Nonetheless, the addition of several Alteromonas strains, Vibrio nereis and the member of the Roseobacter clade Ruegeria mobilis seemed to favour larval development. Although the addition of these strains to planulae maintained in 0.22 FSW led to only minor improvements in their metamorphosis (Fig 6), it should be noted that the bacteria were added at a concentration 103 CFU mL-1, whereas concentrations of 106 CFU mL-1 are commonly used in aquaculture probiotic experiments [58]. It is nevertheless highly improbable that the planulae encounter such a high concentration of CFUs of a single species under natural conditions. Species belonging to the genus Alteromonas and the Roseobacter clade have been previously associated with beneficial effects and increased settlement in coral larvae. The genera Alteromonas and Roseobacter dominated the taxa of bacteria released by adult corals in the case of the broadcast-spawning coral Acropora tenuis and the brooding stony coral Pocillopora damicornis [42]. Roseobacter-clade associated bacteria are also consistently detected in specimens of planulae of the brooding scleractinian coral Porites astreoides [41]. Pseudoalteromonas, a genus of Gammaproteobacteria closely related to Alteromonas, has been frequently related to increased settlement rates in different stony corals [29, 52] and other invertebrates [36]. In addition, the specific biochemical cues that induce metamorphosis in coral planulae have been identified for this genus [30, 53]. It should be noted that not all the tested Alteromonas strains produced the same beneficial effects (Fig 5, S5 Fig. and S6 Fig). Differences in metamorphosis-inducing characteristics between strains of the same species have been reported previously [36] and may derive from differences in the production of biochemical cues. In the current study, the production of essential growth factors or biochemical cues by such specific bacteria does not appear to be a crucial contributing factor, in the view of the good survival and metamorphosis obtained when the bacteria-free ASW or 0.22 FSW were used for the water exchange (Fig 2, Fig 3 and Fig 6). It is possible that the addition of specific bacteria helps to maintain the chemical homeostasis of the medium by removing toxic excreted compounds, or that an anti-microbial compound is produced that could help to reduce the number of pathogenic bacteria [59]. Anti-microbial activity is common among Alteromonas and Pseudoalteromonas species [59, 60], which could also explain the highly beneficial effect of the addition of Alteromonas strains to the cultures maintained under non-controlled water quality conditions. Future experiments, with a higher number of replicates and in larger seawater volumes, are required in order to confirm this beneficial effect and to assess the possible mechanism involved, together with their effect on the planulae microbiome.

Conclusions

The current results clearly indicate that bacteria acquired during the brooding period are sufficient to sustain settlement and development in the zooxanthellate planulae of the surface-brooding octocoral species R. f. fulvum. This confirms the hypothesis of a strong host-driven control of the bacterial component of the holobiont. Further studies are required in order to characterize the bacterial population accompanying the settlement and metamorphosis processes in octocoral planulae. The feasibility of obtaining advanced metamorphosed larvae in sterilized water provides an invaluable tool for studying the physiological role of these bacterial symbionts in the coral holobiont.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Survival of planulae the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum maintained with different filtered seawater (FSW) and autoclaved sea water (ASW).

(DOCX)

S2 Fig. Survival of planulae the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum maintained in plastic and glass plates and different filtered sea water (FSW) and autoclaved sea water (ASW).

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. Survival of planulae the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum maintained without water exchange with different filtered sea water (FSW) and autoclaved sea water (ASW).

(DOCX)

S4 Fig. Survival rates of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum planulae in the presence of different native bacteria in cultures without water exchange.

(DOCX)

S5 Fig. Survival rates of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum planulae in the presence of different native bacteria in cultures without water exchange.

(DOCX)

S6 Fig. Influence of four native bacteria on the survival and development of planula larvae of the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum in cultures with and without water exchange.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Identification of native bacteria isolated from superficial seawater in the Red Sea coral reef seawater tested on the planula larvae cultures of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum.

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. Yehuda Benayahu’s group from Tel Aviv University and the staff of the Interuniversity Institute for Marine Sciences in Eilat (IUI) for their kind hospitality and facilities, in particular Viviana B. Farstey and Noa Eden. We also thank N. Paz for English editing.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by: EU FP7-Research Infrastructure Initiative Assemble (Association of European marine biological laboratories); EU FP7 Project Byefouling (grant agreement no 612717); Xunta de Galicia, Consellería de Cultura, Educación e Ordenación Universitaria (grant number ED431D 2017/22). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Wilkinson C R. Global change and coral reefs: impacts on reefs, economies and human cultures. Glob Chang Biol. 1996; 2: 547–558. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Glynn PW. Coral reef bleaching: ecological perspectives. Coral Reefs. 1993; 12: 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Bryant D, Burke L, McManus JW, Spalding M. Reefs at Risk: A Map-Based Indicator of Potential Threats to the World’s Coral Reefs. (World Resources Institute) 1998. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Osinga R, Schutter M. Griffioen B, Wijffels RH, Verreth JAJ, Shafil S, et al. The biology and economics of coral growth. Mar Biotechnol. 2011; 13: 658–671. 10.1007/s10126-011-9382-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Leal MC, Calado R, Sheridan C, Alimonti A, Osinga R. Coral aquaculture to support drug discovery. Trends Biotechnol. 2013; 31: 555–561. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Rocha J, Peixe L, Gomes NCM, Calado R. Cnidarians as a source of new marine bioactive compounds—An overview of the last decade and future steps for bioprospecting. Mar Drugs. 2011; 9: 1860–1886. 10.3390/md9101860 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Mayer MA, Rodríguez DA, Taglialatela-Scafati O, Fusetani N. Marine Pharmacology in 2009–2011: Marine Compounds with Antibacterial, Antidiabetic, Antifungal, Anti-Inflammatory, Antiprotozoal, Antituberculosis, and Antiviral Activities; Affecting the Immune and Nervous Systems, and other Miscellaneous Mechanisms of action. Marine Drugs. 2013; 11: 2510–2573. 10.3390/md11072510 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Dobretsov S, Al-Wahaibi ASM, Lai D, Al-Sabahi J, Claerreboudt M, Proksch P, et al. Inhibition of bacterial fouling by soft coral natural products. Int Biodeterior Biodegrad. 2015; 98: 53–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Perkol-Finkel S, Benayahu Y. Community structure of stony and soft corals on vertical unplanned artificial reefs in Eilat (Red Sea): Comparison to natural reefs. Coral Reefs. 2004; 23: 195–205. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Young CN, Schopmeyer SA, Lirman D. A review of reef restoration and Coral propagation using the threatened genus Acropora in the Caribbean and western Atlantic. Bull Ma. Sci. 2012; 88: 1075–1098. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Bourne DG, Morrow KM, Webster NS. Insights into the coral microbiome: underpinning the health and resilience of reef ecosystems. Annu. Rev Microbiol. 2016; 70: 317–340. 10.1146/annurev-micro-102215-095440 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Thompson JR, Rivera HE, Closek CJ, Medina M. Microbes in the coral holobiont: partners through evolution, development, and ecological interactions. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2014; 4: 176 10.3389/fcimb.2014.00176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Peixoto RS, Rosado PM, Leite DC de A, Rosado AS, Bourne DG. Beneficial microorganisms for corals (BMC): proposed mechanisms for coral health and resilience. Front Microbiol. 2017; 8: 341 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00341 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Weis VM, Davy SK, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Rodriguez-Lanetty M, Pringle JR. Cell biology in model systems as the key to understanding corals. Trends Ecol Evol. 2008; 23: 369–376. 10.1016/j.tree.2008.03.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Weber M, Medina M. The role of microalgal symbionts (Symbiodinium) inholobiont physiology. In: Piganeau G, editor. Genomic Insights Into The Biology of Algaelogy of Algae. 2012; 119–140. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Blackall LL, Wilson B, Van Oppen MJH. Coral—the world’s most diverse symbiotic ecosystem. Mol Ecol. 2015; 24: 5330–5347. 10.1111/mec.13400 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rosenberg E, Kushmaro A, Kramarsky-Winter E, Banin E, Yossi L. The role of microorganisms in coral bleaching. ISME J. 2008; 3: 139–146. 10.1038/ismej.2008.104 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sweet MJ, Bulling MT. On the importance of the microbiome and pathobiome in coral health and disease. Front Mar Sci. 2017; 4: 9. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Hester ER, Barott KL, Nulton J, Vermeij MJA, Rohwer FL. Stable and sporadic symbiotic communities of coral and algal holobionts. ISME J. 2015; 10: 1157–1169. 10.1038/ismej.2015.190 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Teplitski M., Krediet C. J., Meyer J. L. & Ritchie K. B. Microbial interactions on coral surfaces and within the coral holobiont BT In: Goffredo S, Dubinsky Z, editors. The Cnidaria, Past, Present and Future: The World of Medusa and Her Sisters. Springer International Publishing; 2016; 331–346. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Hernandez-Agreda A, Gates RD, Ainsworth TD. Defining the core microbiome in corals’ microbial soup. Trends Microbiol. 2017; 25: 125–140. 10.1016/j.tim.2016.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.van de Water JAJM, Allemand D, Ferrier-Pagès C. Host-microbe interactions in octocoral holobionts—recent advances and perspectives. Microbiome. 2018; 6: 64 10.1186/s40168-018-0431-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Leah R, Omry K, Yossi L, Ilana ZR, Eugene R. The coral probiotic hypothesis. Environ Microbiol. 2006; 8: 2068–2073. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2006.01148.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Rädecker N, Pogoreutz C, Voolstra CR, Wiedenmann J, Wild C. Nitrogen cycling in corals: the key to understanding holobiont functioning? Trends Microbiol. 2015; 23: 490–497. 10.1016/j.tim.2015.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kvennefors ECE, Sampayo E, Kerr C, Vieira G, Roff G, Barnes AC. Regulation of bacterial communities through antimicrobial activity by the coral holobiont. Microb Ecol. 2012; 63: 605–618. 10.1007/s00248-011-9946-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kitamura M, Koyama T, Nakano Y, Uemura D. Characterization of a natural inducer of coral larval metamorphosis. J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 2007; 340: 96–102. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Tebben J, Motti CA, Siboni N, Tapiolas DM, Negri AP, Schupp PJ, et al. Chemical mediation of coral larval settlement by crustose coralline algae. Sci Rep. 2015; 5: 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Benayahu Y, Loya Y. Substratum preferences and planulae settling of two red sea alcyonaceans: Xenia macrospiculata Gohar and Parerythropodium fulvum fulvum (Forskl). J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 1984; 83: 249–260 [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Negri AP, Webster NS, Hill RT, Heyward AJ. Metamorphosis of broadcast spawning corals in response to bacteria isolated from crustose algae. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2001; 223: 121–131. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tebben J, Tapiolas DM, Motti CA, Abrego D, Negri AP, Blackall LL, et al. Induction of larval metamorphosis of the coral Acropora millepora by tetrabromopyrrole isolated from a Pseudoalteromonas bacterium. PLoS One. 2011; 6: e19082 10.1371/journal.pone.0019082 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ritson-Williams R, Paul VJ, Arnold SN, Steneck RS. Larval settlement preferences and post-settlement survival of the threatened Caribbean corals Acropora palmata and A. cervicornis. Coral Reefs. 2010; 29: 71–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Webster NS, Smith LD, Heyward AJ, Watts JE, Webb RI, Blackall LL, et al. Metamorphosis of a Scleractinian Coral in Response to Microbial Biofilms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004; 70: 1213–1221. 10.1128/AEM.70.2.1213-1221.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Unabia CRC, Hadfield MG Role of bacteria in larval settlement and metamorphosis of the polychaete Hydroides elegans. Mar Biol. 1999; 133: 55–64. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Karen T, Jon H. Investigating a possible role for the bacterial signal molecules N-acylhomoserine lactones in Balanus improvisus cyprid settlement. Mol Ecol. 2013; 22: 2588–2602. 10.1111/mec.12273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Ben-David-Zaslow R, Benayahu Y. Competence and longevity in planulae of several soft corals. Mar. Ecol. Ser. 1998; 171: 235–243. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hadfield MG. Biofilms and marine invertebrate larvae: what bacteria produce that larvae use to choose settlement sites. Ann Rev Mar Sci. 011; 3: 453–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Freckelton ML, Nedved BT, Hadfield MG. Induction of invertebrate larval settlement; different bacteria, different mechanisms? Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 42557 10.1038/srep42557 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Hadfield M. & Paul V. Natural Chemical Cues for Settlement and Metamorphosis of Marine-Invertebrate Larvae. In: McClinctock JB, Baker BJ. Marine Chemical Ecology. 2001; 431–461. [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Rohwer F, Breitbart M, Jara J, Azam F, Knowlton N. Diversity of bacteria associated with the Caribbean coral Montastraea franksi. Coral Reefs 2001; 20: 85–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ceh J, Raina JB, Soo RM, van Keulen M, Bourne DG. Coral-bacterial communities before and after a coral mass spawning event on Ningaloo Reef. PLoS One. 2012; 7: e36920 10.1371/journal.pone.0036920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Sharp KH, Distel D, Paul VJ. Diversity and dynamics of bacterial communities in early life stages of the Caribbean coral Porites astreoides. ISME J. 2012, 6: 790–801. 10.1038/ismej.2011.144 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ceh J, van Keulen M, Bourne DG. Intergenerational transfer of specific bacteria in corals and possible implications for offspring fitness. Microb Ecol. 2013; 65: 227–231. 10.1007/s00248-012-0105-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Apprill A, Marlow HQ, Martindale MQ, Rappé MS. The onset of microbial associations in the coral Pocillopora meandrina. ISME J. 2009; 3: 685 10.1038/ismej.2009.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Leite DCA, Leao P, Garrido AG, Lins U, Santos HF, Pires DO, et al. Broadcast spawning coral Mussismilia hispida can vertically transfer its associated bacterial core. Front Microbiol. 2017; 8: 176 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Sharp KH, Ritchie KB, Schupp PJ, Ritson-Williams R, Paul VJ. Bacterial acquisition in juveniles of several broadcast spawning coral species. PLoS One. 2010; 5: e10898 10.1371/journal.pone.0010898 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Slattery M, Hines GA, Starmer J, Paul VJ. Chemical signals in gametogenesis, spawning, and larval settlement and defense of the soft coral Sinularia polydactyla. Coral Reefs. 1999; 18: 75–84. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Benayahu Y, Loya Y. Surface brooding in the Red Sea soft coral Parerythropodium fulvum fulvum (FORSKÅL, 1775). Biol Bull. 1983; 165: 353–369. 10.2307/1541201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Tait K, Joint I, Daykin M, Milton DL, Williams P, Cámara M. Disruption of quorum sensing in seawater abolishes attraction of zoospores of the green alga Ulva to bacterial biofilms. Environ Microbiol. 2005; 7: 229–240. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2004.00706.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Mühling M, Woolven-Allen J, Murrell JC, Joint I. Improved group-specific PCR primers for denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis of the genetic diversity of complex microbial communities. ISME J. 2008; 2: 379 10.1038/ismej.2007.97 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Twigg MS, Tait K, Williams P, Atkinson S, Cámara M. Interference with the germination and growth of Ulva zoospores by quorum-sensing molecules from Ulva-associated epiphytic bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2014; 16: 445–453. 10.1111/1462-2920.12203 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Zeileis A, Wiel MA van de, Hornik K, Hothorn T. Implementing a class of permutation tests: the coin package. J. Stat. Softw. 2008; 28 10.18637/jss.v028.i07 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tran C, Hadfield MG Larvae of Pocillopora damicornis (Anthozoa) settle and metamorphose in response to surface-biofilm bacteria. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 2011; 433: 85–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Sneed JM, Sharp KH, Ritchie KB, Paul VJ. The chemical cue tetrabromopyrrole from a biofilm bacterium induces settlement of multiple Caribbean corals. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2014; 281: 20133086. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Huang YL, Ki JS, Lee OO, Qian PY. Evidence for the dynamics of Acyl homoserine lactone and AHL-producing bacteria during subtidal biofilm formation. ISME J. 2008; 3: 296–304. 10.1038/ismej.2008.105 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Kelman D, Kushmaro A, Loya Y, Kashman Y, Benayahu Y. Antimicrobial activity of a Red Sea soft coral, Parerythropodium fulvum fulvum: Reproductive and developmental considerations. Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 1998; 169: 87–95. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Mundy CN, Babcock RC. Role of light intensity and spectral quality in coral settlement: Implications for depth-dependent settlement? J Exp Mar Bio Ecol. 1998, 223: 235–255. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Vermeij MJA, Smith JE, Smith CM, Vega Thurber R, Sandin SA. Survival and settlement success of coral planulae: independent and synergistic effects of macroalgae and microbes. Oecologia. 2009; 159: 325–336. 10.1007/s00442-008-1223-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Tinh NT, Asanka Gunasekara RA, Boon N, Dierckens K, Sorgeloos P, Bossier P. N-acyl homoserine lactone-degrading microbial enrichment cultures isolated from Penaeus vannamei shrimp gut and their probiotic properties in Brachionus plicatilis cultures. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2007; 62: 45–53. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2007.00378.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Shnit-Orland M, Kushmaro A. Coral mucus-associated bacteria: a possible first line of defense. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2009, 67: 371–380. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00644.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Lemos ML, Dopazo CP, Toranzo A, Barja JL. Competitive dominance of antibiotic-producing marine bacteria in mixed cultures. J Appl Bacteriol. 1991; 71: 228–232. 10.1111/j.1365-2672.1991.tb04452.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hector Escriva

26 Jul 2019

PONE-D-19-17240

The effect of bacteria on settlement and metamorphosis in planula-larvae of the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum

PLOS ONE

Dear Prof Otero,

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.

As you can see both reviewers ask for some minor changes and correction, so please modify your manuscript according to these comments and resubmit it

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Sep 09 2019 11:59PM. When you are 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.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

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

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Hector Escriva, PhD

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

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional location information of the collection sites, including geographic coordinates for the data set if available.

3. 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.

4. Thank you for stating that “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript” in your financial disclosure.

Please also provide the name of the funders of this study (as well as grant numbers if available) in your financial disclosure statement.

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

5. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

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

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

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: No

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #2: 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: 1. While I wouldn't ask for repeat of these experiments, given the challenges of working with coral larvae, I'm a little concerned with the conclusions regarding vertical transmission of bacteria from the parental colony. While a previous publication of a co-author does show the inhibitory effects of settlement from the addition of antibiotics, given the annual variation in larvae, there's insufficient evidence to preclude the effects of settlement and metamorphosis resulting from vertically transmitted microbes.

2. While I believe the Mann-whitney test is appropriate for these data, please provide cutoffs in text and in the figures. There's often mention of significance, but statistical values are missing. And although there does appear to be some trends, values are necessary.

3. Please provide values for the statistics on figures, in text, and figure descriptions.

4. Grammatical suggestions, as well as specific points addressed above are provided by line.

Line 45: remove "a" before substantial

Line 46: There are several sentences within the first paragraph (including this line) that are rather long (run-on). Perhaps the paper will read better by separating the sentence? Another instance is Line 58/59.

Line 177: Perhaps it's beneficial to the reader to write out what BCCM/LMG stands for?

Line 184: Please clarify what is being exchange here. I understood it to be bacterial containing seawater, but are filtered fractions from the same batch used for all exchanges over the study period and stored? Or is it a new batch of water from the same source, which is filtered prior to the exchange?

Line 192: insert "of" between "comprised" and "coccoid"

Line 202: missing "the" before "data"

Line 208: remaining --> remainder

Line 225: Please indicate the statistical cut-off of significance. Figure S1 also lacks information regarding the cut-off. Also, what exactly is this line referring to? It seems all larvae died by day 12, regardless of the light condition, although those in light:dark cycle at a greater rate.

Line 230: Please provide the statistics. Were there any statistically significant differences in survival rates for data presented in Figure 2?

Line 238: Why is the advanced stage for Figure 3 not categorized as short and long tentacles? Please provide this data. Additionally, please provide statistics for figure 3.

Line 241: rate --> rates

Line 241: could be --> were

Line 241: It'd be great to have some values provided for this statement regarding survival, as in, what percentage did survive under stagnant conditions?

Line 264: This paragraph refers to light:dark but it's unclear until I read line 314 that light:dark in this section is referring to un-autoclaved SW. Please make this more clear.

Line 273: Is this line referring to figure 5?

Line 285/286: I don't see this is figure 4. Perhaps I should read it as "by" day 35? On day 35 for 2.7 uM-dark, metamorphosis is below 70%.

Line 293: Please provide statistics.

Line 330: Are there any statistics for this?

Given the complexity of the microbiome of the seawater, perhaps some of the observed effects of the fractions were due to competitive interactions between microbes within the seawater resulting in exclusion of pathogens. Therefore, while no "beneficial" bacteria directly interacted with the larvae, pathogenic/harmful bacteria were also prevented from affecting the larvae.

Line 348: insert "of" before 80-90%

Line 349: Is this line referring to Figure S4?

Line 352: remove "the" before "larval ..."

Line 353: I believe this is referring to Figure S5?

Line 356: insert space after "...P14)"

Line 359: Please provide method in more detail, preferably in methods section.

- What does this mean?

Line 361: Planule --> planulae

Line 349 - 351: Is this reduction in metamorphosis significant? Also, it seems that although more larvae do achieve the early metamorphosis stage in unchanged water, those under exchanged water conditions achieved advance metamorphosis. Can it really be considered retardation if some larvae are capable of reversion? Also, is the statement in line 352 contradictory to that in line 349-351?

Line 365: Insert "uM" after 0.22

Line 396: I think either "unraveling" or "revealing" was meant to be used here, rather than "unrevealing"

Line 407: As mentioned in the beginning, there's no evidence on what bacteria are vertically transmitted or horizontally acquired. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss acquisition, but rather potential interactions

Line 449: It would have been nice to have a negative control in which larvae were maintained with antibiotics.

Line 450: It's oogenesis and not embryogenesis?

Line 501: There seems to be some information missing after "addition of ..."

The authors investigated seawater filtered through various pore sizes on larval survival and settlement/metamorphosis in order to determine if microbes can have a beneficial role. The authors found survival rates and settlement/metamorphosis of larvae to be partially increased in some instances by the presence of microbes. It's somewhat unclear whether the claims made in the discussion regarding the benefits of particular bacterial species are real. However, there are interesting findings that could certainly provide avenues for further exploration.

Additional questions I had were whether the metamorphic stage of the polyp is a good indication of timing of initiation. Does development to the long tentacle stage occur at the same rate, or can some polyps remain at a short tentacle stage for longer periods?

Reviewer #2: In this manuscript, Freire et al. investigate the effect of bacteria on larval settlement and metamorphosis of the soft coral species Rhytisma fulvum fulvum sampled from the Red Sea. Using an in vitro cultivation system, they assess survival, settlement and metamorphosis performances of wild caught planulae, comparing different types of filtered, autoclaved and bacteria-enriched seawater. This study provides interesting data on octocoral larval settlement, for which little is known. I would suggest few changes in the representation and interpretation of data before publishing the manuscript.

1) In the Material and Method section, the Authors write: “Since data did not fulfill the conditions of normality and homoscedasticity, and could not be improved by transformation, they were analyzed using the non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test” (line 202). In all graphs, however, spread of data is represented using the mean and standard deviation, generally a bad representation for non-normally distributed data, since they can be strongly affected by extreme values. A more appropriate alternative would be to use median and interquartile range as a measure of dispersion. If mean and standard deviation are to be kept, it should be demonstrated why they provide a good representation of the analyzed data.

2) One of the main conclusions of this study is that vertically inherited bacteria (acquired during the brooding period) are sufficient to induce settlement. This is based on the observation that wild-caught planulae put into sterile (autoclaved) water can still settle and metamorphose, while previous reports showed that planulae put in seawater containing antibiotics do not (Ben-David-Zaslow and Benayahu 1998). From this, the Authors conclude that “vertical transfer of the bacteria to the larvae during oogenesis is sufficient to support larval settlement and development in R. f. fulvum” (line 450). While the Authors are likely correct in their conclusions, experimental data proving this claim are still missing, and it is still possible that environmental bacteria acquired during the course of the experiments were involved in larval settlement. A key control would be to place the planulae first in autoclaved-seawater containing antibiotics and then to replace the medium with autoclaved-seawater, expecting that those planulae would never settle and metamorphose, contrary to those that have not been treated with antibiotics. Considering the difficulty in obtaining new biological material of this species I would not suggest the Authors to perform new experiments. Instead, I would suggest the Authors to be more cautious in the Abstract and Discussion.

3) The Authors make the interesting observation that planulae maintained in constant darkness have initially a higher chance to settle but then lower chance to complete metamorphosis, compared to planulae under a day-night cycle. They conclude that “Light is beneficial for planulae development after day 20 […] indicating the possible presence of beneficial phototrophic bacteria in the coral microbiome” (line 36). However the Authors do not provide any proof for the presence of those phototrophic bacteria and their role in this process. I think the Authors should be more cautious and discuss alternative scenarios – in particular the possibility that the metamorphosing planulae themselves positively respond to light. Many types of photosensitive cells have indeed been described in cnidarians, including at the planula stage in some species.

4) A few typos can be found throughout the text. Few examples (please correct):

Line 27 “in the absence nature reef substrata”

Line 129 “the resultis indicate”

Line 135 “(Forskål 1975)”

I would also suggest changing the title to: “The effect of bacteria on larval settlement and metamorphosis in the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum”.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: 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 to be viewed.]

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 us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2019 Sep 30;14(9):e0223214. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0223214.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


2 Sep 2019

We are enclosing below specific answers to the referee’s queries.

This is a summary of main changes:

1. The title has been changed according to the reviewers’ suggestions.

2. We have included information regarding collections sites and permits obtained to collect the coral planulae.

3. Following the referees suggestions we have included two new figures in the Supplementary materials, showing the results of the experiments of larvae settlement on plastic and glass plates (2S Fig) and the survival results of experiment performed in 2015 without water exchange (3S Fig). These results were previously quoted as “data not shown” in the manuscript.

4. We have re-dimensioned our claims regarding the effect of specific bacteria in the abstract and discussion.

Referee 1.

We are extremely grateful for the detailed review of the text. We have corrected all the typing and grammar mistakes listed by the referee and provide detailed answers to the referee’s queries below. We fully agree with the referee in that the data presented in the manuscript require further experimentation, including the addition of antibiotics and metagenomic analysis of the larvae in order to allow the achievement of clear conclusions regarding vertical transmission of bacteria. We think that the establishment of this simple culture system will allow carrying out much deeper investigations in the future in this field. We have re-dimensioned our claims regarding vertical transmission of bacteria in the abstract and text. All minor amendments have been done as suggested.

Query: While I believe the Mann-Whitney test is appropriate for these data, please provide cut-offs in text and in the figures. There's often mention of significance, but statistical values are missing. And although there does appear to be some trends, values are necessary. Please provide values for the statistics on figures, in text, and figure descriptions

Answer: We have included the results of the statistical analysis in the text as requested. Due to the high deviations in some of the experiments and the limited number of replicates, many of the observed differences were not statistically significant. The need for a higher number of replicates for this type of experiments was already stated in the last sentence of the first manuscript and we have included an additional comment in this new version (lines 488-491). The limitations in the availability of planula larvae are a problem for cultivation experiments. This new cultivation methodology will allow the establishment of a high number of replicates with a low requirement of coral larvae.

Query: Why is the advanced stage for Figure 3 not categorized as short and long tentacles? Please provide this data. Additionally, please provide statistics for figure 3.

Answer: In the first experiment carried out in 2014 the larvae were divided only in 3 categories. The advanced metamorphosis stage comprises both, short and long tentacles. This fact is explained in the legend of the figure. Unfortunately, no replicates are available for morphology measurements, since in this experiment planulae were pooled together for morphological determination. Therefore, no statistics can be applied to the data represented in Figure 3.

Query: Line 241: It'd be great to have some values provided for this statement regarding survival, as in, what percentage did survive under stagnant conditions?

Answer: We have included a new figure in the Supplementary materials (S3 Fig) that shows the survival under stagnant conditions obtained in the same experiment shown in Fig. 2. We have also included a new figure that shows the results obtained with plastic and glass plates (S2 Fig).

Query: Line 264: This paragraph refers to light:dark but it's unclear until I read line 314 that light:dark in this section is referring to un-autoclaved SW. Please make this more clear.

Answer. We have re-phrased the paragraph. We hope it is clearer now.

Query: Line 285/286: I don't see this is figure 4. Perhaps I should read it as "by" day 35? On day 35 for 2.7 uM-dark, metamorphosis is below 70%.

Answer: Indeed, there was a mistake in the numbers reported in the text. We have amended it.

Query: Given the complexity of the microbiome of the seawater, perhaps some of the observed effects of the fractions were due to competitive interactions between microbes within the seawater resulting in exclusion of pathogens. Therefore, while no "beneficial" bacteria directly interacted with the larvae, pathogenic/harmful bacteria were also prevented from affecting the larvae.

Answer: Indeed, the observed effects may derive from different interactions in the microbial population: competitive exclusion, probiotic effect or improvement of water quality. As suggested, we have made a more detailed mention of these possibilities in lines 493-496. One of the interesting additions of the work is that the establishment of this experimental system will allow the analysis of changes in the microbial component of the holobiont in future experiments using a very limited number of larvae.

Query: Line 359: Please provide method in more detail, preferably in methods section.

Answer: We have included a more detailed description of this experiment in the methods section.

Query:Line 349 - 351: Is this reduction in metamorphosis significant? Also, it seems that although more larvae do achieve the early metamorphosis stage in unchanged water, those under exchanged water conditions achieved advance metamorphosis. Can it really be considered retardation if some larvae are capable of reversion? Also, is the statement in line 352 contradictory to that in line 349-351?

Answer: We have rephrased this paragraph. The effect of strains P9 and P1 on survival in stagnant cultures is clear and statistically significant (see S4 Fig and S5 Fig). Regarding the effect developmental stage, indeed, reversion is feasible and we have mentioned this in the discussion of the results obtained for the dark maintained cultures (Figure 4), in which the number of total metamorphosed larvae decreased from day 20. This regression is possible for the early metamorphosed stage. We have not observed a decrease in the number of advanced metamorphosed larvae in any of the experiments. Regarding the effect of A. macleodii and Ruegeria mobilis, please note that we do not have data for metamorphosis stages for the 2015 experiment (S5 Fig, former S3 Fig) but in the 2016 experiment, none of the larvae maintained without water exchange entered the advanced metamorphosis stage, but the percentage of attached larvae with A. macleodii P9 (93%) was clearly higher than in the control (40%).

Query: Line 407: As mentioned in the beginning, there's no evidence on what bacteria are vertically transmitted or horizontally acquired. I don't think it's appropriate to discuss acquisition, but rather potential interactions

Answer: We have rephrased this sentence. The need of additional experiments in order to elucidate the exact mechanisms and composition of the acquired microbiome is stated in lines 500-503, 535-537, 573-576 and in the abstract.

Query: Line 449: It would have been nice to have a negative control in which larvae were maintained with antibiotics.

Answer: We fully agree with the referee. Nevertheless, the effect of antibiotics on larvae of R. fulvum fulvum has been observed in several independent experiments in the past (Ben-David-Zaslow and Benayahu, 1998), and therefore we are quite confident on this fact.

Query: Additional questions I had were whether the metamorphic stage of the polyp is a good indication of timing of initiation. Does development to the long tentacle stage occur at the same rate, or can some polyps remain at a short tentacle stage for longer periods?

Answer: The evaluation of the developmental stage is tricky, mainly for the initial attachment stages, that can be reversible (see explanation above). It is not possible to follow the individual evolution of the larvae, but as shown for 2016 experiments (Figures 5 and 6), the progression of the number of long-tentacle larvae is continuous with time.

Reviewer #2:

In this manuscript, Freire et al. investigate the effect of bacteria on larval settlement and metamorphosis of the soft coral species Rhytisma fulvum fulvum sampled from the Red Sea. Using an in vitro cultivation system, they assess survival, settlement and metamorphosis performances of wild caught planulae, comparing different types of filtered, autoclaved and bacteria-enriched seawater. This study provides interesting data on octocoral larval settlement, for which little is known. I would suggest few changes in the representation and interpretation of data before publishing the manuscript.

Answer. We are grateful for the Reviewer’s comments. We are aware of the fact that additional experiments are required to confirm some of the findings. We think that the fact that we could obtain advanced metamorphosed polyps under such a controlled conditions constitute an interesting tool for future studies. Despite a higher number of replicates will be required in order to obtain statistically significant data, the small number of larvae required for the experiments in this new cultivation methodology is an additional advantage.

Query: 1) In the Material and Method section, the Authors write: “Since data did not fulfill the conditions of normality and homoscedasticity, and could not be improved by transformation, they were analyzed using the non-parametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test” (line 202). In all graphs, however, spread of data is represented using the mean and standard deviation, generally a bad representation for non-normally distributed data, since they can be strongly affected by extreme values. A more appropriate alternative would be to use median and interquartile range as a measure of dispersion. If mean and standard deviation are to be kept, it should be demonstrated why they provide a good representation of the analyzed data.

Answer. Indeed, for non-normally distributed data the suggested representation is more suitable, when the number of replicates is high. For measurements with only 3 replicates we think it is not useful. Indeed, more replicates are needed in this type of experiments in order to allow a more reliable statistical analysis. This new experimental system will surely provide a new tool to perform experiments on larval development with a higher number of replicates, despite the general limitation of the number of larvae that can be harvested for research purposes. For now, our main objective was to demonstrate that survival and acceptable development could be achieved in the system, and establishing the basic culture parameters for future experiments. The need for a higher number of replicates for this type of experiments was already stated in the last sentence of the first manuscript and we have included an additional comment in this new version (lines 488-491).

Query: 2) One of the main conclusions of this study is that vertically inherited bacteria (acquired during the brooding period) are sufficient to induce settlement. This is based on the observation that wild-caught planulae put into sterile (autoclaved) water can still settle and metamorphose, while previous reports showed that planulae put in seawater containing antibiotics do not (Ben-David-Zaslow and Benayahu 1998). From this, the Authors conclude that “vertical transfer of the bacteria to the larvae during oogenesis is sufficient to support larval settlement and development in R. f. fulvum” (line 450). While the Authors are likely correct in their conclusions, experimental data proving this claim are still missing, and it is still possible that environmental bacteria acquired during the course of the experiments were involved in larval settlement. A key control would be to place the planulae first in autoclaved-seawater containing antibiotics and then to replace the medium with autoclaved-seawater, expecting that those planulae would never settle and metamorphose, contrary to those that have not been treated with antibiotics. Considering the difficulty in obtaining new biological material of this species I would not suggest the Authors to perform new experiments. Instead, I would suggest the Authors to be more cautious in the Abstract and Discussion.

Answer: We fully agree with the referee in that additional experiments are required in order to elucidate the exact mechanisms of the establishment of the microbial component of the halobiont. As explained above, this fact is stated in lines 500-503, 535-537, 573-576 and in the abstract.

Query: 3) The Authors make the interesting observation that planulae maintained in constant darkness have initially a higher chance to settle but then lower chance to complete metamorphosis, compared to planulae under a day-night cycle. They conclude that “Light is beneficial for planulae development after day 20 […] indicating the possible presence of beneficial phototrophic bacteria in the coral microbiome” (line 36). However the Authors do not provide any proof for the presence of those phototrophic bacteria and their role in this process. I think the Authors should be more cautious and discuss alternative scenarios – in particular the possibility that the metamorphosing planulae themselves positively respond to light. Many types of photosensitive cells have indeed been described in cnidarians, including at the planula stage in some species.

Answer: Thank you for your comments. Although the differences in development observed between dark and L:D cultures are too high to indicate that light is acting just a “cue” for settlement (Figure 5), we fully agree in that additional experiments are required in order to confirm that the difference is due to the metabolic interactions with phototrophic symbiont bacteria. We have rephrased this section. A more detailed list of the different possible explanations for the increase in larval metamorphosis in the presence of light despite being devoid of the photosynthetic algal symbiont has been provided (lines 515-517).

Query: I would also suggest changing the title to: “The effect of bacteria on larval settlement and metamorphosis in the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum”.

Answer: We have changed the title as suggested.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Answers to the referees.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Hector Escriva

17 Sep 2019

The effect of bacteria on planula-larvae settlement and metamorphosis in the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum

PONE-D-19-17240R1

Dear Dr. Otero,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and 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.

With kind regards,

Hector Escriva, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #2: No

**********

5. 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

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. 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: The authors addressed the issues brought up by the reviewers. While they acknowledge the issues in replicate numbers, the previous interpretations of these data have been addressed. As the authors point out, these findings can inform future experiments and the manuscript should be accepted for publication.

Reviewer #2: The Authors have appropriately addressed all the reviewer comments.

Related to 4. - According to the PLOS Data policy, the data point values should be made available. I could not find this information in the files provided by the Authors despite their claim that "All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files."

**********

7. 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

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Hector Escriva

19 Sep 2019

PONE-D-19-17240R1

The effect of bacteria on planula-larvae settlement and metamorphosis in the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum

Dear Dr. Otero:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, 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.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Hector Escriva

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Survival of planulae the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum maintained with different filtered seawater (FSW) and autoclaved sea water (ASW).

    (DOCX)

    S2 Fig. Survival of planulae the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum maintained in plastic and glass plates and different filtered sea water (FSW) and autoclaved sea water (ASW).

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. Survival of planulae the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum maintained without water exchange with different filtered sea water (FSW) and autoclaved sea water (ASW).

    (DOCX)

    S4 Fig. Survival rates of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum planulae in the presence of different native bacteria in cultures without water exchange.

    (DOCX)

    S5 Fig. Survival rates of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum planulae in the presence of different native bacteria in cultures without water exchange.

    (DOCX)

    S6 Fig. Influence of four native bacteria on the survival and development of planula larvae of the octocoral Rhytisma fulvum fulvum in cultures with and without water exchange.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Identification of native bacteria isolated from superficial seawater in the Red Sea coral reef seawater tested on the planula larvae cultures of Rhytisma fulvum fulvum.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answers to the referees.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES