Scuticociliate detection and microbiome composition in museum collections of Diadema antillarum


Abstract

Background. The mass mortality of the long-spined sea urchin Diadema antillarum has caused widespread ecological changes across Caribbean reefs, with recent studies identifying the etiological agent as pathogenic ciliate designated as a D. antillarum Scuticociliatosis Philaster-clade (DaScPc). The origin and ecological trajectory of DaScPc remain unresolved, raising critical questions about whether it represents a novel introduction or a resident commensal symbiont that transitioned into pathogenicity.
Methods. To address this, we tested 50 individual preserved museum specimens of D. antillarum collected between 1960 and 2020, with targeted PCR amplification of ciliate 18S, 28S, and 5.8S/ITS rRNA genes for spine, body wall, and coelomic fluid samples (n=100). Following up on recent work that identified bacterial biomarkers of DaSc, we also characterized the microbial communities associated with these museum specimens using 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing.
Results. Our results reveal the presence of identical DaScPc 18S rRNA sequences in 21% of tested samples, 28S rRNA PCR yielded sequences at 96-98 % nt identity in only 2% of the tested samples, and we got no amplification from the 5.8S/ITS region. While these findings suggest possible long-term persistence or repeated emergence of this ciliate, the lack of 28S rRNA matches and lack of detection of ITS2 demonstrates that DaScPc 18S rRNA gene detections may be false positives for the ciliate over a highly conserved rRNA region. The microbial composition of the samples didn’t yield any of the previously identified disease-associated bacterial biomarkers and showed large shifts in the overall microbial community based on collection period and the facility where the samples are housed. This study demonstrates that museum-preserved echinoderm tissues retain ecologically informative microbial DNA and establishes a molecular framework for disentangling pathogen provenance and its caveats. It also highlights the value and limitations of natural history collections in reconstructing marine disease ecology.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].