Whole-body regeneration and polarity repatterning in polyps of Xenia umbellata (Octocorallia)


Abstract

Cnidarians are renowned for their regenerative abilities, up to extreme whole-body regeneration (WBR), which supports recovery from disturbances and contributes to their ecological success. However, most mechanistic insight into morphogenesis and polarity in WBR still derives from cnidarian solitary polyp models. As such, WBR and polarity repatterning in polyps of colonial cnidarians, especially octocorals, is largely understudied. The pulsating zooxanthellate octocoral Xenia umbellata is increasingly recognized for its ecological resilience and invasive potential, with regenerative abilities that may contribute to its spreading success. Here, we experimentally evaluated regeneration from miniature fragments of both tentacles and polyp bodies and assessed polarity repatterning following double amputation of polyps, removing both oral and basal structures. We show that X. umbellata exhibits extreme WBR, regenerating complete polyps from fragments as small as ~0.1 mm². Regeneration from both polyp parts proceeded through a conserved sequence of stages, including tissue ball formation, ultimately producing fully functional polyps. Early regeneration dynamics differed between fragment types: tentacle-derived fragments required structural reorganization, including the initial elimination of differentiated tentacle structural features and de novo mesentery formation, whereas polyp body fragments retained their internal architecture and regenerated more rapidly. Fragment size had only a limited effect on regeneration success and rate of both polyp parts. All successful regeneration led to pulsating polyps with oral disc diameters 5-10% the size of original polyps. In contrast to solitary cnidarians, over 60% of double-amputated X. umbellata polyps regenerated two oral discs. However, non-synchronized timing of oral disc formation and biased placement of attachment discs revealed partial retention of original positional information despite loss of axial landmarks. Together, these findings suggest that regeneration in X. umbellata combines internal polarity cues with additional colony-level patterning processes absent from solitary models. The findings expand the comparative framework of cnidarian regeneration and further establish X. umbellata as a powerful model for studying WBR, polarity, and coloniality in cnidarians.
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].