Bading, Katharina Tissy; Kaehlert, Sarah; Chi, Xupeng; Jaspers, Cornelia; Martindale, Mark Q; Javidpour, Jamileh (2017): Regeneration of Mnemiopsis leidyi under different food quantities. PANGAEA, https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.874073, Supplement to: Bading, KT et al. (2017): Food availability drives plastic self-repair response in a basal metazoan- case study on the ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi A. Agassiz 1865. Scientific Reports, 7(1), https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16346-w
Always quote citation above when using data! You can download the citation in several formats below.
Many marine invertebrates including ctenophores are capable of extensive body regeneration when injured. However, as for the invasive ctenophore Mnemiopsis leidyi, there is a constant subportion of individuals not undergoing whole body regeneration but forming functionally stable half-animals instead. Yet, the driving factors of this phenomenon have not been addressed so far. This study sheds new light on how differences in food availability affect self-repair choice and regeneration success in cydippid larvae of M. leidyi. As expected, high food availability favored whole-body regeneration. However, under low food conditions half-animals became the preferential self-repair mode. Remarkably, both regenerating and half-animals showed very similar survival chances under respective food quantities. As a consequence of impaired food uptake after injury, degeneration of the digestive system would often occur indicating limited energy storage capacities. Taken together, this indicates that half-animals may represent an alternative energy-saving trajectory which implies self-repair plasticity as an adaptive trade-off between high regeneration costs and low energy storage capacities. We conclude that self-repair plasticity could lead to higher population fitness of ctenophores under adverse conditions such as in ships' ballast water tanks which is postulated to be the major vector source for the species' spreading around the globe.
Data on health status of uncut larvae (group 1 and group 3) limited because they were assessed by different inspector.
|#||Name||Short Name||Unit||Principal Investigator||Method/Device||Comment|
|2||Experiment day||Exp day||day||Javidpour, Jamileh||Day 0=prior cutting; Days 2,4,6,8,10=after cutting|
|3||Group||Group||Javidpour, Jamileh||Treatment group|
|6||Treatment: food||T:food||Javidpour, Jamileh||food level|
|8||Status||Status||Javidpour, Jamileh||current survival status (0=dead, 1=alive, NA=not assessable due to accidental loss)|
|9||Score||Score||Javidpour, Jamileh||Health score: health status of sample 3=looking healthy and normal, 2=superficial infection (holes)/weak, 1=strong physical defects,desintegrating|
|10||Size||Size||µm||Javidpour, Jamileh||oral-aboral length|
|11||Size||Size||µm||Javidpour, Jamileh||size before cutting|
|12||Size||Size||µm||Javidpour, Jamileh||size 2 days after cutting|
|13||Food||Food||Javidpour, Jamileh||prey visible in gut or gastrular system (0=not present, 1=present)|
|14||Score||Score||Javidpour, Jamileh||body score, time-dependent variable, overall body score calculated as sum from tissue scores of statocyst, comb rows, tentacle bulb, tentacle, max. 14.3 if all tissue were regenerated to original size|
|15||Score||Score||Javidpour, Jamileh||max score, maximum body score observed during experiment|
|16||Recovery Mode||Recov mode||Javidpour, Jamileh||regeneration event ocurred or not: 0=no regeneration or failed attempt (half animals), 1=regeneration observed, NA=could not be assessed due to early death|
10152 data points