Journal of Molecular Evolution

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 209–218 | Cite as

Crypthecodinium and Tetrahymena: An exercise in comparative evolution

  • R. -M. Preparata
  • C. A. Beam
  • M. Himes
  • D. L. Nanney
  • E. B. Meyer
  • E. M. Simon


Nucleotide sequences have been determined for the highly variable D2 region of the large rRNA molecule for over 60 strains of dinoflagellates. These strains were selected from a worldwide collection that represents all the known sibling species (compatibility groups, Mendelian species) in the sibling swarm referred to as Crypthecodinium cohnii. A phylogenetic tree has been constructed from an analysis of the variations in a length of about 180 bases, using PHYLOGEN string analysis programs. The Crypthecodinium tree is compared with the previously published but here augmented tree constructed upon the same rRNA region for the sibling species of a worldwide collection of ciliated protozoa related to the genus Tetrahymena. The first reported sequence of Lambornella clarki, the parasite of tree-hole mosquitoes, is included.

The dinoflagellate species complex is much more homogeneous with respect to ribosomal variation. The mean number of differences among sequences from different Crypthecodinium species is about 7, in comparison with 22 differences among the ciliate species examined. Moreover, all the diversity in the dinoflagellates can be explained by base substitutions, whereas insertions and deletions are common in the ciliates. The dinoflagellates are also much more uniform with respect to nutritional and genetic economies.

The two complexes differ also in the relationship between molecular variations and breeding compatibility. All tetrahymenine sibling species thus far examined are monomorphic in the D2 region, but several dinoflagellate species are polymorphic. Several different dinoflagellate species, moreover, have identical D2 regions. This kind of ribosomal identity of incompatible strains is found in these ciliates only in one tight cluster of species—Group C.

The tetrahymenine swarm is apparently much older than the Crypthecodinium swarm, and the dinoflagellate species produce incompatible progeny species much more readily than do the ciliates, perhaps by the acquisition of mutations that potentiate incompatibility in sympatric populations.

Key words

Dinoflagellate Ciliated protozoa Ribosomal RNA String analysis Crypthecodinium Tetrahymena Glaucoma Colpidium Lambornella 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baroin A, Perasso R, Qu L-H, Brugerolle G, Bachellerie J-P, Adoutte A (1988) Partial phylogeny of the unicellular eukaryotes based on the 28S ribosomal RNA. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:3474–3479Google Scholar
  2. Beam CA, Himes M (1977) Sexual isolation and genetic diversification among some strains of Crypthecodinium cohnii-like dinollagellates. Evidence of speciation. J Protozool 24: 532–539Google Scholar
  3. Beam CA, Himes M (1982) Distribution of members of the Crypthecodinium cohnii (Dinophyceae) species complex. J Protozool 29:8–15Google Scholar
  4. Beam CA, Himes M (1987) Electrophoretic characterization of members of the Crypthecodinium cohnii (Dinophyceae) species complex. J Protozool 34:204–217Google Scholar
  5. Corliss JO, Coats DW (1976) A new cuticular tetrahymenid ciliate, Lambornella clarki n.sp. and the current status of ciliatosis in culicine mosquitoes. Trans Am Microsc Soc 95: 735–739Google Scholar
  6. Corliss JO, Daggett PM (1984) Paramecium aurelia and Tetrahymena pyriformis: current status of the taxonomy and nomenclature of these popularly known and widely used ciliates. Protistologica 19:307–322Google Scholar
  7. Egerter DE, Anderson JR, Washburn JO (1986) Dispersal of the parasitic ciliate Lambornella clarki: implications for ciliates in the biological control of mosquitoes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:1735–1739Google Scholar
  8. Erdmann VA, Wolters J (1988) Collection of published 5S, 5.8S and 4.5S ribosomal RNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res [Suppl] 16:r1-r70Google Scholar
  9. Fitch WM, Margoliash E (1967) The construction of phylogenetic trees. Science 155:279–284Google Scholar
  10. Gold K, Baron CF (1966) Growth requirements of Gyrodinium cohnii. J Protozool 13:255–257Google Scholar
  11. Gruchy DF (1955) The breeding system and distribution of Tetrahymena pyriformis. J Protozool 2:178–185Google Scholar
  12. Herzog M, Maroteaux L (1986) Dinoflagellate 17S rRNA sequence inferred from gene sequence: evolutionary implications. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 83:8644–8648Google Scholar
  13. Hinnebusch AG, Klotz LC, Blanken RL, Loeblich AR III (1981) An evaluation of the phylogenetic position of the dinoflagellate Crypthecodinium cohnii based on 5S rRNA characterization. J Mol Evol 17:334–347Google Scholar
  14. Lane DJ, Pace B, Olsen GJ, Stahl DA, Sogin ML, Pace NR (1985) Rapid determination of 16S ribosomal sequences for phylogenetic analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82:6955–6959Google Scholar
  15. Lenaers G, Nielsen H, Engberg J, Herzog M (1988) The secondary structure of large-subunit rRNA divergent domains, a marker for protist evolution. Biosystems 21:215–222Google Scholar
  16. Lenaers G, Maroteaux L, Michot B, Herzog M (1989) Dinoflagellates in evolution. A molecular phylogenetic analysis of large subunit ribosomal RNA. J Mol Evol 29:40–51Google Scholar
  17. Meyer EB, Nanney DL (1987) Isozymes in the ciliated protozoan Tetrahymena. Alan R. Liss, New York (Isozymes: current topics in biological and medical research 13:61–101)Google Scholar
  18. Nanney DL (1989) What can molecules tell us about evolution? Boll Zool 56:205–221Google Scholar
  19. Nanney DL, McCoy JW (1976) Characterization of the species of the Tetrahymena pyriformis complex. Trans Am Microsc Soc 95:664–682Google Scholar
  20. Nanney DL, Preparata R-M, Preparata FP, Meyer EB, Simon EM (1989) Shifting ditypic site analysis: heuristics for extending the phylogenetic range of sequences in Sankoff analysis. J Mol Evol 28:451–459Google Scholar
  21. Nanney DL, Mobley DO, Preparata R-M, Meyer EB, Simon EM (1991) Eukaryotic origins: string analysis of 5S ribosomal RNA sequences from some relevant organisms. J Mol Evol 32:316–327Google Scholar
  22. Preparata R-M, Meyer EB, Preparata FP, Simon EM, Vossbrinck CR, Nanney DL (1989) Ciliate evolution: the ribosomal phylogenies of the tetrahymenine ciliates. J Mol Evol 28:427–441Google Scholar
  23. Qu L-H, Michot B, Bachellerie J-P (1983) Improved methods for structure probing in large RNAs: a rapid ‘heterologous’ approach is coupled to the direct mapping of nuclease accessible sites. Application to the 5′ terminal domain of eukaryotic 28S rRNA. Nucleic Acids Res 11:5903–5920Google Scholar
  24. Sankoff D, Kruskal JB (eds) (1983) Time warps, string edits and macromolecules: the theory and practice of sequence comparisons.Addison-Wesley, Reading MAGoogle Scholar
  25. Sogin ML, Ingold A, Karlok M, Nielsen H, Engberg J (1987) Phylogenetic evidence for the acquisition of ribosomal RNA introns subsequent to the divergence of the major Tetrahymena groups. EMBO J 5:3625–3630Google Scholar
  26. Washburn JO, Gross ME, Mercer DR, Anderson JR (1988) Predator-induced trophic shift of a free-living ciliate: parasitism of mosquito larvae by their prey. Science 240:1193–1195Google Scholar
  27. Woese CR, Fox GE (1977) Phylogenetic structure of the prokaryotic domain: the primary kingdoms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74:5088–5090Google Scholar
  28. Zuckerkandl E, Pauling L (1965) Molecules as documents of evolutionary history. J Theor Biol 8:357–366Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. -M. Preparata
    • 1
  • C. A. Beam
    • 2
  • M. Himes
    • 2
  • D. L. Nanney
    • 1
  • E. B. Meyer
    • 1
  • E. M. Simon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ecology, Ethology and EvolutionUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA
  2. 2.Biology DepartmentBrooklyn CollegeNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations