Protoplasma

, Volume 181, Issue 1–4, pp 269–282 | Cite as

Valve and seta (spine) morphogenesis in the centric diatomChaetoceros peruvianus Brightwell

  • J. D. Pickett-Heaps
  • Jocelyn Carpenter
  • A. Koutoulis
Article

Summary

InChaetoceros peruvianus, the two very long, delicately tapered setae (spine-like processes) of the “lower” valve curve downwards gently until they are often almost parallel, while those emerging from the “upper” valve curve sharply downwards until oriented almost in the same direction as the setae of the lower valve. This curvature creates a deep pit between the bases of the upper valve's setae, where they emerge from the valve. In live cells, extension of setae is rapid and very sensitive to disturbance. After cleavage the new silica deposition vesicle (SDV) appears in the centre of the furrow and expands outwards over it. A distinct microtubule centre (MC) appears directly on top of the SDV. Microtubules (MTs) from the MC ensheath the nucleus, and others fan out over the SDV and plasmalemma. A little later, the MC in the lower daughter cell moves off the SDV, and its MTs now appear to mould the plasmalemma/ SDV into the deep pit between the base of the setae. In the upper daughter cell, the MC remains on the SDV. Initiation of setae is first observed as protuberances of bare cytoplasm growing from the sides of the daughter cells, through gaps in the parental valve. Many MTs initially line the plasmalemma of these protuberances as they grow outwards and the SDV also expands over the new surface. As the setae get longer, a unique complex of three organelles appears. Just behind the naked cytoplasm at the tip of the seta, a thin flat layer of fibrous material lines the plasmalemma. This, the first of the complex, is called the “thin band”. Immediately behind this is the second, a much thicker, denser fibrous band, the “thick band”. At the front edge of the SDV, 5–6 “finger-like outgrowths” of silicified wall grow forwards. These are interconnected by the elements of the thick band which thus apparently dictate the polygonal profile of the seta. These also appear to generate the spinules (tiny spines) that adorn the surface of the seta; the spiral pattern of the spinules indicates that this whole complex might differentiate one after the next, in order. Further back from the tip, evenly spaced transverse ribs are formed. These are connected to the third organelle in the complex, the “striated band”; our interpretation is that the striated band sets up the spacing of the ridges that regularly line the inner surface of the setae. During seta growth, this complex is apparently responsible for controlling the delicate tapering curvature of the very fine silica processes. Since the complex is always seen near the tip of the seta, we conclude that it migrates forwards steadily as the tip grows. While the thin and thick bands could slide continuously over the cell membrane, the striated band must be disassembled and then recycled forward during extension if it is indeed connected to the ridges lining the inside of the setae. We could find no indication that turgor pressure drives extension of the setae, in which event the activity of these organelles is responsible for growth using the justformed silica tube as the base from which extension is generated.

Keywords

Diatom Morphogenesis Seta Silica Spine 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Boyle JA, Pickett-Heaps JD, Czarnecki D (1984) Valve morphogenesis in the pennate diatomAchnanthes coarctata. J Phycol 20: 563–573Google Scholar
  2. Drebes G (1972) The life history of the centric diatomBacteriastrum hyalinum Lauder. Nova Hedw [Beih] 39: 95–110Google Scholar
  3. Evensen DL, Hasle GR (1975) The morphology of someChaetoceros (Bacillariophyceae) species as seen in electron microscopes. Nova Hedwigia [Beih] 53: 153–184Google Scholar
  4. Fryxell GA (1978) Chain-forming diatoms: three species of Chaetoceraceae. J Phycol 14: 62–71Google Scholar
  5. Garonne R, Simpson TL, Pottu-Boumendil J (1981) Ultrastructure and deposition of silica in sponges. In: Simpson TL, Volcani BE (eds) Sponges and siliceous structures in biological systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 495–525Google Scholar
  6. Hendey NI (1964) An introductory account of the smaller algae of British costal waters. Part V. Bacillariophyceae. Fishery Investigations, series IV. O Koeltz, KoenigsteinGoogle Scholar
  7. Iyengar MOP, Subrahmanyan R (1944) On the structure and development of the spines or setae of some centric diatoms. Proc Natl Acad Sci India 14: 114–124Google Scholar
  8. Leadbeater BSC (1981) Ultrastructure and deposition of silica in loricate choanoflagellates. In: Simpson TL, Volcani BE (eds) Sponges and siliceous structures in biological systems. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 295–322Google Scholar
  9. Li C-W, Volcani BE (1985 a) Studies on the biochemistry and fine structure of silica shell formation in diatoms. VIII. Morphogenesis of the cell wall in a centric diatom,Ditylum brightwellii. Protoplasma 124: 10–29Google Scholar
  10. — — (1985 b) Studies on the biochemistry and fine structure of silica shell formation in diatoms. IX. Sequential valve formation in a centric diatomChaetoceros rostratum. Protoplasma 124: 30–41Google Scholar
  11. — — (1985 c) Studies on the biochemistry and fine structure of silica shell formation in diatoms. X. Morphogenesis of the labiate process in centric diatoms. Protoplasma 124: 147–156Google Scholar
  12. Mignot JP, Brugerolle G (1982) Scale formation in chrysomonad flagellates. J Ultrastruct Res 81: 13–26Google Scholar
  13. Pickett-Heaps JD, Kowalski SE (1981) Valve morphogenesis and the microtubule-centre of the diatomHantzschia amphioxys. Eur J Cell Biol 25: 150–170Google Scholar
  14. —, Wetherbee R, Hill DRA (1988) Cell division and morphogenesis of the labiate process in the centric diatomDitylum brightwellii. Protoplasma 143: 139–149Google Scholar
  15. —, Schmid AM, Edgar LA (1990) The cell biology of diatom valve formation. Prog Phycol Res 7: 1–168Google Scholar
  16. Rines JEB, Hargraves PE (1988) TheChaetoceros Ehrenberg (Bacillariophyceae) flora of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, U.S.A. Bibl Phycol 79: 1–196Google Scholar
  17. Rogerson A, DeFrietas ASW, McInnes AG (1986) Growth rates and ultrastructure of siliceous setae ofChaetoceros gracilis (Bacillariophyceae). J Phycol 22: 56–62Google Scholar
  18. Round FE, Crawford RW, Mann DG (1990) The diatoms. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Schnepf E, Deichgraber G, Drebes G (1980) Morphogenetic process inAttheya decora (Bacillariophyceae, Biddulphiineae). Plant Syst Evol 135: 265–277Google Scholar
  20. von Stosch HA, Theil G, Kowallik KV (1973) Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen an zentrischen Diatomeen. V. Bau und Lebenszyklus vonChaetoceros didymum, mit Beobachtungen über einige andere Arten der Gattung. Helgol Wiss Meersunters 25: 384–445Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. D. Pickett-Heaps
    • 1
  • Jocelyn Carpenter
    • 1
  • A. Koutoulis
    • 1
  1. 1.School of BotanyUniversity of MelbourneParkvilleAustralia

Personalised recommendations