, Volume 96, Issue 1, pp 111–122 | Cite as

Nacre and false nacre (foliated aragonite) in extant monoplacophorans (=Tryblidiida: Mollusca)

  • Antonio G. ChecaEmail author
  • Joaquín Ramírez-Rico
  • Alicia González-Segura
  • Antonio Sánchez-Navas
Original Paper


Extant monoplacophorans (Tryblidiida, Mollusca) have traditionally been reported as having an internal nacreous layer, thus representing the ancestral molluscan condition. The examination of this layer in three species of Neopilinidae (Rokopella euglypta, Veleropilina zografi, and Micropilina arntzi) reveals that only V. zografi secretes an internal layer of true nacre, which occupies only part of the internal shell surface. The rest of the internal surface of V. zografi and the whole internal surfaces of the other two species examined are covered by a material consisting of lath-like, instead of brick-like, crystals, which are arranged into lamellae. In all cases examined, the crystallographic c-axis in this lamellar material is perpendicular to the surface of laths and the a-axis is parallel to their long dimension. The differences between taxa relate to the frequency of twins, which is much higher in Micropilina. In general, the material is well ordered, particularly towards the margin, where lamellae pile up at a small step size, which is most likely due to processes of crystal competition. Given its morphological resemblance to the foliated calcite of bivalves, we propose the name foliated aragonite for this previously undescribed biomaterial secreted by monoplacophorans. We conclude that the foliated aragonite probably lacks preformed interlamellar membranes and is therefore not a variant of nacre. A review of the existing literature reveals that previous reports of nacre in the group were instead of the aragonitic foliated layer and that our report of nacre in V. zografi is the first undisputed evidence of nacre in monoplacophorans. From the evolutionary viewpoint, the foliated aragonite could easily have been derived from nacre. Assuming that nacre represents the ancestral condition, as in other molluscan classes, it has been replaced by foliated aragonite along the tryblidiidan lineage, although the fossil record does not presently provide evidence as to when this replacement took place.


Monoplacophorans Mollusca Biomineralization Microstructure Nacre Foliated aragonite Evolution 



Serge Gofas (Departamento de Biología Animal, Universidad de Málaga), Anders Warén, and Karin Sindemark Kronestedt (Swedish Museum of Natural History) contributed in an essential manner by providing specimens. X-ray diffraction data of Fig. S2 are joint unpublished results of A.C. with Alejandro Rodríguez-Navarro (Departamento de Mineralogía y Petrología, Universidad de Granada). TEM sections of Fig. S3 are from the original material of the late Hiroshi Nakahara, kindly ceded by Mitsuo Kakei (School of Dentistry, Meikai University). J.R-R. is grateful to the Spanish Junta de Andalucía for his research grant. The study has been funded by Projects CGL2004-00802 and CGL2007-60549 (Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia) and by Research Group RMN190 (Junta de Andalucía).

Supplementary material

114_2008_461_MOESM1_ESM.jpg (884 kb)
ESM Fig. S1 Nacre in bivalves (a, b), gastropods (c, d), and the cephalod Nautilus (e, f). a View of the growth surface of the bivalve Atrina pectinata; growth fronts are diffuse, i.e., they are composed by many crystals and different growth stages. b Semimature nacre in the bivalve Pinctada margaritifera; it is characterized by polygonal tablets. c Growth surface of the gastropod Perotrochus caledonicus, showing a characteristic tower-like growth. d Mature (fractured) nacre of the gastropod Bolma rugosa. e Growth surface of nacre of a juvenile specimen of Nautilus pompilius, close to the aperture; growth is towered, similar to gastropods. f Growth surface of the same specimen as in e, in a more internal location; growth is more similar to that of bivalves. Arrows indicate the growth direction of the shell (JPG 884 KB)
114_2008_461_MOESM2_ESM.jpg (344 kb)
ESM Fig. S2 Pole figures for the bivalves Pteria hirundo (a), the cephalod Nautilus belauensis (b), and the gastropod B. rugosa (c) obtained by EBSD (a) and X-ray diffraction (b, c). In all three cases, the 001 pole figure implies that the c-axis is approximately perpendicular to the shell surface. The 010 pole figure in a and the 110 pole figure in b indicate that the b-axis is parallel to the growth direction of the shell (arrows), whereas the circular distribution in the 110 pole figure of c implies that crystals have their b-axis disoriented (JPG 348 KB)
114_2008_461_MOESM3_ESM.jpg (633 kb)
ESM Fig. S3 TEM sections of the nacre of the gastropod Monodonta labio (a, b) and of the bivalve Pinctada radiata (c). a, b In gastropods, the interlamellar membranes extend between the boundaries of the plates of adjacent towers which are in a similar growth stage. c In bivalves, the interlamellar membranes on top of a given lamella of crystals extend freely beyond the edge of the biomineralization front, marked by the position of the last formed crystal (lfc); the adoral end of the interlamellar membrane (ime) is also indicated. Arrows indicate the growth direction (JPG 636 KB)


  1. Addadi L, Joester D, Nudelman F, Weiner S (2006) Mollusk shell formation: a source of new concepts for understanding biomineralization processes. Chem Eur J 12:980–987. doi: 10.1002/chem.200500980 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bevelander G, Nakahara H (1969) An electron microscope study of the formation of the nacreous layer in the shell of certain bivalve molluscs. Calcif Tissue Res 3:84–92. doi: 10.1007/BF02058648 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cartwright JHE, Checa AG (2007) The dynamics of nacre self-assembly. J R Soc Interface 4:491–504. doi: 10.1098/rsif.2006.0188 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chateigner D, Hedegaard C, Wenk H-R (2000) Mollusc shell microstructures and crystallographic textures. J Struct Geol 22:1723–1735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Checa AG, Rodríguez-Navarro A (2001) Geometrical and crystallographic constraints determine the self-organization of shell microstructures in Unionidae (Bivalvia: Mollusca). Proc R Soc B 268:771–778. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2000.1415 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Checa AG, Rodríguez-Navarro A (2005) Self-organisation of nacre in the shells of Pterioida. Biomaterials 26:1071–1079 . doi: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.007 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Checa AG, Esteban-Delgado FJ, Rodríguez-Navarro AB (2007) Crystallographic structure of the foliated calcite of bivalves. J Struct Biol 157:393–402. doi: 10.1016/j.jsb.2006.09.005 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cruz R, Weismüller G, Farina M (2003) Microstructure of Monoplacophora (Mollusca) shell examined by low-voltage field emission scanning electron and atomic force microscopy. Scanning 25:12–18. doi: 10.1002/sca.4950250104 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Erben K (1972) Über die Bildung und das Wachstum von Perlmutt. Biomineral Res Rep 4:15–46Google Scholar
  10. Erben HK, Flajs G, Siehl A (1968) Über die Schalenstruktur von Monoplacophoren. Akad Wiss Lit, Abh Math-Naturwiss Kl 1968:1–24Google Scholar
  11. Hedegaard C, Wenk H-R (1998) Microstructure and texture patterns of molluscan shells. J Moll Stud 64:133–136. doi: 10.1093/mollus/64.1.133 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lemche H, Wingstrand KG (1959) The anatomy of Neopilina galatheae Lemche, 1957. In: Bruun AF, Greve S, Spärck R, Wolff T (eds) Scientific results of the Danish deep-sea expedition round the world 1950–52, Galathea Report, volume 3. Danish Science Press, Copenhagen, pp 9–71Google Scholar
  13. Levi-Kalisman Y, Falini G, Addadi L, Weiner S (2001) Structure of the nacreous organic matrix of a bivalve mollusc shell examined in the hydrated state using cryo-TEM. J Struct Biol 135:8–17. doi: 10.1006/jsbi.2001.4372 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindberg DR, Ponder WF (1996) An evolutionary tree for the mollusca: branches or roots? In: Taylor JD (ed) Origin and evolutionary radiation of the mollusca. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 67–75Google Scholar
  15. Manne S, Zaremba CM, Giles R, Huggins L, Walters DA, Belcher A, Morse DE, Stucky GD, Didymus JM, Mann S, Hansma PK (1994) Atomic force microscopy of the nacreous layer in mollusk shells. Proc R Soc B 256:17–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meenakshi VR, Hare PE, Watabe N, Wilbur KM, Menzies RJ (1970) Ultrastructure, histochemistry, and amino acid composition of the shell of Neopilina. Anton Bruun Rep 2:3–12Google Scholar
  17. Mutvei H (1970) Ultrastructure of the mineral and organic components of molluscan nacreous layers. Biomineral Res Rep 2:47–72Google Scholar
  18. Mutvei H (1978) Ultrastructural characteristics of the nacre in some gastropods. Zool Scripta 7:287–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mutvei H (1980) The nacreous layer in molluscan shells. In: Omori M, Watabe N (eds) The mechanisms of biomineralization in animals and plants. Tokai University Press, Tokyo, pp 49–56Google Scholar
  20. Mutvei H (1991) Using plasma-etching and proteolytic enzymes in studies of molluscan shell ultrastructure. In: Suga S, Nakahara H (eds) Mechanisms and phylogeny of mineralization in biological systems. Springer, Tokyo, pp 157–160Google Scholar
  21. Nakahara H (1979) An electron microscope study of the growing surface of nacre in two gastropod species, Turbo cornutus and Tegula pfeifferi. Venus 38:205–211Google Scholar
  22. Nakahara H (1991) Nacre formation in bivalve and gastropod molluscs. In: Suga S, Nakahara H (eds) Mechanisms and phylogeny of mineralization in biological systems. Springer, Tokyo, pp 343–350Google Scholar
  23. Peel JS (1991) The Classes Tergomya and Helcionelloida, and early molluscan evolution. Bull Grønlands Geol Undersøgelse 161:11–65Google Scholar
  24. Runnegar B (1983) Molluscan phylogeny revisited. Mem Assoc Australasian Palaeontol 1:121–144Google Scholar
  25. Runnegar B (1985) Shell microstructures of Cambrian molluscs replicated by phosphate. Alcheringa 9:245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schäffer TE, Ionescu-Zanetti C, Proksch R, Fritz M, Walters DA, Almquist N, Zaremba CM, Belcher AM, Smith BL, Stucky GD, Morse DE, Hansma PK (1997) Does abalone nacre form by heteroepitaxial nucleation or by growth through mineral bridges? Chem Mater 9:1731–1740. doi: 10.1021/cm960429i CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt WJ (1959) Bemerkungen zur Schalenstruktur von Neopilina galatheae. In: Bruun AF, Greve S, Spärck R, Wolff T (eds) Scientific results of the Danish deep-sea expedition round the world 1950–52, Galathea Report, volume 3. Danish Science Press, Copenhagen, pp 73–76Google Scholar
  28. Taviani M, Sabelli B, Candini F (1990) A fossil Cenozoic monoplacophoran. Lethaia 23:213–216. doi: 10.1111/j.1502-3931.1990.tb01361.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Travis DF, Gonsalves M (1969) Comparative ultrastructure and organization of the prismatic region of two bivalves and its possible relation to the chemical mechanism of boring. Am Zool 9:635–661. doi: 10.1093/icb/9.3.635 Google Scholar
  30. Ubukata T (1994) Architectural constraints on the morphogenesis of prismatic structure in Bivalvia. Palaeontology 37:241–261Google Scholar
  31. Urgorri V, García-Álvarez O, Luque A (2005) Laevipilina cachuchensis, a new neopilinid (Mollusca, Tryblidia) from off North Spain. J Moll Stud 71:59–66. doi: 10.1093/mollus/eyi008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wada K (1960) Crystal growth of the inner shell surface of Pinctada martensii (Dunker) I. J Electron Microsc Tokyo 9:21–23Google Scholar
  33. Wada K (1961) Crystal growth of molluscan shells. Bull Natl Pearl Res Lab Jpn 7:703–828Google Scholar
  34. Wada K (1972) Nucleation and growth of aragonite crystals in the nacre of some bivalve molluscs. Biomineral Res Rep 4:141–159Google Scholar
  35. Warén A, Gofas S (1996) A new species of Monoplacophora, redescription of the genera Veleropilina and Rokopella, and new information on three species of the class. Zool Scripta 25:215–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Warén A, Hain S (1992) Laevipilina antarctica and Micropilina arntzi, two new monoplacophorans from the Antarctic. The Veliger 35:165–176Google Scholar
  37. Watabe N (1965) Studies on shell formation. XI. Crystal-matrix relationships in the inner layers of mollusk shells. J Ultrastruct Res 12:351–370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Weiner S, Traub W (1981) Structural aspects of recognition and assembly. In: Balaban M, Sussman JL, Traub W, Yonath A (eds) Biological macromolecules. Balaban ISS, Philadelphia, pp 467–482Google Scholar
  39. Wise SW (1970) Microarchitecture and mode of formation of nacre (mother of pearl) in pelecypods, gastropods and cephalopods. Eclogae Geol Helv 63:775–797Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonio G. Checa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Joaquín Ramírez-Rico
    • 2
  • Alicia González-Segura
    • 3
  • Antonio Sánchez-Navas
    • 4
  1. 1.Departamento de Estratigrafía y Paleontología, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Física de la Materia Condensada, Facultad de FísicaUniversidad de SevillaSevilleSpain
  3. 3.Centro de Instrumentación CientíficaUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain
  4. 4.Departamento de Mineralogía y Petrología, Facultad de CienciasUniversidad de GranadaGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations