Wolny Jennifer L, Egerton Todd A, Handy Sara M, Stutts Whitney L, Smith Juliette L, Whereat Edward B, Bachvaroff Tsvetan R, Henrichs Darren W, Campbell Lisa, Deeds Jonathan R
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Resource Assessment Service, Annapolis, Maryland, 21401, USA.
Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, 23529, USA.
J Phycol. 2020 Apr;56(2):404-424. doi: 10.1111/jpy.12966. Epub 2020 Feb 10.
Due to the increasing prevalence of Dinophysis spp. and their toxins on every US coast in recent years, the need to identify and monitor for problematic Dinophysis populations has become apparent. Here, we present morphological analyses, using light and scanning electron microscopy, and rDNA sequence analysis, using a ~2-kb sequence of ribosomal ITS1, 5.8S, ITS2, and LSU DNA, of Dinophysis collected in mid-Atlantic estuarine and coastal waters from Virginia to New Jersey to better characterize local populations. In addition, we analyzed for diarrhetic shellfish poisoning (DSP) toxins in water and shellfish samples collected during blooms using liquid-chromatography tandem mass spectrometry and an in vitro protein phosphatase inhibition assay and compared this data to a toxin profile generated from a mid-Atlantic Dinophysis culture. Three distinct morphospecies were documented in mid-Atlantic surface waters: D. acuminata, D. norvegica, and a "small Dinophysis sp." that was morphologically distinct based on multivariate analysis of morphometric data but was genetically consistent with D. acuminata. While mid-Atlantic D. acuminata could not be distinguished from the other species in the D. acuminata-complex (D. ovum from the Gulf of Mexico and D. sacculus from the western Mediterranean Sea) using the molecular markers chosen, it could be distinguished based on morphometrics. Okadaic acid, dinophysistoxin 1, and pectenotoxin 2 were found in filtered water and shellfish samples during Dinophysis blooms in the mid-Atlantic region, as well as in a locally isolated D. acuminata culture. However, DSP toxins exceeded regulatory guidance concentrations only a few times during the study period and only in noncommercial shellfish samples.
近年来，由于迪氏藻属及其毒素在美国各海岸的流行程度不断增加，识别和监测有问题的迪氏藻种群的需求变得显而易见。在此，我们利用光学显微镜和扫描电子显微镜进行形态学分析，并利用核糖体ITS1、5.8S、ITS2和LSU DNA的约2 kb序列进行rDNA序列分析，对从弗吉尼亚州到新泽西州的大西洋中部河口和沿海水域采集的迪氏藻进行分析，以更好地描述当地种群特征。此外，我们使用液相色谱串联质谱法和体外蛋白磷酸酶抑制试验，分析了在藻华期间采集的水样和贝类样品中的腹泻性贝类毒素（DSP），并将这些数据与从大西洋中部迪氏藻培养物中生成的毒素谱进行比较。在大西洋中部表层水域记录到三种不同的形态种：渐尖迪氏藻、挪威迪氏藻和一种“小型迪氏藻属物种”，根据形态测量数据的多变量分析，该物种在形态上与其他物种不同，但在基因上与渐尖迪氏藻一致。虽然使用所选的分子标记无法将大西洋中部的渐尖迪氏藻与渐尖迪氏藻复合体中的其他物种（来自墨西哥湾的卵形迪氏藻和来自地中海西部的囊形迪氏藻）区分开来，但可以根据形态测量进行区分。在大西洋中部地区迪氏藻藻华期间采集的过滤水样和贝类样品中，以及在当地分离的渐尖迪氏藻培养物中，均发现了冈田酸、鳍藻毒素-1和pectenotoxin 2。然而，在研究期间，DSP毒素仅在少数情况下超过监管指导浓度，且仅在非商业贝类样品中。
