Muscle formation during embryogenesis of the polychaete Ophryotrocha diadema (Dorvilleidae) – new insights into annelid muscle patterns
© Bergter et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2008
Received: 01 July 2007
Accepted: 02 January 2008
Published: 02 January 2008
The standard textbook information that annelid musculature consists of oligochaete-like outer circular and inner longitudinal muscle-layers has recently been called into question by observations of a variety of complex muscle systems in numerous polychaete taxa. To clarify the ancestral muscle arrangement in this taxon, we compared myogenetic patterns during embryogenesis of Ophryotrocha diadema with available data on oligochaete and polychaete myogenesis. This work addresses the conflicting views on the ground pattern of annelids, and adds to our knowledge of the evolution of lophotrochozoan taxa.
Somatic musculature in Ophryotrocha diadema can be classified into the trunk, prostomial/peristomial, and parapodial muscle complexes. The trunk muscles comprise strong bilateral pairs of distinct dorsal and ventral longitudinal strands. The latter are the first to differentiate during myogenesis. They originate within the peristomium and grow posteriorly through the continuous addition of myocytes. Later, the longitudinal muscles also expand anteriorly and form a complex arrangement of prostomial muscles. Four embryonic parapodia differentiate in an anterior-to-posterior progression, significantly contributing to the somatic musculature. Several diagonal and transverse muscles are present dorsally. Some of the latter are situated external to the longitudinal muscles, which implies they are homologous to the circular muscles of oligochaetes. These circular fibers are only weakly developed, and do not appear to form complete muscle circles.
Comparison of embryonic muscle patterns showed distinct similarities between myogenetic processes in Ophryotrocha diadema and those of oligochaete species, which allows us to relate the diverse adult muscle arrangements of these annelid taxa to each other. These findings provide significant clues for the interpretation of evolutionary changes in annelid musculature.
Recent molecular and morphological studies have dramatically changed our understanding of the phylogenetic relationships between major taxonomic divisions of bilaterally symmetrical animals (Bilateria). Most bilaterian taxa are now grouped into three major clades: deuterostomes, ecdysozoans and lophotrochozoans [1, 2]. This phylogenetic rearrangement has stimulated new scientific interest in lophotrochozoan taxa in particular, as this group of phyla has lacked well-studied model organisms. In order to address general evolutionary questions about Bilateria, we need to better understand the morphology and embryonic development of lophotrochozoan taxa, such as annelids [3–12].
Our work focuses on the comparative analysis of annelid muscle formation during embryogenesis, in order to expand the developmental and morphological knowledge base for annelids, and consequently, for Lophotrochozoa in general [6–8]. We studied myogenesis using cLSM (confocal laser scanning microscopy) analysis of fluorescently labeled phalloidin, which binds to F-actin of muscles. This approach has proved to be a powerful method to study muscular arrangements in many soft-bodied taxa [13–18].
The ground pattern of the annelid musculature is generally assumed to comprise an outer layer of homogeneous circular and an inner layer of longitudinal muscles, as is characteristic for oligochaete annelids. This model was originally developed in the 19th century, and has become well-established textbook information [19–23]. A corollary of this model is the theory that the ancestral annelid stem species was a soil-dwelling animal in which such muscles, along with other morphological characteristics, would have facilitated burrowing into the soil by peristaltic movement [24–27]. This view of the basal annelid has, however, been recently challenged by proposals that the ancestral annelid was an aquatic, epibenthic animal, bearing parapodia – that is, polychaete-like [28, 29].
Recent cLSM analyses, particularly of polychaete muscle patterns, have attempted to resolve these contradictory understandings of the evolutionary history of annelids. This work has clearly revealed that the homogenous circular and longitudinal muscle layers characteristic of oligochaetes are rarely found in polychaetes. Instead, a variety of other muscles exist in polychaetes in addition to longitudinal and circular fibers, including parapodial, diagonal, dorsoventral, chaetal, bracing and oblique muscles (the latter passing through the body cavity) [30–33]. Longitudinal muscles in polychaetes are arranged in distinct bands separated by considerable lateral gaps. Ventrally, they comprise two prominent ventrolateral muscle bands, plus a thin medial band just dorsal to the ventral nerve cord . The number of dorsal longitudinal muscles is more variable, but one bilateral pair seems to be the most common pattern . Complete circular muscles can be found in species of Glyceridae, Capitellidae, Maldanidae, and Arenicolidae [33, 34], but circular muscles bands are incomplete in Nereididae and even absent in species of Aphroditidae, Chrysopetalidae, Nerillidae, Pisionidae, Spionidae and Opheliidae [32, 33]. In Dorvillea kastjani (Dorvilleidae) the circular muscles are restricted to the spaces between the parapodia .
The complex muscle patterns of polychaetes and the uniform muscle layers present in oligochaetes apparently bear little resemblance to each other, which hampers direct comparison of these muscle systems. However, our studies on myogenesis in the oligochaetes Enchytraeus coronatus (Enchytraeidae) and Limnodrilus sp. (Tubificidae), revealed some similarities between muscle patterns in oligochaete embryos and those of adult polychaetes [6, 7]. Both oligochaete species displayed distinct dorsal and ventral bilateral pairs of muscle strands at the onset of muscle formation, similar to the longitudinal muscles characteristic of polychaetes. The characteristic complete layer of longitudinal muscles in adults of these two species forms later during development, by addition of secondary strands. Initially, circular muscles form ventrolaterally in a repetitive pattern at the posterior margin of posterior body segments.
It is therefore apparent that comparative studies of muscle development in annelids (rather than adult musculature alone) may identify characteristic features of oligochaetes and polychaetes that could significantly improve our understanding of muscle arrangement in annelids, and annelid evolution [7, 34]. Current annelid phylogeny remains poorly resolved, which considerably hampers our ability to draw conclusions about potential plesiomorphic states in annelids [2, 21, 28, 29, 35–39]. A solid knowledge of morphology and development from a diverse sampling of annelid taxa will deepen our knowledge of plesiomorphic or apomorphic characteristics. This new information, in combination with a reliable annelid phylogeny, will enable us to interpret and determine the direction of evolutionary events in this important group.
Embryos of O. diadema are lecithotrophic, and develop within an egg case, lacking a free-swimming larval stage. Although embryos of O. diadema pass through a stage similar to the trochophore larva characteristic of polychaetes, this is not a free-living stage, nor do a number of chaetigerous segments arise simultaneously through metamorphosis, as in polychaetes with free-living trochophores [3, 43]. Instead, development within the egg case proceeds with the formation of four chaetigerous segments one by one, prior to hatching. Thus, O. diadema undergoes direct development, and lacks a need for special larval musculature. This trait facilitates comparison with patterns of muscle development in the investigated oligochaetes, which likewise develop directly within a cocoon, and lack a free-living larval stage.
Embryos were classified into developmental stages according to the number of ciliary bands and chaetigers rather than time post-fertilization, as the timing of developmental events can vary considerably with environmental conditions and parental brooding (own observation). To provide information about the 3-dimensional arrangement of the musculature, we used depth-coded false-color cLSM projections.
Prostomial and peristomial musculature
The peristomium is dominated by strongly developed pharyngeal muscles (phar). They form a ventrally situated basket-like structure consisting of several layers in which the muscle fibers run in various directions, the outermost layer consisting of longitudinal fibers (Fig. 1A and 2A).
Most prostomial muscles arise from anterior elongations of the dorsal and ventral longitudinal muscles, forming a complex network in the head of the worm. All muscles described here are bilaterally paired unless otherwise noted, and are depicted in Figure 2B–E. The ventral portion of the ventral longitudinal muscles (VLM) extends straight toward the anterior pole of the prostomium; therefore we have termed these the straight ventral longitudinal muscles (sVLM). At the anterior, they separate into several flattened bands, each connecting with its bilateral partner. The dorsal portions of each ventral longitudinal muscle (VLM) separate at the anterior border of the peristomium and run diagonally (dVLM), crossing each other midway to the anterior pole. Here they connect with the straight ventral longitudinal muscles (sVLM). A pair of delicate longitudinal muscles originates from the diagonal ventral longitudinal muscles (dVLM) at their intersection point. These small muscles project ventrally towards the anterior pole, branching repeatedly along the way (Fig. 2B–D, circles).
Just anterior to the pharyngeal muscle complex, the dorsal longitudinal muscle (DLM) separates into four main strands. The three outer strands extend directly to the anterior. Of these three, the outer dorsal strand (oDLM) reaches the farthest and connects with the straight ventral longitudinal muscles (sVLM) and the diagonal ventral longitudinal muscles (dVLM), forming an anterior muscle cap (Fig. 2D). The middle dorsal longitudinal muscle (mDLM) is shorter and ends three-quarters of the way into the prostomium, while the inner muscle strand (iDLM) terminates about one-third of the way into the prostomium. The innermost (central) dorsal strand (cDLM) crosses toward the opposite side, intersecting with its bilateral counterpart.
One major prostomial transverse muscle (PStm1) crosses just anterior to the intersecting central dorsal longitudinal muscles (cDLM), running between the dorsal and ventral longitudinal muscles. One branch of this transverse muscle ends within the antennae. A second transverse muscle (PStm2) is thinner than the first prostomial transverse muscle (PStm1), and is situated dorsal to the dorsal longitudinal muscles.
The majority of muscles present within the body segments belong to the parapodial muscle complexes. One such muscle complex is depicted in Figure 3. In the distal part of the parapodium, the chaetae are surrounded by chaetal muscles (chm), which form a long and slender crown of numerous thin muscle strands. A similar muscle crown encloses the aciculae. These special bristles do not penetrate the body wall, but support the chaetae. The acicular muscles (am) are strongly developed, originating from the base of the aciculae near the midline, and reaching into the proximal portion of the parapodium. There, the muscles divide into several filiform strands. The chaetal and the acicular muscles do not appear to have direct contact with each other.
The muscles responsible for the movement of the parapodia are the outer anterior and posterior parapodial muscles (oaPM and opPM, respectively) as well as the inner anterior and posterior parapodial muscles (iaPM and ipPM). These muscles terminate at the distalmost region of the parapodium. The outer anterior muscle (oaPM) is the shortest. It originates in the region of the ventral longitudinal muscle, whereas the inner anterior muscle (iaPM) crosses the ventral midline, having its origin at the opposite ventral longitudinal muscle. Both anterior muscles branch at the base of the parapodium. These secondary branches run diagonally – ventrally, distally and posteriorly from the chaetal muscles.
The posterior parapodial muscles both proceed straight to the ventral midline of the body, where they terminate. The posterior parapodial muscles intersect with the inner anterior muscle of the subsequent segment at a single point on the ventral midline, along with the median ventral longitudinal muscle (Fig. 3A,B, circle). Less prominent are a set of anterior and posterior dorsal parapodial muscles (adPM, pdPM) which enter the parapodium from the dorsal side (Fig. 3B and Fig. 1G). They do not reach the distal tip of the parapodium but end halfway down its length.
Muscle formation during embryogenesis
Onset of muscle formation
One chaetigerous ciliary band
Two chaetigerous ciliary bands
As the body of the embryo continues to elongate, the ciliary band of the second body segment becomes recognizable (Fig. 6A). A fully circular muscle also forms within the pygidium at this time (Fig. 6C, tagged arrow), which marks the posteriormost extent of the dorsal and ventral longitudinal muscles.
The median ventral longitudinal muscle (mVLM) differentiates along the ventral midline. Unlike the lateral ventral longitudinal muscles (VLMs), the median ventral longitudinal muscle (mVLM) appears not to grow from anterior to posterior, but instead coalesces from primordia at various points along the AP axis (Fig. 6C). Anteriorly, its muscle fibers form a V that laterally encloses the mouth opening, and interlaces with the muscle fibers of the pharyngeal muscle complex (phar).
The initial thin fibers of the pharyngeal muscles already display the basketlike shape of the adult and range from the mouth opening to the anterior border of the first body-segment (Fig. 6E). The diagonal ventral longitudinal muscles of the prostomium (dVLM) have elongated farther to the anterior (Fig. 6C). Additionally, the straight-running ventral longitudinal muscles (sVLM) elongate from the ventral longitudinal muscles in the trunk towards the anterior pole, entering the prostomium on each side (Fig. 6C).
Three to four chaetigerous ciliary bands
As all four embryonic chaetigers develop in an anterior-to-posterior progression, it is possible to examine different stages of parapodial development in one specimen. Initially, the anlage of the parapodia can be distinguished by the presence of autofluorescent chaetae and aciculae (Fig. 7A,B). The first parapodial muscles are the inner anterior and posterior muscles (iaPM, ipPM). Together with the outer and dorsal parapodial muscles (oaPM, opPM, adPM, pdPM) these muscles elongate into the distal tip of the parapodium, forming a conical array. Aciculae and chaetae are closely apposed within the proximal portion of the parapodium. Here, the chaetal and acicular muscles begin their development in direct contact with both types of bristles. During further parapodial development, the different bristle types are pulled apart as the acicular muscles shift toward the ventral midline.
This work is part of a series investigating annelid myogenesis with respect to its implications for the ground pattern of annelid musculature [6, 7]. While a variety of patterns in adult polychaete musculature have been described elsewhere [30–34, 37, 44], the emphasis of the present analysis is on polychaete myogenesis, as polychaete and clitellate musculatures become more readily comparable when examined in a developmental context.
Longitudinal and Prostomial Muscles
Ophryotrocha diadema's adult musculature displays several features that have been described previously for many polychaete families, reviewed in . The presence of one prominent pair of ventral longitudinal muscles plus a smaller longitudinal muscle situated just dorsally of the ventral nerve cord is common in investigated polychaete species. Conversely, the number and size of dorsal longitudinal muscles is more variable among taxa. In O. diadema, the dorsal longitudinal muscles comprise two dorsolateral bands separated by a considerable dorsomedian gap. The innermost fibers of each dorsal longitudinal muscle (DLM) repeatedly cross over each other at the dorsal midline along the anterioposterior axis, forming a regular pattern of intersecting dorsal longitudinal muscles distinct from the dorsal diagonal muscles (Fig. 1A, DLM, dm). To our knowledge, this muscle pattern has not yet been described in any other polychaete species, although it does appear in other members of the genus, such as Ophryotrocha labronica (J. Brubacher, unpublished observations).
These dorsal and ventral longitudinal muscles, together with a muscle ring surrounding the mouth opening, are the first muscles to differentiate during embryogenesis of O. diadema. Their formation starts within the peristomium, adjacent to the stomodeum. They gradually elongate towards the posterior by the addition of muscle fibers at their posterior end – a posterior growth zone. During this process, the longitudinal muscle strands do not display any sign of a repetitive pattern with respect to the body-segments.
Early events in the formation of longitudinal muscles have been also described in the polychaete Capitella sp. I . Like O. diadema, Capitella sp. I lacks a free-living trochophore larva [40, 46, 47]. The onset of muscle formation in this species is characterized by the appearance of one pair of ventrolateral and four dorsal longitudinal muscles, which, as in O. diadema, elongate at their posterior ends. In Capitella, additional (secondary) longitudinal muscles are added after differentiation of these primary longitudinal muscles, forming an almost complete longitudinal muscle layer.
Although adult oligochaetes possess a homogeneous inner layer of longitudinal muscles, without distinct muscle bands [34, 37] the formation of longitudinal muscles in oligochaetes parallels the patterns described above in important ways [6, 7]. For example, myogenesis in Enchytraeus coronatus (Enchytraeidae) and Limnodrilus sp. (Tubificidae) begins with the formation of dorsal and ventral bilateral pairs of primary longitudinal muscles [6, 7]. The ventral muscles arise adjacent to the developing ventral nerve cord – the same position occupied by the ventral longitudinal muscle bands in polychaetes . As in O. diadema and Capitella sp. I, longitudinal muscles in these oligochaetes elongate from a posterior growth zone. During a second step in muscle differentiation, additional longitudinal muscle fiber strands are added dorsally and laterally (and ventrally in Limnodrilus sp.), completing the longitudinal muscle layer. The secondary longitudinal strands are always formed adjacent to an already-present primary or secondary longitudinal muscle and display the same mode of elongation towards posterior as described for the primary longitudinal muscles. By the end of embryogenesis, the initial primary muscles strands cannot be distinguished from the secondarily formed ones. This second step in development of the longitudinal muscle layer resembles the events during late myogenesis in Capitella sp. I, which possesses an oligochaete-like near-homogenous layer of longitudinal muscles . This stage of secondary muscle formation is missing in O. diadema. Here, the initial ventral muscles retain their status as distinct muscle strands, and remain completely separated. The medially crossing strands of the dorsal longitudinal muscles (DLM, Fig. 1A) reflect a modification of the primary muscle growth pattern. However, we do not interpret this crossing as secondary muscle growth, as these strands form by branching of the primary dorsal muscle bands during their growth, rather than by formation of new, distinct muscle strands after the primary musculature has been laid down, as in oligochaetes.
While the number of primary dorsal longitudinal muscles varies among analyzed species (Capitella sp. I has four dorsal muscle strands, while O. diadema, E. coronatus, and Limnodrilus sp. each have only two) the presence of a pair of primary ventral longitudinal strands seems to be a common pattern among polychaetes and oligochaetes, irrespective of the adult musculature .
While the process of longitudinal muscle formation is similar in polychaetes and oligochaetes, leeches (Hirudinea), however, have their own characteristic pattern of embryonic muscle development. During myogenesis in the hirudinean Erpobdella octoculata (Erpobdellidae) no distinct primary longitudinal muscle bands are formed . In this case, primary longitudinal muscles consist of thick bundles that branch at both ends. These primary muscles are scattered over the flanks of the embryo in an irregular manner, rather than in a stereotypical pattern of a set number of dorsal and ventral bands. Later, secondary longitudinal muscle strands emerge and grow in a gradual ventral-to-dorsal and anterior-to-posterior progression. The primary muscles are incorporated into the expanding lattice of secondary muscles to form the longitudinal muscle layer thereby. However, leeches deviate morphologically from other annelid groups in many ways, and are considered to represent a derived annelid taxon [35, 48–51]. Therefore, the differences in their muscle formation relative to oligochaetes and polychaetes may also be a derived feature of this group .
Another feature of the ventral longitudinal muscles shared by polychaetes and oligochaetes is their major contribution to the musculature of the prostomium, which has been documented in a variety of annelid taxa. In the polychaetes Nerilla antennata, Nerillidium sp. and Trochonerilla mobilis (Nerillidae), the ventral longitudinal muscles extend into the prostomium, where they project into the median antennae . For some polychaetes – i.e., Magelona cf. mirabilis (Magelonidae) and Prionospio cirrifera (Spionidae) – these ventral muscles are the only longitudinal strands that contribute to the prostomial musculature . In E. coronatus and Limnodrilus sp. the ventral longitudinal muscles also elongate into the prostomium, where they each branch into two strands, and surround the anterior pole in a simple loop [6, 7].
The dorsal longitudinal strands generally play a lesser part in the prostomial musculature, stretching straight anteriorly if they extend into the prostomium at all. During myogenesis in E. coronatus and Limnodrilus sp., the longitudinal muscles only grow into the prostomium after they are well-established within the trunk [6, 7]. In O. diadema, the ventral muscles form three small projections that lie anterior to the mouth opening. They are the anlage of the diagonally running ventral prostomial muscles (dVLM), which expand towards the anterior pole during embryogenesis (Fig 6C), and persist after hatching (Fig 2C). The straight ventral prostomial muscles (sVLM) form later during embryogenesis. At first, these remain in a lateral position, but later develop anterior connections to the diagonally running ventral prostomial muscles (dVLMs) (Fig 7A,B).
The early state of prostomial muscle arrangement observed here for O. diadema is very similar to the one described for the adult muscle pattern in Dorvillea kastjani (Dorvilleidae, Polychaeta) . In this species the three projections of the diagonal ventral longitudinal muscles (dVLM) (named by Filippova et al. pr/cr: prostomial cross and pr/r: prostomial rostral) are well developed but have no obvious anterior connection to the straight ventral longitudinal muscles (sVLM) (called pr/l: prostomium longitudinal by Filippova et al). In post-hatch O. diadema, however, the prostomial musculature continues to develop, such that the anterior connections between the dVLMs and sVLMs strengthen, and merge with the outer dorsal longitudinal muscle (oDLM) to form an anterior muscle cap. Development of the medial projection of the diagonal ventral longitudinal muscle (dVLM) is difficult to follow but it likely becomes the ventrally situated elongation of the dVLM depicted in Figure 2C (circle).
Our findings, combined with previous studies, suggest that a bilateral pair of ventral longitudinal muscles contributing to the prostomial musculature is a common feature in polychaetes and oligochaetes. The precise number of dorsal longitudinal strands included in this general muscle arrangement has yet to be determined; however two dorsal muscles seem to represent the most common pattern .
The majority of the body musculature, aside from the longitudinal muscles, is contained within the parapodial muscle complexes. The parapodial muscles in O. diadema are almost identical to those described for Dorvillea kastjani (Dorvilleidae) . Interestingly, several investigations of polychaete parapodial muscles indicate that parapodial muscles of greatest complexity are found in species that do not use their appendages for locomotion [33, 52]. In these species, the parapodia bear dorsally directed chaetae and likely function as defensive equipment. O. diadema, on the other hand, uses its uniramous, unornamented parapodia for locomotion in a walking-like manner, consistent with the relatively simple parapodial musculature described here. The four anteriormost parapodia are formed during embryogenesis in an anterior-to-posterior sequence, before the worm hatches from its egg case. After hatching, additional parapodia-bearing body segments are added through the activity of a proliferative zone just anterior to the pygidium, as in other annelids [53, 54]. Although O. diadema lacks a trochophore larva, the timing of myogenic events in the trunk and parapodia during development resemble that of indirectly developing polychaetes with a free-living trochophore larva. These polychaetes, such as Platynereis dumerilii (Nereididae) and Pomatoceros lamarckii (Serpulidae), exhibit an early development of synchronously formed three bilateral pairs of parapodia, defining the metatrochophoral state [3, 43]. Initially, both of these species have three parapodial segments. P. lamarckii undergoes metamorphosis to a sessile lifestyle, retaining the musculature of the larval parapods, whereas P. dumerilii, adapting the benthic lifestyle of the adult, grows by segment proliferation. Conversely, the temporal pattern in parapodial muscle differentiation is quite different in Capitella sp. I [45, 46, 55]. Chaetal, oblique and intrasegmental muscles are added during metamorphosis, after embryogenesis and the formation of the circular and longitudinal muscles of the body. This kind of change in the relative timing of developmental events in related taxa (heterochrony) is widely held to be an important mechanism underlying morphological change during evolution [43, 56].
The earliest signs of parapodia in O. diadema are the chaetae, which lie just below the body-wall, roughly marking the middle of each body-segment. The first muscles of the parapodial complex to appear are the posterior parapodial muscles (pPM). These muscles occupy the same position as the transverse muscles (tm) anterior and posterior to the ciliary bands described for earlier stages Fig. 5E,H). Transverse muscles can easily be mistaken for true circular muscles at first glance. But since they lie below the longitudinal muscles, they do not possess the characteristic supralongitudinal position of true circular fibers, which always lie just below the epidermis (Fig. 6B). So it is possible that these transverse muscles are the anlage of the posterior parapodial muscles (pma). It might also be that the parapodial muscles cover the transverse muscles during their enhanced development. But this seems rather unlikely, because the close inspection of the adult parapodial muscle complex through 3D reconstruction did not reveal any other transverse muscles at this position, aside from inner and outer posterior parapodial muscles. The only other transverse muscles found on the ventral side are situated within the anterior halves of the body segment, without any connection to the posteriorly situated ciliary bands.
Chaetal and acicular muscles begin to appear only after the outer parapodial muscles started to form. Both the chaetal (chm) and acicular muscles (am) differentiate in direct contact with the chaetal types they support. It seems that the chaetae move into the distal portion of the growing parapodia and the aciculae migrate towards the midline, as their associated muscles lengthen (am and chm).
The segmentally arranged parapodial muscle anlagen (pma) that run in a transverse manner in close proximity to the ciliary bands do not represent true circular muscles, due to their position below of the longitudinal muscles. There are numerous transverse muscles present at the dorsal side of O. diadema. Some of these muscles belong to the parapodial muscle complex (adPM, pdPM) and lie below the dorsal longitudinal muscles. However, there are also transverse muscles in a supralongitudinal position, which could be clearly identified in histological sections (Fig. 1E). These fibers are only weakly developed, and we could not determine whether they form complete circles surrounding the whole body of O. diadema. Complete circular muscles must be rare, if present at all, as only a few ventral transverse muscles could be found, whereas there are plentiful transverse muscles present dorsally and laterally. This discrepancy implies that many incomplete circular muscles exist, spanning the dorsal side but terminating at the laterally in chaetigerous segments. Such a patterns corresponds with the findings in Dorvillea kastjani, where true circular fibers were only present in the intersegmental furrows . Interestingly, several complete rings of transverse muscles exist in the zone of segment proliferation, just anterior to the pygidium, in juvenile O. diadema (Fig. 1A and 8D), some of which are true circular muscles (i.e., external to the longitudinal muscles). This pattern resembles that described for regenerating fragments in Dorvillea bermudensis . In D. bermudensis, closed circles of transverse fibers are established initially in the regenerating region, but are later disrupted by formation of parapodia. This pattern observed in regenerating specimens may therefore represent a juvenile character.
Recent studies of polychaetes have revealed a great variety of adult muscle patterns, unlike the closed, homogeneous muscle layers present in oligochaete taxa. These obviously different arrangements have considerably hampered attempts to directly correlate the musculatures of these groups with each other, in the ongoing discussion concerning the ground pattern of annelids. However, developmental data from various annelid taxa has revealed common characters evident during myogenesis in these species. Here, we have shown that Ophryotrocha diadema shares with the oligochaetes Enchytraeus coronatus and Limnodrilus sp. distinct ventral longitudinal muscle bands that are almost identically established during ontogenesis. We consider it very likely that these muscular structures are homologous, and that the primary formation of a bilateral pair of ventral longitudinal muscles is an ancestral character of annelids.
Unfortunately, due to the lack of a reliable annelid phylogeny, we can only speculate about the direction of evolutionary change in annelid musculature. Taking the presence of a bilateral pair of ventral longitudinal muscles in early development as an ancestral character, it follows that the oligochaete-like musculature and embryonic formation of secondary longitudinal muscles is either an evolutionary novelty (and therefore derived) or a character that has been lost in polychaetes. In the latter case, the loss of secondary muscle formation in polychaetes would be the derived condition.
Cultures of Ophryotrocha diadema (a gift from Bertil Åkesson, Göteborg University) were maintained in glass dishes at room temperature, in artificial sea water (Crystal Sea Marinemix, Marine Enterprises Intl., Baltimore, MD) with a specific gravity of 1.021 g·ml-1. Each week, half the seawater in the dishes was refreshed, and worms were fed spinach finely chopped with a Waring blender.
Unless otherwise noted, all chemicals used in fixation were from Sigma, Oakville, Canada. O. diadema brood their embryos in transparent, gelatinous tubes. Worm embryos and larvae were removed from brood tubes using 0.1 mm minuten pins mounted on applicator sticks. We fixed them in seawater + 4% (w/v) paraformaldehyde (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield, PA), for either 3 h at room temperature, or overnight at 4°C. Larvae mature enough to show evidence of muscle activity were anaesthetized for 10 min in a 1:1 mixture of seawater and 370 mM MgCl2 prior to fixation. After fixation, we washed worms several times in phosphate-buffered saline, pH 7.4 (PBS; 137 mM NaCl, 2.7 mM KCl, 10 mM Na2HPO4, 1.4 mM KH2PO4) plus 0.1% (v/v) Tween-20 (PBT). Prior to use, worms were stored at 4°C in PBT + 0.05% (w/v) sodium azide.
3D modeling of musculature from serially sectioned, epoxy-embedded material
For histological analysis, worms were anaesthetized in a mixture of equal parts sea water and 370 mM MgCl2, then fixed for 2 days at 4°C in 3% (w/v) glutaraldehyde + 0.5% (w/v) paraformaldehyde, in a buffer containing 100 mM PIPES, 2 mM EGTA, 1 mM MgSO4, and 200 mM sucrose, pH 6.9. After primary fixation, worms were washed in 0.1 M sodium cacodylate, pH 7.2, then further fixed for 90 min in 1% (w/v) OsO4 in washing buffer, on ice. Specimens were dehydrated through graded ethanol into acetone, and embedded in a 4:5:12 mixture of Araldite 502, EMbed 812 and dodecenyl succinic anhydride, catalyzed with 1.5% (v/v) DMP-30. (Fixatives and resin components from Electron Microscopy Sciences, buffering agents and salts from Sigma).
Serial 1 μm transverse sections were cut from tissue blocks on a Porter-Blum MT-2B ultramicrotome, and stained with a mixture of methylene blue and azure B, followed by basic fuchsine . Grayscale images of sections illuminated with red, green and blue light were captured and merged to generate color images, using an AxioImager Z.1 microscope equipped with an AxioCam MRm camera and AxioVision 4.6 software (Zeiss). To align images, trace features of interest, and construct 3D models from serial sections, we used IMOD software, v. 3.5.3 .
For immunostaining, a protocol previously described for Enchytraeus japanoensis was adapted . Incubation times within the described buffers were reduced to two to three hours each, depending on embryonic stage of the specimens. A monoclonal anti-acetylated tubulin antibody (Sigma, T-6793) was used at 1:500 dilution in 1 × PBS (140 mM NaCl, 6.5 mM KCl, 2.5 mM Na2HPO4, 1.5 mM KH2PO4, pH 7.5) at 4°C for 12 to 48 hours. After several washes in PBT (PBS + 0,1% (v/v) Tween-20), the secondary antibody (anti-mouse Cy2 conjugated; Dianova, Hamburg, Germany) was applied diluted 1:150 in PBS for 12 to 48 hours at 4°C. Unbound antibody was removed by several washes with PBT.
After immunostaining, the embryos were transferred into a freshly made solution of TRITC-conjugated phalloidin (Sigma, P1951) prepared by evaporating 5 μl of a stock solution (3.3 μM in ethanol) and reconstituting in 250 μl of PBS. Embryos were stained in this solution for 1–3 h, in the dark. The phalloidin solution was then removed and the embryos were washed several times with PBT.
We used Draq5™ (Alexis Biochemicals, Germany) to label nuclei. After immuno – and phalloidin staining of O. diadema embryos, this dye solution was applied at a 1:500 dilution in PBS. After incubation for 30 minutes in the dark, the dye was removed, the embryos were washed several times in PBT, and mounted in Fluoromount-G (Southern Biotech, USA) before microscopic inspection.
cLSM and 3D-Reconstruction
All fluorescence pictures were captured with a Pascal 5 Laser Scanning Microscope (Zeiss, Germany) using a He-Ne laser for TRITC and Draq5™ (543 nm and 633 nm, respectively) and an argon laser (488 nm) for Cy2 documentation. When multi-colored picture stacks were taken, the same plane thickness and distance were used for all staining conjugates to minimize optical shift. Digital pictures were edited with Adobe PhotoShop (San Jose, CA, USA) to adjust brightness and contrast. The same software was used to combine projections to generate complete montages of large embryos.
3D-reconstructions were carried out using amira™ 3.0 (Mercury Computer Systems, USA) using the label-field tool to individually label single muscles in each cLSM produced picture stack. 3D-Figures were obtained with the surface-generating algorithm of the software.
We are grateful for valuable comments and support of Dr. Günter Purschke and Dr. Torsten Struck (Universität Osnabrück, Germany) during this work. We thank Prof. Dr. Erwin Huebner (University of Manitoba, Canada) for his encouragement and help with Ophryotrocha-related techniques. Part of this work has been supported by the University of Osnabrück (AP) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (a Postgraduate Scholarship to JLB).
- Aguinaldo AM, Turbeville JM, Linford LS, Rivera MC, Garey JR, Raff RA, Lake JA: Evidence for a clade of nematodes, arthropods and other moulting animals. Nature. 1997, 387: 489-493. 10.1038/387489a0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Halanych KM: A new view of animal phylogeny. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 2004, 35: 229-256. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.35.112202.130124.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Ackermann C, Dorresteijn A, Fischer A: Clonal domains in postlarval Platynereis dumerilii (Annelida : Polychaeta). J Morphol. 2005, 266: 258-280. 10.1002/jmor.10375.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Arendt D, Tessmar-Raible K, Snyman H, Dorresteijn AW, Wittbrodt J: Ciliary photoreceptors with a vertebrate-type opsin in an invertebrate brain. Science. 2004, 306: 869-871. 10.1126/science.1099955.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bergter A, Beck LA, Paululat A: Embryonic development of the oligochaete Enchytraeus coronatus: an SEM and histological study of embryogenesis from one-cell stage to hatching. J Morphol. 2004, 261: 26-42. 10.1002/jmor.10189.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bergter A, Hunnekuhl VS, Schniederjans M, Paululat A: Evolutionary aspects of pattern formation during clitellate muscle development. Evol Dev. 2007, 9: 602-617.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bergter A, Paululat A: Pattern of body-wall muscle differentiation during embryonic development of Enchytraeus coronatus (Annelida: Oligochaeta; Enchytraeidae). J Morphol. 2007, 268: 537-549. 10.1002/jmor.10532.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Brand C, Bergter A, Paululat A: Cloning of a twist orthologue from Enchytraeus coronatus (Annelida, Oligochaeta). DNA Seq. 2003, 14: 25-31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Irvine SQ, Martindale MQ: Expression patterns of anterior Hox genes in the polychaete Chaetopterus: correlation with morphological boundaries. Dev Biol. 2000, 217: 333-351. 10.1006/dbio.1999.9541.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kourakis MJ, Master VA, Lokhorst DK, Nardelli-Haefliger D, Wedeen CJ, Martindale MQ, Shankland M: Conserved anterior boundaries of Hox gene expression in the central nervous system of the leech Helobdella. Dev Biol. 1997, 190: 284-300. 10.1006/dbio.1997.8689.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Prud'homme B, de Rosa R, Arendt D, Julien JF, Pajaziti R, Dorresteijn AW, Adoutte A, Wittbrodt J, Balavoine G: Arthropod-like expression patterns of engrailed and wingless in the annelid Platynereis dumerilii suggest a role in segment formation. Curr Biol. 2003, 13: 1876-1881. 10.1016/j.cub.2003.10.006.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Raible F, Tessmar-Raible K, Osoegawa K, Wincker P, Jubin C, Balavoine G, Ferrier D, Benes V, de Jong P, Weissenbach J, et al: Vertebrate-type intron-rich genes in the marine annelid Platynereis dumerilii. Science. 2005, 310: 1325-1326. 10.1126/science.1119089.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ladurner P, Rieger R: Embryonic Muscle Development of Convoluta pulchra (Turbellaria – Acoelomorpha, Platyhelminthes). Dev Biol. 2000, 222: 359-375. 10.1006/dbio.2000.9715.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Müller MCM, Schmidt-Rhaesa A: Reconstruction of the muscle system in the Antygomonas sp. (Kinorhyncha, Cyclorhagida) by means of phalloidin labeling and cLSM. J Morphol. 2003, 256: 103-110. 10.1002/jmor.10058.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nielsen C, Haszprunar G, Ruthensteiner G, Wanninger A: Early development of the aplacophoran mollusc Chaetoderma. Acta Zool. 2007, 88: 231-247. 10.1111/j.1463-6395.2007.00270.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Wanninger A, Haszprunar G: Muscle development in Antalis entalis (Mollusca, Scaphopoda) and its significance for scaphopod relationships. J Morphol. 2002, 254: 53-64. 10.1002/jmor.10004.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wanninger A, Haszprunar G: Chiton myogenesis: perspectives for the development and evolution of larval and adult muscle systems in molluscs. J Morphol. 2002, 251: 103-113. 10.1002/jmor.1077.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wanninger A, Koop D, Bromham L, Noonan E, Degnan BM: Nervous and muscle system development in Phascolion strombus (Sipuncula). Dev Genes Evol. 2005, 215: 509-518. 10.1007/s00427-005-0012-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Meyer E: Studien über den Körperbau der Anneliden. Mitt zool St Neapel. 1887, 7: 592-741.Google Scholar
- Meyer E: Studien über den Körperbau der Anneliden. IV. Die Körperform der Serpulaceen und Hermellen. Mitt zool St Neapel. 1888, 8: 462-662.Google Scholar
- Rouse GW, Fauchald K: Cladistics and polychaetes. Zool Scr. 1997, 26: 139-204. 10.1111/j.1463-6409.1997.tb00412.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Storch V, Welsch U: Systematische Zoologie. 1986, Stuttgart: Gustav FischerGoogle Scholar
- Westheide W, Rieger R, (Eds.): Spezielle Zoologie, Teil 1: Einzeller und Wirbellose Tiere. 1996, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Jena, New York, 1Google Scholar
- Clark RB: Dynamics in metazoan evolution. The origin of the coelom and segments. 1964, Oxford: Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
- Clark RB: Locomotion and phylogeny of the Metazoa. Boll Zool. 1981, 48: 11-28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Dales RP: Annelids. 1963, London: Hutchinson & CoGoogle Scholar
- Lanzavecchia G, de Eguileor M, Valvassori R: Muscles. The Ultrastructure of Polychaetes. Edited by: Westeheide W, Hermans CO. 1988, Stuttgart: Gustav Fischer, 71-88.Google Scholar
- McHugh D: Molecular evidence that echiurans and pogonophorans are derived annelids. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997, 94: 8006-8009. 10.1073/pnas.94.15.8006.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Westheide W: The direction of evolution within the Polychaeta. J Nat Hist. 1997, 31: 1-15. 10.1080/00222939700770011.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Filippova A, Purschke G, Tzetlin AB, Müller MCM: Reconstruction of the musculature of Magelona cf. mirabilis (Magelonidae) and Prionospio cirrifera (Spionidae) (Polychaeta, Annelida) by phalloidin labeling and cLSM. Zoomorphology. 2005, 124: 1-8. 10.1007/s00435-004-0106-7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Filippova A, Purschke G, Tzetlin AB, Müller MCM: Three-dimensional reconstruction of the F-actin musculature of Dorvillea kastjani (Dorvilleidae : Polychaeta) by means of phalloidin-labelling and cLSM. Sci Mar. 2006, 70: 293-300.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Müller MCM, Worsaae K: CLSM analysis of the phalloidin-stained muscle system in Nerilla antennata, Nerillidium sp. and Trochonerilla mobilis (Polychaeta; Nerillidae). J Morphol. 2006, 267: 885-896. 10.1002/jmor.10292.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tzetlin AB, Filippova AV: Muscular system in polychaetes (Annelida). Hydrobiologia. 2005, 535/536: 113-126. 10.1007/s10750-004-1409-x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Purschke G, Müller MCM: Evolution of body wall musculature. Integr Comp Biol. 2006, 46: 497-507. 10.1093/icb/icj053.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Erséus C, Källersjö M: 18S rDNA phylogeny of Clitellata (Annelida). Zool Scr. 2004, 33: 187-196. 10.1111/j.1463-6409.2004.00146.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Purschke G, Hessling R, Westheide W: The phylogenetic position of the Clitellata and the Echiura – on the problematic assessment of absent characters. J Zoolog Syst Evol Res. 2000, 38: 165-173. 10.1046/j.1439-0469.2000.383146.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Purschke G: On the ground pattern of Annelida. Org Divers Evol. 2002, 2: 181-196. 10.1078/1439-6092-00042.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Rouse GW, Fauchald K: The articulation of annelids. Zoological Scripta. 1995, 24: 269-301. 10.1111/j.1463-6409.1995.tb00476.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Struck TH, Purschke G: The sister group relationsship of Aeolosomatidae and Potamodrilidae (Annelida: "Polychaeta") – a molecular phylogenetic approach based on 18S rDNA and cytochrome oxidase I. Zool Anz. 2005, 243: 281-293. 10.1016/j.jcz.2005.01.001.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Åkesson B: Morphology and life cycle of Ophrytrocha diadema, a new polychaete species from California. Ophelia. 1976, 15: 23-35.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Åkesson B: The embryology of the polycheate Eunice kobiensis. Acta Zool. 1967, 48: 141-192.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Åkesson B: On the biology and larval morphology of Ophryotrocha puerilis Claparede & Metschnikov (Polychaeta). Ophelia. 1967, 4: 110-119.Google Scholar
- McDougall C, Chen WC, Shimeld SM, Ferrier DE: The development of the larval nervous system, musculature and ciliary bands of Pomatoceros lamarckii (Annelida): heterochrony in polychaetes. Front Zool. 2006, 3: 16-10.1186/1742-9994-3-16.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tzetlin AB, Zhadan A, Ivanov I, Müller MCM, Purschke G: On the absence of circular muscle elements in the body wall of Dysponetus pygmaeus (Chrysopetalidae, "Polychaeta", Annelida). Acta Zool. 2002, 83: 81-85. 10.1046/j.1463-6395.2002.00104.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Hill SD, Boyer BC: Phalloidin labeling of developing muscle in embryos of the polychaete Capitella sp. I. Biol Bull. 2001, 201: 257-258. 10.2307/1543353.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Dill KK, Thamm K, Seaver EC: Characterization of twist and snail gene expression during mesoderm and nervous system development in the polychaete annelid Capitella sp. I. Dev Genes Evol. 2007, 217: 435-447. 10.1007/s00427-007-0153-4.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Eisig H: Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Capitelliden. Mitt zool St Neapel. 1899, 13: 5-39.Google Scholar
- Erséus C, Källersjö M, Ekman M, Hovmöller R: 18S rDNA phylogeny of the Tubificidae (Clitellata) and its constituent taxa: Dismissal of the Naididae. Mol Phylogenet Evol. 2002, 22: 414-422. 10.1006/mpev.2001.1063.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Erséus C: Phylogeny of oligochaetous Clitellata. Hydrobiologia. 2005, 535: 357-372. 10.1007/s10750-004-4426-x.Google Scholar
- Jamieson BGM, Ferraguti M: Non-leech Clitellata. Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Annelida. Edited by: Rouse GW, Pleijel F. 2006, Enfield: Science Publishers, 4: 235-392. [Jamieson BGM (Series Editor): Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny].Google Scholar
- Siddall ME, Bely AE, Borda E: Hirudinida. Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Annelida. Edited by: Rouse GW, Pleijel F. 2006, Enfield: Science Publishers, 4: 393-429. [Jamieson BGM (Series Editor): Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny].Google Scholar
- Mettam C: Functional Design and Evolution of Polychaete Aphrodite aculeata. J Zool. 1971, 163: 489-514.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Anderson DT: Embryology and Phylogeny in Annelids and Arthropods. 1973, Oxford, New York,: Pergamon Press, 1Google Scholar
- Rouse GW, Pleijel F: Reproductive Biology and Phylogeny of Annelida. 2006, Enfield: Science PublishersGoogle Scholar
- Seaver EC, Thamm K, Hill SD: Growth patterns during segmentation in the two polychaete annelids, Capitella sp. I and Hydroides elegans: comparisons at distinct life history stages. Evol Dev. 2005, 7: 312-326. 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2005.05037.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Smith KK: Time's arrow: heterochrony and the evolution of development. Int J Dev Biol. 2003, 47: 613-621.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- D'Amico F: A polychromatic staining method for epoxy embedded tissue: a new combination of methylene blue and basic fuchsine for light microscopy. Biotech Histochem. 2005, 80: 207-210. 10.1080/10520290600560897.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kremer JR, Mastronarde DN, McIntosh JR: Computer visualization of three-dimensional image data using IMOD. J Struct Biol. 1996, 116: 71-76. 10.1006/jsbi.1996.0013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yoshida-Noro C, Myohara M, Kobari F, Tochinai S: Nervous system dynamics during fragmentation and regeneration in Enchytraeus japonensis (Oligochaeta, Annelida). Dev Genes Evol. 2000, 210: 311-319. 10.1007/s004270050318.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.