The ultrastructure of Trimastix marina Kent, 1880 (eukaryota), an excavateflagellate

Citation
Agb. Simpson et al., The ultrastructure of Trimastix marina Kent, 1880 (eukaryota), an excavateflagellate, EUR J PROT, 36(3), 2000, pp. 229-251
Citations number
40
Categorie Soggetti
Biology
Journal title
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PROTISTOLOGY
ISSN journal
09324739 → ACNP
Volume
36
Issue
3
Year of publication
2000
Pages
229 - 251
Database
ISI
SICI code
0932-4739(20000925)36:3<229:TUOTMK>2.0.ZU;2-6
Abstract
The ultrastructure of Trimastix marina is documented for the first time. Th is protist has four flagella which insert at the head of a longitudinal fee ding groove. The basal bodies are elongate and arranged in a cruciate patte rn. The anterior and posterior basal bodies lack cartwheels. The posterior flagellum bears two vanes. The anterior flagellum is thickened. The cell ha s a poorly organised Golgi-like region and small hydrogenosome-like organel les. The flagellar apparatus includes left and right major microtubular roo ts which support the margins of the groove, and a third, major anterior roo t associated with a fan of microtubules which supports the dorsal side of t he cell, There is also a singlet 'root' associated with the groove, a minor anterior root and a suite of non-microtubular structures (including the A, B, C and I fibres). Arrays of microtubules diverge from both left and righ t roots to support the floor of the groove, Some microtubules from the righ t array converge to form an inner right root, Halfway down the cell the lef t root ends, while the right root reduces and associates with a sheet-like striated/dense composite fibre, The groove ends as a cytopharynx, with a 't ongue' structure associated with its opening. Trimastix marina is most simi lar to T: pyriformis, the only previously studied member of Trimastix, Amon g the other 'excavate taxa', Trimastix is most similar to 'core jakobids', Malawimonas, Carpediemonas and retortamonads but also shares several unusua l features with some heteroloboseids. The complexities and detail of struct ural similarities amongst various excavate taxa support the 'excavate hypot hesis' (i,e. that the excavate taxa have a common excavate ancestor) but su ggest that understanding the relationships amongst the excavate taxa throug h morphological data will be a complex task.