Abstract

ABSTRACTMatrotrophy, the continuous extra‐vitelline supply of nutrients from the parent to the progeny during gestation, is one of the masterpieces of nature, contributing to offspring fitness and often correlated with evolutionary diversification. The most elaborate form of matrotrophy—placentotrophy—is well known for its broad occurrence among vertebrates, but the comparative distribution and structural diversity of matrotrophic expression among invertebrates is wanting. In the first comprehensive analysis of matrotrophy across the animal kingdom, we report that regardless of the degree of expression, it is established or inferred in at least 21 of 34 animal phyla, significantly exceeding previous accounts and changing the old paradigm that these phenomena are infrequent among invertebrates. In 10 phyla, matrotrophy is represented by only one or a few species, whereas in 11 it is either not uncommon or widespread and even pervasive. Among invertebrate phyla, Platyhelminthes, Arthropoda and Bryozoa dominate, with 162, 83 and 53 partly or wholly matrotrophic families, respectively. In comparison, Chordata has more than 220 families that include or consist entirely of matrotrophic species. We analysed the distribution of reproductive patterns among and within invertebrate phyla using recently published molecular phylogenies: matrotrophy has seemingly evolved at least 140 times in all major superclades: Parazoa and Eumetazoa, Radiata and Bilateria, Protostomia and Deuterostomia, Lophotrochozoa and Ecdysozoa. In Cycliophora and some Digenea, it may have evolved twice in the same life cycle. The provisioning of developing young is associated with almost all known types of incubation chambers, with matrotrophic viviparity more widespread (20 phyla) than brooding (10 phyla). In nine phyla, both matrotrophic incubation types are present. Matrotrophy is expressed in five nutritive modes, of which histotrophy and placentotrophy are most prevalent. Oophagy, embryophagy and histophagy are rarer, plausibly evolving through heterochronous development of the embryonic mouthparts and digestive system. During gestation, matrotrophic modes can shift, intergrade, and be performed simultaneously. Invertebrate matrotrophic adaptations are less complex structurally than in chordates, but they are more diverse, being formed either by a parent, embryo, or both. In a broad and still preliminary sense, there are indications of trends or grades of evolutionarily increasing complexity of nutritive structures: formation of (i) local zones of enhanced nutritional transport (placental analogues), including specialized parent–offspring cell complexes and various appendages increasing the entire secreting and absorbing surfaces as well as the contact surface between embryo and parent, (ii) compartmentalization of the common incubatory space into more compact and ‘isolated’ chambers with presumably more effective nutritional relationships, and (iii) internal secretory (‘milk’) glands. Some placental analogues in onychophorans and arthropods mimic the simplest placental variants in vertebrates, comprising striking examples of convergent evolution acting at all levels—positional, structural and physiological.

Highlights

  • Most theories of the adaptive significance of and impediments to matrotrophy stem from work on vertebrates, which constitutes the overwhelming majority of studies

  • We report the results of the first extensive literature analyses, augmented by our own anatomical and ultrastructural studies, which reveal an astonishingly wide distribution of matrotrophy and placentation throughout Animalia, in contrast to a more traditional view that these phenomena are infrequent among invertebrates

  • Nutritional roles were ascribed to some temporary structures developing around and/or by embryos, and modes and sources of nutrition for embryos were suggested in sponges (Dendy, 1888; Gatenby, 1920), turbellarians (Bresslau, 1904), digeneans (Lynch, 1933), molluscs (Leydig, 1855; Stepanoff, 1865; Ziegler, 1885; Poyarkoff, 1910; Gilmore, 1917), polychaetes (Goodrich, 1900), bryozoans (Braem, 1890, 1897; Harmer, 1902, 1926), kamptozoans (Nickerson, 1901), crustaceans (Weismann, 1877), onychophorans (Sedgwick, 1885; Sclater, 1888), insects (Heymons, 1912; Hardenberg, 1929), nematodes (Maupas, 1900), echinoderms (Mortensen, 1894, 1920; Clark, 1898, 1901; Vaney, 1925) and salps (Huxley, 1851; Brooks, 1893)

Read more

Summary

MAKING SENSE OF TERMINOLOGY

The term ‘matrotrophy’ was coined by Wourms (1981, p. 473), who classified reproductive patterns in fishes as ‘either lecithotrophic, i.e. exclusively yolk dependent, or matrotrophic, i.e. in receipt of a continuous supply of maternal nutrients during gestation’ [our italics]. Matrotrophy sensu stricto can be defined as continuous (i.e. direct), parental, extra-vitelline nutrient supply during gestation (incubation of the young), whether viviparous or brooding (and, pre- and post-paritive). In most cases it is pre-paritive and associated with viviparity. In viviparity, the development of young is pre-paritive, whereas in brooding it is post-paritive In both instances, embryonic, and postembryonic stages can be incubated, and either extra- or postembryonic nourishment (or both) can occur. Here we define a ‘placental analogue’ as any local zone of enhanced nutritional transport, whether simple apposition of non-specialized epithelia or specialized parental–embryonic tissue/cell complexes, as well as nutritive structures formed exclusively by the parent or the embryo and increasing the entire secreting and absorbing surfaces as well as the contact surface area between them

MATERIALS AND METHODS
AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
VIII. SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.