Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Natural Disease Resistance in Threatened Staghorn Corals

  • Steven V. Vollmer ,

    s.vollmer@neu.edu

    Affiliations Marine Science Center, Northeastern University, Nahant, Massachusetts, United States of America, Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama

    ⨯
  • David I. Kline

    Affiliations Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Balboa, Panama, Centre for Marine Studies, University of Queensland, Queensland, Australia

    ⨯

Abstract

Disease epidemics have caused extensive damage to tropical coral reefs and to the reef-building corals themselves, yet nothing is known about the abilities of the coral host to resist disease infection. Understanding the potential for natural disease resistance in corals is critically important, especially in the Caribbean where the two ecologically dominant shallow-water corals, Acropora cervicornis and A. palmata, have suffered an unprecedented mass die-off due to White Band Disease (WBD), and are now listed as threatened under the US Threatened Species Act and as critically endangered under the IUCN Red List criteria. Here we examine the potential for natural resistance to WBD in the staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis by combining microsatellite genotype information with in situ transmission assays and field monitoring of WBD on tagged genotypes. We show that six percent of staghorn coral genotypes (3 out of 49) are resistant to WBD. This natural resistance to WBD in staghorn corals represents the first evidence of host disease resistance in scleractinian corals and demonstrates that staghorn corals have an innate ability to resist WBD infection. These resistant staghorn coral genotypes may explain why pockets of Acropora have been able to survive the WBD epidemic. Understanding disease resistance in these corals may be the critical link to restoring populations of these once dominant corals throughout their range.

Citation: Vollmer SV, Kline DI (2008) Natural Disease Resistance in Threatened Staghorn Corals. PLoS ONE 3(11): e3718. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003718

Editor: John F. Bruno, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, United States of America

Received: October 16, 2008; Accepted: October 28, 2008; Published: November 13, 2008

Copyright: © 2008 Vollmer, Kline. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Funding: Smithsonian Marine Science Network Postdoctoral Fellowships to SVV and DIK, and a Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Hoch Fellowship to SVV.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Disease epidemics have radically altered tropical coral reefs and are becoming more frequent and extensive because of climate change [1]–[3]. This is most apparent in the Caribbean where diseases have caused massive and widespread die-offs of the key herbivorous sea urchin Diadema anitillarum [4], common Gorgonian sea fans [5], [6] and the two ecologically dominant shallow-water corals–the staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis and the elkhorn coral A. palmata [7], [8]. The Caribbean-wide mass die-offs of both the shallow-water Acropora corals and the keystone urchin D. antillarium, in particular, have been major contributors to the rapid decline of Caribbean coral reefs and the dramatic phase shift from coral to macroalgal dominance [7], [9], [10].

Reef-building corals, in general, have been susceptible to the global rise in marine diseases [1], [11], [12]. As foundation species on tropical reefs, the impacts of disease on corals can ripple throughout the ecosystem [7], [11]. The effect of the White Band Disease (WBD) epidemic on the Caribbean Acropora corals demonstrates the ecosystem-level impacts of coral disease on tropical reefs [7]. Since it was first observed in the late 1970s [8], WBD has caused unprecedented Caribbean-wide declines in its hosts A. cervicornis and A. palmata [7], [13], [14], with losses of up to 95% of living acroporid cover common across the greater Caribbean [13], [15], [16]. Recovery of these formerly dominant shallow-water corals has been slow [7], [17], due in large part to poor larval recruitment [18]–[20], highly restricted larval dispersal [21], [22] and a heavy reliance on asexual (i.e. vegetative) propagation [23]–[25]. As a result, both species have recently been listed as threatened on the US Endangered Species Act [26], [27] and listed as critically endangered under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List criteria [28].

Yet, despite its dramatic impacts, much about the etiology and ecology of WBD remains poorly understood [7], [11]. WBD draws its name from its appearance as a rapidly advancing white band of diseased tissue [8], [29] (Fig. 1A). WBD appears to be host-specific, infecting only the Caribbean Acropora [11]. It has two forms–WBD type I which is ubiquitous throughout the Caribbean and WBD type II which has been described from the Bahamas [29]–and can be transmitted via direct contact and through vectors such as the corallivorous snail Corallophyllia abbreviata [30]. The WBD pathogen has not been isolated in pure culture, but histological and genetic data suggest that the pathogen is bacterial [29], [31]–[33]. Recent genetic surveys indicate that a marine Rickettsia bacterium is associated with WBD type I [31] while the bacterium Vibrio charcharia appears to be associated with WBD type II [29]. Nothing is known about the potential for host resistance to WBD in the Caribbean Acropora species.

thumbnail
Download:
Figure 1. Resistance to White Band Disease (WBD) in the staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis.

(A) WBD transmission to a coral fragment occurs rapidly as illustrated by the progress of the advancing white band of disease after three days of direct contact (grafting) with an infected coral fragment. (B) In situ transmission experiments identified five staghorn coral genotypes that did not contract WBD. (C) Field surveys of WBD prevalence identified ten genotypes that were not observed in the field with WBD. (D) Integrated field surveys and experimental transmission results show that three staghorn coral genotypes were resistant to WBD infection.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003718.g001

Here we assess the potential for natural resistance to WBD in the threatened staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis. To do this, WBD resistance was assayed on 49 staghorn coral genotypes from four populations in Bocas del Toro, Panama using a series of in situ transmission experiments and field monitoring of WBD prevalence. We show that 3 out of the 49 staghorn coral genotypes assayed were naturally resistant to WBD.

Results

A total of 106 staghorn coral colonies were tagged in four populations (i.e. reefs) from Bocas del Toro, Panama and then genotyped using five microsatellite loci in order to identify unique staghorn genotypes from clones produced by asexual fragmentation. Data from the five microsatellite loci identified 49 out of the 106 samples as unique staghorn coral genotypes (Table 1) or 46% of the sample. Each population possessed a relatively high number of genotypes; the number of genotypes (genets) per population ranged from 7 at Punta Caracol to 17 at Salt Creek. The Punta Caracol and Casa Blanca populations had fewer genets per sample (G/N) and lower clonal diversity indices (Ds and Evenness) than the Crawl Cay and Salt Creek populations (Table 1).

thumbnail
Download:
Table 1. Number of staghorn coral samples (N), unique genotypes or genets (G), and the ratio of genets per sample (G/N) per population along with clonal diversity (Ds), its evenness (E), and the number of genets with clones (Ncg).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003718.t001

In order to assay WBD resistance on our staghorn coral genotypes, four sets of in situ transmission experiments were conducted (in July 2005, Sept. 2005, May 2006 and Aug. 2006) in parallel across the four sites. WBD transmission was achieved by grafting active fragments of WBD to replicate fragments of each staghorn coral genotype placed on clips in cinderblock common gardens (Fig. 1A). Transmission data was obtained for all 49 staghorn coral genotypes. For each genotype, WBD transmission was attempted five or more times (Fig. 1B). Overall, the rate of WBD transmission averaged 45.5% on the experimental fragments grafted with active WBD, whereas only 3.3% of the control fragments developed WBD. WBD on the control fragments was likely due to prior infection on the control fragments.

Data from the in situ transmission experiments show that the percentage of WBD infections per genotype varied substantially across the 49 assayed staghorn coral genotypes (Fig. 1B). Most of the staghorn coral genotypes (n = 12) fell within 30–40% disease class, while nine genotypes were highly susceptible to WBD with greater than 70% disease. Most importantly, five genotypes did not contract WBD (genotypes-sc78, sc81, sc89, sc96 and ck311), despite repeated attempts to transmit WBD to them [sc78 (n = 5 replicates), sc81 (6), sc89 (6), sc96 (6) and ck311 (9)]. These five WBD resistant genotypes were from two of the four populations; four genotypes were from Salt Creek (sc78, sc81, sc89, and sc96) and one was from Crawl Cay (ck311)]. We had sufficient replication (6 or more attempts) for four of these resistant genotypes (sc81, sc89, sc96, and ck311) to show a statistically significant degree of resistance [Pr<0.026 given the binomial probability Pr (No Infection) = (1–0.455)6+].

The prevalence of WBD on our tagged staghorn coral genotypes was surveyed in the field on four separate occasions (Sept. 2005, Dec. 2005, May 2006 and August 2006). WBD prevalence on our tagged genotypes averaged 28.2% across the four sites. The percentage of times WBD was observed on each tagged genotype in our field surveys was lower than in the in situ transmission experiments (Fig. 1) due to the lower prevalence of WBD in the field (28.2% versus 45.5%, respectively). A total of ten staghorn coral genotypes were never observed with WBD symptoms during our four field surveys (Fig. 1C).

We combined the data from the in situ transmission experiments (Fig. 1B) and field surveys (Fig. 1C) to calculate a conservative index of disease susceptibility (Fig. 1D). Three of the ten genotypes identified as resistant in the field also failed to contract WBD in our transmission experiments (sc78, sc96, ck311), and thus were fully resistant to WBD over the course of our study. The other two genotypes that we identified as resistant based on our transmission experiments (sc81 and sc89) were each observed with WBD once in the field. For the three genotypes that displayed resistance in both our field surveys and transmission experiments (sc78, sc96, ck311), the combined binomial probabilities for observing full WBD resistance (i.e. no infections) in both the transmission experiments and field surveys were significant (P = 0.043, P = 0.007, P = 0.001, respectively).

Discussion

Data from our in situ transmission experiments and field surveys indicate that roughly six percent of staghorn genotypes (3 out of 49) from Bocas del Toro, Panama are resistant to WBD infection. This natural resistance to WBD in threatened staghorn corals provides the first evidence for host disease resistance in reef-building corals, and may explain why pockets of staghorn corals have survived the Caribbean-wide epidemic of WBD over the past thirty years.

Natural resistance to WBD in staghorn corals has important evolutionary and ecological implications for how staghorn coral populations may be responding to the WBD epidemic. In an evolutionary scenario akin to G. C. Williams (1975) strawberry-coral model of genotype selection [34], we predict that WBD resistant genotypes of staghorn coral will have a selective advantage over non-resistant genotypes, and thus should accumulate locally within populations over time via asexual, vegetative fragmentation. Staghorn corals are prolific vegetative fragmenters [19], [24], [35], and thus asexual propagation of WBD resistant staghorn genotypes within populations (i.e. reefs) should provide an effective means for the local recovery and persistence of staghorn coral populations where WBD resistant genotypes occur. It is possible that differences in the numbers of naturally resistant genotypes between reefs may explain for why some staghorn coral populations have fared better than others over the course of the WBD epidemic.

Ultimately, however, the broad-scale recovery of staghorn coral populations across the greater Caribbean will have to be achieved by the successful dispersal and recruitment of staghorn coral larvae; preferably those carry genetic variation for WBD resistance. This may prove to be the limiting step for staghorn coral recovery. Staghorn corals have historically been poor sexual recruiters [10], [20], [35]–[37], relying predominantly on localized asexual fragmentation instead [19], [23]–[25], and staghorn coral recruits continue to be rare on most Caribbean reefs [18], [38]. In addition, we know of no instances where a sexual recruitment pulse has resulted in the recovery of staghorn coral populations since the WBD epidemic. Instead, Caribbean Acropora populations appear to be experiencing recruitment failure [39], possibly augmented by Allee effects resulting from WBD-induced population reductions [25], [40], [41].

Even if successful larval recruitment events were to occur, the scale of over which staghorn larvae could reseed downstream reefs will be limited by their restricted dispersal potential. Genetic data indicate that larval dispersal in A. cervicornis [22] and its congener A. palmata [21] is geographically restricted across the Caribbean over spatial scales less than 500 kilometers [21], [22], [42], [43]. For A. cervicornis, the genetic data indicate that gene flow can be limited over spatial scales as small as adjacent reefs (i.e. 2–5 kilometers)[22]. The combination of poor sexual recruitment and geographically restricted gene flow in staghorn corals suggests that larval recruitment from healthy staghorn coral populations will not be sufficient to recover downstream reefs in the next few decades. Thus, the conservation and restoration of staghorn coral populations will have to be achieved through the local protection of remnant populations and aggressive strategies aimed at propagating and transplanting WBD resistant genotypes to reefs.

Our data show that staghorn corals display a wide range of phenotypic variation in their response to WBD, ranging from highly resistant to highly susceptible coral strains. A number of environmental and genetic factors are likely contributing to this phenotypic variation. Yet, the occurrence of WBD resistant genotypes suggests that this disease resistance has an underlying genetic basis. Given the close evolutionary relationship between A. cervicornis and A. palmata [its congener and hybrid partner [44]], it is likely that WBD resistance exists in A. palmata as well. Natural genetic variation for host disease resistance has been documented in a variety of animals and plants [45]–[48], including marine shrimp [49]–[52] and oysters [53]–[57]. While nothing is known about which genes might confer disease resistance in reef corals, genetic surveys for resistance genes (or R-genes) in other taxa [46], [47] indicate that the genetic basis of disease resistance often occurs on genes involved in pathogen recognition and innate immunity [46], [47]. Reef corals do possess key components of the invertebrate innate immune pathway, including Toll/Toll-like receptors [58], which might form the genetic basis for disease resistance in corals. Thus, future research on the genetic basis of disease resistance in corals has the potential to uncover the gene(s) involved in host-pathogen resistance and recognition and allow for surveys of resistant gene variants in disease impacted corals like the Caribbean Acropora.

Evidence for natural disease resistance in a reef-building corals supports growing interest in the role that host resistance might play in buffering the impacts of the global rise in marine diseases on tropical coral reefs and elsewhere [1], [6], [59], [60]. In addition to staghorn corals, disease resistance has been identified in a number of other marine taxa, including oysters [53], shrimp [49], [52] and abalone [61]. Rapid evolution of host genetic resistance has been evoked to explain sharp reductions in disease infections by the terrestrial fungus Aspergillus on Gorgonian soft corals in the Caribbean [6]. While it remains to be seen how important and pervasive disease resistance in reef corals might be, its existence demonstrates that some corals have the innate ability and adaptive genetic variation to respond to diseases and possibly other stressors, including coral bleaching. With coral bleaching, strong emphasis has been placed on the role of algal symbiont diversity as a means to respond to bleaching, i.e. the adaptive bleaching hypothesis [62]–[66]. Like host resistance to disease, we suggest that there is potential for adaptive genetic variation for bleaching resistance within the genomes of corals as well.

Clearly, more research is needed to elucidate the genetic and environmental factors underlying natural disease resistance in reef-building corals. The approach taken here to identify naturally resistant strains of staghorn corals demonstrates that disease resistant corals can be identified using relatively simple means and provide a stepping-off point for further research on the genetic basis of disease resistance, pathogen recognition and innate immunity in reef-building corals. From a conservation standpoint, these simple transmission assays provide a means for identifying disease resistant coral strains, which in combination with coral farming and local replanting of diverse sets of disease resistant coral genotypes, would provide an effective means to restore threatened Acropora populations throughout the Caribbean.

Materials and Methods

Identification of staghorn coral genotypes

Permanent transects with tagged, genotyped staghorn corals were established in four populations (Punta Caracol, Casa Blanca, Crawl Cay, and Salt Creek) in Bocas del Toro, Panama, in order to provide distinct staghorn coral genotypes for in situ WBD transmission experiments and to monitor WBD prevalence in the field. A total of 106 staghorn coral colonies were tagged with numbered aluminum tags along permanent transects in a 3×6 meter grid within each of the four populations. A small fragment (ca. 1 cm) of each coral was sampled, placed directly in Chaos DNA buffer (a concentrated guanidine thiocynate buffer), and the DNA later extracted using published protocols [67]. Each tagged coral was genotyped at five microsatellite loci [loci 166, 181, 182, 187, and 201; after [68]] using modified PCR protocols, and by multiplexing all five PCR products for genotyping on a ABI 3100xl capillary sequencers (Applied Biosystems) using 4-color fluorescent primer labels and Liz-500 size standard. The microsatellite data were scored using Genescan and Genotyper software (Applied Biosystems). The programs GenAElx ver. 6 [69] and GenoDive [70] were used to identify unique staghorn genotypes (and their clones) and calculate clonal diversity indices. Multilocus genotypes from these five microsatellite loci identified unique staghorn coral genotypes and their clonemates with high probabilities of identity (p<10−5), and no shared identical genotypes were observed between populations (i.e. reefs). Additional results from these microsatellite data will be published elsewhere as part of spatial genetic structure study on A. cervicornis (Vollmer, In Prep.).

In situ WBD transmission

Four sets of in situ transmission experiments were conducted (in July 2005, Sept. 2005, May 2006 and Aug. 2006) in order to assay WBD resistance on our tagged staghorn coral genotypes. For each transmission experiment, four healthy coral fragments (ca. 30 cm long) were sampled from each staghorn coral genotype and placed into cinderblock common gardens on PVC clips located adjacent to each site. WBD transmission was attempted on three of the four fragments by grafting (i.e. cable-tying) active pieces of WBD sampled from diseased corals in the field; the fourth fragment was grafted with a healthy (i.e. asymptomatic) piece of staghorn coral as a control. The presence or absence of WBD on each fragment was then scored 3–5 days after transmission (Fig. 1A). WBD was readily apparent and identified as a mobile front of white disease tissue interface, and was easily differentiated from localized mortality due to non-self aggression reactions resulting from tissue grafts [19].

Data presented here are from staghorn coral genotypes with more than 5 replicate transmission attempts. WBD resistant staghorn coral genotypes were defined conservatively as genotypes where no WBD transmission was observed. The probability that this WBD resistance was significant was calculated using the binomial probability [i.e. Pr(No WBD Infection) = (1–Average rate of Transmission)#Replicate Trials]. WBD susceptible genotypes were defined arbitrarily as corals with greater than 70% WBD infection.

Field Surveys

The prevalence of WBD was surveyed on the tagged coral genotypes in the field at each of the four study sites on four separate occasions (Sept. 2005, Dec. 2005, May 2006 and August 2006). These field data on WBD prevalence were used in combination with the transmission studies to verify WBD resistance on the assayed staghorn coral genotypes.

Acknowledgments

We thank David Combosch, Matt Bracken, and three anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this manuscript, and Dalal Al-Abdulrazzak, Armando Castillo, Silvia Libro, Vanessa Gonzalez, Flavia Nunes, and Joris Van Alphen for assistance in the field. We are grateful to the research and support staff of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute for their valuable assistance. Permits for this research were provided by Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM) in the Republic of Panama.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: SV DIK. Performed the experiments: SV DIK. Analyzed the data: SV. Wrote the paper: SV.

References

  1. 1. Harvell D, Aronson R, Baron N, Connell J, Dobson A, et al. (2004) The rising tide of ocean diseases: unsolved problems and research priorities. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 375–382.
  2. 2. Harvell CD, Kim K, Burkholder JM, Colwell RR, Epstein PR, et al. (1999) Review: Marine ecology-Emerging marine diseases-Climate links and anthropogenic factors. Science 285: 1505–1510.
  3. 3. Hughes TP, Baird AH, Bellwood DR, Card M, Connolly SR, et al. (2003) Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Science 301: 929–933.
  4. 4. Lessios HA (1988) Mass mortality of Diadema antillarum in the Caribbean: What have we learned? Ann Rev Ecol Syst 19: 371–393.
  5. 5. Smith GW, Ives LD, Nagelkerken IA, Ritchie KB (1996) Caribbean sea-fan mortalities. Nature 383: 487–487.
  6. 6. Kim K, Harvell CD (2004) The rise and fall of a six-year coral-fungal epizootic. American Naturalist 164: S52–S63.
  7. 7. Aronson RB, Precht WF (2001) White-band disease and the changing face of Caribbean coral reefs. Hydrobiologia 460: 25–38.
  8. 8. Gladfelter WB (1982) White-Band Disease in Acropora palmata-Implications for the structure and growth of shallow reefs. Bulletin of Marine Science 32: 639–643.
  9. 9. Gardner TA, Cote IM, Gill JA, Grant A, Watkinson AR (2003) Long-term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 301: 958–960.
  10. 10. Hughes TP (1994) Catastrophes, Phase-Shifts, and Large-Scale Degradation of a Caribbean Coral-Reef. Science 265: 1547–1551.
  11. 11. Sutherland KP, Porter JW, Torres C (2004) Disease and immunity in Caribbean and Indo-Pacific zooxanthellate corals. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 266: 273–302.
  12. 12. Ward JR, Lafferty KD (2004) The elusive baseline of marine disease: Are diseases in ocean ecosystems increasing? Plos Biology 2: 542–547.
  13. 13. Aronson RB, Precht WF (1997) Stasis, biological disturbance, and community structure of a Holocene coral reef. Paleobiology 23: 326–346.
  14. 14. Pandolfi JM, Jackson JBC (2006) Ecological persistence interrupted in Caribbean coral reefs. Ecology Letters 9: 818–826.
  15. 15. Bak RPM, Criens SR (1982) Experimental Fusion in Atlantic Acropora (Scleractinia). Marine Biology Letters 3: 67–72.
  16. 16. Miller MW, Bourque AS, Bohnsack JA (2002) An analysis of the loss of acroporid corals at Looe Key, Florida, USA: 1983-2000. Coral Reefs 21: 179–182.
  17. 17. Precht WF, Bruckner AW, Aronson RB, Bruckner RJ (2002) Endangered acroporid corals of the Caribbean. Coral Reefs 21: 41–42.
  18. 18. Vargas-Angel B, Thomas JD, Hoke SM (2003) High-latitude Acropora cervicornis thickets off Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA. Coral Reefs 22: 465–473.
  19. 19. Neigel JE, Avise JC (1983) Clonal diversity and population-structure in a reef-building coral, Acropora cervicornis-Self-Recognition analysis and demographic interpretation. Evolution 37: 437–453.
  20. 20. Knowlton N, Lang JC, Keller BD (1990) Case study of natural population collapse: post-hurricane predation of Jamaican staghorn corals. Smithsonian Contributions Marine Science 31: 1–25.
  21. 21. Baums IB, Miller MW, Hellberg ME (2005) Regionally isolated populations of an imperiled Caribbean coral, Acropora palmata. Molecular Ecology 14: 1377–1390.
  22. 22. Vollmer SV, Palumbi SR (2007) Restricted gene flow in the Caribbean staghorn coral Acropora cervicomis: Implications for the recovery of endangered reefs. Journal of Heredity 98: 40–50.
  23. 23. Bak RPM, editor. (1983) Aspects of community organization in Caribbean stony corals: UNESCO Reports in the Marine Sciences. pp. 51–68.
    • 24. Highsmith RC (1982) Reproduction by fragmentation in corals. Marine Ecological Progress Series 7: 207–226.
    • 25. Aronson RB, Precht WF (2001) Evolutionary paleoecology of Caribbean coral reefs. Evolutionary paleoecology: the ecological context of macroevolutionary change. Columbia University Press. New York: pp. 171–233.
      • 26. Anonymous (2005) Endangered and threatened species: proposed threatened status for elkhorn coral and staghorn coral. Federal Register 70: 24359–24365.
      • 27. Hogarth WT (2006) Endangered and threatened species: final listing determinations for the Elkhorn Coral and Staghorn Coral. Federal Register, pgs. 26852–26861.
      • 28. Carpenter KE, Abrar M, Aeby G, Aronson RB, Banks S, et al. (2008) One-Third of Reef-Building Corals Face Elevated Extinction Risk from Climate Change and Local Impacts. Science 1159196v1159191.
      • 29. Ritchie KB, Smith GW (1998) Type II white-band disease. Revista De Biologia Tropical 46: 199–203.
      • 30. Williams DE, Miller MW (2005) Coral disease outbreak: pattern, prevalence and transmission in Acropora cervicornis. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 301: 119–128.
      • 31. Casas V, Kline DI, Wegley L, Yu YN, Breitbart M, et al. (2004) Widespread association of a Rickettsiales-like bacterium with reef-building corals. Environmental Microbiology 6: 1137–1148.
      • 32. Peters EC, Oprandy JJ, Yevich PP (1983) Possible Causal Agent of White Band Disease in Caribbean Acroporid Corals. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 41: 394–396.
      • 33. Pantos O, Bythell JC (2006) Bacterial community structure associated with white band disease in the elkhorn coral Acropora palmata determined using culture-independent 16S rRNA techniques. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 69: 79–88.
      • 34. Williams GC (1975) Sex and Evolution. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
        • 35. Tunnicliffe V (1981) Breakage and propagation of the stony coral Acropora cervicornis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America-Biological Sciences 78: 2427–2431.
        • 36. Bak RPM, Engel MS (1979) Distribution, abundance, and survival of juvenile hermatypic corals (Scleractinia) and the importance of life history strategies in the parent coral community. Marine Biology 54: 341–352.
        • 37. Hughes TP (1996) Demographic approaches to community dynamics: A coral reef example. Ecology 77: 2256–2260.
        • 38. Quinn NJ, Kojis BL (2006) Evaluating the potential of natural reproduction and artificial techniques to increase Acropora cervicornis populations at Discovery Bay, Jamaica. Rev biol trop 54: 105–116.
        • 39. Williams DE, Miller MW, Kramer KL (2008) Recruitment failure in Florida Keys Acropora palmata, a threatened Caribbean coral. Coral Reefs 27: 697–705.
        • 40. Baums IB (2008) A restoration genetics guide for coral reef conservation. Molecular Ecology 17: 2796–2811.
        • 41. Baums IB, Miller MW, Hellberg ME (2006) Geographic variation in clonal structure in a reef-building Caribbean coral, Acropora palmata. Ecological Monographs 76: 503–519.
        • 42. Baums IB, Paris CB, Cherubin LM (2006) A bio-oceanographic filter to larval dispersal in a reef-building coral. Limnology and Oceanography 51: 1969–1981.
        • 43. Galindo HM, Olson DB, Palumbi SR (2006) Seascape genetics: A coupled oceanographic-genetic model predicts population structure of Caribbean corals. Current Biology 16: 1622–1626.
        • 44. Vollmer SV, Palumbi SR (2002) Hybridization and the evolution of reef coral diversity. Science 296: 2023–2025.
        • 45. Arenzana-Seisdedos F, Parmentier M (2006) Genetics of resistance to HIV infection: Role of co-receptors and co-receptor ligands. Seminars in Immunology 18: 387–403.
        • 46. Hammond-Kosack KE, Parker JE (2003) Deciphering plant-pathogen communication: fresh perspectives for molecular resistance breeding. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 14: 177–193.
        • 47. Jones JDG (2001) Putting knowledge of plant disease resistance genes to work. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 4: 281–287.
        • 48. Lively CM, Jokela J (1996) Clinal variation for local adaptation in a host-parasite interaction. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 263: 891–897.
        • 49. Zhao ZY, Yin ZX, Weng SP, Guan HJ, Li SD, et al. (2007) Profiling of differentially expressed genes in hepatopancreas of white spot syndrome virus-resistant shrimp (Litopenaeus vannamei) by suppression subtractive hybridisation. Fish & Shellfish Immunology 22: 520–534.
        • 50. He NH, Qin QW, Xu X (2005) Differential profile of genes expressed in hemocytes of White Spot Syndrome Virus-resistant shrimp (Penaeus japonicus) by combining suppression subtractive hybridization and differential hybridization. Antiviral Research 66: 39–45.
        • 51. Pan D, He NH, Yang ZY, Liu HP, Xu X (2005) Differential gene expression profile in hepatopancreas of WSSV-resistant shrimp (Penaeus japonicus) by suppression subtractive hybridization. Developmental and Comparative Immunology 29: 103–112.
        • 52. Luo T, Zhang XB, Shao ZZ, Xu X (2003) PmAV, a novel gene involved in virus resistance of shrimp Penaeus monodon. Febs Letters 551: 53–57.
        • 53. Yu ZN, Guo XM (2006) Identification and mapping of disease-resistance QTLs in the eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gmelin. Aquaculture 254: 160–170.
        • 54. Gaffney PM, Bushek D (1996) Genetic aspects of disease resistance in oysters. Journal of Shellfish Research 15: 135–140.
        • 55. Brown BL, Butt AJ, Meritt D, Paynter KT (2005) Evaluation of resistance to Dermo in eastern oyster strains tested in Chesapeake Bay. Aquaculture Research 36: 1544–1554.
        • 56. Culloty SC, Cronin MA, Mulcahy MF (2004) Potential resistance of a number of populations of the oyster Ostrea edulis to the parasite Bonamia ostreae. Aquaculture 237: 41–58.
        • 57. Calvo LMR, Calvo GW, Burreson EM (2003) Dual disease resistance in a selectively bred eastern oyster, Crassostrea virginica, strain tested in Chesapeake Bay. Aquaculture 220: 69–87.
        • 58. Miller DJ, Hemmrich G, Ball EE, Hayward D, Khalturin K, et al. (2007) The innate immune repertoire in Cnidaria-ancestral complexity and stochastic gene loss. Genome Biology 8: 1–13.
        • 59. Altizer S, Harvell D, Friedle E (2003) Rapid evolutionary dynamics and disease threats to biodiversity. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 589–596.
        • 60. Mullen KM, Peters EC, Harvell CD (2004) Coral resistance to disease. In: Rosenberg E, Loya Y, editors. Coral Health and Disease. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 377–399.
          • 61. Moore JD, Finley CA, Robbins TT, Friedman CS (2002) Withering syndrome and restoration of Southern California abalone populations. Reports of California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries 43: 113–117.
          • 62. Baker AC (2001) Reef corals bleach to survive change. Nature 411: 765–766.
          • 63. Baker AC (2003) Flexibility and specificity in coral algal symbiosis: Diversity, Ecology, and Biogeography of Symbiodinium. Annual Reviews in Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 34: 661–689.
          • 64. Buddemeier RW, Fautin DG (1993) Coral Bleaching as an Adaptive Mechanism-a Testable Hypothesis. Bioscience 43: 320–326.
          • 65. Rowan R, Knowlton N (1995) Intraspecific Diversity and Ecological Zonation in Coral Algal Symbiosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 92: 2850–2853.
          • 66. Rowan R, Knowlton N, Baker A, Jara J (1997) Landscape ecology of algal symbionts creates variation in episodes of coral bleaching. Nature 388: 265–269.
          • 67. Fukami H, Budd AF, Levitan DR, Jara J, Kersanach R, et al. (2004) Geographic differences in species boundaries among members of the Montastraea annularis complex based on molecular and morphological markers. Evolution 58: 324–337.
          • 68. Baums IB, Hughes CR, Hellberg ME (2005) Mendelian microsatellite loci for the Caribbean coral Acropora palmata. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 288: 115–127.
          • 69. Peakall R, Smouse PE (2006) GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Molecular Ecology Notes 6: 288–295.
          • 70. Meirmans PG, Van Tienderen PH (2004) Genotype and Genodive: two programs for the analysis of genetic diversity of asexual organisms. Molecular Ecology Notes 4: 792–794.