Back

Evaluating acidotropic dyes for detecting mixotrophy in protists: Insights from cultures and field communities

Cook, C. C. Z.; Ewton, E. M.; Marchetti, A.; Menden-Deuer, S.; Millette, N.; Slomka, S.; Speciale, E. V.; Wilken, S.; Cohen, N. R.

2025-10-01 ecology
10.1101/2025.09.29.679303 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Mixotrophic protists combine photoautotrophic primary production with heterotrophic phagotrophy, and distinctly impact nutrient cycling and microbial food web dynamics in aquatic environments. Despite their biogeochemical importance, detecting and quantifying mixotrophic presence and grazing in situ remains challenging, preventing a comprehensive understanding of their ecology and biogeography. Fluorescently labeled particle (FLP) incubations are commonly used to quantify mixotroph abundance and ingestion but may underestimate activity due to prey and size preferences of grazers. Acidotropic dyes that stain acidic vacuoles associated with phagotrophy have emerged as an alternative to FLP incubations for estimating mixotroph abundance, yet have not been thoroughly tested among a diverse suite of marine eukaryotes. Here, we evaluate the effectiveness and specificity of two dyes, LysoTracker Green and LysoSensor Blue, in laboratory cultures and natural marine communities. In laboratory cultures, both dyes correctly did not stain one photoautotrophic species. However, LysoSensor failed to stain several known mixotrophs, indicating false negatives, while both dyes stained photoautotrophic diatoms, indicating false positives. In the field, LysoTracker staining broadly tracked with FLP-derived results in the North East Shelf (NES) and the diatom-rich California Current System (CCS). Both methods indicated lower mixotroph abundance and proportion in the CCS, suggesting acidotropic dyes may more reliably reflect mixotrophy in the field than in monoculture. This study highlights the utility and limitations of acidotropic dyes for detecting mixotrophy and underscores the importance of incorporating community composition and complementary grazing estimates for reliable interpretation.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Limnology and Oceanography
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
31.2%
2
Journal of Phycology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.1%
3
Frontiers in Marine Science
62 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
50% of probability mass above
4
Limnology and Oceanography: Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
5
Environmental Microbiology
133 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
5.5%
6
Marine Ecology Progress Series
21 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.8%
7
ISME Communications
120 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
8
Ecology and Evolution
267 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
9
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
10
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
339 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
11
Environmental DNA
56 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.4%
12
Ecosphere
57 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.3%
13
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.3%
14
Science of The Total Environment
186 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
15
Freshwater Biology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.1%
16
FACETS
14 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
17
Algal Research
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Microbiology
427 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
19
Global Change Biology
78 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Environmental Microbiology Reports
31 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
21
Coral Reefs
21 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
22
Water Research
79 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
23
PeerJ
308 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.8%
24
Hydrobiologia
12 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
25
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
26
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
54 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
27
Journal of Fish Biology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.6%