Next Article in Journal
How Old Is Too Old? Outcomes of Prolapse Native-Tissue Repair through Uterosacral Suspension in Octogenarians
Previous Article in Journal
A Narrative Review on Neuro-Ophthalmological Manifestations That May Occur during Pregnancy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Catecholamine Involvement in the Bioluminescence Control of Two Species of Anthozoans
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Life
Volume 14
Issue 4
10.3390/life14040432
life-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Systematic Distribution of Bioluminescence in Marine Animals: A Species-Level Inventory

by
Julien M. Claes
1,*,
Steven H. D. Haddock
2,
Constance Coubris
1 and
Jérôme Mallefet
1
1
Marine Biology Laboratory, Earth and Life Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
2
Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, 7700 Sandholdt Road, Moss Landing, CA 95039, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Life 2024, 14(4), 432; https://doi.org/10.3390/life14040432
Submission received: 31 January 2024 / Revised: 20 March 2024 / Accepted: 22 March 2024 / Published: 24 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Bioluminescence)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Bioluminescence is the production of visible light by an organism. This phenomenon is particularly widespread in marine animals, especially in the deep sea. While the luminescent status of numerous marine animals has been recently clarified thanks to advancements in deep-sea exploration technologies and phylogenetics, that of others has become more obscure due to dramatic changes in systematics (themselves triggered by molecular phylogenies). Here, we combined a comprehensive literature review with unpublished data to establish a catalogue of marine luminescent animals. Inventoried animals were identified to species level in over 97% of the cases and were associated with a score reflecting the robustness of their luminescence record. While luminescence capability has been established in 695 genera of marine animals, luminescence reports from 99 additional genera need further confirmation. Altogether, these luminescent and potentially luminescent genera encompass 9405 species, of which 2781 are luminescent, 136 are potentially luminescent (e.g., suggested luminescence in those species needs further confirmation), 99 are non-luminescent, and 6389 have an unknown luminescent status. Comparative analyses reveal new insights into the occurrence of luminescence among marine animal groups and highlight promising research areas. This work will provide a solid foundation for future studies related to the field of marine bioluminescence.

1. Introduction

Bioluminescence has fascinated humans and puzzled scientists since Antiquity [1,2]. Defined as the emission of visible light by an organism, this phenomenon is the by-product of an oxidation reaction [3]. Luminescent organisms harbor various photogenic structures ranging from simple cells (photocytes) to complex organs called photophores. Photophores typically combine photocytes with sophisticated optical elements (e.g., mirrors, light guides, lenses, filters, and shutters) modifying the physical characteristics (intensity, wavelength, and angular distribution) of the light emission [4,5]. In symbiotic photophores, these photocytes are replaced by luminescent bacteria [4]. Photogenic structures are controlled by diverse physiological ‘switches’ (e.g., neurotransmitters, hormones, and extraocular opsin-based feedback loops [4,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14]) and produce diverse photic displays. These displays are classified into two broad categories based on the duration of the light emission: flashes (light emission ≤ 2 s) and glows (light emission > 2 s) [4].
Luminescence can be observed in most of the Earth’s ecological niches and displays a broad phylogenetic distribution, with a peak diversity in marine animals [15]. In the permanent darkness of the deep-sea biome, and especially in the shelter-less space of the twilight mesopelagic zone (layer ranging from 200 to 1000 m depth), representatives of most animal groups have indeed evolved an arsenal of light-generating adaptations for predator evasion, prey capture, and conspecific or host attraction [16,17]. Luminescent animals may be particularly abundant. In recent comprehensive studies involving in situ video recording, luminescence capability has been observed in 76% of macroscopic individuals from the water column (from surface to abyssal depths) and in up to 41% of macroscopic individuals from the benthos [18,19]. In addition, the luminescent bristlemouth fish Cyclothone is the world’s most abundant vertebrate genus and the species it contains are key components of marine ecosystems [20].
Establishing if an animal is luminescent can be challenging since bioluminescence is a low-intensity and ephemeral event that can only be reliably visible in live animals [21]. Moreover, individuals of a luminescent species might not appear to be luminous due to a series of factors including temporal (e.g., seasonal) changes in their luminescence capabilities [22,23,24], sexual dimorphism (e.g., there are no luminescent male anglerfishes) [25], ontogenetic variations (e.g., the visceral organ of Thysanoteuthis rhombus degenerates with age) [26] or dietary deficiencies in the components of the chemiluminescent reaction [27,28,29,30,31,32]. In addition to these situations sometimes leading to ‘false-negatives’, a series of factors can also lead to the identification of ‘false-positives’, e.g., non-luminescent animals incorrectly considered as luminescent. This latter case can lead to long-term problems, because once reported, it is very challenging to rule out the observation, especially if its exact context cannot be established [15,16]. Erroneous luminescence reports typically come from the contamination of dead or moribund animals with luminescent bacteria [33], gut contents, or adhered organisms, taxonomic mistakes [15], incorrect assumption that all species from a genus are luminous, confusion with other photic phenomena (e.g., iridescence or fluorescence) [16], or vivid imagination from researchers and naturalists establishing the photogenic character of non-luminous structures simply based on superficial inference rather than scientific evidence [17].
For many animal groups, the rise of molecular phylogenies enabled the evolutionary history of luminescence to be reconstructed, which was previously challenging because bioluminescence is a soft tissue-based process leaving no fossil clues [34,35,36,37,38,39]. Molecular phylogenetics also triggered a deep re-organization of marine animal systematics. Many species have been synonymized or moved to other genera (or even to higher taxonomic levels), subspecies have been erected as new species, subgenera have become new genera, and so on. All these elements have created additional confusion about the luminescence competence of a given species or genus. This, and the previously mentioned challenges in determining the luminescence status of a given species with certainty, might explain why—despite the paramount importance of animal luminescence for understanding marine ecology—there is currently no consolidated species-level list of luminescent marine animals available. Systematic studies on luminescence typically go no further than the genus-level [15,40] or they reach species-level but only for a relatively narrow taxonomic group [41,42,43,44,45,46].
Here, we have undertaken a comprehensive inventory of marine animal luminescence based on the review of over one thousand publications, close to 800 of which are featured in this publication. We also compiled erroneous reports of luminescence with associated references, effectively ‘busting the myth’, and established a list of non-luminous species from luminescent genera. We expect that this extensive listing will provide marine scientists and bioluminescence researchers with a strong foundation to perform research in their respective fields.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Catalogue of Marine Luminescent Animals

A catalogue of marine luminescent animals was built leveraging prior exhaustive reviews (e.g., Herring’s luminescent genera catalogue from 1987 [15]) confirmed, corrected, and complemented with an exhaustive scientific literature screening spanning over one thousand publications, as well as unpublished data. Keywords such as ‘(bio)luminescence’, ‘light production’, ‘luminous’, ‘photophore’, ‘photocyte’, or ‘photogenic structure’ combined with taxonomic concepts (e.g., species, genera, families) mentioned in luminescence reviews led to the recovery of initial luminescence reports and their associated context (authority reporting the observation and its luminescence knowledge, year of the report, experimental procedure if any, and so on). This allowed us to identify the animal involved at the lowest possible taxonomic level (species in most of the cases) and to bring additional nuance to the typical ‘luminescent vs. non-luminescent’ binary classification, instead proposing a ‘luminescence scoring scale’ providing a finer view on the level of confidence in the luminescence competence of a given species (Table 1).
Species or genera with a score of 4 or above were considered as luminescent, while species or genera with a score of 3 or below were considered as potentially luminescent, with additional research needed to confirm their luminescence competence. Genera received the highest score reported among the species they encompass.
In our review process, we also collected information regarding reports that have been conclusively considered as erroneous, and listed species from luminescent or potentially luminescent genera that are known to be non-luminescent. In addition, to provide an upper estimate of the number of luminescent marine animals, we counted the number of species from luminescent (scores 4–6) and potentially luminescent (scores 1–3) genera for which the luminescence competence has not been determined yet (unknown luminescent status). Finally, species not belonging to a luminescent or a potentially luminescent genus have been conservatively considered as non-luminescent in our calculation of the proportion of luminescent species across marine taxa.

2.2. Taxonomy and Phylogenetic Tree Building

The taxonomy used in this study (from phylum to species level) followed The World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS), a comprehensive open-access inventory of all marine species’ names, which has increasingly become the authoritative reference for marine taxonomy [47,48]. Throughout our scientific literature review, however, we noticed a few deviations from the currently available version of the WoRMS database [49]. These deviations represent species recently described that are likely to be included as valid species in the WoRMS database soon, species for which synonymy or (non-)validity has been properly established, or species that need to be reallocated to another (often recently described) genus (deviations we followed as well as their associated references can be found in Table S1).
A cladogram (constant branch length) of marine luminescent animals was built based on the topology from Lau and Oakley [50] (itself built based on recent molecular phylogenies of luminescent organisms, e.g., [37]), while, however, only including marine animal groups with luminescent representatives and placing Ctenophora as the most basal animal group, following the recent discovery by Schultz et al. [51]. Porifera has been included in the cladogram following the new description of a deep-sea luminescent sponge from the genus Cladorhiza [52]. Taxonomic groups were presented at the phylum level, with a higher taxonomic resolution (e.g., class, superorder, or family level) being provided for three phyla displaying a relatively higher specific diversity (20,000 species or more), e.g., Mollusca, Arthropoda, and Chordata.
The illustrated silhouettes of marine animal representatives were drawn using Adobe Illustrator (version 28.1).

3. Results

3.1. Catalogue of Marine Luminescent Animals

Our screening of the scientific literature, complemented by unpublished data, led to the record of 819 genera and 2951 species of marine animals from luminescence reports, of which only a tiny fraction—30 genera and 34 species—appears to be erroneous reports (Table S2). A luminescence score of 4 or above was attributed to most of the inventoried genera (87.53%) and species (95.34%), which we then considered as ‘luminescent’ in the rest of the article (Figure 1a). Luminescent and potentially luminescent (luminescence score of 3 or below) species (or higher taxonomic level such as genus, when no specific species has been identified) from valid reports are listed for each marine animal phylum in Table S3 (‘Catalogue of marine luminescent animals’), along with their respective taxonomic information and luminescence score (with associated luminescence report reference). Luminescent genera are mostly associated with a luminescence score of 6 (‘Substantiated luminescence’; 60.14% of valid reports) while luminescent species are mostly associated with a luminescence score of 4 (‘Photogenic structure’; 59.21% of valid reports). Luminescent and potentially luminescent genera encompass 9405 species, among which a small fraction (1.05% or 99 species) can be conclusively considered non-luminescent (Table S4) and about two-thirds (67.96%) have an unknown luminescent status (Figure 1b).

3.2. Generic Distribution of Luminescence across Marine Taxonomic Groups

The 695 luminescent genera of marine animals are distributed across numerous marine phyla (Figure 2), with about two-thirds of them found in Chordata (236 genera, including 226 genera of fishes), Arthropoda (117 genera, mostly of pelagic crustacea), and Cnidaria (108 genera). Mollusca (87 genera, including 72 genera of Decapodiformes, e.g., squids) and Echinodermata (87 genera) are other luminescent genera-rich phyla (each representing 12.52% of the total), while a very small number of luminescent genera are found in Porifera (one genus), Nemertea (one genus), Chaetognatha (two genera), and Hemichordata (three genera). In all phyla and most taxonomic groups, genera with luminescence score of 5 or above are more frequently observed; only in Decapodiformes, basal Teleostei, and Gadiformes are genera with luminescence score of 4 more frequent (54.17%, 51.85% and 66.67% of luminescent genera, respectively). Most of the 99 potentially luminescent genera are found in Arthropoda (34 genera, including 22 genera of Copepoda), Chordata (23 genera, including 11 genera of derived Teleostei), and Annelida (14 genera).

3.3. Specific Distribution of Bioluminescence across Marine Taxonomic Groups

Chordata (1586 luminescent species, including 451 luminescent species of Stomiiformes), Arthropoda (469 species, including 237 Eucarida species), and Mollusca (282 species, including 256 Decapodiformes species) account for 84.04% of the 2781 species of marine luminescent animals (Figure 3; Table S3). Cnidaria (159 species), Echinodermata (146 species), and Annelida (96 species) are other luminescent species-rich phyla, while the other phyla only contain a small fraction (1.55%) of the remaining luminescent species. The majority of the 136 potentially luminescent species are found in Chordata (41 species, including 14 species of Tunicata and 13 species of derived Teleostei), Arthropoda (41 species, including 24 species of Copepoda), Cnidaria (16 species), and Annelida (16 species).
Luminescent species represent a small fraction (<5%) of the total number of valid species from most invertebrate groups, except in Decapodiformes and Ctenophora, where the number of luminescent species reaches 48.03% and 17.11%, respectively (Figure 4). Overall, marine Chordata (including marine Tetrapoda and Cephalochordata) display a proportion of luminescent species of 6.61% and contains a series of taxonomic groupings with higher luminescent species richness (e.g., Selachii and Aulopiformes), or where luminescent species prevail (Gadiformes) or are virtually ubiquitous (Stomiiformes and Myctophiformes). Species with unknown luminescent status from luminescent and potentially luminescent genera represent over 5.00% of some of the taxonomic groups such as Ctenophora (42.78%), Pycnogonida (33.47%), Hemichordata (27.07%), Echinodermata (21.02%), Cnidaria (8.19%), Annelida (8.15%), and Chaetognatha (7.58%).
The 6392 species from luminescent and potentially luminescent genera with unknown luminescent status are mostly found in Arthropoda (1655 species, including 617 Copepoda species and 334 Pycnogonida species), Echinodermata (1592 species), Annelida (1129 species), and Cnidaria (1009 species).
All invertebrate taxonomic groups (except Cephalopoda) have a proportion of species with unknown luminescent status higher than 50% (Table 2). The 99 non-luminescent species from luminescent or potentially luminescent genera were found in Echinodermata (fifty-five species), Chordata (thirty-one species), Cnidaria (seven species), Mollusca (five species) and Annelida (one species).

4. Discussion

The establishment of an exhaustive listing of luminescent marine animals has long been considered a virtually impossible task due to, on the one hand, how abundant the scientific literature treating the topic has been over the last two centuries, and, on the other hand, the incomplete or incorrect character of many of these luminescence reports [15,16]. While the exhaustiveness of our catalogue cannot be assessed (we included all the information we found), the number of missed reports (if any) is likely to be small. Indeed, our comprehensive literature review involved the screening of over one thousand publications and allowed us to recover species-level luminescence reports for a high fraction (>97%, excluding genera for which the absence of species-level report is certain) of marine animal genera seen or suspected to produce light in authoritative luminescence books [53,54] and luminescence reviews covering various taxonomic groups from luminescent species-rich phyla such as Cnidaria [55], Annelida [43,56], Mollusca [45], Arthropoda [33,39,57,58,59,60,61], Echinodermata [44,46,62], and Chordata [40,42,63]. This and the significant amount of unpublished (or about-to-be-published [55]) luminescence information (59 species and 27 genera for which the luminescence competence is reported here for the first time) encompassed by our catalogue, position this paper as—to our knowledge—the most comprehensive listing of marine luminescent animals ever published. The validity of each species included herein has been checked using WoRMS (complemented with taxonomic information from recent publications), widely recognized as the gold standard in marine taxonomy [47]. We expect the taxonomic information provided in our file (e.g., phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, and authority) to ensure the resilience of each record to future taxonomic changes. Finally, our luminescence scoring scale provides a new way of defining the luminescence capabilities of a given species, departing from the typical luminescent/non-luminescent binary approach. Not only does it allow for a more informative and conservative assessment of the luminescence status of a given species, but it also highlights areas for future research, e.g., to confirm the luminescent status of some species. While we cannot rule out some judgment calls between some categories (e.g., typically between luminescence scores of 2 and 3), the scoring of the reports was nevertheless carried out using a rigorous approach based on clear criteria and always opting for a conservative approach (e.g., in the case of doubt, the lowest luminescence score was selected).
With 695 luminescent genera of marine animals, our catalogue is ~40% larger than Herring’s authoritative listing from 1987 [15]. Combined with luminescent records from non-marine Annelida (~35 species from 16 genera [56,64,65]), Mollusca (six species from three genera [66]) and Arthropoda (3000 species from ~240 genera [15,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77]), Fungi (~100 species from 14 genera [78,79,80]), Protists (~100 species from 27 luminescent genera [41,81]) and bacteria (forty-four species from six genera [82,83,84,85]), our listing amounts to over 6000 luminescent species from about 1000 genera, which represents at least a 20% increase compared to previous estimates [3,17]. Two driving forces have fueled this augmentation: an ‘organic’ growth linked to taxonomic changes triggered by the rise of molecular phylogenies (e.g., elevation of subgenera to genera level, splitting of genera to avoid paraphyly, and so on), and a ‘methodological’ growth linked to the discovery of new luminescent species (or to the discovery of the luminescence competence of species discovered before). In the coming decades, however, we expect the latter to be the main vector of luminescent animal genera increase since (i) many taxonomic groups have now undergone molecular-enabled taxonomic changes and, hence, might have reached relative taxonomic stability, and (ii) the development of deep-sea exploration technologies and light measurement techniques will likely fuel the detection of new luminescent animals, facilitating the in situ observation of luminescent behaviors and the collection of animals in good physiological conditions for laboratory experimentation [18,19,86,87,88,89].
Strikingly, while marine animals encompass about 70% of luminescent genera known to science, they represent less than half of the world’s known luminescent organisms. This discrepancy between generic and specific diversity might reflect the lower accessibility of field observation and laboratory experiments to marine animals (especially those inhabiting the deep-sea). The large number of species with an unknown luminescent status found in both luminescent (~65% of species) and potentially luminescent (~90% of species) genera from our catalogue supports this idea. We believe that many of these species are in fact endowed with a luminescent capability since, as highlighted by the present work, non-luminous species are rare among marine luminescent genera (e.g., they occur in <5% of them). If true, this would double the number of luminescent taxa recorded. Two bioluminescence characteristics might explain the infrequent occurrence of non-luminous representatives among luminescent genera. The first is the high adaptive value of luminescence [16,17], which makes it a resilient trait persisting during long evolutionary times, hence leading to relatively rare ‘luminescence loss’ events. The second is the accelerated speciation rate of luminescent species [90,91,92], which quickly generates a generic-level genetic distance from their non-luminescent counterparts, making non-luminescent species from a luminescent genus only a transient situation. This would be particularly true for species like Cylothone obscura (the only non-luminescent Stomiidae), which lost the photophores involved in camouflage by counterillumination following the adoption of a bathypelagic lifestyle (where counterillumination is useless [93,94,95]) and hence have a physical barrier separating them from congeneric species.
As already observed by Harvey [53], the distribution of luminescence across marine animal taxa is far from homogeneous: some groups are luminescent taxa-rich (e.g., fishes and Decapodiformes) while others are luminescent taxa-poor (e.g., Porifera and Nemertea) or completely lack luminescent representatives (e.g., 20 phyla including marine species-rich phyla such Platyhelminthes, Bryozoa, and Nematoda). In relative terms, luminescence clearly stands out as a rare phenomenon across marine taxa since confirmed luminescent species account for only 1.32% of marine animals currently considered valid in WoRMS (circa 210,000 species including all phyla) [49]). In addition, five phyla show less than 1% of luminous species. However, a similarly small fraction of marine animal species has been thoroughly tested under appropriate conditions, so fundamental discoveries will continue to be made.
Our results confirmed the exceptional occurrence of luminescence in Decapodiformes, which is ~100 times higher than that observed in the phylum Mollusca. Yet, they challenge the view that virtually all Ctenophora are luminous, since benthic Platyctenes—which currently lack any luminescent reports—have had high taxonomic proliferation (52 species in WoRMS), although we did find this phylum to have the highest relative richness in luminescent species (17.00%). Finally, our work allows us, for the first time, to properly compare the luminescence occurrence in bony and cartilaginous fishes, e.g., using robust taxonomy and controlling for environment (marine) and taxonomic level (class); as a result, luminescent species represent a higher proportion of Teleostei (8.50% of 17,671 species) than Elasmobranchii (5.20% of 1255 species). Determining if such results reflect uneven information from heterogeneous research efforts or rather highlight fundamental differences in functional ecology across groups remains a challenging scientific question [17]. This overview, however, reveals some intriguing broad trends. Luminescent taxon-rich groups appear to contain a high fraction of relatively large pelagic species bearing counterilluminating photophores. These photophores are easy to spot using the naked eye, even by a luminescence non-specialist since (i) they are often relatively large with a well-identifiable structure adapted to their role (e.g., they typically have a pigmented sheath with accessory optical structures such as lenses and/or filters [96]), and (ii) they produce a long lasting-light display (typically ‘glows’, which last >2 s) even in moribund specimens, which facilitate field and laboratory observations [97]. On the other hand, many of the luminescent taxon-poor groups contain benthic species with virtually invisible photogenic structures (e.g., isolated photocytes or internal secretory organs) involved in short light displays (e.g., typically ‘flashes’, which last ≤2 s) upon predator stimulation [16,98,99,100,101,102,103]. This strongly suggests the underrepresentation of luminescent taxa in some taxonomic groups to reflect (at least partly) an experimental bias rather than a difference in functional ecology. The higher number of species with unknown luminescent status (from both luminescent and potentially luminescent genera) and luminescence score 6 (‘Substantiated luminescence’) reports in these groups support this hypothesis. Benthic deep-sea invertebrates, therefore, likely represent an unexplored potential area for discovering new luminescent animals. A recent increase in experimental focuses on deep-sea Cnidaria and Echinodermata over the last decade has yielded a fair amount of new luminescent genera and species [44,46,55,104,105,106], and we believe this trend will continue. In addition, the improvement in deep-sea collection techniques will also likely lead to luminous discoveries in groups such as Chaetognatha, which have historically been challenging to study in good physiological conditions [107,108].

5. Conclusions

Our catalogue, based on the latest taxonomic information and associated with an innovative luminescence scoring scale, represents the most comprehensive and informative listing of luminescent marine animals ever published. As such, it not only provides updates on key ecological numbers (e.g., it shows that the world’s luminescent organisms now encompass ~1000 genera, which represents a significant increase compared to previous estimates), it also consists in a robust foundational tool for studies in or related to the field of bioluminescence and marine biology. We hope this work will inspire future luminescence research dedicated to taxonomic groups whose luminous properties have, to this day, remained obscure.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/life14040432/s1, Table S1: List of followed deviations from WoRMS (World Register of Marine Species) database (https://www.marinespecies.org/; accessed on 15 January 2024); Table S2: Erroneous luminescence reports; Table S3: Catalogue of marine luminescent animals; Table S4: List of non-luminescent species from luminescent genera.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.M.C. and J.M.; writing—original draft preparation, J.M.C.; writing—review and editing, J.M.C., J.M., C.C. and S.H.D.H.; visualization, J.M.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This paper is a contribution to the Earth and Life Institute—Biodiversity research center BRC # 146 (ELIV) and the Centre Interuniversitaire de Biologie Marine (CIBIM). J.M. expresses his gratitude to FRS-FNRS (Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique Belgium) for the financial support received over many years to carry out research projects and stays abroad at many marine biology stations permitting the discovery of new luminous species. S.H.D.H. was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting the article are included in the Supplementary Materials section.

Acknowledgments

J.M.C. is a Scientific Collaborator of the Université catholique de Louvain (Marine Biology Laboratory). C.C. is a Ph.D. student under a FRIA (FNRS) fellowship. J.M. is Research Associate to F.R.S.–FNRS. S.H.D.H. is a Senior Scientist at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. We deeply thank Yuichi Oba for providing information related to some luminescence reports and acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers whose valuable suggestions allowed us to significantly improve the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Roda, A. A History of Bioluminescence and Chemiluminescence from Ancient Times to the Present, 1st ed.; Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 2011; pp. 1–50. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anctil, M. Luminous Creatures: The History and Science of Light Production in Living Organisms, 1st ed.; McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP: Montreal, QC, Canada, 2018; pp. 34–37. [Google Scholar]
  3. Oba, Y.; Stevani, C.V.; Oliveira, A.G.; Tsarkova, A.S.; Chepurnykh, T.V.; Yampolsky, I.V. Selected least studied but not forgotten bioluminescent systems. Photochem. Photobiol. 2017, 93, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Herring, P.J. Aspects of the bioluminescence of fishes. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. 1982, 20, 415–470. [Google Scholar]
  5. Herring, P.J. Bioluminescent signals and the role of reflectors. J. Opt. A Pure Appl. Opt. 2000, 2, R29–R38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Dewael, Y.; Mallefet, J. Luminescence in ophiuroids (Echinodermata) does not share a common nervous control in all species. J. Exp. Biol. 2002, 205, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Krönström, J.; Dupont, S.; Mallefet, J.; Thorndyke, M.; Holmgren, S. Serotonin and nitric oxide interaction in the control of bioluminescence in northern krill, Meganyctiphanes norvegica (M. Sars). J. Exp. Biol. 2007, 210, 3179–3187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Claes, J.M.; Mallefet, J. Hormonal control of luminescence from lantern shark (Etmopterus spinax) photophores. J. Exp. Biol. 2009, 212, 3684–3692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gouveneaux, A.; Mallefet, J. Physiological control of bioluminescence in a deep-sea planktonic worm, Tomopteris helgolandica. J. Exp. Biol. 2013, 216, 4285–4289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Paitio, J.; Oba, Y. Luminous fishes: Endocrine and neuronal regulation of bioluminescence. Aquac. Fish. 2023, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Duchatelet, L.; Coubris, C.; Pels, C.; Dupont, S.T.; Mallefet, J. Catecholamine involvement in the bioluminescence control of two species of anthozoans. Life 2023, 13, 1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tong, D.; Rozas, N.S.; Oakley, T.H.; Mitchell, J.; Colley, N.J.; McFall-Ngai, M.J. Evidence for light perception in a bioluminescent organ. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 9836–9841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Duchatelet, L.; Sugihara, T.; Delroisse, J.; Koyanagi, M.; Rezsohazy, R.; Terakita, A.; Mallefet, J. From extraocular photoreception to pigment movement regulation: A new control mechanism of the lanternshark luminescence. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 10195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Frank, T.; Sickles, J.; DeLeo, D.; Blackwelder, P.; Bracken-Grissom, H. Putative photosensitivity in internal light organs (organs of Pesta) of deep-sea sergestid shrimps. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 16113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Herring, P.J. Systematic distribution of bioluminescence in living organisms. J. Biolumin. Chemilumin. 1987, 1, 147–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Haddock, S.H.; Moline, M.A.; Case, J.F. Bioluminescence in the sea. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 2010, 2, 443–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Widder, E.A. Bioluminescence in the ocean: Origins of biological, chemical, and ecological diversity. Science 2010, 328, 704–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Martini, S.; Haddock, S.H. Quantification of bioluminescence from the surface to the deep sea demonstrates its predominance as an ecological trait. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 45750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Martini, S.; Kuhnz, L.; Mallefet, J.; Haddock, S.H. Distribution and quantification of bioluminescence as an ecological trait in the deep-sea benthos. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Irigoien, X.; Klevjer, T.A.; Røstad, A.; Martinez, U.; Boyra, G.; Acuña, J.L.; Bode, A.; Echevarria, F.; Gonzalez-Gordillo, J.I.; Hernandez-Leon, S.; et al. Large mesopelagic fishes biomass and trophic efficiency in the open ocean. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 3271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Johnsen, S.; Widder, E.A.; Mobley, C.D. Propagation and perception of bioluminescence: Factors affecting counterillumination as a cryptic strategy. Biol. Bull. 2004, 207, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Deheyn, D.; Mallefet, J.; Jangoux, M. Evidence of seasonal variation in bioluminescence of Amphipholis squamata (Ophiuroidea, Echinodermata): Effects of environmental factors. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 2000, 245, 245–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Claes, J.M.; Mallefet, J. Functional physiology of lantern shark (Etmopterus spinax) luminescent pattern: Differential hormonal regulation of luminous zones. J. Exp. Biol. 2010, 213, 1852–1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Giesbrecht, W. Mitteilungen über Copepoden. 8. Über das Leuchten der pelagischen Copepoden und das tierische Leuchten im Allgemeinen. Mitt. Zool. Stn. Neapel. 1895, 11, 648–689. [Google Scholar]
  25. Herring, P.J. Sex with the lights on? A review of bioluminescent sexual dimorphism in the sea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 2007, 87, 829–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Roper, C.F.E.; Jereb, P. Family Thysanoteuthidae. In Cephalopods of the World. An Annotated and Illustrated Catalogue of Species Known to Date, 2nd ed.; Jereb, P., Roper, C.F.E., Eds.; Myopsid an Oegopsid Squids; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010; Volume 2, pp. 384–387. [Google Scholar]
  27. Warner, J.A.; Case, J.F. The zoogeography and dietary induction of bioluminescence in the midshipman fish, Porichthys notatus. Biol. Bull. 1980, 159, 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Frank, T.M.; Widder, E.A.; Latz, M.I.; Case, J.F. Dietary maintenance of bioluminescence in a deep-sea mysid. J. Exp. Biol. 1984, 109, 385–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Haddock, S.H.; Rivers, T.J.; Robison, B.H. Can coelenterates make coelenterazine? Dietary requirement for luciferin in cnidarian bioluminescence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2001, 98, 11148–11151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Mallefet, J.; Duchatelet, L.; Coubris, C. Bioluminescence induction in the ophiuroid Amphiura filiformis (Echinodermata). J. Exp. Biol. 2020, 223, jeb218719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bessho-Uehara, M.; Yamamoto, N.; Shigenobu, S.; Mori, H.; Kuwata, K.; Oba, Y. Kleptoprotein bioluminescence: Parapriacanthus fish obtain luciferase from ostracod prey. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6, eaax4942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Meyer-Rochow, V.B. Loss of bioluminescence in Anomalops katoptron due to starvation. Experientia 1976, 32, 1175–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Copilas-Ciocianu, D.; Pop, F.M. An account of bacterial-induced luminescence in the Ponto-Caspian amphipod Pontogammarus maeoticus (Sowinskyi, 1894), with an overview of amphipod bioluminescence. North-West. J. Zool. 2020, 16, 238–240. [Google Scholar]
  34. Chakrabarty, P.; Davis, M.P.; Smith, W.L.; Berquist, R.; Gledhill, K.M.; Frank, L.R.; Sparks, J.S. Evolution of the light organ system in ponyfishes (Teleostei: Leiognathidae). J. Morphol. 2011, 272, 704–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Morin, J.G. Luminaries of the reef: The history of luminescent ostracods and their courtship displays in the Caribbean. J. Crustac. Biol. 2019, 39, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Straube, N.; Li, C.; Claes, J.M.; Corrigan, S.; Naylor, G.J. Molecular phylogeny of Squaliformes and first occurrence of bioluminescence in sharks. BMC Evol. Biol. 2015, 15, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Davis, M.P.; Sparks, J.S.; Smith, W.L. Repeated and widespread evolution of bioluminescence in marine fishes. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Sanchez, G.; Fernández-Álvarez, F.Á.; Taite, M.; Sugimoto, C.; Jolly, J.; Simakov, O.; Marlétaz, F.; Allock; Rokhsar, D.S. Phylogenomics illuminates the evolution of bobtail and bottletail squid (order Sepiolida). Commun. Biol. 2021, 4, 819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Golightly, C.; DeLeo, D.M.; Perez, N.; Chan, T.Y.; Landeira, J.M.; Bracken-Grissom, H.D.; Wolfe, J. Tracing the evolution of bioluminescent light organs across the deep-sea shrimp family Sergestidae using a genomic skimming and phylogenetic approach. Invertebr. Syst. 2022, 36, 22–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Paitio, J.; Oba, Y.; Meyer-Rochow, V.B. Bioluminescent fishes and their eyes. In Luminescence—An Outlook on the Phenomena and Their Applications, 1st ed.; Thirumalai, J., Ed.; IntechOpen: Rijeka, Croatia, 2016; pp. 297–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Poupin, J.; Cussatlegras, A.S.; Geistdoerfer, P. Plancton Marin Bioluminescent: Inventaire Documenté des Espèces et Bilan des Formes les plus Communes de la mer D’Iroise. Ph.D. Thesis, Ecole Navale, Laboratoire d’Océanographie Brest, Brest, France, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  42. Duchatelet, L.; Claes, J.M.; Delroisse, J.; Flammang, P.; Mallefet, J. Glow on sharks: State of the art on bioluminescence research. Oceans 2021, 2, 822–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Moraes, G.V.; Hannon, M.C.; Soares, D.M.; Stevani, C.V.; Schulze, A.; Oliveira, A.G. Bioluminescence in polynoid scale worms (Annelida: Polynoidae). Front. Mar. Sci. 2021, 8, 643197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mallefet, J.; Martinez-Soares, P.; Eléaume, M.; O’hara, T.; Duchatelet, L. New insights on crinoid (Echinodermata; Crinoidea) bioluminescence. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1136138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Otjacques, E.; Pissarra, V.; Bolstad, K.; Xavier, J.C.; McFall-Ngai, M.; Rosa, R. Bioluminescence in cephalopods: Biodiversity, biogeography and research trends. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 1161049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Bessho-Uehara, M.; Mallefet, J.; Haddock, S.H. Glowing sea cucumbers: Bioluminescence in the Holothuroidea. In The World of Sea Cucumbers, 1st ed.; Mercier, A., Hamel, J.F., Suhrbier, A., Pearce, C., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2024; pp. 361–375. [Google Scholar]
  47. Costello, M.J.; Bouchet, P.; Boxshall, G.; Fauchald, K.; Gordon, D.; Hoeksema, B.W.; Poore, G.C.B.; van Soest, R.W.M.; Sabine Stöhr, S.; Walter, T.C.; et al. Global coordination and standardisation in marine biodiversity through the World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS) and related databases. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e51629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bouchet, P.; Decock, W.; Lonneville, B.; Vanhoorne, B.; Vandepitte, L. Marine biodiversity discovery: The metrics of new species descriptions. Front. Mar. Sci. 2023, 10, 929989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. World Register of Marine Species (WoRMS). Available online: https://www.marinespecies.org/ (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  50. Lau, E.S.; Oakley, T.H. Multi-level convergence of complex traits and the evolution of bioluminescence. Biol. Rev. 2021, 96, 673–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schultz, D.T.; Haddock, S.H.; Bredeson, J.V.; Green, R.E.; Simakov, O.; Rokhsar, D.S. Ancient gene linkages support ctenophores as sister to other animals. Nature 2023, 618, 110–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Martini, S.; Schultz, D.T.; Lundsten, L.; Haddock, S.H. Bioluminescence in an undescribed species of carnivorous sponge (Cladorhizidae) from the deep sea. Front. Mar. Sci. 2020, 7, 576476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Harvey, E.N. Bioluminescence, 1st ed.; Academic Press, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1952; 649p. [Google Scholar]
  54. Herring, P.J. Bioluminescence in Action, 1st ed.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1978; 570p. [Google Scholar]
  55. Bessho-Uehara, M.; Francis, W.R.; Haddock, S.H. Biochemical characterization of diverse deep-sea anthozoan bioluminescence systems. Mar. Biol. 2020, 167, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Verdes, A.; Gruber, D.F. Glowing worms: Biological, chemical, and functional diversity of bioluminescent annelids. Int. Comp. Biol. 2017, 57, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Herring, P.J. Bioluminescence in decapod Crustacea. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. UK 1976, 56, 1029–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Herring, P.J. Bioluminescence in the Crustacea. J. Crustac. Biol. 1985, 5, 557–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Herring, P.J. Copepod luminescence. Hydrobiologia 1988, 167, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vereshchaka, A.L.; Kulagin, D.N.; Lunina, A.A. A phylogenetic study of krill (Crustacea: Euphausiacea) reveals new taxa and co-evolution of morphological characters. Cladistics 2019, 35, 150–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Chavtur, V.G.; Bashmanov, A.G. Pelagic ostracods of the new subtribe Conchoeciina (Ostracoda, Crustacea) from the North Pacific. Zootaxa 2018, 4516, 1–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Herring, P.J. Bioluminescent echinoderms: Unity of function in diversity of expression. In Echinoderm Research, 1st ed.; Emson, R.H., Smith, A.B., Campbell, A.C., Eds.; A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 1995; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  63. Galt, C.P.; Grober, M.S.; Sykes, P.F. Taxonomic correlates of bioluminescence among appendicularians (Urochordata: Larvacea). Biol. Bull. 1985, 168, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rodionova, N.S.; Rota, E.; Tsarkova, A.S.; Petushkov, V.N. Progress in the study of bioluminescent earthworms. Photochem. Photobiol. 2017, 93, 416–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rodionova, N.S.; Petushkov, V.N. Comparison of earthworm bioluminescent systems. Dokl. Biochem. Biophys. 2019, 485, 157–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Pholyotha, A.; Yano, D.; Mizuno, G.; Sutcharit, C.; Tongkerd, P.; Oba, Y.; Panha, S. A new discovery of the bioluminescent terrestrial snail genus Phuphania (Gastropoda: Dyakiidae). Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 15137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Rosenberg, J.; Meyer-Rochow, V.B. Luminescent myriapoda: A brief review. In Bioluminescence in Focus—A Collection of Illuminating Essays; Meyer Rochow, V.B., Ed.; Research Signpost: Trivandrum, India, 2009; pp. 139–146. [Google Scholar]
  68. Oba, Y.; Branham, M.A.; Fukatsu, T. The terrestrial bioluminescent animals of Japan. Zool. Sci. 2011, 28, 771–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Rosa, S.P.; Costa, C. Metapyrophorus pharolim a new genus and species of Pyrophorini (Coleoptera, Elateridae, Agrypninae). Rev. Bras. Entomol. 2009, 53, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Oba, Y.; Hoffmann, K.H. Insect bioluminescence in the post-molecular biology era. Insect Mol. Biol. 2014, 94, 120. [Google Scholar]
  71. Bi, W.X.; He, J.W.; Chen, C.C.; Kundrata, R.; Li, X.Y. Sinopyrophorinae, a new subfamily of Elateridae (Coleoptera, Elateroidea) with the first record of a luminous click beetle in Asia and evidence for multiple origins of bioluminescence in Elateridae. ZooKeys 2019, 864, 79–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Falaschi, R.L.; Amaral, D.T.; Santos, I.; Domingos, A.H.; Johnson, G.A.; Martins, A.G.; Viroomal, I.B.; Pompéia, S.L.; Mirza, J.D.; Oliveira, A.G.; et al. Neoceroplatus betaryiensis nov. sp. (Diptera: Keroplatidae) is the first record of a bioluminescent fungus-gnat in South America. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Sano, T.; Kobayashi, Y.; Sakai, I.; Ogoh, K.; Suzuki, H. Ecological and histological notes on the luminous springtail, Lobella sp. (Collembola: Neanuridae), discovered in Tokyo, Japan. In Bioluminescence-Analytical Applications and Basic Biology; Suzuki, H., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vega-Badillo, V.; Zaragoza-Caballero, S.; Ivie, M.A. A new genus of Phengodidae (Coleoptera) from the Neotropical Region. Pap. Avulsos Zool. 2020, 60, e202060-si. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Catalogue of Life (COL). Available online: https://www.catalogueoflife.org/ (accessed on 15 January 2024).
  76. Kundrata, R.; Hoffmannova, J.; Hinson, K.R.; Keller, O.; Packova, G. Rhagophthalmidae Olivier, 1907 (Coleoptera, Elateroidea): Described genera and species, current problems, and prospects for the bioluminescent and paedomorphic beetle lineage. ZooKeys 2022, 1126, 55–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Oba, Y.; Schultz, D.T. Firefly genomes illuminate the evolution of beetle bioluminescent systems. Curr. Opin. Insect Sci. 2022, 50, 100879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Desjardin, D.E.; Oliveira, A.G.; Stevani, C.V. Fungi bioluminescence revisited. Photochem. Photobiol. Sci. 2008, 7, 170–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Ke, H.M.; Lu, M.R.; Chang, C.C.; Hsiao, C.; Ou, J.H.; Taneyama, Y.; Tsai, I.J. Evolution and Diversity of Bioluminescent Fungi. In Evolution of Fungi and Fungal-like Organisms; Pöggeler, S., James, T., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2023; pp. 275–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Oba, Y.; Hosaka, K. The Luminous Fungi of Japan. J. Fungi 2023, 9, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Park, S.A.; Jeong, H.J.; Ok, J.H.; Kang, H.C.; You, J.H.; Eom, S.H.; Yeong, D.Y.; Lee, M.J. Bioluminescence capability and intensity in the dinoflagellate Alexandrium species. Algae 2021, 36, 299–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Dunlap, P. Biochemistry and genetics of bacterial bioluminescence. In Bioluminescence: Fundamentals and Applications in Biotechnology; Thouand, G., Marks, R., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2014; Volume 1, pp. 37–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Machado, R.A.; Wüthrich, D.; Kuhnert, P.; Arce, C.C.; Thönen, L.; Ruiz, C.; Zhang, X.; Robert, C.A.M.; Karimi, J.; Kamali, S.; et al. Whole-genome-based revisit of Photorhabdus phylogeny: Proposal for the elevation of most Photorhabdus subspecies to the species level and description of one novel species Photorhabdus bodei sp. nov., and one novel subspecies Photorhabdus laumondii subsp. clarkei subsp. nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2018, 68, 2664–2681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Burtseva, O.; Kublanovskaya, A.; Baulina, O.; Fedorenko, T.; Lobakova, E.; Chekanov, K. The strains of bioluminescent bacteria isolated from the White Sea finfishes: Genera Photobacterium, Aliivibrio, Vibrio, Shewanella, and first luminous Kosakonia. J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2020, 208, 111895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Machado, R.A.; Muller, A.; Ghazal, S.M.; Thanwisai, A.; Pagès, S.; Bode, H.B.; Hussein, M.A.; Khalil, K.M.; Tisa, L.S. Photorhabdus heterorhabditis subsp. aluminescens subsp. nov., Photorhabdus heterorhabditis subsp. heterorhabditis subsp. nov., Photorhabdus australis subsp. thailandensis subsp. nov., Photorhabdus australis subsp. australis subsp. nov., and Photorhabdus aegyptia sp. nov. isolated from Heterorhabditis entomopathogenic nematodes. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2021, 71, 004610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Haddock, S.H.; Christianson, L.M.; Francis, W.R.; Martini, S.; Dunn, C.W.; Pugh, P.R.; Mills, C.E.; Osborn, K.J.; Seibel, B.A.; Choy, C.A.; et al. Insights Into the Biodiversity, Behavior, and Bioluminescence of Deep-Sea Organisms: Using Molecular and Maritime Technology. Oceanography 2017, 30, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Robinson, N.J.; Johnsen, S.; Brooks, A.; Frey, L.; Judkins, H.; Vecchione, M.; Widder, E. Studying the swift, smart, and shy: Unobtrusive camera-platforms for observing large deep-sea squid. Deep-Sea Res. I Oceanogr. Res. Pap. 2021, 172, 103538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bell, K.L.; Chow, J.S.; Hope, A.; Quinzin, M.C.; Cantner, K.A.; Amon, D.J.; Cramp, J.E.; Rotjan, R.D.; Kamalu, L.; de Vos, A.; et al. Low-cost, deep-sea imaging and analysis tools for deep-sea exploration: A collaborative design study. Front. Mar. Sci. 2022, 9, 873700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Feng, J.C.; Liang, J.; Cai, Y.; Zhang, S.; Xue, J.; Yang, Z. Deep-sea organisms research oriented by deep-sea technologies development. Sci. Bull. 2022, 67, 1802–1816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Davis, M.P.; Holcroft, N.I.; Wiley, E.O.; Sparks, J.S.; Leo Smith, W. Species-specific bioluminescence facilitates speciation in the deep sea. Mar. Biol. 2014, 161, 1139–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Claes, J.M.; Nilsson, D.E.; Mallefet, J.; Straube, N. The presence of lateral photophores correlates with increased speciation in deep-sea bioluminescent sharks. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2015, 2, 150219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ellis, E.A.; Oakley, T.H. High rates of species accumulation in animals with bioluminescent courtship displays. Curr. Biol. 2016, 26, 1916–1921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Matsui, T.; Rosenblatt, R.H. Review of the deep-sea fish family Platytroctidae (Pisces: Salmoniformes). Bull. Scripps. Inst. Oceanogr. Univ. Calif. 1984, 26, 1–59. [Google Scholar]
  94. Claes, J.M.; Nilsson, D.E.; Straube, N.; Collin, S.P.; Mallefet, J. Iso-luminance counterillumination drove bioluminescent shark radiation. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 4328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Davis, A.L.; Sutton, T.T.; Kier, W.M.; Johnsen, S. Evidence that eye-facing photophores serve as a reference for counterillumination in an order of deep-sea fishes. Proc. R. Soc. B 2020, 287, 20192918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Denton, E.J.; Gilpin-Brown, J.B.; Wright, P.G. The angular distribution of the light produced by some mesopelagic fish in relation to their camouflage. Proc. R. Soc. B 1972, 182, 145–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Young, R.E.; Kampa, E.M.; Maynard, S.D.; Mencher, F.M.; Roper, C.F. Counterillumination and the upper depth limits of midwater animals. Deep Sea Res. Part I Oceanogr. 1980, 27, 671–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Herring, P.J.; Widder, E.A. Bioluminescence of deep-sea coronate medusae (Cnidaria: Scyphozoa). Mar. Biol. 2004, 146, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Plyuscheva, M.; Martin, D. On the morphology of elytra as luminescent organs in scale-worms (Polychaeta, Polynoidae). Zoosymposia 2009, 2, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Deheyn, D.D.; Wilson, N.G. Bioluminescent signals spatially amplified by wavelength-specific diffusion through the shell of a marine snail. Proc. R. Soc. B 2011, 278, 2112–2121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Jones, A.; Mallefet, J. Why do brittle stars emit light? Behavioural and evolutionary approaches of bioluminescence. Cah. Biol. Mar. 2013, 54, 729–734. [Google Scholar]
  102. Gouveneaux, A.; Gielen, M.C.; Mallefet, J. Behavioural responses of the yellow emitting annelid Tomopteris helgolandica to photic stimuli. Luminescence 2018, 33, 511–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Livermore, J.; Perreault, T.; Rivers, T. Luminescent defensive behaviors of polynoid polychaete worms to natural predators. Mar. Biol. 2018, 165, 149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Johnsen, S.; Frank, T.M.; Haddock, S.H.; Widder, E.A.; Messing, C.G. Light and vision in the deep-sea benthos: I. Bioluminescence at 500–1000 m depth in the Bahamian Islands. J. Exp. Biol. 2012, 215, 3335–3343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Mallefet, J. New lights on echinoderm’s bioluminescence. In Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Bioluminescence & Chemiluminescence, Gijon, Spain, 31 May 2022. [Google Scholar]
  106. DeLeo, D.; Bessho-Uehara, M.; McFadden, C.; Haddock, S.H.D.; Quattrini, A. Evolution of bioluminescence in Anthozoa with emphasis on Octocorallia. Proc. R. Soc. B 2024, in press. [Google Scholar]
  107. Haddock, S.H.; Case, J.F. A bioluminescent chaetognath. Nature 1994, 367, 225–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Thuesen, E.V.; Goetz, F.E.; Haddock, S.H. Bioluminescent organs of two deep-sea arrow worms, Eukrohnia fowleri and Caecosagitta macrocephala, with further observations on bioluminescence in chaetognaths. Biol. Bull. 2010, 219, 100–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Life 14 00432 g001
Figure 1. Proportional area chart showing the distribution of genera (a) and species (b) per luminescence score category (not including erroneous reports). The categories ‘Non luminescent’, ‘Unknown from luminescent genera’ and ‘Unknown from potentially luminescent genera’ are only relevant for panel b.
Figure 1. Proportional area chart showing the distribution of genera (a) and species (b) per luminescence score category (not including erroneous reports). The categories ‘Non luminescent’, ‘Unknown from luminescent genera’ and ‘Unknown from potentially luminescent genera’ are only relevant for panel b.
Life 14 00432 g001
Life 14 00432 g002
Figure 2. Generic distribution of luminescent marine animals. Capital letters are used for phylum-level groups while lower case labels are used for groups of lower taxonomic level. The bar chart next to the cladogram indicates the number of genera in each luminescence score category (not including erroneous reports). Luminescent genera encompass genera with at least one species displaying a luminescence score of 4 or above while potentially luminescent genera only have species with a luminescence score of 3 or below. ‘Basal Teleostei’ includes Alepocephaliformes, Anguilliformes, Argentiniformes, Clupeiformes, Nothacanthiformes and Saccopharyngiformes, while ‘Derived Teleostei’ includes Acanthuriformes (including Lophiiformes), Acropomatiformes, Batrachoidiformes, Beryciformes (including Trachicthyiformes), Eupercaria incertae sedis, Kurtiformes, Ophidiiformes and Scombriformes. Drawings by J.M. Claes.
Figure 2. Generic distribution of luminescent marine animals. Capital letters are used for phylum-level groups while lower case labels are used for groups of lower taxonomic level. The bar chart next to the cladogram indicates the number of genera in each luminescence score category (not including erroneous reports). Luminescent genera encompass genera with at least one species displaying a luminescence score of 4 or above while potentially luminescent genera only have species with a luminescence score of 3 or below. ‘Basal Teleostei’ includes Alepocephaliformes, Anguilliformes, Argentiniformes, Clupeiformes, Nothacanthiformes and Saccopharyngiformes, while ‘Derived Teleostei’ includes Acanthuriformes (including Lophiiformes), Acropomatiformes, Batrachoidiformes, Beryciformes (including Trachicthyiformes), Eupercaria incertae sedis, Kurtiformes, Ophidiiformes and Scombriformes. Drawings by J.M. Claes.
Life 14 00432 g002
Life 14 00432 g003
Figure 3. Specific distribution of marine luminescent animals. Capital letters are used for phylum-level groups while lowercase labels are used for groups of lower taxonomic level. The bar chart next to the cladogram indicates the number of species in each luminescence score category (not including erroneous reports). Luminescent species encompass species with luminescence scores ranging from 4 to 6 while potentially luminescent species encompass species with luminescence scores ranging from 1 to 3 while. ‘Basal Teleostei’ and ‘Derived Teleostei’ include the same orders as in Figure 2. Drawings by J.M. Claes.
Figure 3. Specific distribution of marine luminescent animals. Capital letters are used for phylum-level groups while lowercase labels are used for groups of lower taxonomic level. The bar chart next to the cladogram indicates the number of species in each luminescence score category (not including erroneous reports). Luminescent species encompass species with luminescence scores ranging from 4 to 6 while potentially luminescent species encompass species with luminescence scores ranging from 1 to 3 while. ‘Basal Teleostei’ and ‘Derived Teleostei’ include the same orders as in Figure 2. Drawings by J.M. Claes.
Life 14 00432 g003
Life 14 00432 g004
Figure 4. Proportion of luminescent species across marine phyla. Percentages at the top of each circle indicate the proportion of luminescent species (e.g., species with a luminescence score of 4 or above) among the total number of valid species in the corresponding taxonomic grouping (indicated at the bottom of the circle). Capital letters are used for phylum-level groups while minuscule letters are used for groups of lower taxonomic level. ‘Basal Teleostei’ includes Albuliformes, Elopiformes, Gonorhynchiformes, Osmeriformes Salmoniformes, and Siluriformes, in addition to the orders mentioned in Figure 2. ‘Derived Teleostei’ includes Anabantiformes, Atheriniformes, Beloniformes, Blenniformes, Callionymiformes, Carangiformes, Centrarchiformes, Cetomimiformes, Cichliformes, Cyprinodontiformes, Dactylopteriformes, Gobiesociformes, Holocentriformes, Labriformes, Mugiliformes, Mulliformes, Pleuronectiformes, Scorpaeniformes, Synbranchiformes, Syngnathiformes, Tetraodontiformes, and Uranoscopiformes in addition to the orders mentioned in Figure 2. Drawings by J.M. Claes.
Figure 4. Proportion of luminescent species across marine phyla. Percentages at the top of each circle indicate the proportion of luminescent species (e.g., species with a luminescence score of 4 or above) among the total number of valid species in the corresponding taxonomic grouping (indicated at the bottom of the circle). Capital letters are used for phylum-level groups while minuscule letters are used for groups of lower taxonomic level. ‘Basal Teleostei’ includes Albuliformes, Elopiformes, Gonorhynchiformes, Osmeriformes Salmoniformes, and Siluriformes, in addition to the orders mentioned in Figure 2. ‘Derived Teleostei’ includes Anabantiformes, Atheriniformes, Beloniformes, Blenniformes, Callionymiformes, Carangiformes, Centrarchiformes, Cetomimiformes, Cichliformes, Cyprinodontiformes, Dactylopteriformes, Gobiesociformes, Holocentriformes, Labriformes, Mugiliformes, Mulliformes, Pleuronectiformes, Scorpaeniformes, Synbranchiformes, Syngnathiformes, Tetraodontiformes, and Uranoscopiformes in addition to the orders mentioned in Figure 2. Drawings by J.M. Claes.
Life 14 00432 g004
Table 1. Luminescence scoring scale.
Table 1. Luminescence scoring scale.
ScoreNameDescription
1Uncertain luminescenceReport previously considered as dubious by a luminescence authority (e.g., Peter J. Herring), or to genera reported as luminescent but currently lacking a species-level report following the reallocation of luminescent species to other genera.
2Putative photogenic structureReport featuring an anatomical element considered as photogenic while not sharing similarities with structures confirmed as photogenic in species from the same order.
3Potential photogenic structureReport featuring an anatomical element sharing similarities (e.g., similar shape or fluorescence pattern) with structures confirmed as photogenic in species from the same order.
4Photogenic structureReport featuring an anatomical element displaying the typical morphology of structures confirmed as photogenic in species from the same family (e.g., counterilluminating photophores of crustaceans, cephalopods, and fishes).
5Observed luminescenceReport featuring luminescence observations made in relevant conditions and reported by credible scientific authorities.
6Substantiated luminescenceReport for which irrefutable scientific evidence (e.g., via luminometry, spectrophotometry, biochemistry, long exposure photography or light-intensified video recordings) of the luminescence competence of the species has been provided.
Table 2. Distribution of species with undetermined luminescent status from luminescent and potentially luminescent genera across marine animal taxonomic groupings.
Table 2. Distribution of species with undetermined luminescent status from luminescent and potentially luminescent genera across marine animal taxonomic groupings.
Number of Species with Undetermined Status
Taxonomic GroupFrom Luminescent GeneraFrom Potentially Luminescent GeneraProportion with Undetermined Status (% 1,2)
CTENOPHORA *542646.15–68.38
PORIFERA *01180.00–97.52
CNIDARIA **89811175.40–84.72
CHAETOGNATHA **10083.33
NEMERTEA **24096.00
ANNELIDA **94418576.01–90.90
MOLLUSCA
 Bivalvia **38090.48
 Gastropoda **2383182.93–93.73
 Octopodiformes107.69
 Decapodiformes0110.0–3.97
ARTHROPODA
 Pycnogonida **334098.82
 Ostracoda **139156.28–56.68
 Copepoda *20041427.82–85.40
 Peracarida *5817821.16–81.91
 Eucarida **3032153.63–57.35
ECHINODERMATA **1589388.52–88.69
HEMICHORDATA **36083.33
CHORDATA
 Tunicata **55256.70–58.76
 Selachii101.54
 Basal Teleostei222315.94–32.61
 Stomiiformes000.00
 Aulopiformes7015.91
 Myctophiformes000.00
 Gadiformes1113.02–3.30
 Derived Teleostei8821113.25–45.03
1 For each taxonomic grouping, the smallest value refers to species from luminescent genera (luminescence scores from 4 to 6) with undetermined luminescent status while the highest value refers to species from both luminescent and potentially luminescent (luminescence scores from 1 to 3) genera with undetermined luminescent status. 2 Using the total number of species from both luminescent and potentially luminescent genera as a common denominator. * Taxonomic group with a proportion of species with undetermined luminescent status from luminescent and potentially luminescent genera > 50%; ** Taxonomic group with a proportion of species with undetermined luminescent status from luminescent genera > 50%. Capital letters are used for phylum-level groups while lowercase labels are used for groups of lower taxonomic level. Basal Teleostei’ and ‘Derived Teleostei’ include the same orders as in Figure 2.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Claes, J.M.; Haddock, S.H.D.; Coubris, C.; Mallefet, J. Systematic Distribution of Bioluminescence in Marine Animals: A Species-Level Inventory. Life 2024, 14, 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14040432

AMA Style

Claes JM, Haddock SHD, Coubris C, Mallefet J. Systematic Distribution of Bioluminescence in Marine Animals: A Species-Level Inventory. Life. 2024; 14(4):432. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14040432

Chicago/Turabian Style

Claes, Julien M., Steven H. D. Haddock, Constance Coubris, and Jérôme Mallefet. 2024. "Systematic Distribution of Bioluminescence in Marine Animals: A Species-Level Inventory" Life 14, no. 4: 432. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14040432

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop