Significance: Unicellular organisms form endless variability of complex skeletons that serve as archives of Earth’s history and play a crucial role in global geochemical cycles. A longstanding question is how single cells control morphogenesis and mineralization of skeletal structures. Although already addressed by Sir D’Arcy W. Thompson, this problem is still unsolved. Shell emerges from a controlled cascade of interactions at different levels of cellular organization. To gain insight into its morphogenesis, we apply live fluorescent imaging to observe cytoskeleton structures during shell formation in foraminifera. Our live experiments on calcifying foraminiferal chambers show that dynamic F-actin structures are involved in shaping and controlling mineralization.

Microscopy techniques have been widely applied to observe cellular ultrastructure. Most of these techniques, such as transmission electron microscopy, produce high‐resolution images, but they may require extensive preparation, hampering their application for in vivo examination. Other approaches, such as fluorescent and fluorogenic probes, can be applied not only to fixed specimens but also to living cells when the probes are nontoxic. Fluorescence‐based methods, which are generally relatively easy to use, allow visual and (semi)quantitative studies of the ultrastructural organization and processes of the cell under natural as well as manipulated conditions. To date, there are relatively few published studies on the nearly ubiquitous marine protistan group Foraminifera that have used fluorescent and fluorogenic probes, despite their huge potential. The aim of the present contribution is to document the feasible application of a wide array of these probes to foraminiferal biology. More specifically, we applied fluorescence‐based probes to study esterase activity, cell viability, calcium signaling, pH variation, reactive oxygen species, neutral and polar lipids, lipid droplets, cytoskeleton structures, Golgi complex, acidic vesicles, nuclei, and mitochondria in selected foraminiferal species.

Italian, Spanish, French vs German, Austrian or Norwegian COVID-19 tracks? Antibiotics might have a partial impact on COVID-19 death rates in various countries. Our working hypotheses based on recent publications is that that antibiotics may be a major factor that negatively affects patients’ immune system during viral infections. We are all aware that there is no specific and effective medical treatment for COVID-19 so far. However, we know that our immune system is the only efficient weapon that fights against this syndrome right now. In fact, antibiotics are very often prescribed to prevent secondary infections following an antiviral immune response. Various antibiotic therapies have also been commonly applied to support COVID-19 treatments in China and Italy. Unfortunately, the frequent antibiotic off-site targets include mitochondria that are genetically and evolutionary closely linked to bacteria. Mitochondria are multifunctional organelles responsible for bioenergetics in nearly all our cells, acting as signaling hubs in antiviral and antibacterial immune responses. Several studies have demonstrated that mitochondria are vulnerable to antibacterial treatments, interrupting their physiology. Inhibition of these processes by antibiotics might render the immune system less capable of fighting acute COVID-19 viral infections. Some antibiotics, including those prescribed for COVID-19 in Wuhan, have been shown to inhibit the synthesis of mitochondrial DNA. The question is whether antibiotics support such a treatment or weaken patient immune responses in this case. This hypothesis should be evaluated based on comparative clinical data that seem to be unavailable at the moment. Possibly the COVID-19 risk group should be extended to all patients being treated with antibiotics, including those who finished antibiotic therapies days up to several months before SARS-CoV-2 infection. We therefore urge health service response groups to evaluate the impact of antibiotics on COVID-19 recovery vs death retrospective data. We would like to motivate international, national and local health authorities to share available clinical treatment data, discuss and optimize treatment strategies.

Living organisms control the formation of mineral skeletons and other structures through biomineralization. Major phylogenetic groups usually consistently follow a single biomineralization pathway. Foraminifera, which are very efficient marine calcifiers, making a substantial contribution to global carbonate production and global carbon sequestration, are regarded as an exception. This phylum has been commonly thought to follow two contrasting models of either in situ ‘mineralization of extracellular matrix’ attributed to hyaline rotaliid shells, or ‘mineralization within intracellular vesicles’ attributed to porcelaneous miliolid shells. Our previous results on rotaliids along with those on miliolids in this paper question such a wide divergence of biomineralization pathways within the same phylum of Foraminifera. We have found under a high-resolution scanning electron microscopy (SEM) that precipitation of high-Mg calcitic mesocrystals in porcelaneous shells takes place in situ and form a dense, chaotic meshwork of needle-like crystallites. We have not observed calcified needles that already precipitated in the transported vesicles, what challenges the previous model of miliolid mineralization. Hence, Foraminifera probably utilize less divergent calcification pathways, following the recently discovered biomineralization principles. Mesocrystalline chamber walls in both models are therefore most likely created by intravesicular accumulation of pre-formed liquid amorphous mineral phase deposited and crystallized within the extracellular organic matrix enclosed in a biologically controlled privileged space by active pseudopodial structures. Both calcification pathways evolved independently in the Paleozoic and are well conserved in two clades that represent different chamber formation modes.

Living organisms control the formation of mineral skeletons and other structures through biomineralization. Major phylogenetic groups usually consistently follow a single biomineralization pathway. Foraminifera, which are very efficient marine calcifiers, making a substantial contribution to global carbonate production and global carbon sequestration, are regarded as an exception. This phylum has been commonly thought to follow two contrasting models of either in situ “mineralization of extracellular matrix” attributed to hyaline rotaliid shells, or “mineralization within intracellular vesicles” attributed to porcelaneous miliolid shells. Our previous results on rotaliids along with those on miliolids in this paper question such a wide divergence of biomineralization pathways within the same phylum of Foraminifera. We found that both groups produced calcareous shells via the intravesicular formation of unstable mineral precursors (Mg-rich amorphous calcium carbonates) supplied by endocytosed seawater and deposited at the site of new wall formation within the organic matrix. Precipitation of high-Mg calcitic mesocrystals took place in situ and formed a dense, chaotic meshwork of needle-like crystallites. We did not observe deposition of calcified needles that had already precipitated in the transported vesicles, which challenges the previous model of miliolid mineralization. Hence, Foraminifera utilize less divergent calcification pathways, following the recently discovered biomineralization principles. Mesocrystalline chamber walls are therefore apparently created by accumulating and assembling particles of pre-formed liquid amorphous mineral phase within the extracellular organic matrix enclosed in a biologically controlled privileged space by active pseudopodial structures. Both calcification pathways evolved independently in the Paleozoic and are well-conserved in two clades that represent different chamber formation modes.

Living organisms control the formation of mineral skeletons and other structures through biomineralization. Major phylogenetic groups usually consistently follow a single biomineralization pathway. Foraminifera, which are very efficient marine calcifiers, making a substantial contribution to global carbonate production and global carbon sequestration, are regarded as an exception. This phylum has been commonly thought to follow two contrasting models of either in situ “mineralization of extracellular matrix” attributed to hyaline rotaliid shells, or “mineralization within intracellular vesicles” attributed to porcelaneous miliolid shells. Our previous results on rotaliids along with those on miliolids in this paper question such a wide divergence of biomineralization pathways within the same phylum of Foraminifera. We found that both groups produced calcareous shells via the intravesicular formation of unstable mineral precursors (Mg-rich amorphous calcium carbonates) supplied by endocytosed seawater and deposited at the site of new wall formation within the organic matrix. Precipitation of high-Mg calcitic mesocrystals took place in situ and formed a dense, chaotic meshwork of needle-like crystallites. We did not observe deposition of calcified needles that had already precipitated in the transported vesicles, which challenges the previous model of miliolid mineralization. Hence, Foraminifera utilize less divergent calcification pathways, following the recently discovered biomineralization principles. Mesocrystalline chamber walls are therefore apparently created by accumulating and assembling particles of pre-formed liquid amorphous mineral phase within the extracellular organic matrix enclosed in a biologically controlled privileged space by active pseudopodial structures. Both calcification pathways evolved independently in the Paleozoic and are well-conserved in two clades that represent different chamber formation modes.