Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Advertisement

Nature Communications
  • View all journals
  • Search
  • My Account Login
  • Content Explore content
  • About the journal
  • Publish with us
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed
  1. nature
  2. nature communications
  3. articles
  4. article
Magnetoreception in a freshwater ciliate arises from endosymbiosis
Download PDF
Download PDF
  • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 10 March 2026

Magnetoreception in a freshwater ciliate arises from endosymbiosis

  • Romain Bolzoni1,2 na1,
  • Caroline L. Monteil  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2834-68341 na1,
  • Béatrice Alonso1,
  • Marine Bergot1,
  • Daniel M. Chevrier  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0914-67141,
  • Christian Godon1,
  • Nicolas Menguy2,
  • Stephanie Fouteau  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-4720-49513,
  • Violette Da Cunha3,
  • Fériel Skouri-Panet2,
  • Eva Pereiro4,
  • Arnaud Duverger  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5347-17012,
  • David Vallenet  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6648-03323,
  • Corinne Cruaud5,
  • Fernanda Abreu  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-2356-58406,
  • Karim Benzerara  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-0553-01372 &
  • …
  • Christopher T. Lefevre  ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-1692-02451 

Nature Communications , Article number:  (2026) Cite this article

  • 3277 Accesses

  • 5 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

We are providing an unedited version of this manuscript to give early access to its findings. Before final publication, the manuscript will undergo further editing. Please note there may be errors present which affect the content, and all legal disclaimers apply.

Subjects

  • Microbiome
  • Phylogenetics
  • Symbiosis
  • Water microbiology

Abstract

Magnetoreception is a remarkable ability found across a diverse range of organisms, including bacteria, birds, fish, insects, and mammals, enabling them to detect and harness the Earth’s geomagnetic field. Recently, the recruitment of biomineralizing ectosymbionts by euglenozoans was evidenced as an ecological strategy for microeukaryotes to acquire this sense. Here, we report a case of magnetosymbiosis involving a ciliate and four populations of endosymbiotic bacteria experiencing genome reduction. Among these bacteria, one group of sulphate-reducing Desulfovibrionales was found to biomineralize bundles of bullet-shaped magnetite crystals. The ciliate’s magnetotaxis mirrors that of free-living magnetotactic bacteria and euglenozoans, enabling efficient navigation in chemically stratified aquatic environments. However, in this case, magnetotaxis arises from an endosymbiotic interaction. Using a combination of optical-, confocal-, electron- and X-ray-based microscopy techniques, together with genomic analyses, these findings demonstrate that magnetosymbiosis can emerge in unicellular eukaryotic lineages through endosymbiotic integration, expanding our understanding of such interactions in aquatic ecosystems. More broadly, this work contributes to the ongoing debate on the origins of magnetoreception in eukaryotes.

Similar content being viewed by others

Biosynthesis and function of magnetic organelles in magnetotactic bacteria

Article 19 September 2025

Recovery and genome reconstruction of novel magnetotactic Elusimicrobiota from bog soil

Article 27 October 2022

Magnetosome gene cluster containing bacteria in oxygen-stratified freshwater ecosystems of northern landscapes

Article Open access 08 August 2025

Data availability

Data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its Supplementary Information and Description of Additional Supplementary Files. The sequencing data were deposited on public databases. The 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences have been deposited in the NCBI Genbank database under the accession numbers OR342250-OR342267, OR294250-OR294271, OR250250-OR250289, OR294289-OR294298, and OR294333-OR294370. The genome assemblies were deposited in the NCBI BioProject database under the accession number PRJEB65892.

Code availability

Scripts are available at: https://github.com/labgem/metacoco124.

References

  1. Raina, J.-B. et al. Symbiosis in the microbial world: from ecology to genome evolution. Biol. Open 7, bio032524 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Sachs, J., Skophammer, R. & Regus, J. Evolutionary transitions in bacterial symbiosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10800–10807 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  3. López-García, P., Eme, L. & Moreira, D. Symbiosis in eukaryotic evolution. J. Theor. Biol. 434, 20–33 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Combes, C. Parasitism: The Ecology and Evolution of Intimate Interactions (University of Chicago Press, 2001).

  5. Drew, G. C., Stevens, E. J. & King, K. C. Microbial evolution and transitions along the parasite–mutualist continuum. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 19, 623–638 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Margulis, L. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution: Life and its Environment on the Early Earth (WH Freeman, 1981).

  7. Margulis, L. & Fester, R. Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis (MIT Press, 1991).

  8. Lopez-Garcia, P. & Moreira, D. Eukaryogenesis, a syntrophy affair. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1068–1070 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  9. López-García, P. & Moreira, D. The symbiotic origin of the eukaryotic cell. C. R. Biol. 346, 55–73 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Faure, D., Simon, J.-C. & Heulin, T. Holobiont: a conceptual framework to explore the eco-evolutionary and functional implications of host-microbiota interactions in all ecosystems. N. Phytol. 218, 1321–1324 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Gilbert, J. A. et al. Current understanding of the human microbiome. Nat. Med. 24, 392–400 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Engel, P. & Moran, N. A. The gut microbiota of insects - diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 699–735 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Vandenkoornhuyse, P., Quaiser, A., Duhamel, M., Le Van, A. & Dufresne, A. The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. N. Phytol. 206, 1196–1206 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rowan, R. & Knowlton, N. Intraspecific diversity and ecological zonation in coral-algal symbiosis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 92, 2850–2853 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Douglas, A. E. Conflict, cheats and the persistence of symbioses. N. Phytol. 177, 849–858 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gast, R. J., Sanders, R. W. & Caron, D. A. Ecological strategies of protists and their symbiotic relationships with prokaryotic microbes. Trends Microbiol. 17, 563–569 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Not, F. et al. Photosymbiosis in Marine Pelagic Environments. in (eds Stal, L. J. & Cretoiu, M. S.) The Marine Microbiome: An Untapped Source of Biodiversity and Biotechnological Potential, 305–332 (Springer International Publishing, 2016).

  18. Decelle, J. et al. Subcellular architecture and metabolic connection in the planktonic photosymbiosis between Collodaria (radiolarians) and their microalgae. Environ. Microbiol. 23, 6569–6586 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ponce, R. et al. An early-branching freshwater cyanobacterium at the origin of plastids. Curr. Biol. 27, 386–391 (2017).

  20. Gavelis, G. S. et al. Eye-like ocelloids are built from different endosymbiotically acquired components. Nature 523, 204–207 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ohkuma, M. Symbioses of flagellates and prokaryotes in the gut of lower termites. Trends Microbiol. 16, 345–352 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hongoh, Y. et al. Genome of an endosymbiont coupling N2 fixation to cellulolysis within protist cells in termite gut. Science 322, 1108–1109 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Macorano, L. & Nowack, E. C. M. Paulinella chromatophora. Curr. Biol. 31, R1024–R1026 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rotterová, J., Edgcomb, V. P., Čepička, I. & Beinart, R. Anaerobic ciliates as a model group for studying symbioses in oxygen-depleted environments. J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 69, e12912 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Hamann, E. et al. Environmental Breviatea harbor mutualistic Arcobacter epibionts. Nature 534, 254–258 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Beinart, R. A., Beaudoin, D. J., Bernhard, J. M. & Edgcomb, V. P. Insights into the metabolic functioning of a multipartner ciliate symbiosis from oxygen-depleted sediments. Mol. Ecol. 27, 1794–1807 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Seah, B. K. B. et al. Specificity in diversity: single origin of a widespread ciliate-bacteria symbiosis. Proc. R. Soc. B 284, 20170764 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Petroni, G., Spring, S., Schleifer, K., Verni, F. & Rosati, G. Defensive extrusive ectosymbionts of Euplotidium (Ciliophora) that contain microtubule-like structures are bacteria related to Verrucomicrobia. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 97, 1813–1817 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wenzel, M., Radek, R., Brugerolle, G. & König, H. Identification of the ectosymbiotic bacteria of Mixotricha paradoxa involved in movement symbiosis. Eur. J. Protistol. 39, 11–23 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Monteil, C. L. et al. Ectosymbiotic bacteria at the origin of magnetoreception in a marine protist. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1088–1095 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Edgcomb, V. P. et al. Identity of epibiotic bacteria on symbiontid euglenozoans in O2-depleted marine sediments: evidence for symbiont and host co-evolution. ISME J. 5, 231–243 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Chevrier, D. M. et al. Collective magnetotaxis of microbial holobionts is optimized by the three-dimensional organization and magnetic properties of ectosymbionts. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 120, e2216975120 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bazylinski, D. A., Lefèvre, C. T. & Frankel, R. B. Magnetotactic protists at the oxic-anoxic transition zones of coastal aquatic environments. in (eds Altenbach, A. V., Bernhard, J. M. & Seckbach, J.) Anoxia: Evidence for Eukaryote Survival and Paleontological Strategies, Vol 21, 133–143 (Springer, 2012).

  34. Monteil, C. L. et al. Accumulation and dissolution of magnetite crystals in a magnetically responsive ciliate. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, e02865-17 (2018).

  35. Leão, P. et al. Magnetosome magnetite biomineralization in a flagellated protist: evidence for an early evolutionary origin for magnetoreception in eukaryotes? Environ. Microbiol. 22, 1495–1506 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Rodgers, F. G. et al. Intercellular junctions, motility, and magnetosome structure in a multicellular magnetotactic prokaryote. in (eds Frankel, R. B., Blakemore, R. P.) Iron Biominerals, 231–238 (Springer, 1991).

  37. Lefèvre, C. T. & Bazylinski, D. A. Ecology, diversity, and evolution of magnetotactic bacteria. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 77, 497–526 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Leão, P. et al. Ultrastructure of ellipsoidal magnetotactic multicellular prokaryotes depicts their complex assemblage and cellular polarity in the context of magnetotaxis. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 2151–2163 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Jerlström-Hultqvist, J. et al. A unique symbiosome in an anaerobic single-celled eukaryote. Nat. Commun. 15, 9726 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Eren, A. M. et al. Community-led, integrated, reproducible multi-omics with anvi’o. Nat. Microbiol. 6, 3–6 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Byrne, M. E. et al. Desulfovibrio magneticus RS-1 contains an iron- and phosphorus-rich organelle distinct from its bullet-shaped magnetosomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 12263–12268 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Chaumeil, P.-A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. GTDB-Tk v2: memory friendly classification with the genome taxonomy database. Bioinformatics 38, 5315–5316 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  43. An, T. T. & Picardal, F. W. Desulfocarbo indianensis gen. nov., sp. nov., a benzoate-oxidizing, sulfate-reducing bacterium isolated from water extracted from a coal bed. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 64, 2907–2914 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Davidova, I. A. et al. Dethiosulfatarculus sandiegensis gen. nov., sp. nov., isolated from a methanogenic paraffin-degrading enrichment culture and emended description of the family Desulfarculaceae. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol 66, 1242–1248 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Sun, H. et al. Complete genome sequence of Desulfarculus baarsii type strain (2st14). Stand. Genom. Sci. 3, 276–284 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Giannotti, D., Boscaro, V., Husnik, F., Vannini, C. & Keeling, P. J. The “Other” Rickettsiales: an overview of the family “Candidatus Midichloriaceae”. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 88, e02432–21 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Szokoli, F. et al. Candidatus Fokinia solitaria”, a novel “stand-alone” symbiotic lineage of Midichloriaceae (Rickettsiales). PLoS ONE 11, e0145743 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Wang, R. et al. Candidatus Euplotechlamydia quinta,’ a novel chlamydia-like bacterium hosted by the ciliate Euplotes octocarinatus (Ciliophora, Spirotrichea). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 70, e12945 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Duron, O., Doublet, P., Vavre, F. & Bouchon, D. The importance of revisiting Legionellales diversity. Trends Parasitol. 34, 1027–1037 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Parks, D. H. et al. GTDB: an ongoing census of bacterial and archaeal diversity through a phylogenetically consistent, rank normalized and complete genome-based taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 50, D785–D794 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Chuvochina, M. et al. Proposal of names for 329 higher rank taxa defined in the Genome Taxonomy Database under two prokaryotic codes. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 370, fnad071 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Lefèvre, C. T. et al. Comparative genomic analysis of magnetotactic bacteria from the Deltaproteobacteria provides new insights into magnetite and greigite magnetosome genes required for magnetotaxis. Environ. Microbiol. 15, 2712–2735 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Nakazawa, H. et al. Whole genome sequence of Desulfovibrio magneticus strain RS-1 revealed common gene clusters in magnetotactic bacteria. Genome Res. 19, 1801–1808 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  54. Shimoshige, H., Kobayashi, H., Shimamura, S., Miyazaki, M. & Maekawa, T. Fundidesulfovibrio magnetotacticus sp. nov., a sulphate-reducing magnetotactic bacterium, isolated from sediments and freshwater of a pond. Int. J. Syst. Evolut. Microbiol. 72, 005516 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  55. McCutcheon, J. P. & Moran, N. A. Extreme genome reduction in symbiotic bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 13–26 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Cantalapiedra, C. P., Hernández-Plaza, A., Letunic, I., Bork, P. & Huerta-Cepas, J. eggNOG-mapper v2: functional annotation, orthology assignments, and domain prediction at the metagenomic scale. Mol. Biol. Evol. 38, 5825–5829 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Rao, Q. et al. Genome reduction and potential metabolic complementation of the dual endosymbionts in the whitefly Bemisia tabaci. BMC Genom. 16, 226 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Husnik, F. et al. Bacterial and archaeal symbioses with protists. Curr. Biol. 31, R862–R877 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  59. Néron, B. et al. MacSyFinder v2: improved modelling and search engine to identify molecular systems in genomes. Peer Community J. 3, e28 (2023).

  60. Abby, S. S. et al. Identification of protein secretion systems in bacterial genomes. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–14 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Marsh, J. W. & Taylor, R. K. Genetic and transcriptional analyses of thevibrio cholerae mannose-sensitive hemagglutinin type 4 pilus gene locus. J. Bacteriol. 181, 1110–1117 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Segal, G., Feldman, M. & Zusman, T. The Icm/Dot type-IV secretion systems of Legionella pneumophila and Coxiella burnetii. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 29, 65–81 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  63. Needham, D. M. et al. The microbiome of a bacterivorous marine choanoflagellate contains a resource-demanding obligate bacterial associate. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1466–1479 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Sauer, J.-D., Bachman, M. A. & Swanson, M. S. The phagosomal transporter A couples threonine acquisition to differentiation and replication of Legionella pneumophila in macrophages. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102, 9924–9929 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Cirillo, S. L. G., Lum, J. & Cirillo, J. D. Identification of novel loci involved in entry by Legionella pneumophilaThe GenBank accession numbers for the enh1 and enh2 loci reported in this paper are AF057703 and AF057704, respectively. Microbiology 146, 1345–1359 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Caspi, R. et al. The MetaCyc database of metabolic pathways and enzymes - a 2019 update. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D445–D453 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Karp, P. D. et al. Pathway Tools version 23.0 update: software for pathway/genome informatics and systems biology. Brief. Bioinform. 22, 109–126 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Adam, P. S., Borrel, G. & Gribaldo, S. Evolutionary history of carbon monoxide dehydrogenase/acetyl-CoA synthase, one of the oldest enzymatic complexes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, E1166–E1173 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  69. Chobert, S.-C. et al. Dynamic quinone repertoire accompanied the diversification of energy metabolism in Pseudomonadota. ISME J. 19, wrae253 (2024).

  70. George, E. E. et al. Highly reduced genomes of protist endosymbionts show evolutionary convergence. Curr. Biol. 30, 925–933.e3 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Hillas, P. J., del Alba, F. S., Oyarzabal, J., Wilks, A. & Ortiz De Montellano, P. R. The AhpC and AhpD antioxidant defense system of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. J. Biol. Chem. 275, 18801–18809 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Lasek-Nesselquist, E. & Johnson, M. D. A phylogenomic approach to clarifying the relationship of mesodinium within the ciliophora: a case study in the complexity of mixed-species transcriptome analyses. Genome Biol. Evol. 11, 3218–3232 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Leão, I. et al. Pseudomonadota in the oral cavity: a glimpse into the environment-human nexus. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 107, 517–534 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wittmers, F. et al. Symbionts of predatory protists are widespread in the oceans and related to animal pathogens. Cell Host Microbe 33, 182–199.e7 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Takeuchi, M. et al. Parallel reductive genome evolution in Desulfovibrio ectosymbionts independently acquired by Trichonympha protists in the termite gut. ISME J. 14, 2288–2301 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Kuwahara, H., Yuki, M., Izawa, K., Ohkuma, M. & Hongoh, Y. Genome of ‘Ca. Desulfovibrio trichonymphae’, an H2-oxidizing bacterium in a tripartite symbiotic system within a protist cell in the termite gut. ISME J. 11, 766–776 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Suter, E. A., Pachiadaki, M., Taylor, G. T. & Edgcomb, V. P. Eukaryotic parasites are integral to a productive microbial food web in oxygen-depleted waters. Front. Microbiol. 12, 764605 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Hedlund, B. P. et al. SeqCode: a nomenclatural code for prokaryotes described from sequence data. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1702–1708 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Sakaguchi, T., Arakaki, A. & Matsunaga, T. Desulfovibrio magneticus sp. nov., a novel sulfate-reducing bacterium that produces intracellular single-domain-sized magnetite particles. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 52, 215–221 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Dziallas, C., Allgaier, M., Monaghan, M. T. & Grossart, H.-P. Act together-implications of symbioses in aquatic ciliates. Front. Microbiol. 3, 288 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Graf, J. S. et al. Anaerobic endosymbiont generates energy for ciliate host by denitrification. Nature 591, 445–450 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Graells, T., Ishak, H., Larsson, M. & Guy, L. The all-intracellular order Legionellales is unexpectedly diverse, globally distributed and lowly abundant. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 94, fiy185 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Wang, S. & Luo, H. Dating Alphaproteobacteria evolution with eukaryotic fossils. Nat. Commun. 12, 3324 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Castelli, M. et al. Host association and intracellularity evolved multiple times independently in the Rickettsiales. Nat. Commun. 15, 1093 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Williams, D. L. et al. Implications of high level pseudogene transcription in Mycobacterium leprae. BMC Genom. 10, 397 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Moran, N. A. & Bennett, G. M. The tiniest tiny genomes. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 68, 195–215 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  87. McCutcheon, J. P., Garber, A. I., Spencer, N. & Warren, J. M. How do bacterial endosymbionts work with so few genes? PLoS Biol. 22, e3002577 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Wessenberg, H. & Antipa, G. Capture and ingestion of Paramecium by Didinium nasutum. J. Protozool. 17, 250–270 (1970).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Grønlien, H. K., Berg, T. & Løvlie, A. M. In the polymorphic ciliate Tetrahymena vorax, the non-selective phagocytosis seen in microstomes changes to a highly selective process in macrostomes. J. Exp. Biol. 205, 2089–2097 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Foissner, W., Weissenbacher, B., Krautgartner, W.-D. & Lütz-Meindl, U. A cover of glass: first report of biomineralized silicon in a Ciliate, Maryna umbrellata (Ciliophora: Colpodea). J. Eukaryot. Microbiol. 56, 519–530 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Schüler, D. The biomineralization of magnetosomes in Magnetospirillum gryphiswaldense. Int. Microbiol. 5, 209–214 (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Martínez-Criado, G. et al. ID16B: a hard X-ray nanoprobe beamline at the ESRF for nano-analysis. J. Synchrotron Radiat. 23, 344–352 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Sorrentino, A. et al. MISTRAL: a transmission soft X-ray microscopy beamline for cryo nano-tomography of biological samples and magnetic domains imaging. J. Synchrotron Rad. 22, 1112–1117 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Otón, J. et al. Characterization of transfer function, resolution and depth of field of a soft X-ray microscope applied to tomography enhancement by Wiener deconvolution. Biomed. Opt. Express 7, 5092–5103 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Medlin, L., Elwood, H. J., Stickel, S. & Sogin, M. L. The characterization of enzymatically amplified eukaryotic 16S-like rRNA-coding regions. Gene 71, 491–499 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Lane, D. J. 16S/23S sequencing. in (eds Stackebrandt, E. & Goodfellow, M.) Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics, 115–175 (John Wiley & Sons, 1991).

  97. Altschul, S. F. et al. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic Acids Res. 25, 3389–3402 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Edgar, R. C. UCHIME2: improved chimera prediction for amplicon sequencing. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/074252 (2016).

  99. Pernthaler, J., Glockner, F. O., Schonhuber, W. & Amann, R. Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) with rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes. Methods Microbiol. 30, 207–226 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Cole, J. R. et al. The Ribosomal Database Project (RDP-II): previewing a new autoaligner that allows regular updates and the new prokaryotic taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 442–443 (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Antipov, D., Korobeynikov, A., McLean, J. S. & Pevzner, P. A. hybridSPAdes: an algorithm for hybrid assembly of short and long reads. Bioinformatics 32, 1009–1015 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  102. West, P. T., Probst, A. J., Grigoriev, I. V., Thomas, B. C. & Banfield, J. F. Genome-reconstruction for eukaryotes from complex natural microbial communities. Genome Res. 28, 569–580 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Vallenet, D. et al. MicroScope: an integrated platform for the annotation and exploration of microbial gene functions through genomic, pangenomic and metabolic comparative analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D579–D589 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  105. Chklovski, A., Parks, D. H., Woodcroft, B. J. & Tyson, G. W. CheckM2: a rapid, scalable and accurate tool for assessing microbial genome quality using machine learning. Nat. Methods 20, 1203–1212 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Lee, M. D. GToTree: a user-friendly workflow for phylogenomics. Bioinformatics 35, 4162–4164 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  107. Lagesen, K. et al. RNAmmer: consistent and rapid annotation of ribosomal RNA genes. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, 3100–3108 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  108. Zhang, Z., Schwartz, S., Wagner, L. & Miller, W. A greedy algorithm for aligning DNA sequences. J. Comput. Biol. 7, 203–214 (2000).

    Google Scholar 

  109. Benson, D. A. et al. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D36–D42 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  110. Seemann, T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinformatics 30, 2068–2069 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Larralde, M. & Zeller, G. PyHMMER: a Python library binding to HMMER for efficient sequence analysis. Bioinformatics 39, btad214 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  112. Mangin, C. C. et al. Magnetotactic bacteria from diverse Pseudomonadota families biomineralize intracellular Ca-carbonate. ISME J. 19, wrae260 (2025).

  113. Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT multiple sequence alignment software version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Criscuolo, A. & Gribaldo, S. BMGE (Block Mapping and Gathering with Entropy): a new software for selection of phylogenetic informative regions from multiple sequence alignments. BMC Evol. Biol. 10, 210 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Minh, B. Q. et al. IQ-TREE 2: new models and efficient methods for phylogenetic inference in the genomic era. Mol. Biol. Evol. 37, 1530–1534 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  116. Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  117. Kalyaanamoorthy, S., Minh, B. Q., Wong, T. K. F., von Haeseler, A. & Jermiin, L. S. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods 14, 587–589 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  118. Guindon, S. et al. New algorithms and methods to estimate maximum-likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst. Biol. 59, 307–321 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Hoang, D. T., Chernomor, O., von Haeseler, A., Minh, B. Q. & Vinh, L. S. UFBoot2: improving the ultrafast bootstrap approximation. Mol. Biol. Evol. 35, 518–522 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  120. Rambaut, A. FigTree v1.3.1. http://tree.bio.ed.ac.uk/software/figtree/ (2010).

  121. Tikhonenkov, D. V. et al. New lineage of microbial predators adds complexity to reconstructing the evolutionary origin of animals. Curr. Biol. 30, 4500–4509.e5 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  122. Talavera, G. & Castresana, J. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst. Biol. 56, 564–577 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  123. Aramaki, T. et al. KofamKOALA: KEGG ortholog assignment based on profile HMM and adaptive score threshold. Bioinformatics 36, 2251–2252 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  124. Bolzoni, R. et al. Magnetoreception in a freshwater ciliate arises from endosymbiosis. Preprint at Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18348316 (2026).

  125. Huerta-Cepas, J. et al. eggNOG 5.0: a hierarchical, functionally and phylogenetically annotated orthology resource based on 5090 organisms and 2502 viruses. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D309–D314 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  126. Malberg Tetzschner, A. M., Johnson, J. R., Johnston, B. D., Lund, O. & Scheutz, F. In silico genotyping of escherichia coli isolates for extraintestinal virulence genes by use of whole-genome sequencing data. J. Clin. Microbiol. 58, https://doi.org/10.1128/jcm.01269-20 (2020).

  127. Zhou, S., Liu, B., Zheng, D., Chen, L. & Yang, J. VFDB 2025: an integrated resource for exploring anti-virulence compounds. Nucleic Acids Res. gkae968, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkae968 (2024).

  128. Murali, R. et al. Physiological potential and evolutionary trajectories of syntrophic sulfate-reducing bacterial partners of anaerobic methanotrophic archaea. PLoS Biol. 21, e3002292 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  129. Schön, M. E., Martijn, J., Vosseberg, J., Köstlbacher, S. & Ettema, T. J. G. The evolutionary origin of host association in the Rickettsiales. Nat. Microbiol. 7, 1189–1199 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the French National Research Agency (SymbioMagnet ANR-21-CE02-0034-01 and ANCESMAG ANR-20-CE92-0050) and the CNRS—mission pour les initiatives transverses et interdisciplinaires (MITI), adaptation du vivant à son environnement (SymbioAdapt project). R. Bolzoni's PhD contract was supported by the CNRS—MITI. This work benefited from access to ALBA and has been supported by iNEXT-Discovery, project number 2022025566, funded by the Horizon 2020 program of the European Commission. Synchrotron beamtime at ID16B of the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility (ESRF) is also acknowledged under proposal LS2983. We acknowledge the Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN) at CEA Cadarache for the access to the transmission electron microscope Tecnai G2 BioTWIN. This work received support from the French government under the France 2030 investment plan, as part of the Initiative d’Excellence d’Aix-Marseille Université—A*MIDEX, and is part of the Institute of Microbiology, Bioenergies and Biotechnology - IM2B (AMX-19-IET-006). We are grateful to the INRA MIGALE bioinformatics platform (http://migale.jouy.inrae.fr) for providing computational resources. The LABGeM (CEA/Genoscope & CNRS UMR8030), the France Génomique and French Bioinformatics Institute national infrastructures (funded as part of Investissement d’Avenir program managed by Agence Nationale pour la Recherche, contracts ANR-10-INBS-09, ANR-11-INBS-0013 and ANR-21-ESRE-0048) are acknowledged for support within the MicroScope annotation platform. F. Abreu acknowledges the Brazilian agencies CNPq, FAPERJ, CAPES, the microscopy facility CENABIO, and Dr. Jefferson Cypriano for their support in TEM observation. We thank Zoé Rouy for data submission to public databases. We thank Matthieu Amor, Tanguy Le Borgne, and Camille Bouchez for their help in sampling the aquatic environments in Britany.

Author information

Author notes
  1. These authors contributed equally: Romain Bolzoni, Caroline L. Monteil.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aix-Marseille Université, CEA, CNRS, UMR7265, BIAM Biosciences and Biotechnologies Institute of Aix-Marseille, CEA Cadarache, Saint-Paul-lez-Durance, France

    Romain Bolzoni, Caroline L. Monteil, Béatrice Alonso, Marine Bergot, Daniel M. Chevrier, Christian Godon & Christopher T. Lefevre

  2. UMR CNRS 7590, IMPMC Institut de Minéralogie, de Physique des Matériaux et de Cosmochimie, MNHN, IRD, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France

    Romain Bolzoni, Nicolas Menguy, Fériel Skouri-Panet, Arnaud Duverger & Karim Benzerara

  3. LABGeM, Génomique Métabolique, Genoscope, Institut François Jacob, CEA, CNRS, Université d’Évry, Université Paris-Saclay, Evry, France

    Stephanie Fouteau, Violette Da Cunha & David Vallenet

  4. ALBA Synchrotron Light Source, Cerdanyola del Vallés, Barcelona, Spain

    Eva Pereiro

  5. Genoscope, Institut de biologie François Jacob, CEA, Université Paris-Saclay, Evry, France

    Corinne Cruaud

  6. Instituto de microbiologia Paulo de Goés, Universidade Fedral do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Fernanda Abreu

Authors
  1. Romain Bolzoni
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Caroline L. Monteil
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Béatrice Alonso
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marine Bergot
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel M. Chevrier
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian Godon
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Nicolas Menguy
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Stephanie Fouteau
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Violette Da Cunha
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Fériel Skouri-Panet
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Eva Pereiro
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Arnaud Duverger
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  13. David Vallenet
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Corinne Cruaud
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Fernanda Abreu
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Karim Benzerara
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Christopher T. Lefevre
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.L.M., D.V., K.B., and C.T.L. designed the project, analyzed and interpreted the data. C.L.M., R.B., B.A., D.M.C., C.G., N.M., M.B., S.F., V.dC., F.S-P., E.P., A.D., D.V., C.C., F.A., K.B., and C.T.L. performed the experiments and interpreted the data. C.L.M. and C.T.L. prepared the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Caroline L. Monteil or Christopher T. Lefevre.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Communications thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. A peer review file is available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information (download PDF )

Description of Additional Supplementary Files (download PDF )

Supplementary Data 1 (download PDF )

Supplementary Data 2 (download TXT )

Supplementary Data 3 (download TXT )

Supplementary Data 4 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 5 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 6 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 7 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 8 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 9 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 10 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 11 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 12 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Data 13 (download XLSX )

Supplementary Video 1 (download AVI )

Supplementary Video 2 (download AVI )

Supplementary Video 3 (download MP4 )

Supplementary Video 4 (download MP4 )

Supplementary Video 5 (download AVI )

Supplementary Video 6 (download MP4 )

Supplementary Video 7 (download AVI )

Supplementary Video 8 (download MP4 )

Supplementary Video 9 (download MP4 )

Supplementary Video 10 (download MP4 )

Reporting Summary (download PDF )

Transparent Peer Review File (download PDF )

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bolzoni, R., Monteil, C.L., Alonso, B. et al. Magnetoreception in a freshwater ciliate arises from endosymbiosis. Nat Commun (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-70462-8

Download citation

  • Received: 15 April 2025

  • Accepted: 20 February 2026

  • Published: 10 March 2026

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-70462-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Download PDF

Advertisement

Explore content

  • Research articles
  • Reviews & Analysis
  • News & Comment
  • Videos
  • Collections
  • Subjects
  • Follow us on Facebook
  • Follow us on X
  • Sign up for alerts
  • RSS feed

About the journal

  • Aims & Scope
  • Editors
  • Journal Information
  • Open Access Fees and Funding
  • Calls for Papers
  • Editorial Values Statement
  • Journal Metrics
  • Editors' Highlights
  • Contact
  • Editorial policies
  • Top Articles

Publish with us

  • For authors
  • For Reviewers
  • Language editing services
  • Open access funding
  • Submit manuscript

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

  • Explore articles by subject
  • Find a job
  • Guide to authors
  • Editorial policies

Nature Communications (Nat Commun)

ISSN 2041-1723 (online)

nature.com footer links

About Nature Portfolio

  • About us
  • Press releases
  • Press office
  • Contact us

Discover content

  • Journals A-Z
  • Articles by subject
  • protocols.io
  • Nature Index

Publishing policies

  • Nature portfolio policies
  • Open access

Author & Researcher services

  • Reprints & permissions
  • Research data
  • Language editing
  • Scientific editing
  • Nature Masterclasses
  • Research Solutions

Libraries & institutions

  • Librarian service & tools
  • Librarian portal
  • Open research
  • Recommend to library

Advertising & partnerships

  • Advertising
  • Partnerships & Services
  • Media kits
  • Branded content

Professional development

  • Nature Awards
  • Nature Careers
  • Nature Conferences

Regional websites

  • Nature Africa
  • Nature China
  • Nature India
  • Nature Japan
  • Nature Middle East
  • Privacy Policy
  • Use of cookies
  • Legal notice
  • Accessibility statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Your US state privacy rights
Springer Nature

© 2026 Springer Nature Limited

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing