| Literature DB >> 23417898 |
Ryan F Seipke1, Jörg Barke, Darren Heavens, Douglas W Yu, Matthew I Hutchings.
Abstract
Insect fungiculture is practiced by ants, termites, beetles, and gall midges and it has been suggested to be widespread among plant-ants. Some of the insects engaged in fungiculture, including attine ants and bark beetles, are known to use symbiotic antibiotic-producing actinobacteria to protect themselves and their fungal cultivars against infection. In this study, we analyze the bacterial communities on the cuticles of the plant-ant genera Allomerus and Tetraponera using deep sequencing of 16S rRNA. Allomerus ants cultivate fungus as a building material to strengthen traps for prey, while Tetraponera ants cultivate fungus as a food source. We report that Allomerus and Tetraponera microbiomes contain >75% Proteobacteria and remarkably the bacterial phyla that dominate their cuticular microbiomes are very similar despite their geographic separation (South America and Africa, respectively). Notably, antibiotic-producing actinomycete bacteria represent a tiny fraction of the cuticular microbiomes of both Allomerus and Tetraponera spp. and instead they are dominated by γ-proteobacteria Erwinia and Serratia spp. Both these phyla are known to contain antibiotic-producing species which might therefore play a protective role in these ant-plant systems.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23417898 PMCID: PMC3633351 DOI: 10.1002/mbo3.73
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiologyopen ISSN: 2045-8827 Impact factor: 3.139
Figure 1Relative pyrotag abundance of phyla in cuticular microbiomes of Allomerus and Tetraponera ants. The cuticles of both ant genera are dominated by Proteobacteria. We also report the average relative abundance ± the standard error for each phyla observed. For the Tetraponera graph, Cyanobacteria and candidate phylum TM7 are not shown but are present in average abundances of <0.01%.
Richness of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) for Allomerus and Tetraponera ant cuticular microbiomes
| Phylum | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HPAD Station | CNAO Station | HPAO Station | Avg | StErr | Kitengela | Ngong Hills | Mpala Road | Avg | StErr | |
| Actinobacteria | 29 | 35 | 45 | 36.3 | 8.1 | 26 | 23 | 23 | 20.0 | 2.0 |
| Bacteroidetes | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11.0 | 0.0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2.3 | 0.6 |
| Firmicutes | 5 | 7 | 12 | 8.0 | 3.6 | 13 | 16 | 10 | 11.7 | 2.5 |
| Proteobacteria | 80 | 72 | 74 | 75.3 | 4.2 | 42 | 42 | 34 | 39.0 | 4.4 |
| Total | 125 | 125 | 142 | 130.7 | 9.8 | 83 | 84 | 69 | 78.7 | 8.4 |
OTUs comprise pyrotags sharing ≥97% nucleotide identity. HPAD, Hirtella-hosted A. decemarticulatus; CNAO, Cordia-hosted A. octoarticulatus; HPAO, Hirtella-hosted A. octoarticulatus; Avg, average; StErr, standard error.
Figure 2Relative operational taxonomic unit (OTU) richness of bacterial phyla in cuticular microbiomes of Allomerus and Tetraponera ants. For Allomerus, two Proteobacteria OTUs that could not be assigned to a class were omitted from the analysis.
Figure 3The diversity of Proteobacteria within Allomerus and Tetraponera cuticular microbiomes. (A and C) Relative abundance of pyrotags from proteobacterial classes; (B and D) Relative abundance of operational taxonomic units (OTUs) (97% identity) from proteobacterial classes. The distribution and average relative abundance of Proteobacteria pyrotags and OTUs is enumerated in Table S1.
Genera of OTUs associated with Allomerus and Tetraponera ant cuticles
| Phylum or class | HPAD Station | CNAO Station | HPAO Station | Avg | StErr | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quality-filtered pyrotags | 5312 | 5661 | 5454 | |||
| Genus | ||||||
| | Actinobacteria | 0.6 | – | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| | Actinobacteria | – | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| | Actinobacteria | 0.3 | 8.9 | – | 3.1 | 5.1 |
| | Actinobacteria | 0.1 | 1.1 | 0.2 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| | Actinobacteria | 6.3 | 1.2 | 8.0 | 5.2 | 3.5 |
| | Actinobacteria | – | 3.4 | 0.6 | 1.3 | 1.8 |
| | Actinobacteria | 0.9 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 1.4 | 0.5 |
| | Bacteroidetes | 0.3 | 0.1 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| | Bacteroidetes | – | – | 2.6 | 0.9 | 1.5 |
| | Bacteroidetes | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| | Firmicutes | 0.5 | 0.1 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| | Firmicutes | <0.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 0.8 | 0.1 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| | α-proteobacteria | – | <0.1 | 1.1 | 0.4 | 0.7 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.6 | 0.7 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 1.1 | <0.1 | – | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 0.8 | 0.1 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 2.7 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 2.9 | 0.5 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 2.6 | 10.4 | 1.3 | 4.8 | 4.9 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 4.6 | 12.4 | 0.2 | 5.8 | 6.2 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 1.7 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 1.8 | 0.6 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 0.9 | <0.1 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 0.7 |
| | α-proteobacteria | 0.7 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 0.6 |
| | β-proteobacteria | 1.4 | – | – | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| | β-proteobacteria | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| | β-proteobacteria | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.5 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | 0.8 | 0.3 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 0.7 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | <0.1 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | 12.5 | 15.6 | 1.4 | 9.8 | 7.5 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | 1.9 | 4.4 | 0.9 | 2.4 | 1.8 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | 0.1 | 4.6 | <0.1 | 1.6 | 2.6 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | 1.1 | 0.5 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 0.5 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | <0.1 | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | 38.6 | 5.3 | 43.7 | 29.2 | 20.8 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | 1.1 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 1.4 | 0.5 |
| | γ-proteobacteria | 0.4 | 3.7 | 0.4 | 1.5 | 1.9 |
| Total | 86.9 | 87.5 | 84.8 | |||
Only OTUs comprising ≥1% relative pyrotag abundance are shown. Also shown is the average percent abundance (Avg) and standard error (StErr) of taxa. Taxonomy at the level of class is shown for Proteobacteria. OTU, operational taxonomic unit; HPAD, Hirtella-hosted A. decemarticulatus; CNAO, Cordia-hosted A. octoarticulatus; HPAO, Hirtella-hosted A. octoarticulatus.
The 1order or 2family is reported in instances when a genus-level classification could not be made.