| Literature DB >> 24069601 |
Aurora Rizzi1, Elena Crotti, Luigimaria Borruso, Costanza Jucker, Daniela Lupi, Mario Colombo, Daniele Daffonchio.
Abstract
The wood-boring beetle Anoplophora chinensis Forster, native to China, has recently spread to North America and Europe causing serious damage to ornamental and forest trees. The gut microbial community associated with these xylophagous beetles is of interest for potential biotechnological applications in lignocellulose degradation and development of pest-control measures. In this study the gut bacterial community of larvae and adults of A. chinensis, collected from different host trees in North Italy, was investigated by both culture and culture-independent methods. Larvae and adults harboured a moderately diverse bacterial community, dominated by Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes. The gammaproteobacterial family Enterobacteriaceae (genera Gibbsiella, Enterobacter, Raoultella, and Klebsiella) was the best represented. The abundance of such bacteria in the insect gut is likely due to the various metabolic abilities of Enterobacteriaceae, including fermentation of carbohydrates derived from lignocellulose degradation and contribution to nitrogen intake by nitrogen-fixing activity. In addition, bacteria previously shown to have some lignocellulose-degrading activity were detected at a relatively low level in the gut. These bacteria possibly act synergistically with endogenous and fungal enzymes in lignocellulose breakdown. The detection of actinobacterial symbionts could be explained by a possible role in the detoxification of secondary plant metabolites and/or protection against pathogens.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24069601 PMCID: PMC3771249 DOI: 10.1155/2013/420287
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Anoplophora chinensis collection and detection strategies used in this study.
| Host tree | Insects (no.) | Detection strategies |
|---|---|---|
|
| Larvae (9) | Isolation and library clones (pool of 2 guts) |
|
| Larvae (8) | DGGE |
|
| Larvae (10) | DGGE |
|
| Adults (3) | Isolation and DGGE |
|
| Adults (2) | Isolation, library clones (pool of 2 guts), and DGGE |
Bacterial taxa identified in larvae and adults of Anoplophora chinensis by culture and culture-independent methods.
| Phylum | Class | Family | Genusa | Larval gut | Adult gut | Testicles and eggsd | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Detection strategy | Detection strategy | Detection strategy | |||||||||
| Isolation | Library | DGGEb (li, sa)c | Isolation | Library | DGGEb (ac, al)c | Isolation | DGGEb (ac, al)c | ||||
| Proteobacteria | Alfaproteobacteria | Caulobacteraceae |
| 1 | 1 ac | ac | |||||
| Sphingomonadaceae |
| ac | |||||||||
|
| 1 | ||||||||||
| Phyllobacteriaceae |
| 1 | |||||||||
| Methylobacteriaceae |
| li | ac | ||||||||
| Betaproteobacteria | Comamonadaceae |
| 1T ac | ||||||||
| Neisseriaceae |
| 2 | |||||||||
| Oxalobacteraceae |
| li | ac | ||||||||
|
| li | ac | |||||||||
| Gammaproteobacteria | Enterobacteriaceae |
| 4 | 3 ac, 6 al* | 80 | ac, al | 3T ac, 3E ac | E ac, T ac, al | |||
|
| 8 ac, 2 al | ac, al | 1T ac, 4T al | E ac, T ac, al | |||||||
|
| 1 | sa | 5 ac, 1 al | 58 | ac, al | 3T al | E ac, T ac, al | ||||
|
| 7 | 58 | li, sa | ||||||||
|
| li | ||||||||||
|
| 2 ac | 1 | |||||||||
|
| T ac | ||||||||||
|
| 3 | 16 | li, sa | 2 ac | 2 | ac | 3T ac | T ac | |||
| Xanthomonadaceae |
| 1 | 1T al, 1E ac | ||||||||
|
| 1 | ||||||||||
| Sinobacteraceae |
| ac | |||||||||
| Pseudomonadaceae |
| 1 | sa | 1 | 1E ac | ||||||
| Moraxellaceae |
| 2 | 1 ac | 3 | |||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Actinobacteria | Actinobacteria | Microbacteriaceae |
| 1 | 3 | li, sa | 2 ac | 1 | ac | ||
|
| 1T ac | ||||||||||
| Dermabacteraceae |
| 1 | |||||||||
| Brevibacteriaceae |
| 1 ac, 1 al | 1 | ||||||||
| Propionibacteriaceae |
| 1 | |||||||||
| Micrococcaceae |
| 1 | |||||||||
|
| 1 | ||||||||||
| Tsukamurellaceae |
| 2 ac | 1T ac | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Firmicutes | Bacilli | Bacillaceae |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | |||||
| Paenibacillaceae |
| 1 ac | |||||||||
| Enterococcaceae |
| li | 1T al | ||||||||
| Streptococcaceae |
| 2 | |||||||||
| Staphylococcaceae |
| 1 | 1E ac | ||||||||
| Planococcaceae |
| 1E ac | |||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriia | Flavobacteriaceae |
| 2 | |||||||
| Sphingobacteriia | Chitinophagaceae |
| T ac | ||||||||
aIdentification based on NCBI (95% limit) and RDP Classifier (80% confidence threshold) results is given, when possible, at genus level.
bIndividuals positive for the presence of the specific band in the DGGE analysis.
cThe host tree from which insects were sampled are indicated in brackets: ac: Acer; al: Alnus; li: Liquidambar; sa: Salix.
dT: testicles; E: immature eggs.
*1 out of 3 ac, and 3 out of 6 al were recovered on LGI medium.
Figure 1Phylogenetic tree of partial bacterial 16S rRNA sequences retrieved from culturing and clone library. Bacterial sequences fell mainly into five classes (a) and most belonged to the Enterobacteriaceae family (b). The category of origin in which each species was identified is indicated by symbols. Groups of sequences are compressed into clusters, and the number of sequences is provided in brackets. “Un” indicates an uncultured bacterium. Numbers at nodes represent bootstrap values and are indicated when values were >40%. The scale bar represents 0.05 substitutions per nucleotide position.
Figure 2Bacterial DGGE profiles of the 16S rRNA gene PCR products amplified from DNA extracted from guts (a, b) and eggs and testes (b, c) of larvae (a) and adults (b, c) of A. chinensis collected from different host trees. Triangles and numbers indicate the bands sequenced (Table 3).
Closest relatives of bacterial 16S rRNA gene sequences of DGGE bands obtained from larvae and adults of Anoplophora chinensis.
| Band | Closest relative (accession no.) | Identity (%) | Bacterial division |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
| 100 | Betaproteobacteria |
| 34 |
| 99.1–99.7 | Betaproteobacteria |
| 2 | Uncultured | 99.3 | Betaproteobacteria |
| 35 | Uncultured | 99.3 | Betaproteobacteria |
| 37 |
| 98.4 | Betaproteobacteria |
| 3, 17 |
| 100 | Gammaproteobacteria |
|
| 99.2–99.6 | Gammaproteobacteria | |
| 14, 15, 23, 24 | Uncultured | 99.2–99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
|
| 99.0–99.6 | Gammaproteobacteria | |
| 18, 19, 20, 21 |
| 98.4–99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 |
| 99.2–99.6 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 52 |
| 98.4 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 53 |
| 99.6 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 56 | Uncultured | 99.6 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 58 |
| 100 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 62 |
| 99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 10 | Gammaproteobacterium (EF111244) | 99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 11 |
| 99.7 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 12, 16 |
| 99.7 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 22 |
| 99.0 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 25, 42, 45, 28 |
| 99.6–99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 27, 44, 43, 26 |
| 99.4–99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 54, 59 |
| 99.6 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 57 |
| 99.2 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 29, 46 |
| 100 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 32 |
| 100 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 33 |
| 99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 55 |
| 98.7 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 67 |
| 98.9 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 36 |
| 100 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 63 |
| 99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 65 |
| 99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 66 |
| 99.8 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 4 |
| 100 | Alphaproteobacteria |
| 5, 38 |
| 99.7–100 | Alphaproteobacteria |
| 39 |
| 100 | Alphaproteobacteria |
| 40 |
| 100 | Alphaproteobacteria |
| 6, 8 |
| 99.0–100 | Firmicutes |
| 7 |
| 100 | Firmicutes |
| 9 |
| 100 | Firmicutes |
| 61 |
| 98.7 | Firmicutes |
| 13, 41 |
| 100 | Actinobacteria |
| 30 | Uncultured bacterium (JN394024) | 99.8 | Unclassified |
| 64 | Uncultured bacterium (GQ411142) | 99.6 | Unclassified |
| 60 | Uncultured | 100 | Bacteroidetes |
| 31 | Uncultured plastid (HM270514) | 100 | Eucariote plastid |