| Literature DB >> 25830022 |
Nurdyana Abdul Rahman1, Donovan H Parks1, Dana L Willner2, Anna L Engelbrektson3, Shana K Goffredi4, Falk Warnecke5, Rudolf H Scheffrahn6, Philip Hugenholtz7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Termites and their microbial gut symbionts are major recyclers of lignocellulosic biomass. This important symbiosis is obligate but relatively open and more complex in comparison to other well-known insect symbioses such as the strict vertical transmission of Buchnera in aphids. The relative roles of vertical inheritance and environmental factors such as diet in shaping the termite gut microbiome are not well understood.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25830022 PMCID: PMC4379614 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-015-0067-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Summary of the surveyed 66 termite whole gut samples according to host phylogeny (genus and family); sample location (country); and relative bacterial, archaeal, and protist abundances using universal primers (926F) and prokaryote primers (803F) in some instances (see text and Additional file : Figure S10)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 1 |
| Termitidae | 1 | 0 | 1 | 97.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | ||
| 2 |
| Termitidae | 0 | 8 | 8 | 99.7 | 0.1 | 0.2 | ||
| 3 |
| Termitidae | 2 | 8 | 10 | 98.2 | 1.7 | 0.0 | ||
| 4 |
| Termitidae | 7 | 1 | 8 | 97.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | ||
| 5 |
| Termitidae | 0 | 2 | 2 | 99.8 | 0.2 | 0.0 | ||
| 6 |
| Termitidae | 12 | 0 | 12 | 99.1 | 0.9 | 0.0 | ||
| 7 |
| Termitidae | 1 | 0 | 1 | 77.9 | 63.5 | 22.1 | 36.5 | 0.0 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
| 8 |
| Rhinotermitidae | 0 | 3 | 3 | 92.0 | 0.2 | 7.8 | ||
| 9 |
| Rhinotermitidae | 6 | 0 | 6 | 91.4 | 5.3 | 3.3 | ||
| 10 |
| Rhinotermitidae | 3 | 0 | 3 | 66.5 | 78.6 | 33.4 | 21.4 | 0.1 |
| 11 |
| Rhinotermitidae | 3 | 0 | 3 | 82.3 | 72.9 | 17.2 | 27.1 | 0.5 |
| 12 |
| Kalotermitidae | 0 | 2 | 2 | 98.5 | 0.0 | 0.2 | ||
| 13 |
| Kalotermitidae | 0 | 1 | 1 | 97.6 | 0.0 | 1.5 | ||
| 14 |
| Kalotermitidae | 2 | 0 | 2 | 100.0 | 0.0 | 2.4 | ||
| 15 |
| Stolotermitidae | 1 | 0 | 1 | 42.1 | 50.1 | 57.7 | 49.9 | 0.0 |
| 16 |
| Mastotermitidae | 3 | 0 | 3 | 82.2 | 92.4 | 17.4 | 7.6 | 0.4 |
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
Summary of core and accessory bacterial phyla in higher and lower termite gut communities present at >1% relative abundance in at least one sample
|
|
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|
| 100.0 | 6.3 (±5.0) | 100.0 | 41.3 (±24.8) | *** |
|
| 100.0 | 24.0 (±14.1) | 100.0 | 19.1 (±11.6) | _ |
|
| 100.0 | 44.3 (±18.9) | 100.0 | 13.2(±13.0) | *** |
|
| 100.0 | 5.5 (±2.7) | 100.0 | 7.5 (±6.5) | _ |
| Planctomycetes | 100.0 | 4.3 (±4.4) | 79.1 | 2.3 (±2.6) | _ |
| Synergistetes | 95.2 | 3.1 (±3.0) | 95.8 | 1.0 (±0.6) | _ |
| Actinobacteria | 92.9 | 1.8 (±1.8) | 87.5 | 2.3 (±2.1) | _ |
| Acidobacteria | 90.5 | 2.0 (±1.3) | 45.8 | <1 (±0.8) | *** |
| Fibrobacteres | 95.2 | 5.7 (±5.2) | 12.5 | <1 (±1.1) | *** |
| Elusimicrobia | 31.0 | <1 (±0.2) | 70.8 | 8.4 (±15.3) | _ |
Prevalence and average relative abundance (and standard deviation) of each phylum in each group is shown. Statistically significant differences between phyla in higher and lower termites are indicated in the final column (see also Additional file 7: Figure S5).
SD standard deviation.
***p value <0.05.
_p value >0.05.
aCore phyla are bolded.
Figure 1Heatmap showing microbial taxa (mostly genus and family level) with relative abundance ≥0.2% in one or more whole gut samples surveyed in this study. Each row represents a gut sample and each column a microbial taxon with relative abundance indicated by shading according to the legend. Phylum-level designations for the microbial taxa are indicated at the top of the figure, and host sample phylogeny is indicated to the left (family) and right (genus) of the figure.
Figure 2Prevalence versus relative abundance graph of bacterial OTUs (97% sequence identity) in the surveyed gut samples. OTUs with ≥10% relative abundance or ≥50% prevalence across the 66 termite samples are highlighted in red and labeled with OTU ID and closest matching bacterial genus. Relative abundance was calculated only using samples containing detectable amounts of a given OTU. In instances where the OTU is only found in a single termite genus, the termite genus is also included in the label.
Figure 3Heatmap showing archaeal OTUs (97% seq id) with ≥0.1% relative abundance in one or more of the surveyed gut samples. Each row represents an OTU and each column a gut sample with relative abundance as a percentage of the total microbial community (including bacteria) indicated by numbers and shading according to the legend. The termite genus for each sample is indicated at the top of the figure, and OTU phylogeny is indicated to the left (phylum) and right (mostly genus) of the figure.
Figure 4UPGMA tree of unweighted (presence/absence only) Soergel pairwise distances between bacterial profiles showing a high consistency with host phylogeny and low consistency with diet (Additional file : Table S4). The values on interior nodes represent jackknife support values ≥49. Termite host affiliation (family) and presumptive diet are indicated to the right of the tree.
Figure 5Subtrees of host and bacterial community phylogenetic comparisons showing secondary effect of diet on community structure of polyphagous termite genera. When the relative abundance of bacterial OTUs is taken into account (weighted Soergel), samples cluster according to diet. The values on interior nodes of the COII trees are FastTree local support values and jackknife support values ≥49 on the Soergel UPGMA Carbon isotope values of gut contents are shown in the far right panels.