| Literature DB >> 28973021 |
Callum Richards1, Saria Otani1, Aram Mikaelyan2,3, Michael Poulsen1.
Abstract
The gut microbiotas of cockroaches and termites play important roles in the symbiotic digestion of dietary components, such as lignocellulose. Diet has been proposed as a primary determinant of community structure within the gut, acting as a selection force to shape the diversity observed within this "bioreactor", and as a key factor for the divergence of the termite gut microbiota from the omnivorous cockroach ancestor. The gut microbiota in most termites supports primarily the breakdown of lignocellulose, but the fungus-farming sub-family of higher termites has become similar in gut microbiota to the ancestral omnivorous cockroaches. To assess the importance of a fungus diet as a driver of community structure, we compare community compositions in the guts of experimentally manipulated Pycnoscelus surinamensis cockroaches fed on fungus cultivated by fungus-farming termites. MiSeq amplicon analysis of gut microbiotas from 49 gut samples showed a step-wise gradient pattern in community similarity that correlated with an increase in the proportion of fungal material provided to the cockroaches. Comparison of the taxonomic composition of manipulated communities to that of gut communities of a fungus-feeding termite species showed that although some bacteria OTUs shared by P. surinamensis and the farming termites increased in the guts of cockroaches on a fungal diet, cockroach communities remained distinct from those of termites. These results demonstrate that a fungal diet can play a role in structuring gut community composition, but at the same time exemplifies how original community compositions constrain the magnitude of such change.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28973021 PMCID: PMC5626473 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0185745
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1(a-c) A juvenile (a), an adult (b) and a newly moulted (c) Pycnoscelus surinamensis individual, the scale bar (3cm) was used to assess the size of cockroaches as a proxy for their age and therefore likelihood of moulting during the experiment. Individuals selected for the experiment were approximately 8–10mm in length. (d-f) Treatment boxes with diets consisting of 0% (d), 60% (e), and 100% (f) Termitomyces fungus, respectively.
Fig 2(a) Mean ± SE (n = 3) number of juvenile (grey), sub-adult (light grey) and total number of cockroaches (dark grey) within each diet regime remaining at the end of the experiment. No fully-grown adults were observed within the sub-colonies at the end of the experimental period. A population size of approximately 50 individuals (intersecting dotted line) was maintained in the majority of diet regimes, and no significant differences in survival were observed between different fungal ratios. (b) P. surinamensis sub-adult feeding on Termitomyces and (c) juvenile handling fungal material.
Fig 3Rarefaction curves of sequence depth for the 54 gut samples [41].
Each curve represents the number of identified OTUs as a function of the number of sequenced reads after filtering. The samples ID 8 (0% fungus, replicate 3, technical replicate 2), ID 26 (40% fungus, replicate 3, technical replicate 2), ID46 (100% fungus, replicate 1, technical replicate 1) and ID 54 (100% fungus, replicate 3, technical replicate 3) were omitted from downstream analysis due to low sequence read count and subsequent poor coverage of bacterial communities. The remaining 50 samples had sufficient coverage and were used for analysis of community diversity and taxa abundances.
The number of sequences after filtering of raw reads, the number of identified taxa, the percentage of reads successfully assigned to the phylum, family and genus levels (based on relative abundances) as well as the estimated richness and diversity indices for the bacterial communities (at 2% dissimilarity threshold).
| 100:0 | 9541 | 194 ± 4.17 | 303 ± 7.18 | 99.7 | 84.3 | 61.4 | 5.49 | 0.99 |
| 80:20 | 12267 | 182 ± 2.26 | 288 ± 4.38 | 99.9 | 84.5 | 60.3 | 5.47 | 0.99 |
| 60:40 | 10904 | 184 ± 4.08 | 290 ± 4.49 | 99.9 | 83.1 | 58.2 | 5.49 | 0.99 |
| 40:60 | 12267 | 181 ± 4.90 | 291 ± 6.04 | 99.9 | 82.0 | 57.2 | 5.46 | 0.99 |
| 20:80 | 12267 | 178 ± 4.41 | 283 ± 7.91 | 99.9 | 80.4 | 55.6 | 5.43 | 0.99 |
| 0:100 | 9541 | 182 ± 3.67 | 285 ± 6.32 | 99.9 | 83.3 | 56.4 | 5.47 | 0.99 |
Fig 4(a) PCoA similarity analysis of the three biological (averages of three technical replicates) replicates for each of the six fungal diets visualized via Bray-Curtis distances. S4 Table gives the PCoA loading values, and S5 Table lists the 20 bacteria that contribute the most to the separation between communities (b) PCoA similarity analysis visualized via Bray-Curtis distances across gut samples from cockroaches fed only 0% and 100% fungal diets, and including five samples from Odontotermes sp. that maintain the fungal species that was used in the feeding experiment. S6 Table gives the PCoA loading values, and S7 Table lists the 20 bacteria that contribute the most to the separation between communities. (c) PCoA similarity analysis visualized via Bray-Curtis distances including only bacterial OTUs present in both 0 and 100% fungal diets and Odontotermes sp. S8 Table gives the PCoA loading values, and S2 and S9 Tables list the 20 bacteria that contribute the most to the separation between communities.
The 20 genus-level taxa that contribute the most to the separation of 0% and 100% fungal diets, based on loading values for a PCoA analysis (S8 Table), and a comparison to the abundances of these bacteria in the gut microbiota of five colonies of Odontotermes sp. [36] (S9 Table).
| Planctomycetaceae, Termite cockroach cluster 1 | 7.0% | 0.2% | -6.8% | Absent |
| 3.8% | 2.6% | -1.2% | 0.01% | |
| Unclassified Proteobacteria, Insect cluster II | 3.3% | 2.3% | -1.1% | Absent |
| 0.8% | 0.4% | -0.5% | Absent | |
| Porphyromonadaceae Gut group, Termite cluster I | 1.9% | 1.6% | -0.3% | 0.004% |
| 1.3% | 1.3% | 0.0% | Absent | |
| Unclassified Lactobacillales | 2.5% | 2.5% | 0.1% | 0.0005% |
| Desulfovibrionaceae, Gut cluster 3 | 1.1% | 1.5% | 0.4% | Absent |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae | 1.6% | 2.0% | 0.4% | 0.009% |
| Porphyromonadaceae 3 Cluster IV | 1.0% | 1.6% | 0.6% | Absent |
| Desulfovibrionaceae | 1.6% | 2.2% | 0.6% | 0.008% |
| Unclassified Betaproteobacteria | 1.1% | 1.7% | 0.6% | 0.004% |
| Ruminococcaceae, Termite cockroach cluster | 0.6% | 1.2% | 0.6% | 0.003% |
| 0.7% | 1.5% | 0.9% | 0.02% | |
| Unclassified Porphyromonadaceae 3 | 0.3% | 1.3% | 1.0% | 0.004% |
| Unclassified Micrococcales 3 | 0.03% | 1.1% | 1.0% | 0.0002% |
| Unclassified Porphyromonadaceae 2 | 0.3% | 1.6% | 1.3% | 0.02% |
| Unclassified Peptostreptococcaceae | 0.02% | 1.5% | 1.5% | Absent |
| 3.7% | 5.2% | 1.6% | Absent | |
| 1.0% | 2.7% | 1.7% | Absent |
Fig 5Summary of gut community changes associated with a shift from a leaf-litter to a fungal diet in Pycnoscelus surinamensis.
(a) Venn diagram showing the shared and unique number of genus-level taxa identified in a combined analysis of gut microbial communities in cockroaches feeding on leaf litter (0% fungus), 100% fungus, and five colonies of Odontotermes sp. (b) Taxa contributing most to separating 0% and 100% fungus (full results in Table 2) (c) Most abundant taxa gained in cockroaches on 100% fungus (full results in Table 3) (d) Most abundant taxa lost in cockroaches on 100% fungus (full results in Table 4).
The relative abundance of genus-level taxa present in some cockroaches feeding on 100% fungal diet and in Odontotermes sp., but not in cockroaches fed on a 0% fungal diet.
| Unclassified Planctomycetes | 0.2868% | 0.0240% |
| 0.0013% | 0.0233% | |
| Unclassified Xanthobacteraceae | 0.0004% | 0.0219% |
| 0.0067% | 0.0145% | |
| Unclassified Ruminococcaceae | 0.0022% | 0.0142% |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae | 0.1450% | 0.0141% |
| 0.0023% | 0.0105% | |
| Ruminococcaceae, Insect cluster | 0.0047% | 0.0062% |
| Unclassified Verrucomicrobia | 0.0052% | 0.0057% |
| Ruminococcaceae, Termite cockroach cluster | 0.0033% | 0.0052% |
| 0.0039% | 0.0046% | |
| Unclassified Planctomycetes | 0.0008% | 0.0045% |
| Ruminococcaceae, Insect cluster | 0.0025% | 0.0042% |
| Unclassified Proteobacteria | 0.0011% | 0.0042% |
| 0.0726% | 0.0041% | |
| Ruminococcaceae, Termite cockroach cluster | 0.0013% | 0.0039% |
| Unclassified Planctomycetes | 0.0008% | 0.0038% |
| Ruminococcaceae, Termite cockroach cluster | 0.0058% | 0.0025% |
| Unclassified Firmicutes | 0.0021% | 0.0023% |
| Veillonellaceae, Uncultured 7 | 0.0022% | 0.0022% |
| 0.0008% | 0.0022% | |
| 0.0006% | 0.0022% | |
| Planctomycetaceae, Gut cluster 2 | 0.2323% | 0.0020% |
| 0.0029% | 0.0018% | |
| 0.0010% | 0.0018% | |
| 0.0051% | 0.0015% | |
| 0.0019% | 0.0015% | |
| Acidobacteriaceae, Uncultured 31 | 0.0017% | 0.0015% |
| 0.0089% | 0.0015% | |
| Unclassified Firmicutes | 0.0029% | 0.0015% |
| 0.0026% | 0.0015% | |
| Unclassified Planctomycetes | 0.0017% | 0.0015% |
| Unclassified Firmicutes | 0.0169% | 0.0010% |
| Unclassified Actinobacteria | 0.0017% | 0.0010% |
| 0.0013% | 0.0010% | |
| Veillonellaceae, Uncultured 7 | 0.0011% | 0.0010% |
| Unclassified Actinobacteria | 0.0011% | 0.0010% |
| 0.0010% | 0.0010% | |
| 0.0006% | 0.0010% | |
| Ruminococcaceae. Insect cluster | 0.0006% | 0.0008% |
| Unclassified Ruminococcaceae | 0.0050% | 0.0008% |
| Xanthobacteraceae, Uncultured 1 | 0.0011% | 0.0008% |
The identity and number of OTUs within genus-level taxa that were present in some cockroaches feeding on leaf litter (0% fungus), but absent in all cockroaches feeding on 100% fungal diet and their abundances across five colonies of Odontotermes sp. and cockroaches feeding on 0% fungus (only the 40 taxa that were most abundant in cockroaches feeding on 0% fungus are given, for the full results see S10 and S11 Tables).
| Unclassified Ruminococcaceae | 164 | 0.0621 | 0.6805% |
| 11 | Absent | 0.5592% | |
| Lachnospiraceae, Gut cluster 13 | 125 | Absent | 0.4197% |
| Unclassified Lachnospiraceae | 83 | Absent | 0.3700% |
| Unclassified Clostridiales | 92 | 0.0017 | 0.2682% |
| Ruminococcaceae, Termite cockroach cluster | 70 | 0.0011 | 0.2594% |
| Unclassified Firmicutes | 67 | 0.0046 | 0.2503% |
| Desulfovibrionaceae, Gut cluster 3 | 63 | 0.0013 | 0.2098% |
| Unclassified Porphyromonadaceae 3 | 69 | Absent | 0.1762% |
| Planctomycetaceae, Termite cockroach cluster 1 | 17 | Absent | 0.1720% |
| Ruminococcaceae, Insect cluster | 32 | 0.0059 | 0.1671% |
| Planctomycetaceae, Termite cockroach cluster 2 | 34 | Absent | 0.1376% |
| Unclassified Bacteriodetes | 41 | Absent | 0.1291% |
| Unclassified Lactobacillales | 42 | 0.0027 | 0.1151% |
| Unclassified Porphyromonadaceae, Cluster V | 41 | Absent | 0.1018% |
| 32 | 0.0153% | 0.0917% | |
| Porphyromonadaceae 3, Cluster IV | 24 | Absent | 0.0765% |
| 14 | Absent | 0.0706% | |
| Unclassified Planctomycetaceae | 25 | Absent | 0.0681% |
| Unclassified Porphyromonadaceae 2 | 2 | Absent | 0.0662% |
| Lachnospiraceae, Termite cluster | 4 | Absent | 0.0625% |
| Porphyromonadaceae Cluster V, Termite Cockroach cluster | 19 | Absent | 0.0623% |
| Unclassified Rikenellaceae | 21 | Absent | 0.0561% |
| Porphyromonadaceae Cluster V, Cockroach cluster | 10 | Absent | 0.0528% |
| 8 | Absent | 0.0502% | |
| 21 | Absent | 0.0495% | |
| Ruminococcaceae, Gut cluster 1 | 3 | Absent | 0.0491% |
| Ruminococcaceae, Gut cluster 4 | 3 | Absent | 0.0487% |
| Unclassified Proteobacteria | 12 | 0.0045% | 0.0470% |
| 8 | 0.0220% | 0.0440% | |
| Unclassified Nocardioidaceae | 8 | Absent | 0.0435% |
| 6 | Absent | 0.0433% | |
| Ruminococcaceae, Gut cluster 9 | 2 | 0.0025% | 0.0432% |
| 11 | Absent | 0.0430% | |
| Unclassified Mollicutes RF9 | 11 | Absent | 0.0426% |
| 5 | Absent | 0.0412% | |
| Lachnospiraceae, Gut cluster 15 | 4 | Absent | 0.0410% |
| Unclassified Corynebacteriales | 9 | Absent | 0.0385% |
| 10 | Absent | 0.0382% | |
| Unclassified Clostridiales, Family XIII Incertae Sedis | 12 | Absent | 0.0381% |