Kasun H Bodawatta1, Inga Freiberga2, Katerina Puzejova2,3, Katerina Sam2,3, Michael Poulsen4, Knud A Jønsson5. 1. Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. bodawatta@snm.ku.dk. 2. Biology Centre of Czech Academy of Sciences, Institute of Entomology, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic. 3. Faculty of Science, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic. 4. Section for Ecology and Evolution, Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Natural History Museum of Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gut microbial communities play important roles in nutrient management and can change in response to host diets. The extent of this flexibility and the concomitant resilience is largely unknown in wild animals. To untangle the dynamics of avian-gut microbiome symbiosis associated with diet changes, we exposed Parus major (Great tits) fed with a standard diet (seeds and mealworms) to either a mixed (seeds, mealworms and fruits), a seed, or a mealworm diet for 4 weeks, and examined the flexibility of gut microbiomes to these compositionally different diets. To assess microbiome resilience (recovery potential), all individuals were subsequently reversed to a standard diet for another 4 weeks. Cloacal microbiomes were collected weekly and characterised through sequencing the v4 region of the 16S rRNA gene using Illumina MiSeq. RESULTS: Initial microbiomes changed significantly with the diet manipulation, but the communities did not differ significantly between the three diet groups (mixed, seed and mealworm), despite multiple diet-specific changes in certain bacterial genera. Reverting birds to the standard diet led only to a partial recovery in gut community compositions. The majority of the bacterial taxa that increased significantly during diet manipulation decreased in relative abundance after reversion to the standard diet; however, bacterial taxa that decreased during the manipulation rarely increased after diet reversal CONCLUSIONS: The gut microbial response and partial resilience to dietary changes support that gut bacterial communities of P. major play a role in accommodating dietary changes experienced by wild avian hosts. This may be a contributing factor to the relaxed association between microbiome composition and the bird phylogeny. Our findings further imply that interpretations of wild bird gut microbiome analyses from single-time point sampling, especially for omnivorous species or species with seasonally changing diets, should be done with caution. The partial community recovery implies that ecologically relevant diet changes (e.g., seasonality and migration) open up gut niches that may be filled by previously abundant microbes or replaced by different symbiont lineages, which has important implications for the integrity and specificity of long-term avian-symbiont associations.
BACKGROUND: Gut microbial communities play important roles in nutrient management and can change in response to host diets. The extent of this flexibility and the concomitant resilience is largely unknown in wild animals. To untangle the dynamics of avian-gut microbiome symbiosis associated with diet changes, we exposed Parus major (Great tits) fed with a standard diet (seeds and mealworms) to either a mixed (seeds, mealworms and fruits), a seed, or a mealworm diet for 4 weeks, and examined the flexibility of gut microbiomes to these compositionally different diets. To assess microbiome resilience (recovery potential), all individuals were subsequently reversed to a standard diet for another 4 weeks. Cloacal microbiomes were collected weekly and characterised through sequencing the v4 region of the 16S rRNA gene using Illumina MiSeq. RESULTS: Initial microbiomes changed significantly with the diet manipulation, but the communities did not differ significantly between the three diet groups (mixed, seed and mealworm), despite multiple diet-specific changes in certain bacterial genera. Reverting birds to the standard diet led only to a partial recovery in gut community compositions. The majority of the bacterial taxa that increased significantly during diet manipulation decreased in relative abundance after reversion to the standard diet; however, bacterial taxa that decreased during the manipulation rarely increased after diet reversal CONCLUSIONS: The gut microbial response and partial resilience to dietary changes support that gut bacterial communities of P. major play a role in accommodating dietary changes experienced by wild avian hosts. This may be a contributing factor to the relaxed association between microbiome composition and the bird phylogeny. Our findings further imply that interpretations of wild bird gut microbiome analyses from single-time point sampling, especially for omnivorous species or species with seasonally changing diets, should be done with caution. The partial community recovery implies that ecologically relevant diet changes (e.g., seasonality and migration) open up gut niches that may be filled by previously abundant microbes or replaced by different symbiont lineages, which has important implications for the integrity and specificity of long-term avian-symbiont associations.
Entities:
Keywords:
16S rRNA gene; Bacterial communities; Community flexibility; Community resilience; Gut symbionts; Illumina MiSeq
Authors: Rachel N Carmody; Georg K Gerber; Jesus M Luevano; Daniel M Gatti; Lisa Somes; Karen L Svenson; Peter J Turnbaugh Journal: Cell Host Microbe Date: 2014-12-18 Impact factor: 21.023
Authors: Lucie Kropáčková; Hana Pechmanová; Michal Vinkler; Jana Svobodová; Hana Velová; Martin Těšičký; Jean-François Martin; Jakub Kreisinger Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-06-29 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Kirsten Grond; Jorge W Santo Domingo; Richard B Lanctot; Ari Jumpponen; Rebecca L Bentzen; Megan L Boldenow; Stephen C Brown; Bruce Casler; Jenny A Cunningham; Andrew C Doll; Scott Freeman; Brooke L Hill; Steven J Kendall; Eunbi Kwon; Joseph R Liebezeit; Lisa Pirie-Dominix; Jennie Rausch; Brett K Sandercock Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Christian Quast; Elmar Pruesse; Pelin Yilmaz; Jan Gerken; Timmy Schweer; Pablo Yarza; Jörg Peplies; Frank Oliver Glöckner Journal: Nucleic Acids Res Date: 2012-11-28 Impact factor: 16.971
Authors: Gabrielle L Davidson; Niamh Wiley; Amy C Cooke; Crystal N Johnson; Fiona Fouhy; Michael S Reichert; Iván de la Hera; Jodie M S Crane; Ipek G Kulahci; R Paul Ross; Catherine Stanton; John L Quinn Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2020-11-27 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Öncü Maraci; Michela Corsini; Anna Antonatou-Papaioannou; Sebastian Jünemann; Joanna Sudyka; Irene Di Lecce; Barbara A Caspers; Marta Szulkin Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-04-27 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Kasun H Bodawatta; Irena Klečková; Jan Klečka; Kateřina Pužejová; Bonny Koane; Michael Poulsen; Knud A Jønsson; Katerina Sam Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Sarah F Worsley; Charli S Davies; Maria-Elena Mannarelli; Matthew I Hutchings; Jan Komdeur; Terry Burke; Hannah L Dugdale; David S Richardson Journal: Anim Microbiome Date: 2021-12-20
Authors: Guillermo María Wiemeyer; Pablo Ignacio Plaza; Carla Paola Bustos; Alejandra Jimena Muñoz; Sergio Agustín Lambertucci Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-14 Impact factor: 3.390