| Literature DB >> 34519538 |
Samantha C Waterworth1,2, Shirley Parker-Nance2,3, Jason C Kwan1, Rosemary A Dorrington2,4.
Abstract
The fossil record indicates that the earliest evidence of extant marine sponges (phylum Porifera) existed during the Cambrian explosion and that their symbiosis with microbes may have begun in their extinct ancestors during the Precambrian period. Many symbionts have adapted to their sponge host, where they perform specific, specialized functions. There are also widely distributed bacterial taxa such as Poribacteria, SAUL, and Tethybacterales that are found in a broad range of invertebrate hosts. Here, we added 11 new genomes to the Tethybacterales order, identified a novel family, and show that functional potential differs between the three Tethybacterales families. We compare the Tethybacterales with the well-characterized Entoporibacteria and show that these symbionts appear to preferentially associate with low-microbial abundance (LMA) and high-microbial abundance (HMA) sponges, respectively. Within these sponges, we show that these symbionts likely perform distinct functions and may have undergone multiple association events, rather than a single association event followed by coevolution. IMPORTANCE Marine sponges often form symbiotic relationships with bacteria that fulfil a specific need within the sponge holobiont, and these symbionts are often conserved within a narrow range of related taxa. To date, there exist only three known bacterial taxa (Entoporibacteria, SAUL, and Tethybacterales) that are globally distributed and found in a broad range of sponge hosts, and little is known about the latter two. We show that the functional potential of broad-host range symbionts is conserved at a family level and that these symbionts have been acquired several times over evolutionary history. Finally, it appears that the Entoporibacteria are associated primarily with high-microbial abundance sponges, while the Tethybacterales associate with low-microbial abundance sponges.Entities:
Keywords: Latrunculiidae; Poribacteria; Porifera; Tethybacterales; comparative genomics; symbiosis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34519538 PMCID: PMC8546597 DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01577-21
Source DB: PubMed Journal: mBio Impact factor: 7.867
General characteristics of putative Tethybacterales genomes/MAGs
| Genome | Sponge host | Size (Mbp) | Complete (%) | Contam (%) | Quality | “Core” genes (%) | Study or reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| “ | 2.96 | 72.92 | 3.56 | Medium | 84.52 | This study | |
| “ |
| 1.56 | 85.58 | 0.61 | Medium | 83.33 | This study |
| “ |
| 1.60 | 84.36 | 0.61 | Medium | 86.9 | This study |
|
| 1.52 | 82.87 | 0.61 | Medium | 78.57 |
| |
| JGI | |||||||
|
| 1.69 | 81 | 0.3 | Medium | 85.71 |
| |
| JGI | |||||||
|
| 2.25 | 80.38 | 1.81 | Medium | 73.8 |
| |
| JGI | |||||||
|
| 1.61 | 71.13 | 1.52 | Medium | 80.95 |
| |
| NCBI | |||||||
| 1.05 | 64.33 | 0.04 | Medium | 53.57 |
| ||
| JGI | |||||||
|
| 1.24 | 56.3 | 0 | Medium | 57.14 |
| |
| JGI | |||||||
| “ |
| 1.58 | 65.47 | 0.61 | Medium | 73.81 | JGI |
| “ |
| 1.36 | 58.12 | 0 | Medium | 72.62 | JGI |
| “ |
| 1.45 | 57.04 | 0.61 | Medium | 76.19 | JGI |
| “ |
| 1.16 | 55.82 | 0.61 | Medium | 75.00 | JGI |
| “ |
| 1.37 | 58.12 | 0 | Medium | 72.62 | JGI |
| “ |
| 0.98 | 54.76 | 1.93 | Medium | 69.05 | JGI |
| “ | 3.08 | 84.92 | 1.83 | Medium | 78.57 | This study | |
| “ | 3.45 | 79.58 | 5.93 | Medium | 75.00 | This study | |
| CCyA_16_0 | 0.86 | 16.95 | 3.81 | Low | 35.71 | This study | |
| CCyA_3_0 | 0.62 | 29.31 | 0 | Low | 15.48 | This study | |
| CCyA_3_39 | 0.41 | 22.01 | 4.88 | Low | 36.90 | This study | |
| CCyB_501_11 | 0.04 | 7.51 | 0 | Low | 17.86 | This study | |
| CCyB_502_83 | 0.43 | 17.01 | 0 | Low | 21.43 | This study | |
| CCyC_2_7 | 1.81 | 47.5 | 0 | Low | 57.14 | This study | |
| 050C_6 |
| 2.21 | 24.03 | 4.51 | Low | 32.14 | This study |
| Csing_4 |
| 1.08 | 39.35 | 0.61 | Low | 54.76 | JGI |
| 050A_14 | 6.08 | 61 | 19.4 | Low | 73.81 | This study | |
| 003D_6 | 0.33 | 0 | 0 | Low | 0 | This study |
FIG 1Phylogeny of the Tethybacterales sponge symbionts. Using autoMLST, single-copy markers were selected and used to delineate the phylogeny of these sponge-associated betaproteobacteria, revealing a new family of symbionts in the Tethybacterales order. Additionally, it was shown that the T. (T.) favus-associated Sp02-1 symbiont belongs to the Persebacteraceae family. The phylogenetic tree was inferred using the de novo method in AutoMLST using a concatenated alignment with IQ Tree and ModelFinder enabled. Branch lengths are proportional to the number of substitutions per site.
FIG 2Functional specialization of Tethybacterales families. The newly proposed Tethybacterales order appears to consist of three bacterial families. (A to C) These families appear to have similar gene distribution (A), where the potential function of these genes indicates specialization in nutrient cycling (B) and solute transport (C).
FIG 3Notable functional differences between Tethybacterales and Poribacteria. A summary of the most significant differences in the functional gene repertoires of bacterial families with the Poribacteria and Tethybacterales. The presence of metabolic genes (KEGG annotations) detected in any Tethybacterales and Poribacteria genome bins is indicated with a gray block.
Pairwise ANOSIM of presence/absence of KEGG-annotated functional genes in Poribacteria and Tethybacterales
| Taxonomy A | Taxonomy B | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 0.0001 | 0.9819 |
|
|
| 0.0001 | 0.5248 |
|
|
| 0.0001 | 0.9929 |
|
|
| 0.0001 | 0.9581 |
|
|
| 0.0007 | 0.4909 |
|
|
| 0.0015 | 0.4776 |
|
|
| 0.0033 | 0.8915 |
|
|
| 0.0033 | 0.5301 |
|
|
| 0.0663 | 0.3124 |
|
|
| 0.0082 | 0.5938 |
Tethybacterales and Entoporibacteria appear to selectively associate with LMA and HMA sponges, respectively
| Symbiont order | Symbiont family | Sponge host | Host order | LMA/HMA status | Collection site |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| LMA | Algoa Bay, South Africa | |
|
|
|
|
| LMA ( | Bare Island, NSW, Australia |
|
|
|
|
| LMA ( | Cala Montgo, Spain |
|
|
|
| LMA ( | Bare Island, NSW, Australia | |
|
|
|
|
| LMA ( | Jones Bay, Tawharanui Peninsula, New Zealand |
|
|
|
|
| HMA ( | Dobu “bubble” site, Papua New Guinea |
|
|
|
|
| Either is possible for an unknown species ( | Penghu, Taiwan |
|
|
|
|
| Hybrid ( | Chapopote Knoll, Gulf of Mexico |
|
|
|
|
| LMA ( | Bare Island, Botany Bay, Australia |
|
|
|
|
| LMA ( | Shark Bay, Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef, Australia |
|
| NA |
|
| HMA ( | St. Thomas, Virgin Islands |
|
| NA |
| HMA ( | Western Shoals, Apra Harbor, Guam | |
|
| NA |
| HMA ( | San Louis Beach, Santa Rita, Guam | |
|
| NA |
| NA | Orpheus Island, Australia | |
|
| NA |
|
| HMA | D’Entrecasteaux Islands, Papua New Guinea |
|
| NA |
|
| HMA ( | Great Barrier Reef, Australia |
NA, taxonomy not defined at family level.
FIG 4The divergence pattern of sponge-associated Tethybacterales, Entoporibacteria, and their respective host sponges. The divergence of the Tethybacterales and Entoporibacteria is incongruent with the phylogeny of the host sponges. (A and C) The branch length of symbiont divergence estimates is proportional to the pairwise rate of synonymous substitution calculated (ML estimation) using a concatenation of genes common to all genomes. The rate of synonymous substitution was calculated using PAL2NAL and CodeML from the PAML package and visualized in MEGA X. (B and D) The phylogeny of host sponges (or close relatives thereof) was inferred with 28S rRNA sequence data using the UPGMA method and maximum composite likelihood model with 1,000 bootstrap replicates. Branch lengths indicate the number of substitutions per site. All ambiguous positions were removed for each sequence pair (pairwise deletion option). Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA X.