| Literature DB >> 34681926 |
Dongbiao Lv1,2, Xueying Liu1,2, Yanlu Dong1,2, Zizheng Yan1,2, Xuan Zhang1,2, Ping Wang3, Xiangqun Yuan1,2, Yiping Li1,2.
Abstract
Spodoptera frugiperda is a highly polyphagous and invasive agricultural pest that can harm more than 300 plants and cause huge economic losses to crops. Symbiotic bacteria play an important role in the host biology and ecology of herbivores, and have a wide range of effects on host growth and adaptation. In this study, high-throughput sequencing technology was used to investigate the effects of different hosts (corn, wild oat, oilseed rape, pepper, and artificial diet) on gut microbial community structure and diversity. Corn is one of the most favored plants of S. frugiperda. We compared the gut microbiota on corn with and without a seed coating agent. The results showed that Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes dominated the gut microbial community. The microbial abundance on oilseed rape was the highest, the microbial diversity on wild oat was the lowest, and the microbial diversity on corn without a seed coating agent was significantly higher than that with such an agent. PCoA analysis showed that there were significant differences in the gut microbial community among different hosts. PICRUSt analysis showed that most of the functional prediction categories were related to metabolic and cellular processes. The results showed that the gut microbial community of S. frugiperda was affected not only by the host species, but also by different host treatments, which played an important role in host adaptation. It is important to deepen our understanding of the symbiotic relationships between invasive organisms and microorganisms. The study of the adaptability of host insects contributes to the development of more effective and environmentally friendly pest management strategies.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; Spodoptera frugiperda; gut microbiota; host adaptation; host species
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34681926 PMCID: PMC8540368 DOI: 10.3390/ijms222011266
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
Figure 1Violin plot of OTU diversity index comparison between groups of (A) Chao1 and (B) Shannon. The abbreviations in the figure represent different hosts. Asterisks indicate significant differences between hosts (**, p < 0.01; independent samples t-test).
Figure 2Top 15 in relative abundance in microorganism composition at the (A) phylum and (B) family levels. Columns represent different samples, different colors represent different annotated information, and “others” represent all species except those annotated above.
Relative abundance of dominant bacteria at the phylum and family taxonomic levels of different hosts.
| Taxonomy | Group | AD | CA | CB | WO | OR | PP |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phylum | Firmicutes | 21.99 ± 1.14% d | 34.31 ± 1.91% cd | 50.61 ± 3.46% bc | 74.05 ± 7.76% a | 29.26 ± 4.51% d | 65.84 ± 3.65% ab |
| Bacteroidetes | 45.82 ± 4.22% ab | 36.52 ± 2.92% ab | 27.39 ± 3.19 bc | 11.24 ± 1.84% c | 54.28 ± 9.88% a | 11.17 ± 1.44% c | |
| Proteobacteria | 22.16 ± 1.80% a | 18.70 ± 1.18 a | 13.34 ± 1.19% a | 11.0.9 ± 5.43% a | 10.30 ± 2.97% a | 19.32 ± 4.99% a | |
| Actinobacteria | 3.59 ± 0.165 ab | 4.32 ± 1.18% a | 4.55 ± 0.88% a | 1.58 ± 0.22% b | 2.57 ± 0.85% ab | 1.38 ± 0.13% b | |
| Total | 93.47 ± 0.88% a | 93.85 ± 1.73% a | 95.88 ± 0.50% a | 97.96 ± 0.42% a | 96.41 ± 2.10% a | 97.70 ± 0.37% a | |
| Family | Enterococcaceae | 0.27 ± 0.01% d | 15.44 ± 2.17% c | 37.24 ± 4.19% b | 67.76 ± 9.12% a | 8.53 ± 3.44% cd | 58.71 ± 3.11% a |
| Muribaculaceae | 27.09 ± 3.68% ab | 19.27 ± 2.53% ab | 14.10 ± 1.53% b | 6.09 ± 0.97% b | 40.10 ± 10.28 a | 6.49 ± 0.85% b | |
| Enterobacteriaceae | 6.10 ± 0.45% a | 5.69 ± 0.52% a | 3.35 ± 0.60% a | 6.64 ± 4.91% a | 3.82 ± 0.76 a | 14.76 ± 5.33% a | |
| Lachnospiraceae | 7.79 ± 0.62 ab | 7.97 ± 1.155 a | 3.84 ± 0.21% bc | 2.24 ± 0.57% c | 7.88 ± 1.455 ab | 2.71 ± 0.52% c |
Mean ± SE. Different letters (a, b, c, d) indicate that the same bacterium has significant differences between different host plants (p < 0.05; ANOVA with Tukey’s HSD test).
Figure 3Heatmap of the top 30 genera in terms of relative abundance at the genus level of each host. Columns represent different host samples, while rows represent bacterial ASV at the generic level. A cluster tree of sample microorganisms and cluster analysis of each genus are shown at the top and left, respectively. The color scale represents the normalized values of relative abundances by log10.
Figure 4Two-dimensional PCoA analysis visualization using the Bray–Curtis distance calculation method to measure different host samples. The abscissa (PC1) and ordinate (PC2) are the two main coordinates with the largest interpretative degree of differences between samples. The same color represents the same grouping. A point is a sample, and similar samples are gathered together.
Figure 5Relative abundance of genera that showed significant differences between corn with a seed coating agent and corn without a seed coating agent. Welch’s t-test was used to evaluate the differences. The genera were significantly different between the two hosts (p < 0.05).
Figure 6Cladogram of bacterial biomarkers, from the phylum (innermost ring) to genus (outermost ring) levels. The circles at different taxonomic levels represent a taxon at that level, and the relative abundance of the flora is represented by the diameter. Insignificantly different species are yellow, and different colors represent different species. The colors represent the groups, and the different colored nodes represent the bacteria that play an important role in that group.
Figure 7Comparison of KEGG function prediction of feeding on each host.
Figure 8Top 10 functional predictions with significant differences between hosts. There were significant interspecific differences in the 10 functions of each host.