| Literature DB >> 35633686 |
Luo-Yan Zhang1, Hong Yu1, Da-Ying Fu1, Jin Xu1,2, Song Yang1, Hui Ye3.
Abstract
Mating may promote microbial diversity through sexual transmission, while mating-induced immune responses may decrease it. Therefore, the study of mating-induced microbiomes changes under different mating systems is informative to unravel its biological relevance and evolutionary significance. Here, we studied the microbiomes in a community context within the abdomen of Spodoptera frugiperda females using 16S rDNA sequences by setting virgin females, and females mated once, twice, or thrice with the same or different males. Alpha and beta diversities revealed that mating significantly affected the composition of microbiomes in S. frugiperda females, wherein virgin females have the highest diversity, followed by one-time mated females and females mated with multiple males, while females mated repeatedly with the same male showed the lowest diversity. The low diversity in females mated repeatedly with the same male may be due to lower sexual transmission as only mated with one mate and higher immune response from repeated matings. Functional prediction by FAPROTAX and literature searching found 17 possible pathogens and 12 beneficial microbiomes. Multiple mating turned over the abundance of pathogens and beneficial microbes, for example, Enterococcus and Lactobacillus spp. (beneficial) showed higher abundance in virgin females while Morganella and Serratia spp. (pathogens) showed higher abundance in females mated with multiple males. These results suggest that mating causes a decline in the diversity of symbiotic microbiomes and promiscuity incurs a higher pathogen abundance in S. frugiperda females, which may be the result of sexual transmission of bacterial strains and immune responses targeting members of the microbiomes. To our knowledge, we demonstrate microbiomes changes in female insects under virgin and different mating regimes for the first time.Entities:
Keywords: Spodoptera frugiperda; beneficial bacteria; mating; pathogen; reproductive microbiomes; sexually transmitted microbes
Year: 2022 PMID: 35633686 PMCID: PMC9133953 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.878856
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 6.064
Figure 1Experimental design and sampling methods. Single refer to one-time mated females, in which 1 mating 1 day (n = 3), 1 mating 2 days (n = 3), and 1 mating 3 days (n = 3) refer to one-time mated females sampled at 1, 2, and 3 d postmating (since the first mating), respectively. Multiple refer to females mated with multiple males (one male one mating), in which 2 matings 2 days (n = 3), 2 matings 3 days (n = 3), and 3 matings 3 days (n = 3) refer to twice and thrice mated females sampled at 2 and 3 d postmating (since the first mating), respectively. Repeated refer to females mated repeatedly with the same male, in which 2 matings 2 days (n = 3), 2 matings 3 days (n = 3), and 3 matings 3 days (n = 3) refer to twice and thrice mated females sampled at 2 and 3 d postmating (since the first mating), respectively. Virgin refer to unmated females, in which 0 mating 1 day (n = 3), 0 mating 2 days, and 0 mating 3 days (n = 3) refer to virgin females sampled at 1, 2, and 3 d postmating (relative to the above mating treatments), respectively.
Figure 2Diversity indices of bacterial OTUs in S. frugiperda females with different mating treatments. Shannon diversity indices of virgin and mated females (A), females with different mating types (B), and all samples (C). PCoA ordination based on Bray–Curtis distances of virgin and mated females (D), females with different mating types (E), and all samples (F). In each of the subgraphs of (a) to (c), bars with different letters are significantly different (P < 0.05).
Figure 3Taxonomy assignment of bacterial OTUs at the phylum level in S. frugiperda females of different mating types. (A) The abundance pattern of the top 10 phyla. (B) A clearer display of the relative abundance of the 3rd to the 10th phylum.
Figure 4Taxonomy assignment of bacterial OTUs at the genus and species levels in S. frugiperda females of different mating types. (A) The abundance pattern at the genus level (top 10). (B) The abundance pattern at the species level (top 10).
Figure 5Functional prediction of bacteria in S. frugiperda females of different mating types. (A) The relative abundance of dominate bacterial functional groups (top 10) distribution predicted by FAPROTAX; (B) the relative abundance of possible pathogens; (C) the relative abundance of possible beneficial bacteria (bacteria that are beneficial for their hosts).
Possible pathogens and beneficial bacteria profiles in S. frugiperda.
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| Pathogen | Proteobacteria | Enterobacterales |
| Insect pathogen | Salas et al., |
| Proteobacteria | Enterobacterales |
| Insect pathogen | Maciel-Vergara et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales |
| Insect pathogen | Maciel-Vergara et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Enterobacterales |
| Animal pathogen | Momose et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Enterobacterales | Animal pathogen | Voirol et al., | ||
| Proteobacteria | Enterobacterales |
| Human pathogen | Armbruster et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Xanthomonadales |
| Human pathogen | Adegoke et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Xanthomonadales |
| Potential human pathogen | Patil et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Xanthomonadales |
| Potential human pathogen | ||
| Proteobacteria | Xanthomonadales |
| Potential human pathogen | Huang et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales |
| Human and fish pathogen | Peleg et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales |
| Human and fish pathogen | ||
| Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales |
| Human pathogen | Chen et al., | |
| Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales |
| Human pathogen | Maruyama et al., | |
| Firmicutes | Bacillales |
| Human pathogen | Passalacqua and Bergman, | |
| Bacteroidota | Bacteroidales |
| Human pathogen | Martin and Aziz, | |
| Firmicutes | Erysipelotrichales |
| Human and rabbit pathogen | Agnoletti et al., | |
| Beneficial bacteria | Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Against entomopathogens | Shao et al., |
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Healthy vaginal microbiome | Schoenmakers et al., | |
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Healthy vaginal microbiome | ||
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Healthy vaginal microbiome | ||
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Healthy vaginal microbiome | ||
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Healthy vaginal microbiome | ||
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Healthy vaginal microbiome | ||
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Healthy vaginal microbiome | ||
| Firmicutes | Lactobacillales |
| Healthy vaginal microbiome | ||
| Proteobacteria | Enterobacterales |
| Colonization resistance | Dillon and Dillon, | |
| Proteobacteria | Enterobacterales | Nutritional contributions | |||
| Proteobacteria | Enterobacterales | Nutritional contributions | |||
Bacteria that are beneficial for their hosts.
Figure 6Important biomarkers of bacterial communities in S. frugiperda females of different mating types revealed by linear discriminant analysis (LDA).