1
|
Massey C, Nosker ME, Gale J, Scott S, Walker CJ, Cluff A, Wilcox S, Morrison A, Gottfredson Morgan SJ, Beltz J, Schmidt P, Chaston JM. Humidity determines penetrance of a latitudinal gradient in genetic selection on the microbiota by Drosophila melanogaster. BIORXIV : THE PREPRINT SERVER FOR BIOLOGY 2024:2024.05.02.591907. [PMID: 38746372 PMCID: PMC11092659 DOI: 10.1101/2024.05.02.591907] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/16/2024]
Abstract
The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is a model for understanding how hosts and their microbial partners interact as the host adapts to wild environments. These interactions are readily interrogated because of the low taxonomic and numeric complexity of the flies' bacterial communities. Previous work has established that host genotype, the environment, diet, and interspecies microbial interactions can all influence host fitness and microbiota composition, but the specific processes and characters mediating these processes are incompletely understood. Here, we compared the variation in microbiota composition between wild-derived fly populations when flies could choose between the microorganisms in their diets and when flies were reared under environmental perturbation (different humidities). We also compared the colonization of the resident and transient microorganisms. We show that the ability to choose between microorganisms in the diet and the environmental condition of the flies can influence the relative abundance of the microbiota. There were also key differences in the abundances of the resident and transient microbiota. However, the microbiota only differed between populations when the flies were reared at humidities at or above 50% relative humidity. We also show that elevated humidity determined the penetrance of a gradient in host genetic selection on the microbiota that is associated with the latitude the flies were collected from. Finally, we show that the treatment-dependent variation in microbiota composition is associated with variation in host stress survival. Together, these findings emphasize that host genetic selection on the microbiota composition of a model animal host can be patterned with the source geography, and that such variation has the potential to influence their survival in the wild. Importance The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is a model for understanding how hosts and their microbial partners interact as hosts adapt in wild environments. Our understanding of what causes geographic variation in the fruit fly microbiota remains incomplete. Previous work has shown that the D. melanogaster microbiota has relatively low numerical and taxonomic complexity. Variation in the fly microbiota composition can be attributed to environmental characters and host genetic variation, and variation in microbiota composition can be patterned with the source location of the flies. In this work we explored three possible causes of patterned variation in microbiota composition. We show that host feeding choices, the host niche colonized by the bacteria, and a single environmental character can all contribute to variation in microbiota composition. We also show that penetrance of latitudinally-patterned host genetic selection is only observed at elevated humidities. Together, these results identify several factors that influence microbiota composition in wild fly genotypes and emphasize the interplay between environmental and host genetic factors in determining the microbiota composition of these model hosts.
Collapse
|
2
|
Zheng L, Zhang Y, Yang W, Zeng Y, Jiang F, Qin Y, Zhang J, Jiang Z, Hu W, Guo D, Wan J, Zhao Z, Liu L, Li Z. New Species-Specific Primers for Molecular Diagnosis of Bactrocera minax and Bactrocera tsuneonis (Diptera: Tephritidae) in China Based on DNA Barcodes. INSECTS 2019; 10:E447. [PMID: 31842348 PMCID: PMC6956326 DOI: 10.3390/insects10120447] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/29/2019] [Revised: 12/06/2019] [Accepted: 12/09/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Tephritidae fruit flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) are regarded as important damage-causing species due to their ability to cause great economic losses in fruit and vegetable crops. Bactrocera minax and Bactrocera tsuneonis are two sibling species of the subgenus Tetradacus of Bactrocera that are distributed across a limited area of China, but have caused serious impacts. They share similar morphological characteristics. These characteristics can only be observed in the female adult individuals. The differences between them cannot be observed in preimaginal stages. Thus, it is difficult to distinguish them in preimaginal stages morphologically. In this study, we used molecular diagnostic methods based on cytochrome c oxidase subunit I and species-specific markers to identify these two species and improve upon the false-positive results of previous species-detection primers. DNA barcode sequences were obtained from 900 individuals of B. minax and 63 individuals of B. tsuneonis. Based on these 658 bp DNA barcode sequences of the cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene, we successfully designed the species-specific primers for B. minax and B. tsuneonis. The size of the B. minax specific fragment was 422 bp and the size of the B. tsuneonis specific fragment was 456 bp. A series of PCR trials ensured the specificity of these two pairs of primers. Sensitivity assay results demonstrated that the detection limit for the DNA template concentration was 0.1~1 ng/μL for these two species. In this study, we established a more reliable, rapid, and low-cost molecular identification method for all life stages of B. minax and B. tsuneonis. Species-specific PCR can be applied in plant quarantine, monitoring and control of B. minax and B. tsuneonis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Linyu Zheng
- Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; (L.Z.); (Y.Z.); (W.Y.); (Y.Z.); (Z.Z.); (L.L.)
| | - Yue Zhang
- Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; (L.Z.); (Y.Z.); (W.Y.); (Y.Z.); (Z.Z.); (L.L.)
| | - Wenzhao Yang
- Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; (L.Z.); (Y.Z.); (W.Y.); (Y.Z.); (Z.Z.); (L.L.)
| | - Yiying Zeng
- Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; (L.Z.); (Y.Z.); (W.Y.); (Y.Z.); (Z.Z.); (L.L.)
| | - Fan Jiang
- Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing 100176, China; (F.J.); (Y.Q.)
| | - Yujia Qin
- Institute of Plant Quarantine, Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, Beijing 100176, China; (F.J.); (Y.Q.)
| | - Jiafeng Zhang
- Hunan Plant Protection and Plant Quarantine Station, Changsha 410006, China;
| | - Zhaochun Jiang
- Guizhou Plant Protection and Plant Quarantine Station, Guiyang 550001, China;
| | - Wenzhao Hu
- Chongqing Plant Protection and Plant Quarantine Station, Yubei 401123, China;
| | - Dijin Guo
- Sichuan Plant Protection and Plant Quarantine Station, Chengdu 610041, China; (D.G.); (J.W.)
| | - Jia Wan
- Sichuan Plant Protection and Plant Quarantine Station, Chengdu 610041, China; (D.G.); (J.W.)
| | - Zihua Zhao
- Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; (L.Z.); (Y.Z.); (W.Y.); (Y.Z.); (Z.Z.); (L.L.)
| | - Lijun Liu
- Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; (L.Z.); (Y.Z.); (W.Y.); (Y.Z.); (Z.Z.); (L.L.)
| | - Zhihong Li
- Department of Entomology, College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China; (L.Z.); (Y.Z.); (W.Y.); (Y.Z.); (Z.Z.); (L.L.)
| |
Collapse
|