Community recovery dynamics in yellow perch microbiome after gradual and constant metallic perturbations.
Community assembly
Disturbance
Evolutionary forces
Fish microbiome
Metagenomics
Neutrality
Pathogens
Recovery
Stress gradient
Journal
Microbiome
ISSN: 2049-2618
Titre abrégé: Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101615147
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 02 2020
10 02 2020
Historique:
received:
26
07
2019
accepted:
19
01
2020
entrez:
12
2
2020
pubmed:
12
2
2020
medline:
13
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The eco-evolutionary processes ruling post-disturbance microbial assembly remain poorly studied, particularly in host-microbiome systems. The community recovery depends not only on the type, duration, intensity, and gradient of disturbance, but also on the initial community structure, phylogenetic composition, legacy, and habitat (soil, water, host). In this study, yellow perch (Perca flavescens) juveniles were exposed over 90 days to constant and gradual sublethal doses of cadmium chloride. Afterward, the exposure of aquaria tank system to cadmium was ceased for 60 days. The skin, gut and water tank microbiomes in control and treatment groups, were characterized before, during and after the cadmium exposure using 16s rDNA libraries and high throughput sequencing technology (Illumina, Miseq). Our data exhibited long-term bioaccumulation of cadmium salts in the liver even after two months since ceasing the exposure. The gradient of cadmium disturbance had differential effects on the perch microbiota recovery, including increases in evenness, taxonomic composition shifts, as well as functional and phylogenetic divergence. The perch microbiome reached an alternative stable state in the skin and nearly complete recovery trajectories in the gut communities. The recovery of skin communities showed a significant proliferation of opportunistic fish pathogens (i.e., Flavobacterium). Our findings provide evidence that neutral processes were a much more significant contributor to microbial community turnover in control treatments than in those treated with cadmium, suggesting the role of selective processes in driving community recovery. The short-term metallic disturbance of fish development has important long-term implications for host health. The recovery of microbial communities after metallic exposure depends on the magnitude of exposure (constant, gradual), and the nature of the ecological niche (water, skin, and gut). The skin and gut microbiota of fish exposed to constant concentrations of cadmium (CC) were closer to the control negative than those exposed to the gradual concentrations (CV). Overall, our results show that the microbial assembly during the community recovery were both orchestrated by neutral and deterministic processes. Video Abtract.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The eco-evolutionary processes ruling post-disturbance microbial assembly remain poorly studied, particularly in host-microbiome systems. The community recovery depends not only on the type, duration, intensity, and gradient of disturbance, but also on the initial community structure, phylogenetic composition, legacy, and habitat (soil, water, host). In this study, yellow perch (Perca flavescens) juveniles were exposed over 90 days to constant and gradual sublethal doses of cadmium chloride. Afterward, the exposure of aquaria tank system to cadmium was ceased for 60 days. The skin, gut and water tank microbiomes in control and treatment groups, were characterized before, during and after the cadmium exposure using 16s rDNA libraries and high throughput sequencing technology (Illumina, Miseq).
RESULTS
Our data exhibited long-term bioaccumulation of cadmium salts in the liver even after two months since ceasing the exposure. The gradient of cadmium disturbance had differential effects on the perch microbiota recovery, including increases in evenness, taxonomic composition shifts, as well as functional and phylogenetic divergence. The perch microbiome reached an alternative stable state in the skin and nearly complete recovery trajectories in the gut communities. The recovery of skin communities showed a significant proliferation of opportunistic fish pathogens (i.e., Flavobacterium). Our findings provide evidence that neutral processes were a much more significant contributor to microbial community turnover in control treatments than in those treated with cadmium, suggesting the role of selective processes in driving community recovery.
CONCLUSIONS
The short-term metallic disturbance of fish development has important long-term implications for host health. The recovery of microbial communities after metallic exposure depends on the magnitude of exposure (constant, gradual), and the nature of the ecological niche (water, skin, and gut). The skin and gut microbiota of fish exposed to constant concentrations of cadmium (CC) were closer to the control negative than those exposed to the gradual concentrations (CV). Overall, our results show that the microbial assembly during the community recovery were both orchestrated by neutral and deterministic processes. Video Abtract.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32041654
doi: 10.1186/s40168-020-0789-0
pii: 10.1186/s40168-020-0789-0
pmc: PMC7011381
doi:
Substances chimiques
RNA, Ribosomal, 16S
0
Cadmium Chloride
J6K4F9V3BA
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Video-Audio Media
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
14Références
Oecologia. 2003 Aug;136(4):489-98
pubmed: 12836009
Chem Res Toxicol. 2015 Oct 19;28(10):2000-9
pubmed: 26352046
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Aug 12;105 Suppl 1:11512-9
pubmed: 18695234
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Mar 15;108 Suppl 1:4554-61
pubmed: 20847294
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Jul 3;109(27):10931-6
pubmed: 22715291
Genome Res. 2003 Nov;13(11):2498-504
pubmed: 14597658
Aquat Toxicol. 2008 Jan 31;86(2):265-71
pubmed: 18082277
Environ Health Perspect. 2017 Mar;125(3):437-446
pubmed: 27634282
ISME J. 2016 Mar;10(3):655-64
pubmed: 26296066
Microb Ecol. 2012 Jul;64(1):91-104
pubmed: 22214994
Bioinformatics. 2015 Sep 1;31(17):2882-4
pubmed: 25957349
Sci Rep. 2014 Mar 06;4:4287
pubmed: 24598728
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2005 Jul;61(3):287-312
pubmed: 15922796
Microbiome. 2018 Feb 06;6(1):28
pubmed: 29409543
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018 Nov 1;42(6):761-780
pubmed: 30085090
J Biotechnol. 2016 Feb 20;220:35-44
pubmed: 26778540
Trends Ecol Evol. 2018 Apr;33(4):251-259
pubmed: 29477443
PLoS Biol. 2017 Mar 14;15(3):e2001861
pubmed: 28291793
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2017 Oct;15(10):630-638
pubmed: 28626231
Water Res. 2017 Mar 15;111:109-117
pubmed: 28063283
J Aquat Anim Health. 2008 Sep;20(3):177-83
pubmed: 18942594
Front Microbiol. 2015 Dec 01;6:1298
pubmed: 26648912
Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 18;6:32032
pubmed: 27535789
Microb Ecol. 2002 Aug;44(2):175-85
pubmed: 12082453
Front Microbiol. 2012 Dec 19;3:417
pubmed: 23267351
BMC Bioinformatics. 2012 Feb 14;13:31
pubmed: 22333067
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 03;9(2):e85323
pubmed: 24498261
Biochemistry. 2015 Oct 13;54(40):6284-93
pubmed: 26401817
Microbiome. 2015 Mar 03;3:6
pubmed: 25815185
Sci Rep. 2017 Apr 06;7:45691
pubmed: 28383027
Toxicol Lett. 2014 Feb 10;225(1):1-11
pubmed: 24291063
Microbiome. 2015 Sep 22;3:45
pubmed: 26395244
Annu Rev Microbiol. 1996;50:753-89
pubmed: 8905098
Aquat Toxicol. 2006 May 1;77(2):178-89
pubmed: 16430977
Nat Commun. 2014 Jul 29;5:4500
pubmed: 25072318
Nature. 2012 Sep 13;489(7415):220-30
pubmed: 22972295
Nat Commun. 2017 Feb 10;8:14213
pubmed: 28186132
PeerJ. 2017 Jan 11;5:e2836
pubmed: 28097056
PLoS One. 2013 Aug 13;8(8):e70837
pubmed: 23967117
Bioinformatics. 2012 Aug 15;28(16):2106-13
pubmed: 22711789
Nature. 2012 Aug 30;488(7413):621-6
pubmed: 22914093
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 12;7(1):5263
pubmed: 28701764
Limnologica. 2011 Dec;41(4):303-315
pubmed: 22140284
Microb Ecol. 2002 Jan;43(1):92-106
pubmed: 11984632
J Biotechnol. 2014 Dec 20;192 Pt A:179-86
pubmed: 25450643
Aquat Toxicol. 2013 Oct 15;142-143:355-64
pubmed: 24084258
Oecologia. 1997 Feb;109(3):323-334
pubmed: 28307528
Environ Sci Technol. 2016 Jan 5;50(1):338-48
pubmed: 26651080
Aquat Toxicol. 2007 Aug 30;84(2):198-207
pubmed: 17643503
Environ Microbiol. 2006 Apr;8(4):732-40
pubmed: 16584484
ISME J. 2016 Jul;10(7):1669-81
pubmed: 26905627
Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2019 Apr 30;171:843-853
pubmed: 30660978
ISME J. 2016 May;10(5):1280-4
pubmed: 26517698
Front Microbiol. 2018 May 03;9:869
pubmed: 29774016
Ecol Lett. 2010 Jan;13(1):96-105
pubmed: 19903196
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2013 Mar;37(2):112-29
pubmed: 22568555
Environ Sci Pollut Res Int. 2016 Apr;23(7):6002-11
pubmed: 26032451
Aquat Toxicol. 2005 Mar 25;72(1-2):83-97
pubmed: 15748749
ISME J. 2013 Nov;7(11):2069-79
pubmed: 23739053
Trends Ecol Evol. 2015 Sep;30(9):503-6
pubmed: 26159084