Ratio between Lactobacillus plantarum and Acetobacter pomorum on the surface of Drosophila melanogaster adult flies depends on cuticle melanisation.
Bacteria
Cuticle
Drosophila
Insect
Microbiome
Journal
BMC research notes
ISSN: 1756-0500
Titre abrégé: BMC Res Notes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101462768
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Sep 2021
08 Sep 2021
Historique:
received:
05
05
2021
accepted:
27
08
2021
entrez:
9
9
2021
pubmed:
10
9
2021
medline:
11
9
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
As in most organisms, the surface of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is associated with bacteria. To examine whether this association depends on cuticle quality, we isolated and quantified surface bacteria in normal and melanized flies applying a new and simple protocol. On wild flies maintained in the laboratory, we identified two persistently culturable species as Lactobacillus plantarum and Acetobacter pomorum by 16S rDNA sequencing. For quantification, we showered single flies for DNA extraction avoiding the rectum to prevent contamination from the gut. In quantitative PCR analyses, we determined the relative abundance of these two species in surface wash samples. On average, we found 17-times more A. pomorum than L. plantarum. To tentatively study the importance of the cuticle for the interaction of the surface with these bacteria, applying Crispr/Cas9 gene editing in the initial wild flies, we generated flies mutant for the ebony gene needed for cuticle melanisation and determined the L. plantarum to A. pomorum ratio on these flies. We found that the ratio between the two bacterial species reversed on ebony flies. We hypothesize that the cuticle chemistry is crucial for surface bacteria composition. This finding may inspire future studies on cuticle-microbiome interactions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34496944
doi: 10.1186/s13104-021-05766-7
pii: 10.1186/s13104-021-05766-7
pmc: PMC8425098
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
351Subventions
Organisme : Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
ID : MO1714/9
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Gut Microbes. 2012 Jul-Aug;3(4):307-21
pubmed: 22572876
Insect Biochem Mol Biol. 2010 May;40(5):363-75
pubmed: 20347980
Anaerobe. 2010 Jun;16(3):270-7
pubmed: 20171300
J Insect Physiol. 2012 Dec;58(12):1525-33
pubmed: 23022537
J Exp Biol. 2019 Mar 1;222(Pt 5):
pubmed: 30679242
Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2013 Sep;166(1):81-90
pubmed: 23688505
Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2021 Mar 22;:
pubmed: 33754475
Biol Lett. 2012 Jun 23;8(3):461-4
pubmed: 22130174
Mol Ecol Resour. 2017 Nov;17(6):e34-e45
pubmed: 28477337
Curr Opin Insect Sci. 2016 Oct;17:1-9
pubmed: 27720067
Food Microbiol. 2010 Apr;27(2):257-65
pubmed: 20141944
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014 Jul 22;111(29):E2967-76
pubmed: 25002478
J Clin Microbiol. 2007 Sep;45(9):2761-4
pubmed: 17626177
Nature. 2018 Jan 24;553(7689):427-436
pubmed: 29364286
Front Physiol. 2019 May 01;10:518
pubmed: 31118901
mBio. 2018 Jul 31;9(4):
pubmed: 30065090
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 22;11(9):e0163414
pubmed: 27658246
Cell Metab. 2011 Sep 7;14(3):403-14
pubmed: 21907145
Arch Microbiol. 1984 May;138(1):44-8
pubmed: 6742956
Trends Microbiol. 2013 Dec;21(12):660-8
pubmed: 24238601
Cell Metab. 2007 Aug;6(2):144-52
pubmed: 17681150
Mol Ecol. 2020 Apr;29(7):1372-1385
pubmed: 32133714