How microbiomes can help inform conservation: landscape characterisation of gut microbiota helps shed light on additional population structure in a specialist folivore.

Conservation Dietary specialist Gut microbiota Koala Landscape variation Specialist species

Journal

Animal microbiome
ISSN: 2524-4671
Titre abrégé: Anim Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101759457

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
31 Jan 2022
Historique:
received: 18 02 2021
accepted: 30 08 2021
entrez: 1 2 2022
pubmed: 2 2 2022
medline: 2 2 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), an iconic yet endangered specialised folivore experiencing widespread decline across Australia, is the focus of many conservation programs. Whilst animal translocation and progressive conservation strategies such as faecal inoculations may be required to bring this species back from the brink of extinction, insight into the variation of host-associated gut microbiota and the factors that shape this variation are fundamental for their success. Despite this, very little is known about the landscape variability and factors affecting koala gut microbial community dynamics. We used large scale field surveys to evaluate the variation and diversity of koala gut microbiotas and compared these diversity patterns to those detected using a population genetics approach. Scat samples were collected from five locations across South East Queensland with microbiota analysed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Across the landscape koala gut microbial profiles showed large variability, with location having a large effect on bacterial community composition and bacterial diversity. Certain bacteria were found to be significantly differentially abundant amongst locations; koalas from Noosa showed a depletion in two bacterial orders (Gastranaerophilales and Bacteroidales) which have been shown to provide beneficial properties to their host. Koala gut microbial patterns were also not found to mirror population genetic patterns, a molecular tool often used to design conservation initiatives. Our data shows that koala gut microbiotas are extremely variable across the landscape, displaying complex micro- and macro- spatial variation. By detecting locations which lack certain bacteria we identified koala populations that may be under threat from future microbial imbalance or dysbiosis. Additionally, the mismatching of gut microbiota and host population genetic patterns exposed important population structure that has previously gone undetected across South East Queensland. Overall, this baseline data highlights the importance of integrating microbiota research into conservation biology in order to guide successful conservation programs such as species translocation and the implementation of faecal inoculations.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus), an iconic yet endangered specialised folivore experiencing widespread decline across Australia, is the focus of many conservation programs. Whilst animal translocation and progressive conservation strategies such as faecal inoculations may be required to bring this species back from the brink of extinction, insight into the variation of host-associated gut microbiota and the factors that shape this variation are fundamental for their success. Despite this, very little is known about the landscape variability and factors affecting koala gut microbial community dynamics. We used large scale field surveys to evaluate the variation and diversity of koala gut microbiotas and compared these diversity patterns to those detected using a population genetics approach. Scat samples were collected from five locations across South East Queensland with microbiota analysed using 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing.
RESULTS RESULTS
Across the landscape koala gut microbial profiles showed large variability, with location having a large effect on bacterial community composition and bacterial diversity. Certain bacteria were found to be significantly differentially abundant amongst locations; koalas from Noosa showed a depletion in two bacterial orders (Gastranaerophilales and Bacteroidales) which have been shown to provide beneficial properties to their host. Koala gut microbial patterns were also not found to mirror population genetic patterns, a molecular tool often used to design conservation initiatives.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Our data shows that koala gut microbiotas are extremely variable across the landscape, displaying complex micro- and macro- spatial variation. By detecting locations which lack certain bacteria we identified koala populations that may be under threat from future microbial imbalance or dysbiosis. Additionally, the mismatching of gut microbiota and host population genetic patterns exposed important population structure that has previously gone undetected across South East Queensland. Overall, this baseline data highlights the importance of integrating microbiota research into conservation biology in order to guide successful conservation programs such as species translocation and the implementation of faecal inoculations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35101152
doi: 10.1186/s42523-021-00122-3
pii: 10.1186/s42523-021-00122-3
pmc: PMC8802476
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

12

Subventions

Organisme : University of the Sunshine Coast
ID : 103500362

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

Microbiome. 2017 Mar 3;5(1):27
pubmed: 28253908
Trends Ecol Evol. 2016 Sep;31(9):689-699
pubmed: 27453351
Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2013 Aug;15(8):337
pubmed: 23852569
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D590-6
pubmed: 23193283
Nature. 2005 May 26;435(7041):488-90
pubmed: 15917807
Nat Genet. 2018 Aug;50(8):1102-1111
pubmed: 29967444
Cancer Res. 1967 Feb;27(2):209-20
pubmed: 6018555
Nature. 2012 Sep 13;489(7415):242-9
pubmed: 22972297
PLoS One. 2010 Mar 10;5(3):e9490
pubmed: 20224823
mSystems. 2018 Mar 20;3(2):
pubmed: 29629413
Ecol Evol. 2018 Feb 18;8(6):3139-3151
pubmed: 29607013
Bioinformatics. 2012 Oct 1;28(19):2537-9
pubmed: 22820204
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 02;11(9):e0162207
pubmed: 27588685
Mol Ecol. 2017 Feb;26(4):972-974
pubmed: 28239927
PeerJ. 2019 Apr 1;7:e6534
pubmed: 30972242
Trends Ecol Evol. 2016 Jul;31(7):539-549
pubmed: 27039196
Sci Rep. 2017 Jul 12;7(1):5239
pubmed: 28701755
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
Glob Chang Biol. 2020 Jun;26(6):3175-3177
pubmed: 32196125
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2011 Feb;14(1):92-8
pubmed: 21215681
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2017 Nov 1;93(11):
pubmed: 29029220
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3
pubmed: 27214047
Anim Microbiome. 2019 Aug 21;1(1):6
pubmed: 33499955
Elife. 2013 Oct 01;2:e01102
pubmed: 24137540
PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39191
pubmed: 22723961
Heredity (Edinb). 2019 May;122(5):525-544
pubmed: 30209291
Proc Biol Sci. 2019 Jan 30;286(1895):20182448
pubmed: 30963956
Science. 2011 May 20;332(6032):970-4
pubmed: 21596990
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2015 Dec 28;82(5):1569-76
pubmed: 26712550
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1990 Mar;56(3):829-31
pubmed: 2180375
Oecologia. 2014 Mar;174(3):873-82
pubmed: 24253506
mBio. 2018 Jul 31;9(4):
pubmed: 30065092
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2008 Aug;32(5):723-35
pubmed: 18549407
PeerJ. 2017 Nov 16;5:e4075
pubmed: 29177117
Microb Ecol Health Dis. 2015 May 29;26:27663
pubmed: 26028277
Heredity (Edinb). 1999 May;82 ( Pt 5):561-73
pubmed: 10383677
Sci Adv. 2015 Jun 19;1(5):e1400253
pubmed: 26601195
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Feb 13;115(7):1546-1551
pubmed: 29440415
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Nov 2;107(44):18933-8
pubmed: 20937875
PeerJ. 2018 Mar 12;6:e4452
pubmed: 29576947
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Dec;71(12):8228-35
pubmed: 16332807
Cell. 2006 Feb 24;124(4):837-48
pubmed: 16497592
ISME J. 2011 Feb;5(2):169-72
pubmed: 20827291
J Anim Ecol. 2018 Mar;87(2):323-330
pubmed: 28502120
Sci Rep. 2015 Oct 07;5:14862
pubmed: 26445280
Methods Mol Biol. 2012;888:67-89
pubmed: 22665276
Sci Rep. 2015 May 11;5:10189
pubmed: 25960327
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Mar;73(5):1576-85
pubmed: 17220268
ISME J. 2015 Nov;9(11):2423-34
pubmed: 26023870
Cell. 2005 Jul 15;122(1):107-18
pubmed: 16009137
Sci Rep. 2015 Feb 10;5:8349
pubmed: 25666691
Mol Ecol Resour. 2018 May;18(3):691-699
pubmed: 29266847
Vet Microbiol. 2013 Dec 27;167(3-4):554-64
pubmed: 24095569
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Nov 16;107(46):20051-6
pubmed: 21041648

Auteurs

B L Littleford-Colquhoun (BL)

Global Change Ecology, School of Science and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4556, Australia. bethan_littleford-colquhoun@brown.edu.
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. bethan_littleford-colquhoun@brown.edu.
Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. bethan_littleford-colquhoun@brown.edu.

L S Weyrich (LS)

Department of Anthropology and Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 16802, USA.
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, SA, 5005, Australia.

K Hohwieler (K)

Global Change Ecology, School of Science and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4556, Australia.

R Cristescu (R)

Global Change Ecology, School of Science and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4556, Australia.

C H Frère (CH)

Global Change Ecology, School of Science and Engineering, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, QLD, 4556, Australia.

Classifications MeSH