Houseflies harbor less diverse microbiota under laboratory conditions but maintain a consistent set of host-associated bacteria.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 07 2022
01 07 2022
Historique:
received:
07
03
2022
accepted:
20
06
2022
entrez:
1
7
2022
pubmed:
2
7
2022
medline:
8
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The housefly (Musca domestica) is a wide-ranging insect, often associated with decaying matter from livestock and humans. The septic environments in which houseflies live are believed to be a rich source for microbial acquisition. Although the housefly can harbor a wide range of microorganisms, it is not yet well known which microbes are always recurrent, which are dispensable and which environmentally dependent. In the present study, we aim at identifying which microbes are recurrently associated with the housefly gut throughout the species' life cycle and whether their acquisition relies on the fly's living environment. We surveyed three housefly strains-two of them kept under standard laboratory conditions for a long time and one wild-caught. To track any shifts happening throughout the lifecycle of the housefly and to test the consistency of the revealed microbial communities, we sampled houseflies at five developmental stages over the course of four consecutive generations. Both the bacterial and fungal microbiota of five developmental stages were studied for all samples, using amplicon sequencing for the 16S and ITS1 rRNA gene, respectively. Results revealed diverse microbial communities yet consistent for each of the two distinct sampling environments. The wild-caught population showed a more diverse and more distinct gut microbiota than the two laboratory strains, even though the strain was phylogenetically similar and shared geographic origin with one of them. Two bacterial genera, Myroides and Providencia, and two yeasts, Trichosporon and Candida tropicalis, were present in all sampled larvae and pupae, regardless of the strain. Analysis of the provided diet revealed that the flies acquired the yeasts through feeding. Our main findings show that houseflies might lose microbial diversity when reared in controlled environments, however they can maintain a consistent set of bacteria. We conclude that although the environment can facilitate certain microbial transmission routes for the housefly, and despite the fungal microbiota being largely acquired through diet, the larval bacterial gut microbiome remains relatively consistent within the same developmental stage.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35778448
doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-15186-7
pii: 10.1038/s41598-022-15186-7
pmc: PMC9249849
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
11132Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Nat Biotechnol. 2016 Sep;34(9):942-9
pubmed: 27454739
Clin Microbiol Rev. 2011 Oct;24(4):682-700
pubmed: 21976604
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2012 Mar;79(3):581-93
pubmed: 22092755
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 22;8(4):e61217
pubmed: 23630581
PLoS One. 2017 Jan 12;12(1):e0169753
pubmed: 28081167
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D590-6
pubmed: 23193283
Infect Immun. 1970 Dec;2(6):800-9
pubmed: 16557919
Front Immunol. 2021 Jan 26;11:589338
pubmed: 33574812
J Med Entomol. 2000 Nov;37(6):924-8
pubmed: 11126551
Avian Dis. 1985 Apr-Jun;29(2):384-91
pubmed: 4026732
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2013 Sep;37(5):699-735
pubmed: 23692388
J Econ Entomol. 2010 Oct;103(5):1832-41
pubmed: 21061987
Int J Food Microbiol. 2018 Aug 20;279:57-63
pubmed: 29734032
Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2013 Feb;97(4):1775-83
pubmed: 22526786
Mol Biol Evol. 2013 Apr;30(4):772-80
pubmed: 23329690
Sci Rep. 2020 May 12;10(1):7842
pubmed: 32398740
BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Sep 03;8:328
pubmed: 17767709
J Med Entomol. 1993 Jul;30(4):820-3
pubmed: 8360911
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3
pubmed: 27214047
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017 Dec 15;84(1):
pubmed: 29030447
Microbiome. 2019 Nov 8;7(1):147
pubmed: 31699144
Ecol Lett. 2006 Jun;9(6):683-93
pubmed: 16706913
Sci Rep. 2017 Nov 24;7(1):16324
pubmed: 29176730
Bioinformatics. 2019 Feb 1;35(3):526-528
pubmed: 30016406
J Environ Sci Health B. 2007 May;42(4):453-69
pubmed: 17474025
Proc Biol Sci. 2021 Aug 25;288(1957):20210552
pubmed: 34403636
Bioresour Technol. 2012 Aug;118:563-71
pubmed: 22728759
Nucleic Acids Res. 2019 Jan 8;47(D1):D259-D264
pubmed: 30371820
J Hyg (Lond). 1912 Dec;12(4):516-26
pubmed: 20474508
Annu Rev Entomol. 2015 Jan 7;60:17-34
pubmed: 25341109
AMB Express. 2017 Dec;7(1):147
pubmed: 28697583
PLoS One. 2010 Mar 10;5(3):e9490
pubmed: 20224823
Nucleic Acids Res. 1997 Nov 15;25(22):4692-3
pubmed: 9358185
Am J Vet Res. 1989 Sep;50(9):1471-4
pubmed: 2552878
Mol Mar Biol Biotechnol. 1994 Oct;3(5):294-9
pubmed: 7881515
Nat Biotechnol. 2019 Aug;37(8):852-857
pubmed: 31341288
J Med Entomol. 1992 Mar;29(2):232-5
pubmed: 1495035
J Clin Microbiol. 1997 Jun;35(6):1300-3
pubmed: 9163433