Unexpected Diversity during Community Succession in the Apple Flower Microbiome
I recently had the pleasure of reading about the succession of microbes in flowers as they emerge, open, and eventually fall from the tree. This interesting paper (published by the Handelsman group and found here:http://mbio.asm.org/content/4/2/e00602-12) used 454 pyrosequencing to identify bacterial community members in flowers across 5 different trees throughout time. I especially liked figure 4 (below):
They used the appearance of different groups at different parts of the season to identify "poineer", early, mid, late, climax and "generalist" microbes. Although the list of sequences or microbes in each of these groups isn't provided, they go on to state: “Late” group members peaked when flowers had been open for 3 days and included a high abundance of Lactobacillusand Acetobacter taxa, whose occurrences aligned with previously reported conditions of flower decomposition by yeast" I was surprised that beyond a casual mention in the paper's discussion, there was no attempt to probe whether or not the communities found on flowers resembled those found associated with pollinators.
As it turns out, the genera Lactobacillus and Acetobacter are also associated with sweat bees, honey bees and bumble bees (see http://aem.asm.org/content/early/2013/01/03/AEM.03681-12.abstract and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/12/221). I downloaded the entire apple flower dataset from MG-RAST and checked to see if any would affiliate with the bee specific sequences (using a 60% threshold). Here is a quick table below, sorted alphabetically by "family" level. Out of a total of ~35,000 sequences, a subset (~5,600) have been previously found in bees.
They used the appearance of different groups at different parts of the season to identify "poineer", early, mid, late, climax and "generalist" microbes. Although the list of sequences or microbes in each of these groups isn't provided, they go on to state: “Late” group members peaked when flowers had been open for 3 days and included a high abundance of Lactobacillusand Acetobacter taxa, whose occurrences aligned with previously reported conditions of flower decomposition by yeast" I was surprised that beyond a casual mention in the paper's discussion, there was no attempt to probe whether or not the communities found on flowers resembled those found associated with pollinators.
As it turns out, the genera Lactobacillus and Acetobacter are also associated with sweat bees, honey bees and bumble bees (see http://aem.asm.org/content/early/2013/01/03/AEM.03681-12.abstract and http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/12/221). I downloaded the entire apple flower dataset from MG-RAST and checked to see if any would affiliate with the bee specific sequences (using a 60% threshold). Here is a quick table below, sorted alphabetically by "family" level. Out of a total of ~35,000 sequences, a subset (~5,600) have been previously found in bees.
Family
|
Count
|
Acetobacetraceae
|
9
|
Acetobacteraceae
|
663
|
Actinomycetales
|
713
|
Actinomycetales_incertae_sedis
|
1271
|
alpha-1
|
53
|
alpha-2.2
|
11
|
alpha-2.2
|
47
|
Anaplasmataceae
|
1
|
beta
|
6
|
Bifidobacteriaceae
|
54
|
Brucellaceae
|
288
|
Burkholderiaceae
|
66
|
Burkholderiales_bacterium_YT0099
|
92
|
Comamonadaceae
|
38
|
Comamonadaceae_incertae_sedis
|
19
|
Comamonodaceae_incertae_sedis
|
194
|
Enterobacteriaceae
|
636
|
firm-4
|
3
|
gamma-1
|
3
|
Lactobacillaceae
|
293
|
Moraxellaceae
|
55
|
Neisseriaceae
|
19
|
Oxalobacteraceae
|
520
|
Staphylococcaceae
|
560
|
This picture changes when you classify the dataset using a more "complete" training set - the SILVA+Bees training set we developed (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2180/12/221). Sequences that found homes in the honey bee specific training set alone (within the honey bee specific clades), now find homes elsewhere and very few remain (highlighted below in red). It's also worth mentioning that one major conclusion of the paper -- the "novel" sequences uncovered by the experiment -- was true in my hands as well. A very large fraction of the sequences (~16,000) were "unclassified" at the family level, even at a 60% threshold using the NBC-RDPII and the SILVA + honey bee specific training set (see classifications below).
Acetobacteraceae
|
821
|
Acholeplasmataceae
|
1
|
Acidimicrobiaceae
|
1
|
Acidothermaceae
|
5
|
Actinomycetaceae
|
16
|
Actinomycetales_incertae_sedis
|
1
|
Actinospicaceae
|
1
|
Actinosynnemataceae
|
1
|
Aerococcaceae
|
18
|
Aeromonadaceae
|
5
|
Alcaligenaceae
|
55
|
Anaplasmataceae
|
3
|
Aurantimonadaceae
|
15
|
Bacillaceae
|
344
|
Bacillales_incertae_sedis
|
7
|
Bacteriovoracaceae
|
29
|
Bdellovibrionaceae
|
19
|
Beijerinckiaceae
|
28
|
beta
|
4
|
Bifidobacteriaceae
|
1
|
Bradyrhizobiaceae
|
118
|
Brevibacteriaceae
|
6
|
Brucellaceae
|
8
|
Burkholderiaceae
|
89
|
Burkholderiales_bacterium_YT0099
|
3
|
Burkholderiales_incertae_sedis
|
91
|
Caldilineaceae
|
2
|
Campylobacteraceae
|
5
|
Carnobacteriaceae
|
13
|
Caryophanaceae
|
1
|
Caulobacteraceae
|
322
|
Cellulomonadaceae
|
90
|
Chitinophagaceae
|
1357
|
Clostridiaceae
|
113
|
Comamonadaceae
|
264
|
Conexibacteraceae
|
112
|
Coriobacteriaceae
|
10
|
Corynebacteriaceae
|
79
|
Cryomorphaceae
|
8
|
Cyclobacteriaceae
|
127
|
Cystobacteraceae
|
17
|
Cytophagaceae
|
1357
|
Deinococcaceae
|
696
|
Dermabacteraceae
|
3
|
Dermatophilaceae
|
32
|
Desulfovibrionaceae
|
1
|
Dietziaceae
|
21
|
Enterobacteriaceae
|
570
|
Enterococcaceae
|
24
|
Erysipelotrichaceae
|
69
|
Erythrobacteraceae
|
288
|
Eubacteriaceae
|
6
|
Flammeovirgaceae
|
12
|
Flavobacteriaceae
|
795
|
Fusobacteriaceae
|
2
|
gamma-1
|
1
|
Gemmatimonadaceae
|
236
|
Geobacteraceae
|
9
|
Geodermatophilaceae
|
75
|
Glycomycetaceae
|
1
|
Gracilibacteraceae
|
6
|
Haliangiaceae
|
1
|
Holophagaceae
|
4
|
Hydrogenophilaceae
|
3
|
Hyphomicrobiaceae
|
138
|
Hyphomonadaceae
|
13
|
Iamiaceae
|
161
|
Ilumatobacter
|
19
|
Incertae_Sedis_XI
|
33
|
Incertae_Sedis_XII
|
3
|
Incertae_Sedis_XIII
|
3
|
Incertae_Sedis_XIV
|
7
|
Incertae_Sedis_XVIII
|
2
|
Intrasporangiaceae
|
386
|
Kineosporiaceae
|
44
|
Lachnospiraceae
|
60
|
Lactobacillaceae
|
422
|
Leptotrichiaceae
|
5
|
Leuconostocaceae
|
21
|
Methylobacteriaceae
|
188
|
Methylocystaceae
|
3
|
Methylophilaceae
|
12
|
Microbacteriaceae
|
340
|
Micrococcaceae
|
178
|
Micrococcineae_incertae_sedis
|
5
|
Micromonosporaceae
|
23
|
Moraxellaceae
|
190
|
Mycobacteriaceae
|
31
|
Myxococcaceae
|
9
|
Nakamurellaceae
|
23
|
Nannocystaceae
|
18
|
Neisseriaceae
|
15
|
Nitriliruptoraceae
|
2
|
Nitrosomonadaceae
|
27
|
Nitrospiraceae
|
15
|
Nocardiaceae
|
45
|
Nocardioidaceae
|
406
|
Nocardiopsaceae
|
11
|
Oxalobacteraceae
|
396
|
Paenibacillaceae
|
90
|
Parachlamydiaceae
|
9
|
Pasteurellaceae
|
4
|
Peptococcaceae
|
11
|
Peptostreptococcaceae
|
117
|
Phyllobacteriaceae
|
110
|
Planococcaceae
|
162
|
Polyangiaceae
|
38
|
Promicromonosporaceae
|
1
|
Propionibacteriaceae
|
39
|
Pseudomonadaceae
|
21
|
Pseudonocardiaceae
|
92
|
Rhizobiaceae
|
42
|
Rhodobacteraceae
|
350
|
Rhodobiaceae
|
3
|
Rhodocyclaceae
|
38
|
Rhodospirillaceae
|
57
|
Rhodothermaceae
|
30
|
Rickettsiaceae
|
30
|
Rubrobacteraceae
|
4
|
Ruminococcaceae
|
35
|
Sanguibacteraceae
|
57
|
Saprospiraceae
|
17
|
Sinobacteraceae
|
86
|
Sneathiellaceae
|
1
|
Solirubrobacteraceae
|
44
|
Sphaerobacteraceae
|
10
|
Sphingobacteriaceae
|
401
|
Sphingomonadaceae
|
1673
|
Spirochaetaceae
|
2
|
Sporichthyaceae
|
4
|
Staphylococcaceae
|
19
|
Streptococcaceae
|
42
|
Streptomycetaceae
|
26
|
Streptophyta
|
28
|
Streptosporangiaceae
|
3
|
Syntrophobacteraceae
|
1
|
Syntrophomonadaceae
|
2
|
Thermoactinomycetaceae
|
77
|
Thermoanaerobacteraceae
|
7
|
Thermomonosporaceae
|
5
|
Trueperaceae
|
2107
|
Is this a surprising result? If pollinator-affiliated sequences were found in abundance on the flowers you could explain it by the simple fact that flowers are visited by these insects and therefore bacteria from bees might be shed onto the flower parts. The relative paucity suggests instead that these bacteria, although inoculated into the environment by the bees, are specific to their hosts and perhaps do not thrive on the flower.
I'd bet good money that pollinators can pick up odor of bacteria on flowers and use the cues to supplement flower-generated volatiles. Really surprising that the authors didn't mention bacteria on insects.
ReplyDelete