4.6 Article

Meta-analysis suggests the microbiome responds to Evolve and Resequence experiments in Drosophila melanogaster

Journal

BMC MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12866-021-02168-4

Keywords

Experimental evolution; Drosophila melanogaster; Microbiome

Categories

Funding

  1. NSF-GRFP [DGE1656466]
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [GM124881]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The microbial diversity in response to host selection differed significantly across studies associated with host traits, rather than selection duration. The study suggests that incorporating the microbiome into E&R experiments can provide critical insights into host-microbiome interactions and the genomic basis of adaptation.
Background Experimental evolution has a long history of uncovering fundamental insights into evolutionary processes, but has largely neglected one underappreciated component--the microbiome. As eukaryotic hosts evolve, the microbiome may also respond to selection. However, the microbial contribution to host evolution remains poorly understood. Here, we re-analyzed genomic data to characterize the metagenomes from ten Evolve and Resequence (E&R) experiments in Drosophila melanogaster to determine how the microbiome changed in response to host selection. Results Bacterial diversity was significantly different in 5/10 studies, primarily in traits associated with metabolism or immunity. Duration of selection did not significantly influence bacterial diversity, highlighting the importance of associations with specific host traits. Conclusions Our genomic re-analysis suggests the microbiome often responds to host selection; thus, the microbiome may contribute to the response of Drosophila in E&R experiments. We outline important considerations for incorporating the microbiome into E&R experiments. The E&R approach may provide critical insights into host-microbiome interactions and fundamental insight into the genomic basis of adaptation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available