4.7 Article

The wild solitary bees Andrena vaga, Anthophora plumipes, Colletes cunicularius, and Osmia cornuta microbiota are host specific and dominated by endosymbionts and environmental microorganisms

期刊

MICROBIAL ECOLOGY
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00248-023-02304-9

关键词

Solitary bee; Gut microbiota; Amplicon sequencing; Cultivation; Endosymbionts

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We characterized the microbial communities in different parts of four wild solitary bee species and found that the dominant bacteria were endosymbionts such as Wolbachia and Spiroplasma. Other bacterial and yeast genera were associated with environmental sources. The bacterial communities varied between bee species, gut compartments, and ovaries, suggesting a selective process influenced by floral and host traits. Many of the gut symbionts identified in this study exhibited metabolic versatility.
We characterized the microbial communities of the crop, midgut, hindgut, and ovaries of the wild solitary bees Andrena vaga, Anthophora plumipes, Colletes cunicularius, and Osmia cornuta through 16S rRNA gene and ITS2 amplicon sequencing and a large-scale isolation campaign. The bacterial communities of these bees were dominated by endosymbionts of the genera Wolbachia and Spiroplasma. Bacterial and yeast genera representing the remaining predominant taxa were linked to an environmental origin. While only a single sampling site was examined for Andrena vaga, Anthophora plumipes, and Colletes cunicularius, and two sampling sites for Osmia cornuta, the microbiota appeared to be host specific: bacterial, but not fungal, communities generally differed between the analyzed bee species, gut compartments and ovaries. This may suggest a selective process determined by floral and host traits. Many of the gut symbionts identified in the present study are characterized by metabolic versatility. Whether they exert similar functionalities within the bee gut and thus functional redundancy remains to be elucidated.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据