4.6 Article

Bad guys turned nice? A critical assessment of Wolbachia mutualisms in arthropod hosts

期刊

BIOLOGICAL REVIEWS
卷 90, 期 1, 页码 89-111

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/brv.12098

关键词

Wolbachia; arthropods; mutualism; fitness benefits; host protection; pathogen interference; dependence; compensatory evolution; tolerance; reproductive parasitism

类别

资金

  1. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [SFB 618, C1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wolbachia are the most abundant bacterial endosymbionts among arthropods. Although maternally inherited, they do not conform to the widespread view that vertical transmission inevitably selects for beneficial symbionts. Instead, Wolbachia are notorious for their reproductive parasitism which, although lowering host fitness, ensures their spread. However, even for reproductive parasites it can pay to enhance host fitness. Indeed, there is a recent upsurge of reports on Wolbachia-associated fitness benefits. Therefore, the question arises how such instances of mutualism are related to the phenotypes of reproductive parasitism. Here, we review the evidence of Wolbachia mutualisms in arthropods, including both facultative and obligate relationships, and critically assess their biological relevance. Although many studies report anti-pathogenic effects of Wolbachia, few actually prove these effects to be relevant to field conditions. We further show that Wolbachia frequently have beneficial and detrimental effects at the same time, and that reproductive manipulations and obligate mutualisms may share common mechanisms. These findings undermine the idea of a clear-cut distinction between Wolbachia mutualism and parasitism. In general, both facultative and obligate mutualisms can have a strong, and sometimes unforeseen, impact on the ecology and evolution of Wolbachia and their arthropod hosts. Acknowledging this mutualistic potential might be the key to a better understanding of some unresolved issues in the study of Wolbachia-host interactions.

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

4.6
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