Next Article in Journal
Enhancement of β-Alanine Biosynthesis in Escherichia coli Based on Multivariate Modular Metabolic Engineering
Previous Article in Journal
Antibiotic Resistance of Staphylococci from Bulk-Tank Milk of Sheep Flocks: Prevalence, Patterns, Association with Biofilm Formation, Effects on Milk Quality, and Risk Factors
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Gut Microbiota Cannot Compensate the Impact of (quasi) Aposymbiosis in Blattella germanica

1
Institute for Integrative Systems Biology, University of Valencia and Spanish Research Council, Paterna, 46980 Valencia, Spain
2
Genomic and Health Area, Foundation for the Promotion of Sanitary and Biomedical Research of the Valencia Region, 46020 Valencia, Spain
3
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Valencia, Burjassot, 46100 Valencia, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2021, 10(10), 1013; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10101013
Submission received: 9 September 2021 / Revised: 30 September 2021 / Accepted: 5 October 2021 / Published: 9 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Microbiology)

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The German cockroach Blattella germanica is a good model to study complex symbiotic relationships because the following two symbiotic systems coexist in a single individual: the endosymbiont Blattabacterium (living inside specialized cells called bacteriocytes) and the gut microbiota. Although the role of the endosymbiont has been fully elucidated, the function of the gut microbiota remains unclear. The study of the gut microbiota will benefit from the availability of insects deprived of Blattabacterium. Our goal is to determine the effect of the removal (or, at least, the reduction) of the endosymbiont population on the cockroach’s fitness, in a normal gut microbiota community. For this purpose, we treated our cockroach population with rifampicin to decrease the amount of endosymbiont in the following generation. As the treatment also affects rifampicin-sensitive gut bacteria, we allowed it to recover for at least 20 days before sampling. We found that after this antibiotic treatment, the endosymbiont population remained extremely reduced and only the microbiota were able to recover, although it could not compensate for the endosymbiont role, and the host’s fitness was drastically affected. This accomplished reduction, however, is not homogenous and requires further study to develop stable quasi-aposymbiotic cockroaches.

Abstract

Blattella germanica presents a very complex symbiotic system, involving the following two kinds of symbionts: the endosymbiont Blattabacterium and the gut microbiota. Although the role of the endosymbiont has been fully elucidated, the function of the gut microbiota remains unclear. The study of the gut microbiota will benefit from the availability of insects deprived of Blattabacterium. Our goal is to determine the effect of the removal (or, at least, the reduction) of the endosymbiont population on the cockroach’s fitness, in a normal gut microbiota community. For this purpose, we treated our cockroach population, over several generations, with rifampicin, an antibiotic that only affects the endosymbiont during its extracellular phase, and decreases its amount in the following generation. As rifampicin also affects gut bacteria that are sensitive to this antibiotic, the treatment was performed during the first 12 days of the adult stage, which is the period when the endosymbiont infects the oocytes and lacks bacteriocyte protection. We found that after this antibiotic treatment, the endosymbiont population remained extremely reduced and only the microbiota was able to recover, although it could not compensate for the endosymbiont role, and the host’s fitness was drastically affected. This accomplished reduction, however, is not homogenous and requires further study to develop stable quasi-aposymbiotic cockroaches.

1. Introduction

The cockroach Blattella germanica (Blattodea) is a good model to study complex symbiotic relationships because the following two symbiotic systems coexist in a single individual: the obligate endosymbiont Blattabacterium, a flavobacterium responsible for the synthesis of essential amino acids and the recycling of the host nitrogen reservoir [1], and very rich gut microbiota. Termites also belong to the order Blattodea. Blattabacterium is present in all cockroaches and the basal termite Mastotermes darwiniensis, indicating that the infection with the ancestral flavobacterium that gave rise to the endosymbiont occurred in the ancestor of termites and cockroaches. However, throughout evolution, and associated with a change to feeding on wood, the endosymbiont was lost in the rest of the termite lineages, being replaced by a specialized microbiota that, in addition to the endosymbiont functions, participated in lignocellulose degradation [2]. On the other hand, studies performed on insects that rely on obligate mutualistic endosymbionts to complement their nutrient-poor diets indicate that their microbial symbionts are composed of a few primary (obligate) and secondary (facultative) symbionts, mostly located in the insect body cavities, inside specialized cells called bacteriocytes, inside the gut epithelial cells or crypts (sac-like structures), but lack complex extracellular gut microbiota [3]. Thus, the reason why Blattella needs intestinal microbiota in addition to Blattabacterium remains unknown. Both symbiotic systems are located in different host compartments, the fat body and the hindgut, which impedes their direct crosstalk. Therefore, their communication or metabolic complementation, if existent, must be performed through the host.
The first 16S rRNA gene study on the bacterial gut microbiota of B. germanica through development [4] demonstrated that only Blattabacterium is present in the ootheca, confirming the absence of vertical transmission of the gut microbiota. The new-born nymphs are germ-free, and the bacterial load increases from nymphal instar one to two, and stays constant until the adult stage.
Later on, we tested the effect of different antibiotics (rifampicin [5], vancomycin and ampicillin [6], and kanamycin [7]) on the gut microbiota. In all four cases, a strong effect was observed on the treated generation, in terms of composition, diversity, and network complexity; however, only rifampicin reduced the Blattabacterium population [5], and its effect on the endosymbiont was observed in the following generation. This delayed action is explained by the biology of the endosymbiont, as it appears extracellularly in the ovaries at the adult stage until the infection of the mature oocytes, when the adult is 7–10 days old [8].
Aposymbiotic organisms, deprived of their endosymbiont, but in which the gut microbiota are not affected, would be useful to study the role of the gut microbiota and if they can complement (or substitute) Blattabacterium. Several approaches to produce aposymbiotic cockroaches (high temperature, or treatment with lysozyme and several antibiotics, which could be injected into the haemolymph or added in the food) were already tested in the middle of the 20th century, by the pioneers of the symbiosis studies [9,10]. These early works already recognized, by means of biochemical, physiological and microscopic techniques, that the presence of the endosymbiont is critical to the host’s fitness and reproduction. For this reason, we focused this study on obtaining quasi-aposymbiotic cockroaches (i.e., with the lowest possible endosymbiont load) using an antibiotic treatment, without disturbing the gut microbiota. We analysed the effects of the endosymbiont reduction on the other two symbiotic partners (host and gut microbiota), by analysing changes in the host’s fitness (developmental time, reproductive capability, and viability) and the gut microbiota composition.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Blattella germanica Rearing Conditions

A population of B. germanica originating from a laboratory population housed by Dr. X. Bellés’ group at the Institute of Evolutionary Biology (CSIC-UPF, Barcelona, Spain) was reared in plastic jars with aeration inside climatic chambers at the Institute for Integrative Systems Biology (University of Valencia—CSIC) at 25 °C, 60% humidity and photoperiod of 12 h light/12 h darkness. Insects were fed dog-food pellets (Teklad global 21% protein dog diet 2021C, Envigo, Madison, USA) and water ad libitum. Rifampicin (0.1 mg/mL) (Alfa Aesar, Kandel, Germany) was supplied in the water when needed.

2.2. Experimental Design

Figure 1 presents a scheme of the experimental design and a summary of all samples analysed. The experiment is designed to span several generations to reduce the endosymbiont population progressively (Figure 1a). Between 0 and 48 h after ecdysis, adult cockroaches were collected to start a sex-balanced synchronized population. This first generation (G1) was distributed into the following two subpopulations: one was not treated with the antibiotic and served as a control (C), and the other (R) was treated with rifampicin 0.1 mg/mL for 12 days. At the second generation (G2), within 48 h of hatching, nymphs of the antibiotic-treated population were used to start two new subpopulations, which were antibiotic-treated (RR) or not (RC) at the adult stage. In the third generation (G3), the same treatment as the corresponding G2 was applied, leading to populations RRR and RCC.
During G2, some individuals developed normally, while others were delayed. For this reason, on day 20 the insects were separated based on this “developmental speed” in two groups, fast (Rf) and slow (Rs) (Figure 1b). When becoming adults, subpopulation Rf was maintained without treatment (RfC), while Rs was split into two halves, untreated (RsC) and antibiotic-treated (RsR). For the latter, an individualized system was designed in which each female reaching the adult stage was put in a container with a male, and the antibiotic was supplied for 12 days, after which all individuals with the same treatment were put together. The nymphs that hatched in G3 in each slow population were raised to adults, and were treated or not in the same conditions as their parents, giving rise to the populations RsRR, to continue with the treatment, and RsCC to check the recovery of the endosymbiont. A single untreated population was maintained for the fast population (RfCC).

2.3. Cockroach Dissections

At selected time points (Figure 1b), adult females were dissected after hatching their nymphs (i.e., after the oothecae were fully mature) to collect their hindguts and fat bodies. Only females were dissected to reduce statistical noise produced by sex bias. Cockroaches were anesthetized using a CO2 stream and dissected under stereomicroscope. The hindgut was isolated, opened and cleaned in Krebs–Ringer bicarbonate buffer (Sigma-Aldrich, USA) to remove faeces. The fat body was recovered in Krebs–Ringer buffer. Samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C until used.

2.4. Fitness Parameters Determination

The following several fitness parameters were measured through the insect’s life-cycle: development (number of days from hatching to reach adult stage and to the ootheca hatching), reproductive capability (number of nymphs per ootheca), and viability (% nymphs’ survival in G2). Statistical differences were analysed with ANOVA and t-test, when appropriate.

2.5. DNA Extraction and Quantitative PCR

Fat body and hindgut total DNA were extracted following the protocols previously described [6]. Fat body DNA was resuspended in 50 µL of Milli-Q water, quantified with a Qubit 3.0 fluorimeter (Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA), and diluted up to 0.05 ng/µL. Endosymbiont population was analysed by qPCR on fat body samples using AriaMx real-time PCR system (Agilent Technologies, Germany). The genes ureC (accession number: NC_013454.1) and actin5C (accession number: AJ861721.1) were used as specific endosymbiont and host, respectively, using primers previously described (ureC quantification: UC1F, 5′-GTCCAGCAACTGGAACTATAGCCA-3′; UC1R, 5′-CCTCCTGCACCTGCTTCTATTTGT-3′. actin5C quantification: ActinF, 5′-CACATACAACTCCATTATGAAGTGCGA-3′; ActinR, 5′-TGTCGGCAATTCCGGTACATG-3′) [6], and the relative ratio ureC/actin5C was obtained. ANOVA and t-test were applied to analyse statistical differences.

2.6. DNA Sequencing and Bioinformatics Analyses

The V3–V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified by PCR from hindgut DNA with 16SrRNA Illumina sequencing standard primers (forward primer: 5′-CCTACGGGNGGCWGCAG-3′; reverse primer: 5′-GACTACHVGGGTATCTAATCC-3′), as described in [11], and sequenced with Illumina MiSeq at the Sequencing and Bioinformatic Service facilities of FISABIO. The obtained reads have been submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), and the assigned study accession number is PRJEB47828 (ERS7664059-ERS7664084).
DNA reads were analysed using the QIIME2 platform [12], version qiime2-2019.7. After data demultiplexing, reads were denoised with DADA2 [13]. Taxonomic classification was performed using the SILVA 132 database [14]. Statistical analyses were performed using GNEISS and diversity plugins in QIIME2 and R packages.
Several biodiversity indexes have been calculated using plugins implemented in the QIIME2 pipeline [12]. Shannon index measures the bacterial distribution within each sample (alpha diversity). As for the analysis of beta diversity, Aitchison distance describes the dissimilarity between samples for compositional data [15,16], while weighted UniFrac takes into consideration the evolutionary relationship among the amplicon sequence variants (ASV) identified in each sample [17]. A principal coordinate analysis (PCoA) plot shows, in the axes, the parameters that best explain the distances between these bacterial communities.

3. Results and Discussion

In our previous work, we determined the putative functions of the gut microbiota, following a metagenomic approach [6,7]. However, the impact that those bacterial functions have on the host, and if they can somehow replace the endosymbiont’s essential functions, have not been proven. To empirically determine such effects, the use of hosts with a null or reduced load of Blattabacterium will be highly informative. Furthermore, they will also show how essential the endosymbiont is in the host’s development and fitness. Among the antibiotics previously tested in our group, to disturb the gut microbiota in B. germanica, only rifampicin can also affect Blattabacterium; its effect is observed in the following generation, as a reduction in the amount of endosymbiont in the offspring. It has been proposed that the antibiotic only affects the endosymbiont in the ovaries when it leaves the protection of the bacteriocytes to infect the oocytes, but not inside the bacteriocytes, except if high doses of antibiotic are used [18]. In the present experiment, rifampicin was supplied at half the concentration used in the previous work [5], and only for the first 12 days of the adult stage, with the aim of reaching the endosymbiont prior the oocytes’ invasion, while affecting the cockroaches’ fitness and gut microbiota as little as possible. It was designed this way because the antibiotic treatment also affects the gut community and could reduce insect viability, and the treatment must be maintained during several generations, in order to progressively reduce the endosymbiont load. In fact, the microbiota’s recovery is mainly expected by coprophagia once the antibiotic is removed [5,6,7], for which we expect there to be enough time because the females are dissected at least 20 days after the end of the treatment, i.e., the time necessary for the ootheca to hatch.
The results of Blattabacterium quantification were striking (Figure 2a). The treatment for 12 days in G1 was able to reduce the endosymbiont population in some G2 individuals, suggesting that the antibiotic was affecting the endosymbiont during the infection of the ovaries, as expected [5]. However, this effect was not homogeneous, as we found two insect groups in G2, with different developmental times (fast and slow) (Figure 1b). Furthermore, the endosymbiont population was not equally reduced among the offspring of the treated cockroaches, and reduced amounts correlate with a slow development (less than 0.1 ureC/actin ratio in fat body DNA from the treated samples of the slow population, compared to 103 in the control samples; Table 1). When the affected G2 was not treated again with rifampicin (RsC), the corresponding G3 population RsCC had normal Blattabacterium amounts. Surprisingly, we also observed that a G2 with a strong reduction in the endosymbiont population (RsR), treated again (RsRR), gave rise to a normal G3. This full recovery, even when the antibiotic was supplied in every generation, implies that the treatment window in G2 was not enough to have an effect on G3. Thus, it appears that the few individuals that reached the next generation were those that escaped the treatment. These results justify the need to keep a constant antibiotic stress, because in each ovary’s infection process, the endosymbiont population can grow again.
The differences in host development observed at G2 in our experiment can have several causes. First of all, despite starting with a synchronized population between 0 and 48 h after ecdysis, different adult individuals have a different time of development, following a normal distribution. Secondly, it must be taken into account that the G2 individuals born on 15 April did not come from a single ootheca, but from a collection of oothecae that hatched in the same 48 h. As the rifampicin is provided with water, it is possible that the treatment was not equally effective in different G1 females, and, therefore, their offspring would be differently affected regarding the Blattabacterium load. This wide variability in the samples had already been observed since the pioneering studies, in the second half of the 20th century, to obtain aposymbiotic cockroaches, where it was observed that in nymphs from the same ootheca, the amount of endosymbiont was not always equally affected by the antibiotic treatments [18].
We checked if the reduction in Blattabacterium affects the nymphs’ viability and insects’ reproductive capability. During G1, we found no differences between the treated and control populations in any of the fitness parameters analysed (data not shown), as expected, because (as above stated) Blattabacterium is not affected during its intracellular stage in the fat body, but only during the infection of the ovaries and oocytes, and the treatment was applied in the adult stage. However, at G2, we observed a high mortality rate in nymphs from females treated with rifampicin (up to 90% mortality before becoming adults, while the control population had a mortality rate of 13.8%, SD 7.1). The reduction in the endosymbiont population was also accompanied by an extension of the host’s developmental time (up to 96 days to reach adult stage, instead of 50–70 days in normal conditions; Figure 1b, Table 1). Our hypothesis is that the endosymbiont reduction increases the developmental time, expanding the time window of the ovaries’ infection, which reduces the effectiveness of the treatment in the following generation with the same treatment regimen. The effects of supplying rifampicin for two or three consecutive generations clearly link the antibiotic treatment to a significant reduction in reproductive capacity, since the oothecae production and the number of nymphs per oothecae were affected in all the experimental groups treated, at least once, with the antibiotic (Figure 3). This decrease in reproductive fitness, however, cannot be attributed to the endosymbiont reduction, as it is detected in all the treated populations in G2 and G3, even with a normal amount of endosymbiont.
We also studied the gut microbiota composition in all the samples in the experiment. A total of 2,599,001 reads were analysed, 78.03% of which passed the quality test. The taxonomic distribution was analysed at the phylum level (Figure 4). The most abundant phyla in all the samples correspond to Bacteroidota, Firmicutes, Desulfobacterota (previously included in the phylum Proteobacteria [19]), Proteobacteria, Fusobacteriota, and Planctomycetota, as previously reported [7]. A strong reduction in Fusobacteria was observed in most treated samples in G2 and G3, and it was the only bacterial genus that was not recovered when no antibiotic was added in the following generations (unnoticeable amounts in all the samples from population RsCC, and three out of four samples of population RfCC). This reduction does not correlate with the amount of Blattabacterium, which was normal in those samples. No significant effects on the host’s reproductive capability were noticed in these populations either. These findings are in consonance with previous results [5], where, in rifampicin-treated samples, a significant increase in Fusobacteria was found in G1, but was followed by a strong reduction during G2. Such changes could be explained by a dependence on the presence/absence of competitors during hindgut colonization [20].
Previous studies on B. germanica revealed a complex gut community with an interdependent structure, which can be highly affected by antibiotic treatments, but it is also very robust and recovers after antibiotic exposure [5,6,7]. All those studies used longer treatment periods, even during full generations. Thus, the lack of such strong effects observed here could be explained by the reduced treatment window and the long time given for recovery (at least 20 days after the treatment) before the sampling points. This indicates that this is a good strategy to reach our goal of affecting the endosymbiont, without a drastic effect in the gut microbiota.
There were differences between the gut microbiota of all the experimental groups and the control population, as revealed by the Aitchison distance analysis (Figure 5), but they cannot be explained either by the antibiotic treatment or the amount of Blattabacterium. These results are reinforced by the analysis of the taxonomic distribution (weighted UniFrac PCoA; Figure 2b) and the alpha diversity (Shannon index; Figure 6), where the only significant differences were detected in the RsCC population.
A PERMANOVA test was applied to the Aitchison distance results by comparing each sample against all the others. The analysis revealed significant differences (p-value < 0.05) in all the comparisons with the control and RsCC populations (except for the RsC population, probably due to the small sample size). The corresponding Aitchison distances are presented in Figure 5. However, the weighted UniFrac PCoA (Figure 2b) shows only a slight separation of the control and RsCC population from the others. These results could indicate that, even though the re-established gut microbiota, after the rifampicin treatment in G1, is not exactly the same as in the control population, the taxonomical groups involved are quite similar and might be performing similar functions. Even though the case of the RsCC population is surprising, the changes in the microbiota composition are not associated with retardation in development, while the amounts of endosymbiont were normal in this population and, therefore, would not be useful to study a putative role of the gut microbiota to replace the endosymbiont. In addition, no interaction between the gut microbiota and the endosymbiont was detected, as there were no significant changes in G2 in the gut communities of the quasi-aposymbiotic populations, compared with those with a normal Blattabacterium load.

4. Conclusions

The selected treatment regimen (0.1 mg/mL of rifampicin for the first 12 days of the adult stage) has been successful in reducing the endosymbiont population of B. germanica, while affecting the gut microbiota as little as possible. However, its effect was not homogeneous among the cockroach population. Moreover, after one generation with reduced amounts of Blattabacterium, the offspring of the next generation recover completely, even though the antibiotic is supplied following the same schedule, probably because the extracellular stage of Blattabacterium has been delayed due to the developmental retard.
The negative effects on viability and reproductive fitness detected in rifampicin-treated populations are not related to changes in the gut microbiota, and cannot be attributed exclusively to the endosymbiont reduction, or to the rifampicin treatment itself. Moreover, apparently normal gut microbiota, recovered after cessation of the antibiotic treatment, are not able to replace the functions of Blattabacterium.

Author Contributions

M.M.-B., participated in the design of the study, data collection, data analysis and statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript; A.L. conceived, designed and coordinated the study, participated in funding acquisition, and helped draft the manuscript; E.A.-C. participated in data collection and data analysis; J.M.-M. and R.D.-S. participated in data and statistical analysis, and critically reviewed the manuscript; F.J.S. participated in data analysis and critically reviewed the manuscript; R.G. participated in funding acquisition, participated in data curation and analysis, reviewed and edited the manuscript; C.G.-F. designed and supervised the study, participated in data curation and analysis, helped draft and review the manuscript; all authors gave final approval for publication and agree to be held accountable for the work performed therein. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovación y Universidades (MICINN, Spain) (grant number PGC2018-099344-B-I00), and Conselleria d’Educació, Generalitat Valenciana (Spain) (grant number PROMETEO/2018/133). MMB was a recipient of a FPU fellowship (FPU15/01203) from MICINN (Spain).

Institutional Review Board Statement

All animal treatment guidelines applicable to cockroaches under international and Spanish law have been followed.

Data Availability Statement

The obtained 16S rRNA reads have been submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), and the assigned study accession number is PRJEB47828 (ERS7664059-ERS7664084).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Patiño-Navarrete, R.; Moya, A.; Latorre, A.; Peretó, J. Comparative genomics of Blattabacterium cuenoti: The frozen legacy of an ancient endosymbiont genome. Genome Biol. Evol. 2013, 5, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Brune, A.; Dietrich, C. The gut microbiota of termites: Digesting the diversity in the light of ecology and evolution. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2015, 69, 145–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Shan, H.; Wu, W.; Sun, Z.; Chen, J.; Li, H. The gut microbiota of the insect infraorder Pentatomomorpha (Hemiptera: Heteroptera) for the light of ecology and evolution. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Carrasco, P.; Pérez-Cobas, A.E.; van de Pol, C.; Baixeras, J.; Moya, A.; Latorre, A. Succession of the gut microbiota in the cockroach Blattella germanica. Int. Microbiol. 2014, 17, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Rosas, T.; García-Ferris, C.; Domínguez-Santos, R.; Llop, P.; Latorre, A.; Moya, A. Rifampicin treatment of Blattella germanica evidences a fecal transmission route of their gut microbiota. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2018, 94, fiy002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Domínguez-Santos, R.; Pérez-Cobas, A.E.; Artacho, A.; Castro, J.A.; Talón, I.; Moya, A.; García-Ferris, C.; Latorre, A. Unraveling assemblage, functions and stability of the gut microbiota of Blattella germanica by antibiotic treatment. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Domínguez-Santos, R.; Pérez-Cobas, A.E.; Cuti, P.; Pérez-Brocal, V.; García-Ferris, C.; Moya, A.; Latorre, A.; Gil, R. Interkingdom gut microbiome and resistome of the cockroach Blattella germanica. mSystems 2021, 6, e01213-20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Sacchi, L.; Grigolo, A.; Mazzinit, M.; Bigliardi, E.; Baccetti, B.; Laudani, U. Symbionts in the oocytes of Blattella germanica (L.) (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae): Their mode of transmission. Int. J. lnsect Morphol. Embryol. 1988, 17, 437–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Henry, S.M. The significance of microorganisms in the nutrition of insects. Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1962, 24, 676–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brooks, M.A. Comments on the classification of intracellular symbionts of cockroaches and a description of the species. J. Invertbr. Pathol. 1970, 16, 249–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. González-Serrano, F.; Pérez-Cobas, A.E.; Rosas, T.; Baixeras, J.; Latorre, A.; Moya, A. The gut microbiota composition of the moth Brithys crini reflects insect metamorphosis. Microb. Ecol. 2020, 79, 960–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Bolyen, E.; Rideout, J.R.; Dillon, M.R.; Bokulich, N.A.; Abnet, C.C.; Al-Ghalith, G.A.; Alexander, H.; Alm, E.J.; Arumugam, M.; Asnicar, F.; et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 852–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Callahan, B.J.; McMurdie, P.J.; Rosen, M.J.; Han, A.W.; Johnson, A.J.A.; Holmes, S.P. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 2016, 13, 581–583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Quast, C.; Pruesse, E.; Yilmaz, P.; Gerken, J.; Schweer, T.; Yarza, P.; Peplies, J.; Glöckner, F.O. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013, 41, 590–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Aitchison, J. Principal component analysis of compositional data. Biometrika 1983, 70, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Martino, C.; Morton, J.T.; Marotz, C.A.; Thompson, L.R.; Tripathi, A.; Knight, R.; Zengler, K. A novel sparse compositional technique reveals microbial perturbations. mSystems 2019, 4, e00016-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Lozupone, C.; Lladser, M.E.; Knights, D.; Stombaugh, J.; Knight, R. UniFrac: An effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J. 2011, 5, 169–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Brooks, M.A.; Richards, A.G. Intracellular symbiosis in cockroaches. I. Production of aposymbiotic cockroaches. Biol. Bull. 1955, 109, 22–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Waite, D.W.; Chuvochina, M.; Pelikan, C.; Parks, D.H.; Yilmaz, P.; Wagner, M.; Loy, A.; Naganuma, T.; Nakai, R.; Whitman, B.W.B.; et al. Proposal to reclassify the proteobacterial classes Deltaproteobacteria and Oligoflexia, and the phylum Thermodesulfobacteria into four phyla reflecting major functional capabilities. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 70, 5972–6016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Tegtmeier, D.; Thompson, C.L.; Schauer, C.; Brune, A. Oxygen affects gut bacterial colonization and metabolic activities in a gnotobiotic cockroach model. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 1080–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Experimental design to obtain B. germanica quasi-aposymbionts without affecting the gut microbiota. (a) Original design. The antibiotic rifampicin is supplied to a synchronized adult population of B. germanica in three successive generations. At G1, the following two populations are established: a control one without antibiotic (C) and another one treated with rifampicin for the first 12 days of the adult stage (R). At G2, within 48 h of hatching, nymphs of the antibiotic-treated population are used to start two new populations, with and without antibiotic treatment in the adult stage (RR and RC, respectively). At G3, the antibiotic is supplied again to the treated population only (RRR) in the adult stage, while the sister population remains untreated (RCC) to allow a complete recovery. (b) Modified design. Because the nymphs that hatched after the first rifampicin treatment present two developmental phenotypes (slow and fast), only those with a delay in their developmental time were used for the rifampicin treatment over three generations, and to analyse their recovery after ceasing the antibiotic treatment for two generations. Adult females were taken for dissection after the hatching of nymphs in G2 and G3.
Figure 1. Experimental design to obtain B. germanica quasi-aposymbionts without affecting the gut microbiota. (a) Original design. The antibiotic rifampicin is supplied to a synchronized adult population of B. germanica in three successive generations. At G1, the following two populations are established: a control one without antibiotic (C) and another one treated with rifampicin for the first 12 days of the adult stage (R). At G2, within 48 h of hatching, nymphs of the antibiotic-treated population are used to start two new populations, with and without antibiotic treatment in the adult stage (RR and RC, respectively). At G3, the antibiotic is supplied again to the treated population only (RRR) in the adult stage, while the sister population remains untreated (RCC) to allow a complete recovery. (b) Modified design. Because the nymphs that hatched after the first rifampicin treatment present two developmental phenotypes (slow and fast), only those with a delay in their developmental time were used for the rifampicin treatment over three generations, and to analyse their recovery after ceasing the antibiotic treatment for two generations. Adult females were taken for dissection after the hatching of nymphs in G2 and G3.
Biology 10 01013 g001
Figure 2. Effects of the rifampicin treatment on the two symbiotic systems of B. germanica. (a) Relative quantification of the endosymbiont in the fat body. Ratio ureC/actin5C in each sample of the analysed populations. ANOVA test comparing all the samples as a global p-value is shown in top left, and t-test values comparing each experimental sample to the control are shown above the bars (ns, p > 0.05; ****, p < = 0.0001). (b) PCoA analysis of the gut microbiota based on weighted UniFrac distances classified by sample type, indicating, on the axes, the percentages of variation explained by the principal coordinates.
Figure 2. Effects of the rifampicin treatment on the two symbiotic systems of B. germanica. (a) Relative quantification of the endosymbiont in the fat body. Ratio ureC/actin5C in each sample of the analysed populations. ANOVA test comparing all the samples as a global p-value is shown in top left, and t-test values comparing each experimental sample to the control are shown above the bars (ns, p > 0.05; ****, p < = 0.0001). (b) PCoA analysis of the gut microbiota based on weighted UniFrac distances classified by sample type, indicating, on the axes, the percentages of variation explained by the principal coordinates.
Biology 10 01013 g002
Figure 3. Number of nymphs per ootheca. ANOVA test comparing all the samples as a global p-value shown in the top left, t-test values comparing each experimental sample to the control shown above the bars (ns, p > 0.05; **, p <= 0.01; ***, p <= 0.001). T-test comparisons could not be performed in samples RsR and RsC due to the small number of replicates (under three), because a single ootheca hatched in these conditions. Blue box, control; yellow boxes, G2; red boxes, G3.
Figure 3. Number of nymphs per ootheca. ANOVA test comparing all the samples as a global p-value shown in the top left, t-test values comparing each experimental sample to the control shown above the bars (ns, p > 0.05; **, p <= 0.01; ***, p <= 0.001). T-test comparisons could not be performed in samples RsR and RsC due to the small number of replicates (under three), because a single ootheca hatched in these conditions. Blue box, control; yellow boxes, G2; red boxes, G3.
Biology 10 01013 g003
Figure 4. Bacterial composition of the B. germanica gut microbiota per sample at the phylum level. The most abundant taxa (>0.5%) are presented. The y-axis represents the proportion of sequencing reads belonging to each taxon. N, negative control (water).
Figure 4. Bacterial composition of the B. germanica gut microbiota per sample at the phylum level. The most abundant taxa (>0.5%) are presented. The y-axis represents the proportion of sequencing reads belonging to each taxon. N, negative control (water).
Biology 10 01013 g004
Figure 5. Aitchinson distances between all analysed gut samples and (a) the control, and (b) the RsCC population. Blue box, control; yellow boxes, G2; red boxes, G3.
Figure 5. Aitchinson distances between all analysed gut samples and (a) the control, and (b) the RsCC population. Blue box, control; yellow boxes, G2; red boxes, G3.
Biology 10 01013 g005
Figure 6. Alpha diversity (Shannon index) of the B. germanica gut microbiome of all experimental groups. The values of the t-test are shown above the bars (ns, p > 0.05; *, p <= 0.05). Blue box, control; yellow boxes, G2; red boxes, G3.
Figure 6. Alpha diversity (Shannon index) of the B. germanica gut microbiome of all experimental groups. The values of the t-test are shown above the bars (ns, p > 0.05; *, p <= 0.05). Blue box, control; yellow boxes, G2; red boxes, G3.
Biology 10 01013 g006
Table 1. Female cockroaches of G2 and G3 analysed in this study. Columns indicate the dates (day/month/year) corresponding to relevant points in the developmental process (hatching, adult ecdysis, ootheca appearance, offspring hatching), number of days from hatching to reach adult stage and to next-generation hatching, reproductive capability (nymphs per ootheca), and endosymbiont population density (ratio ureC/actin5C).
Table 1. Female cockroaches of G2 and G3 analysed in this study. Columns indicate the dates (day/month/year) corresponding to relevant points in the developmental process (hatching, adult ecdysis, ootheca appearance, offspring hatching), number of days from hatching to reach adult stage and to next-generation hatching, reproductive capability (nymphs per ootheca), and endosymbiont population density (ratio ureC/actin5C).
SampleDate HatchingDate Adult EcdysisDate OothecaDate Offspring HatchingDays to AdultDays
to Hatching
Nymphs/OothecaRatio ureC/actin5C
RsR-1 a15/04/1825/06/1810/07/1806/08/1871113310.0932
RsR-215/04/1826/06/18__72__0.0001
RsR-315/04/1828/06/18__74__0.0723
RsR-415/04/1803/07/18__79__0.1797
RsR-515/04/1820/07/18__96__nd
RsC-1 b15/04/1813/06/1826/07/1813/09/1859151246868.99
RsC-215/04/1809/07/18__85__16.802
RfC-1 c15/04/1806/06/1819/06/1820/07/185296131470.02
RfC-215/04/1809/06/1821/06/1826/07/1855102161103.08
RfC-315/04/1810/06/1820/07/1803/08/185611061015.49
RfC-415/04/1814/06/1820/07/1810/08/186011733514.67
RfC-515/04/1818/06/1820/07/1816/08/186412333nd
RsRR-106/08/1810/10/1822/10/1827/11/1865113392223.70
RsRR-206/08/1822/10/1816/11/1811/12/1877127191465.86
RsRR-306/08/1829/10/1816/11/1814/12/188413028735.42
RsRR-406/08/1805/11/1827/11/1826/12/1891142225872.96
RsRR-506/08/1809/11/1827/11/1826/12/189514220nd
RsCC-113/09/1830/10/1820/11/1826/12/18471043616.42
RsCC-213/09/1803/11/1827/11/1826/12/1851104302263.17
RsCC-313/09/1806/11/1826/12/1803/01/1954112302033.46
RsCC-413/09/1820/11/1826/12/1803/01/196811222520.99
RsCC-513/09/1820/11/1826/12/1808/01/196811740nd
RfCC-120/07/1810/09/1814/09/1823/10/185295445106.13
RfCC-220/07/1811/09/1817/10/1824/10/18539645463.96
RfCC-320/07/1812/09/1817/10/1826/10/185498461017.05
RfCC-420/07/1813/09/1817/10/1826/10/18559844504.08
RfCC-520/07/1813/09/1817/10/1829/10/185510146nd
a All RsRR samples come from the RsR-1 offspring; b all RsCC samples come from the RsC-1 offspring; c all RfCC samples come from the RfC-1 offspring; a hyphen indicates that the corresponding female did not produce an oothecae; nd: non-determined. Each dark-coloured line on the second generation corresponds to the ootheca that served to start the next generation with the same colour.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muñoz-Benavent, M.; Latorre, A.; Alemany-Cosme, E.; Marín-Miret, J.; Domínguez-Santos, R.; Silva, F.J.; Gil, R.; García-Ferris, C. Gut Microbiota Cannot Compensate the Impact of (quasi) Aposymbiosis in Blattella germanica. Biology 2021, 10, 1013. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10101013

AMA Style

Muñoz-Benavent M, Latorre A, Alemany-Cosme E, Marín-Miret J, Domínguez-Santos R, Silva FJ, Gil R, García-Ferris C. Gut Microbiota Cannot Compensate the Impact of (quasi) Aposymbiosis in Blattella germanica. Biology. 2021; 10(10):1013. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10101013

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muñoz-Benavent, Maria, Amparo Latorre, Ester Alemany-Cosme, Jesús Marín-Miret, Rebeca Domínguez-Santos, Francisco J. Silva, Rosario Gil, and Carlos García-Ferris. 2021. "Gut Microbiota Cannot Compensate the Impact of (quasi) Aposymbiosis in Blattella germanica" Biology 10, no. 10: 1013. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10101013

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop