Document Detail

The bacterial communities of Drosophila suzukii collected from undamaged cherries.
Jump to Full Text
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  25101226     Owner:  NLM     Status:  PubMed-not-MEDLINE    
Drosophila suzukii is an introduced pest insect that feeds on undamaged, attached fruit. This diet is distinct from the fallen, discomposing fruits utilized by most other species of Drosophila. Since the bacterial microbiota of Drosophila, and of many other animals, is affected by diet, we hypothesized that the bacteria associated with D. suzukii are distinct from that of other Drosophila. Using 16S rDNA PCR and Illumina sequencing, we characterized the bacterial communities of larval and adult D. suzukii collected from undamaged, attached cherries in California, USA. We find that the bacterial communities associated with these samples of D. suzukii contain a high frequency of Tatumella. Gluconobacter and Acetobacter, two taxa with known associations with Drosophila, were also found, although at lower frequency than Tatumella in four of the five samples examined. Sampling D. suzukii from different locations and/or while feeding on different fruits is needed to determine the generality of the results determined by these samples. Nevertheless this is, to our knowledge, the first study characterizing the bacterial communities of this ecologically unique and economically important species of Drosophila.
James Angus Chandler; Pamela M James; Guillaume Jospin; Jenna M Lang
Related Documents :
23448066 - Weight loss and germination failure caused by psocids in different wheat varieties.
8778876 - Acute and longer term effects of meso-2,3 dimercaptosuccinic acid (dmsa) on the behavio...
8118806 - Interactive effects of unleaded gasoline and estrogen on liver tumor promotion in femal...
24582326 - Could molecular effects of caulerpa racemosa metabolites modulate the impact on fish po...
20658156 - Efficacy of long-term ezetimibe therapy in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
4053436 - Nutrition and atherosclerosis: some neglected aspects.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article     Date:  2014-07-22
Journal Detail:
Title:  PeerJ     Volume:  2     ISSN:  2167-8359     ISO Abbreviation:  PeerJ     Publication Date:  2014  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2014-08-07     Completed Date:  2014-08-07     Revised Date:  2014-08-11    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101603425     Medline TA:  PeerJ     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e474     Citation Subset:  -    
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine

Full Text
Journal Information
Journal ID (nlm-ta): PeerJ
Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PeerJ
Journal ID (pmc): PeerJ
Journal ID (publisher-id): PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Publisher: PeerJ Inc., San Francisco, USA
Article Information
Download PDF
© 2014 Chandler et al.
Received Day: 8 Month: 5 Year: 2014
Accepted Day: 17 Month: 6 Year: 2014
Electronic publication date: Day: 22 Month: 7 Year: 2014
collection publication date: Year: 2014
Volume: 2E-location ID: e474
PubMed Id: 25101226
ID: 4121540
Publisher Id: 474
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.474

The bacterial communities of Drosophila suzukii collected from undamaged cherries
James Angus Chandler13 Email:
Pamela M. James1
Guillaume Jospin12
Jenna M. Lang12
Matt Hutchings
1Department of Evolution and Ecology and Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis, CA, United States of America
2Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, University of California Davis Genome Center, University of California, Davis, CA, United States of America
3Current affiliation: Department of Microbiology, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, United States of America


D. suzukii is an introduced pest insect that has recently become established in both North America and Europe (Rota-Stabelli, Blaxter & Anfora, 2013). The economic impact of D. suzukii in fruit growing regions may be substantial (Bolda, Goodhue & Zalom, 2010). Unlike most species of Drosophila, D. suzukii has a serrated ovipositor that allows it to lay its eggs in undamaged fruit (Rota-Stabelli, Blaxter & Anfora, 2013). This is distinct from most other Drosophila, including the closest relatives of D. suzukii, which lack a serrated ovipositor and therefore lay eggs in fallen and damaged fruit (Ashburner, Golic & Hawley, 2004; Mitsui, Takahashi & Kimura, 2006; Rota-Stabelli, Blaxter & Anfora, 2013). Therefore, the diet of D. suzukii is different from that of most other species of Drosophila.

The microbial communities associated with natural Drosophila populations are well characterized (for a review see Broderick & Lemaitre, 2012). Most studies have focused on the bacterial communities of Drosophila that feed upon fallen fruit (Cox & Gilmore, 2007; Corby-Harris et al., 2007; Staubach et al., 2013; Wong, Chaston & Douglas, 2013), while others have looked at additional host diets, such as mushrooms, cacti, and flowers (Chandler et al., 2011). The yeast communities of various Drosophila species have also been investigated (Chandler, Eisen & Kopp, 2012), and the yeasts associated with D. suzukii feeding upon undamaged fruits have been characterized (Hamby et al., 2012). However, to our knowledge, the bacterial communities of D. suzukii have not been examined.

In Drosophila, both laboratory and natural studies have found that diet plays an important role in shaping bacterial communities (Chandler et al., 2011; Staubach et al., 2013; Sharon et al., 2010). Since D. suzukii consume a distinct diet compared to other Drosophila, we hypothesized that this may play a role in shaping their bacterial communities. We therefore characterized the bacterial communities of adult and larval D. suzukii collected from undamaged cherries.

Materials and Methods

On June 28th 2012 at Wolfskill Experimental Orchard near the town of Winters, California, USA, adult Drosophilids were aspirated directly from attached cherries (cherry variety DPRU0327/PRUNUS/AVIUM/F 98 CAROON/C 1 52). No insecticides or fungicides were applied in this orchard during this growing season. No specific permits were required for the described field studies and site managers provided informed consent before collections took place. Collected Drosophilids were stored alive in autoclaved glass vials for transport to the University of California, Davis (UCD) where they were positively identified as Drosophila suzukii (24 males and 1 female). Intestines were dissected from the males under sterile conditions and randomly divided into three sets of eight intestines each. Total time between collection and dissection did not exceed four hours. Whole cherries that lacked any visible damage were collected from the same tree and placed in sterile plastic bags for transport to UCD. The cherries were macerated in the bags and the largest visible larvae were picked from the bags, externally washed in 70% ethanol, rinsed in sterile water, and divided into three sets of ten individuals each. Additional larvae were collected from the same cherries, washed and rinsed as described above, and then individually placed in yeast extract-peptone-dextrose (YEPD) plates (1% yeast extract, 2% peptone, and 2% glucose/dextrose). The larvae were allowed to migrate for 30–60 s and the resulting colonies were used in a complementary study (Dunitz et al., 2014). The larvae were then individually placed in plastic vials containing Bloomington Drosophila media and all eclosing adults were positively identified as D. suzukii (4 males and 6 females).

DNA extractions were performed on these larvae and the adult intestines as previously described (Chandler et al., 2011). Bacterial DNA was amplified by a two-step PCR targeting the 16S rDNA gene (V4 region) with primers 515F and 806R, designed to include Illumina adaptor and barcode sequences. Sequencing was performed on an Illumina MiSeq at the UC Davis Genomics Core Facility generating 150 basepair paired-end reads. Samples were multiplexed with dual barcode combinations and demultiplexed with a custom script. After demultiplexing, the six samples had between 71,131 and 1,388 raw paired-end sequences for a total of 279,046 paired-end sequences. Paired sequences were combined using FLASH (Magoč & Salzberg, 2011) with parameters of a minimum overlap of 20 base pairs and a maximum overlap of 120 base pairs. These parameters were chosen to accommodate the 150 base pair paired-end reads used here (Jeff Froula, pers. comm., 2013). Other parameters were left as default.

Merged sequences were quality checked using QIIME (Caporaso & Kuczynski et al., 2010b) and default settings (Bokulich et al., 2013). Using UCLUST (Edgar, 2010), the 267,204 quality-checked sequences were clustered into de novo OTUs at the 97% similarity threshold producing 3,518 OTUs. The most abundant sequence in each OTU was chosen as a representative sequence. The representative sequences for all OTUs are available in Data S1. These representative sequences were screened for chimeras using the PyNAST aligner (Caporaso et al., 2010a) and ChimeraSlayer (Haas et al., 2011). Any OTU containing only 1 sequence was removed thus removing 2,878 OTUs (and therefore 2,878 sequences).

Taxonomic assignments were generated by querying the representative sequences against the truncated SILVA SSU Reference Database Release 111 (Quast et al., 2013) using the Blastn algorithm (Altschul et al., 1990) (Data S2). Any OTU with a best hit to mitochondria, chloroplast, or Wolbachia was removed from further analysis. Two OTUs with low query coverage (<63 basepairs) within the SILVA database were removed. Since we are primarily interested in the bacterial microbiota, four Archaeal OTUs were also removed. One of the larval libraries contains less than 300 sequences (all others contain greater than 35,000; Table 1) and was removed from subsequent analyses, which also removed four OTUs that were unique to this library (totaling eight sequences). The final dataset consists of 617 OTUs containing 256,274 total sequences. The proportions of the six most abundant OTUs in each sample are given in Table 1. Further details, including information on the more rare OTUs, the singleton OTUs, and the removed larval library, are found in Data S3.

Alpha diversity was determined in QIIME by rarefying each sample to 35,000 sequences and taking the average of 100 iterations of rarefication (Table 2). Rarefaction curves of the observed OTUs were made in mothur using 100 iterations of the UCLUST generated OTUs (Schloss et al., 2009) (Fig. 1). Beta diversity was determined using weighted UniFrac (Lozupone & Knight, 2005) after aligning the representative sequencing using PyNAST (Caporaso et al., 2010a), building a phylogenetic tree using FastTree (Price, Dehal & Arkin, 2010), and rarifying each sample to 35,000 sequences in QIIME (Fig. 2).

Demultiplexed sequenced reads are available through NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive (SRA) under project number SRX391503.

Results and Discussion

We characterized the bacterial communities of adult and larval Drosophila suzukii collected from undamaged, attached cherries. Three adult samples, each containing eight dissected male intestines, and two samples of larvae, each containing ten whole, externally sterilized individuals of unknown sex, are included in this analysis. 16S rDNA PCR and Illumina sequencing generated over 40,000 reads per sample (Table 1). Operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were formed by clustering sequences at the 97% similarity cutoff. Taxonomic assignments were generated by querying the representative sequence of each OTU against the truncated SILVA SSU Reference Database Release 111 using the Blastn algorithm (Data S2).

We find that the microbiota of both of the larval samples and adult sample A2 are composed of at least 99% Tatumella, and the remaining two adult samples contain 31% and 80% Tatumella (Table 1) (the larval sample that was excluded from formal analysis due to its extremely small library size was composed of 83% Tatumella [Data S3]). Tatumella is an Enterobacteriaceae that has been linked to both human and plant infections (Costa, Mendes & Ribeiro, 2008; Marin-Cevada et al., 2010). Tatumella punctata, the nearest hit to the largest Tatumella OTU identified in this study, was originally isolated from oranges (Kageyama et al., 1992). Although this genus is not considered a common Drosophila associate (Broderick & Lemaitre, 2012), it was recovered from D. melanogaster at an apple farm in New York, USA (Wong, Chaston & Douglas, 2013). Recently, several species previously classified as Pantoea have been transferred into Tatumella (Brady et al., 2010). Given that these species of Pantoea have been reported in Drosophila (Wong, Chaston & Douglas, 2013), perhaps Tatumella is a more common Drosophila associate than currently recognized. Nevertheless, Tatumella is the dominant bacteria associated with these samples of D. suzukii, while being absent, or at minimal levels, with other species of Drosophila. Sampling D. suzukii from different locations and/or while feeding on different fruits is needed to determine the ubiquity of the D. suzukii/Tatumella association.

The next most abundant taxa are species of Acetobacteraceae, specifically Gluconobacter and Acetobacter (Table 1). These are found in all five samples, but are primarily associated with adult samples A1 and A3. The Acetobacteraceae are commonly found associated with natural Drosophila populations (Chandler et al., 2011; Staubach et al., 2013; Wong, Chaston & Douglas, 2013; Corby-Harris et al., 2007; Cox & Gilmore, 2007). A minor, but notable, component to the bacterial community of adult sample A3 is a Gammaproteobacteria in the Orbus genus (0.8% of total community in A3). Orbus was the most common genus in a global survey of Drosophilid species (Chandler et al., 2011), but has not been recovered in most other studies of Drosophila-associated bacteria (Broderick & Lemaitre, 2012). The reasons for this are unclear, although it has been found at low frequencies in naturally collected fruit-feeding D. melanogaster and D. simulans (Staubach et al., 2013).

It is well established that alpha diversity measurements in 16S-based studies are affected by amplicon length, primer selection, alignment method, and quality control procedures (Schloss, 2010; Bokulich et al., 2013; Youssef et al., 2009). Furthermore, differences in sample collection and preparation can affect perceived bacterial diversity. For example, studies that examine whole bodies (Staubach et al., 2013; Wong, Chaston & Douglas, 2013) may have artificially high diversity compared to those using dissected intestines (such as was done here for the adult samples). Indeed, in laboratory raised flies, dissected intestines have slightly lower observed and Chao richness than whole bodies (Chandler et al., 2011). Furthermore, since transit time through the Drosophila intestine can be as low as 50 min (Wong et al., 2008), undue time between collection and sample preparation can affect diversity measurements as the individuals purge their intestinal contents. Because of these caveats, it is difficult to compare results of previous studies to those generated here (Fig. 1 and Table 2).

Weighted UniFrac analysis (a phylogenetically-informed beta-diversity metric that takes into account between-sample frequency differences) finds the two samples of D. suzukii larvae harbor similar bacterial communities, while the three samples of D. suzukii adults each have a distinct community (Fig. 2). The same pattern was found in a weighted UniFrac analysis that did not exclude singleton OTUs (data not shown). Furthermore, the observed OTUs, Chao richness, and Shannon diversity are very similar for both larval samples, whereas the adult samples exhibit much higher between sample variability in these three indices (Table 2). It should be noted that a consequence of our pooling method means that it cannot be determined if this variability is the result of a single individual with a highly different bacterial community or if multiple individuals, each with the same community, were pooled together by chance. Furthermore, since whole larvae were used it cannot be determined if non-intestinal bacteria, for example in the trachea or salivary glands, are obscuring potential variability of the larval intestinal microbiota.

One explanation for the differences in variability between larval and adult samples is that larvae are confined to the fruit that they were laid into, while adults can travel to other surfaces where they can acquire different bacteria. This result informs other studies of Drosophila, and insect-microbe studies in general, many of which characterize only a single sample from each population under investigation. The variability of adult samples described here indicates that, despite pooling multiple individuals, a single sample may not provide an accurate representation of the microbiota associated with that population.


In this study, we find that Drosophila suzukii larvae and adults harbor simple bacterial communities that are mostly dominated by Tatumella. As D. suzukii is a generalist feeder that has been introduced to many areas of North America and Europe, sampling D. suzukii from different locations and/or while feeding on different fruits is needed to determine the ubiquity of the D. suzukii/Tatumella association. Nevertheless, given the distinct food source of D. suzukii (relative to most Drosophila species), the potential role of Tatumella (or other, yet to be identified D. suzukii-associated bacteria) on host fitness or physiology is intriguing. In particular, the draft genome of the most abundant Tatumella strain associated with this population of D. suzukii is available (Dunitz et al., 2014) and analysis of this genome may reveal the metabolic potential of the microbiota to supplement the D. suzukii diet with nutrients that are scarce on unfallen fruit. Furthermore, by inoculating D. suzukii with defined bacterial communities under controlled dietary conditions, future experimental work can explicitly reveal the microbiota’s role in host biology. In summary, by characterizing the bacterial microbiota of these samples of D. suzukii, this study is the initial step in the investigation of the interplay between diet and bacteria in this interesting and economically important host-microbe system.

Supplemental Information Data S1doi: 10.7717/peerj.474/supp-1.
Representative sequences

Fasta file containing the representative sequence of all 3,518 OTUs.

Click here for additional data file (peerj-02-474-s001.txt)

Data S2doi: 10.7717/peerj.474/supp-2.
Blastn results

Results generated by querying the representative sequences of each OTU against the SILVA SSU Reference Database Release 111 using the blastn algorithm.

Click here for additional data file (peerj-02-474-s002.txt)

Data S3doi: 10.7717/peerj.474/supp-3.
Taxonomy counts

Spreadsheet describing the abundance of each OTU in each sample. OTUs removed from the final analysis are indicated.

Click here for additional data file (peerj-02-474-s003.xlsx)

Notes Competing Interests

conflict-1The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

contribution-1James Angus Chandler conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables.

contribution-2Pamela M. James, Guillaume Jospin and Jenna M. Lang performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

DNA Deposition

addinfo-1The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:

NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive, Project Number SRX391503

We thank the University of California Wolfskill Experimental Orchard for access and Kelly Hamby for assisting with specimen collections. Olga Barmina provided technical assistance. David Coil, Jonathan Eisen, Artyom Kopp, and Shannon Bennett provided helpful advice for improving the manuscript.

Additional Information and Declarations
Competing Interests

conflict-1The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Author Contributions

contribution-1James Angus Chandler conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables.

contribution-2Pamela M. James, Guillaume Jospin and Jenna M. Lang performed the experiments, reviewed drafts of the paper.

DNA Deposition

addinfo-1The following information was supplied regarding the deposition of DNA sequences:

NCBI’s Sequence Read Archive, Project Number SRX391503

Altschul et al. (1990). Altschul SF,Gish W,Miller W,Myers EW,Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search toolJournal of Molecular BiologyYear: 199021540341010.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-22231712
Ashburner, Golic & Hawley (2004). Ashburner M,Golic K,Hawley RS. Drosophila: a laboratory handbook2nd editionYear: 2004New YorkCold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
Bokulich et al. (2013). Bokulich NA,Subramanian S,Faith JJ,Gevers D,Gordon JI,Knight R,Mills DA,Caporaso JG. Quality-filtering vastly improves diversity estimates from Illumina amplicon sequencingNature MethodsYear: 201310575910.1038/nmeth.227623202435
Bolda, Goodhue & Zalom (2010). Bolda MP,Goodhue RE,Zalom FG. Spotted Wing Drosophila: potential impact of a newly established pestAgricultural and Resource Economics UpdateYear: 20101358
Brady et al. (2010). Brady CL,Venter SN,Cleenwerck I,Vandemeulebroecke K,De Vos P,Coutinho TA. Transfer of Pantoea citrea, Pantoea punctata and Pantoea terrea to the genus Tatumella emend. as Tatumella citrea comb. nov., Tatumella punctata comb. nov. and Tatumella terrea comb. nov. and description of Tatumella morbirosei sp. novInternational Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary MicrobiologyYear: 20106048449410.1099/ijs.0.012070-019654354
Broderick & Lemaitre (2012). Broderick NA,Lemaitre B. Gut-associated microbes of Drosophila melanogasterGut MicrobesYear: 2012330732110.4161/gmic.1989622572876
Caporaso et al. (2010a). Caporaso JG,Bittinger K,Bushman FD,DeSantis TZ,Andersen GL,Knight R. PyNAST: a flexible tool for aligning sequences to a template alignmentBioinformaticsYear: 2010a2626626710.1093/bioinformatics/btp63619914921
Caporaso & Kuczynski et al. (2010b). Caporaso JG,Kuczynski J,Stombaugh J,Bittinger K,Bushman FD,Costello EK,Fierer N,Peña AG,Goodrich JK,Gordon JI,Huttley GA,Kelley ST,Knights D,Koenig JE,Ley RE,Lozupone CA,McDonald D,Muegge BD,Pirrung M,Reeder J,Sevinsky JR,Turnbaugh PJ,Walters WA,Widmann J,Yatsunenko T,Zaneveld J,Knight R. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing dataNature MethodsYear: 2010b733533610.1038/nmeth.f.30320383131
Chandler, Eisen & Kopp (2012). Chandler JA,Eisen JA,Kopp A. Yeast communities of diverse Drosophila species: comparison of two symbiont groups in the same hostsApplied and Environmental MicrobiologyYear: 2012787327733610.1128/AEM.01741-1222885750
Chandler et al. (2011). Chandler JA,Lang JM,Bhatnagar S,Eisen JA,Kopp A. Bacterial communities of diverse Drosophila species: ecological context of a host-microbe model systemPLoS GeneticsYear: 20117e47410.1371/journal.pgen.1002272
Corby-Harris et al. (2007). Corby-Harris V,Pontaroli AC,Shimkets LJ,Bennetzen JL,Habel KE,Promislow DEL. Geographical distribution and diversity of bacteria associated with natural populations of Drosophila melanogasterApplied and Environmental MicrobiologyYear: 2007733470347910.1128/AEM.02120-0617400769
Costa, Mendes & Ribeiro (2008). Costa PSGD,Mendes JM de C,Ribeiro GM. Tatumella ptyseos causing severe human infection: report of the first two Brazilian casesBrazilian Journal of Infectious DiseasesYear: 20081244244310.1016/j.ijid.2007.09.01419219286
Cox & Gilmore (2007). Cox CR,Gilmore MS. Native microbial colonization of Drosophila melanogaster and its use as a model of Enterococcus faecalis pathogenesisInfection and ImmunityYear: 2007751565157610.1128/IAI.01496-0617220307
Dunitz et al. (2014). Dunitz MI,James PM,Jospin G,Eisen JA,Coil DA,Chandler JA. Draft genome sequence of Tatumella sp. strain UCD-D_suzukii (phylum Proteobacteria) isolated from Drosophila suzukii larvaeGenome AnnouncementsYear: 20142e47410.1128/genomeA.00349-14
Edgar (2010). Edgar RC. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLASTBioinformaticsYear: 2010262460246110.1093/bioinformatics/btq46120709691
Haas et al. (2011). Haas BJ,Gevers D,Earl AM,Feldgarden M,Ward DV,Giannoukos G,Ciulla D,Tabbaa D,Highlander SK,Sodergren E,Methé B,DeSantis DZ,The Human Microbiome ConsortiumPetrosino JF,Knight R,Birren BW. Chimeric 16S rRNA sequence formation and detection in Sanger and 454-pyrosequenced PCR ampliconsGenome ResearchYear: 20112149450410.1101/gr.112730.11021212162
Hamby et al. (2012). Hamby KA,Hernández A,Boundy-Mills K,Zalom FG. Associations of yeasts with spotted-wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii; diptera: Drosophilidae) in cherries and raspberriesApplied and Environmental MicrobiologyYear: 2012784869487310.1128/AEM.00841-1222582060
Kageyama et al. (1992). Kageyama B,Nakae M,Yagi S,Sonoyama T. Pantoea punctata sp. nov., Pantoea citrea sp. nov., and Pantoea terrea sp. nov. isolated from fruit and soil samplesInternational Journal of Systematic BacteriologyYear: 19924220321010.1099/00207713-42-2-2031581180
Lozupone & Knight (2005). Lozupone C,Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communitiesApplied and Environmental MicrobiologyYear: 2005718228823510.1128/AEM.71.12.8228-8235.200516332807
Magoč & Salzberg (2011). Magoč T,Salzberg SL. FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assembliesBioinformaticsYear: 2011272957296310.1093/bioinformatics/btr50721903629
Marin-Cevada et al. (2010). Marin-Cevada V,Caballero-Mellado J,Bustillos-Cristales R,Munoz-Rojas J,Mascarua-Esparza MA,Castaneda-Lucio M,Lopez-Reyes L,Martinez-Aguilar L,Fuentes-Ramirez LE. Tatumella ptyseos, an unrevealed causative agent of pink disease in pineappleJournal of PhytopathologyYear: 2010158939910.1111/j.1439-0434.2009.01575.x
Mitsui, Takahashi & Kimura (2006). Mitsui H,Takahashi KH,Kimura MT. Spatial distributions and clutch sizes of Drosophila species ovipositing on cherry fruits of different stagesPopulation EcologyYear: 20064823323710.1007/s10144-006-0260-5
Price, Dehal & Arkin (2010). Price MN,Dehal PS,Arkin AP. FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignmentsPLoS ONEYear: 20105e47410.1371/journal.pone.0009490
Quast et al. (2013). Quast C,Pruesse E,Yilmaz P,Gerken J,Schweer T,Yarza P,Peplies J,Glöckner FO. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based toolsNucleic Acids ResearchYear: 201341D590D59610.1093/nar/gks121923193283
Rota-Stabelli, Blaxter & Anfora (2013). Rota-Stabelli O,Blaxter M,Anfora G. Drosophila suzukiiCurrent BiologyYear: 201323R8R910.1016/j.cub.2012.11.02123305672
Schloss (2010). Schloss PD. The effects of alignment quality, distance calculation method, sequence filtering, and region on the analysis of 16S rRNA gene-based studiesPLoS Computational BiologyYear: 20106e47410.1371/journal.pcbi.1000844
Schloss et al. (2009). Schloss PD,Westcott SL,Ryabin T,Hall JR,Hartmann M,Hollister EB,Lesniewski RA,Oakley BB,Parks DH,Robinson CJ,Sahl JW,Stres B,Thallinger GG,Van Horn DJ,Weber CF. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communitiesApplied and Environmental MicrobiologyYear: 2009757537754110.1128/AEM.01541-0919801464
Sharon et al. (2010). Sharon G,Segal D,Ringo JM,Hefetz A,Zilber-Rosenberg I,Rosenberg E. Commensal bacteria play a role in mating preference of Drosophila melanogasterProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of AmericaYear: 2010107200512005610.1073/pnas.100990610721041648
Staubach et al. (2013). Staubach F,Baines JF,Künzel S,Bik EM,Petrov DA. Host species and environmental effects on bacterial communities associated with Drosophila in the laboratory and in the natural environmentPLoS ONEYear: 20138e47410.1371/journal.pone.0070749
Wong, Chaston & Douglas (2013). Wong AC-N,Chaston JM,Douglas AE. The inconstant gut microbiota of Drosophila species revealed by 16S rRNA gene analysisThe ISME JournalYear: 201371922193210.1038/ismej.2013.8623719154
Wong et al. (2008). Wong R,Piper MDW,Blanc E,Partridge L. Pitfalls of measuring feeding rate in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogasterNature MethodsYear: 2008521421510.1038/nmeth0308-21418309307
Youssef et al. (2009). Youssef N,Sheik CS,Krumholz LR,Najar FZ,Roe BA,Elshahed MS. Comparison of species richness estimates obtained using nearly complete fragments and simulated pyrosequencing-generated fragments in 16S rRNA gene-based environmental surveysApplied and Environmental MicrobiologyYear: 2009755227523610.1128/AEM.00592-0919561178


[Figure ID: fig-1]
doi: 10.7717/peerj.474/fig-1.
Figure 1  Rarefaction analysis of observed richness of the D. suzukii bacterial communities.

[Figure ID: fig-2]
doi: 10.7717/peerj.474/fig-2.
Figure 2  Weighted UniFrac principle coordinate analysis of the D. suzukii bacterial communities.

[TableWrap ID: table-1] doi: 10.7717/peerj.474/table-1.
Table 1  Proportion of the most abundant OTUs in each sample of D. suzukii.

OTUs are identified by their closest hit in the SILVA SSU Reference Database Release 111. Number of sequences is after all quality-control steps. L, larva; A, adult.

L1 L2 A1 A2 A3
Tatumella punctata 0.991 0.989 0.309 0.990 0.800
Gluconobacter cerinus 0.001 <0.001 0.658 0.002 0.123
Acetobacter cerevisiae <0.001 <0.001 0.021 <0.001 0.028
Dyella sp. 0 0 0 0 0.015
Gluconobacter oxydans <0.001 <0.001 0.001 0 0.009
Orbus sp. <0.001 0 0 0 0.008
All other taxa 0.001 0.001 0.008 0.001 0.011
Total number of sequences in sample 50,701 65,346 55,426 44,545 40,256

[TableWrap ID: table-2] doi: 10.7717/peerj.474/table-2.
Table 2  Alpha diversity calculations for each sample of D. suzukii.
L1 L2 A1 A2 A3
Observed OTUs 204.12 240.86 120.61 182.24 213.08
Observed OTUs-SD 5.53 8.78 5.35 4.61 4.59
Chao 475.54 505.76 272.45 448.24 464.91
Chao-SD 55.26 52.50 47.86 46.28 49.74
Shannon diversity 0.13 0.16 1.18 0.14 1.22
Shannon-SD 0.0038 0.0061 0.0048 0.0032 0.0044



SD Standard deviation
L larva
A adult

Article Categories:
  • Biodiversity
Article Categories:
  • Ecology
Article Categories:
  • Microbiology

Keywords: Microbiome, Microbiota, Symbiosis, Host-microbe interaction, Drosophila.

Previous Document:  Personal neoantigen cancer vaccines: The momentum builds.
Next Document:  Adherence to an overweight and obesity treatment: how to motivate a patient?