Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Molecular Ecologyarrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
Molecular Ecology
Article
License: publisher-specific, author manuscript
Data sources: UnpayWall
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
ZENODO
Article . 2017
Data sources: ZENODO
image/svg+xml Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao Closed Access logo, derived from PLoS Open Access logo. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Closed_Access_logo_transparent.svg Jakob Voss, based on art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina and Beao
Molecular Ecology
Article . 2017 . Peer-reviewed
License: Wiley Online Library User Agreement
Data sources: Crossref
versions View all 3 versions
addClaim

A genomic investigation of ecological differentiation between free‐living and Drosophila‐associated bacteria

Authors: Nathan J. Winans; Alec Walter; Bessem Chouaia; John M. Chaston; Angela E. Douglas; Peter D. Newell;

A genomic investigation of ecological differentiation between free‐living and Drosophila‐associated bacteria

Abstract

AbstractVarious bacterial taxa have been identified both in association with animals and in the external environment, but the extent to which related bacteria from the two habitat types are ecologically and evolutionarily distinct is largely unknown. This study investigated the scale and pattern of genetic differentiation between bacteria of the family Acetobacteraceae isolated from the guts of Drosophila fruit flies, plant material and industrial fermentations. Genome‐scale analysis of the phylogenetic relationships and predicted functions was conducted on 44 Acetobacteraceae isolates, including newly sequenced genomes from 18 isolates from wild and laboratory Drosophila. Isolates from the external environment and Drosophila could not be assigned to distinct phylogenetic groups, nor are their genomes enriched for any different sets of genes or category of predicted gene functions. In contrast, analysis of bacteria from laboratory Drosophila showed they were genetically distinct in their universal capacity to degrade uric acid (a major nitrogenous waste product of Drosophila) and absence of flagellar motility, while these traits vary among wild Drosophila isolates. Analysis of the competitive fitness of Acetobacter discordant for these traits revealed a significant fitness deficit for bacteria that cannot degrade uric acid in culture with Drosophila. We propose that, for wild populations, frequent cycling of Acetobacter between Drosophila and the external environment prevents genetic differentiation by maintaining selection for traits adaptive in both the gut and external habitats. However, laboratory isolates bear the signs of adaptation to persistent association with the Drosophila host under tightly defined environmental conditions.

Keywords

Insecta, Arthropoda, Ecology, Diptera, Adaptation, Biological, Biodiversity, Genetics, Population, fruit flies, flies, Acetobacteraceae, Animalia, Animals, Drosophila, Genome, Bacterial, Phylogeny, Taxonomy

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    53
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
53
Top 10%
Top 10%
Top 10%
hybrid