背景:对蚊子-微生物相互作用的研究可能会导致蚊子和蚊子传播疾病控制的新工具。迄今为止,这种研究主要利用了实验室饲养的蚊子,这些蚊子通常缺乏野生种群的微生物多样性。这一领域的逻辑进展包括在受控环境下使用现场收集的蚊子或,在大多数情况下,他们的后代。因此,了解实验室定植如何影响蚊子微生物群的组合将有助于推进蚊子微生物组研究及其在实验室环境之外的应用。
方法:使用高通量16SrRNA扩增子测序,对来自危地马拉四个地点的野生成年按蚊的F1后代的内部和角质层表面微生物群进行了表征。共132只晚龄幼虫,135只2-5日龄,在相同的实验室条件下饲养的非血液喂养的成年雌性,汇总(3个人/池)并进行分析。
结果:结果显示F1幼虫内部(p=0.001;伪F=9.53)和角质层表面(p=0.001;伪F=8.51)微生物群的位置相关异质性,只有F1成人角质层表面(p=0.001;伪F=4.5)微生物群,在收集点具有更均匀的成人内部微生物群(p=0.12;伪F=1.6)。总的来说,ASV分配给了Leucobacter,Thorsellia,金杆菌和未鉴定的肠杆菌科,以F1幼虫内部微生物群为主,而Acidovorax,Paucibacter,和无特征的椰子树科,主导幼虫角质层表面。与幼虫相比,F1成虫的微生物群较少,将ASV分配给Asaia属,主导内部和角质层表面微生物群,在每个微生物生态位中至少占分类单元的70%。
结论:这些结果表明,在正常的实验室条件下,蚊子微生物群中特定位置的异质性可以转移到F1后代中。但是,如果不进行调整以维持田间微生物群,这可能不会持续到F1幼虫阶段。这些发现提供了实验室定殖F1An的第一个全面表征。来自野外母亲的albimanus后代。这为研究亲子关系和环境条件如何差异或同时影响蚊子的微生物组组成提供了背景。以及如何利用这一点来推进蚊子微生物组研究及其在实验室环境之外的应用。
BACKGROUND: Research on mosquito-microbe interactions may lead to new tools for mosquito and mosquito-borne disease control. To date, such research has largely utilized laboratory-reared mosquitoes that typically lack the microbial diversity of wild populations. A logical progression in this area involves working under controlled settings using field-collected mosquitoes or, in most cases, their progeny. Thus, an understanding of how laboratory colonization affects the assemblage of mosquito microbiota would aid in advancing mosquito microbiome studies and their applications beyond laboratory settings.
METHODS: Using high throughput 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, the internal and cuticle surface microbiota of F1 progeny of wild-caught adult Anopheles albimanus from four locations in Guatemala were characterized. A total of 132 late instar larvae and 135 2-5 day-old, non-blood-fed virgin adult females that were reared under identical laboratory conditions, were pooled (3 individuals/pool) and analysed.
RESULTS: Results showed location-associated heterogeneity in both F1 larval internal (p = 0.001; pseudo-F = 9.53) and cuticle surface (p = 0.001; pseudo-F = 8.51) microbiota, and only F1 adult cuticle surface (p = 0.001; pseudo-F = 4.5) microbiota, with a more homogenous adult internal microbiota (p = 0.12; pseudo-F = 1.6) across collection sites. Overall, ASVs assigned to Leucobacter, Thorsellia, Chryseobacterium and uncharacterized Enterobacteriaceae, dominated F1 larval internal microbiota, while Acidovorax, Paucibacter, and uncharacterized Comamonadaceae, dominated the larval cuticle surface. F1 adults comprised a less diverse microbiota compared to larvae, with ASVs assigned to the genus Asaia dominating both internal and cuticle surface microbiota, and constituting at least 70% of taxa in each microbial niche.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that location-specific heterogeneity in filed mosquito microbiota can be transferred to F1 progeny under normal laboratory conditions, but this may not last beyond the F1 larval stage without adjustments to maintain field-derived microbiota. These findings provide the first comprehensive characterization of laboratory-colonized F1 An. albimanus progeny from field-derived mothers. This provides a background for studying how parentage and environmental conditions differentially or concomitantly affect mosquito microbiome composition, and how this can be exploited in advancing mosquito microbiome studies and their applications beyond laboratory settings.