Microbiomes living within bodies and organs have been
studied extensively in fish as they influence greatly the health, bodily
functions and behaviours of that species depending on the community assemblage.
A reduction in an individual’s immune system can be caused by a consistent
turnover of microbes, a useful symbiont has a reduced abundance or becomes
outcompeted due to the appearance of a stronger competitor, the host’s fitness
and diet can then be affected depending on the function of the new microbe. This
explains the ‘niche-appropriation’ hypothesis, possibly leading to mass
mortalities. A contradictory hypothesis, ‘neutral theory’, states communities
have the same competitive strengths leading to local microbiome communities
representing the regional pool, overall. I agree there is less of an opinion
for the latter as not all environmental bacteria can accommodate to every
available niche hosts offer. Schmidt et al., (2015) explains these, consistently pulling on them in justifying
their results. This is limiting due to unknown abilities of dispersal distances
of microbes, they saturate across all oceans, making it hard to classify regional
pools.
Microbiome-host interactions is a very recent topic of
interest, including the appreciation of the importance of how they connect to
the surrounding environment in identifying and understanding changes in
assemblages and its effects, positive and negative. This type of study allows
scientists to understand how microbiomes affect host physiology and how the
community composition influences its function in relation to the host’s health.
The ion-balancing abilities in Euryhaline fish meant its perfect for salinity
studies as it can stabilize internal plasma and their gut salinity to ~7ppt,
accommodating the microbial regional pools.
Schmidt et al., (2015)
chose four salinities; 0.0ppt, 5.0ppt, 18.0ppt, 30.0ppt to acclimatise Poecilia sphenops to whilst controlling
their diets of tropical fish flakes. Each tank contained two fish, every four
tanks designated to a salinity, allowing for three microbiome community
comparison studies. First, the two-individual fish were compared, second,
paired fish were compared to pairs in other same salinity tanks producing local
community pools. Thirdly, different salinities were compared for local community
comparisons as different regional pools were present. Changes between fish microbiomes
was examined and compared to microbiomes within the water by filtering out the
bacteria to extract DNA. The V6 hypervariable region of the bacterial 16S rRNA
gene was used when amplifying DNA and Illumina HiSeq used to give paired-end
sequencing of DNA strands, clustering the data into operational taxonomic
units. By assigning habitat type and microbial identities, using ecological
distance metrics, the similarities and differences between the water, tissues
and salinity of the microbiome communities produced the result.
Their results found a change in the microbiome assemblage
within fish. As salinity gradient increased turnover of the few dominant, but
abundant, bacteria taxa occurred, yet, with some similarities, for example; Vibrio and Enterobacteriaceae were found in the two high salinity treatments
when Aeromonas and Cetobacterium with the two lowest
salinities. Fish in the same salinity tanks resulted in similar microbiomes, thus
confirming the ‘niche-appropriation’ hypotheses on colonization with niche
availability, not randomly, as the most abundant OTU in the fish did not
correspond to the most abundant in the water. Physiological processes within
the fish could also influence the assemblages.
This author states it is still not clear how community assemblages
form in relation to the connections from environmental pools yet their results
aid the growing research conducted of microbe-host interactions with seasons. To
me this paper provides a good insight into how microbial communities within
fish are pooled together in relation to habitat change, but is difficult to
understand how salinity effects fits into current research about seasonality.
It would be interesting to read the consequences of microbes found. I think
this would be a good base for future research into diseases caused by these
microbes with specific reference to aquaculture or humans.
Reviewed Article:
Schmidt, V. T., Smith, K. F., Melvin, D. W. &
Amaral-Zettler, L. A. (2015), Community assembly of a euryhaline fish microbiome
during salinity acclimation. Molecular
Ecology, 24(10), 2537–2550.
Hi Sophie,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this post.
I didn't quite get it, did authors access the microbiome within fish by tissue collection? What tissue type did they sample?
Thank you,
Anastasiia
Hi Anastasia,
ReplyDeleteI will summarise for you their methods. The authors wanted to assess the relative influence of stochastic versus deterministic processes in microbiomes. In order for them to see this they varied the salinity of the water the fish were acclimated to in order to manipulate what bacterial species will thrive. This allowed them to perform three ultimate comparisons; individual fish-individual fish (of the same salinity), pair-pair (of the same salinity) and then individual-water, overall they had 16 tanks each with two fish. This allowed them to see the local (fish) and regional (aquarium water) pool in order to determine if those in the water influenced those in the fish.
With collecting the DNA they sampled it from the entire fish body, not a specific tissue or organ in order to see the potential entire host community assembly. After the 12 days for acclimation they first euthanised the individuals in 10mg/mL MS-222 followed by rinsing using sterile 1X phosphate-buffered saline (PBS). This was followed by, using dissection scissors, homogenising the individual in 30mL of sterile 1X PBS, vortexing the homogenate in a sterile tube (50-mL) connected to a MoBio Vortex-Genie (10 minutes). This allows for the bacterial cells to be dissociated and filtered through a 5-μm polycarbonate filter which allows for the removal of the flesh. Spinning this filtrate at 16000g (10 minutes) to pellets the cells, followed by rinsing in 1X PBS and resuspended in double the volume (600μl) of Qiagen® PureGene Yeast/Bact Kit lysis buffer which DNA can then be extracted from. However, they did not state how they extracted it. For the water communities the DNA was also extracted using the same kit, however, filtered differently. One litre of water was passed through 0.2-μm Sterivex™ filters, not 5 μm which may have removed those bacteria grouped via quorum-sensing into biofilms to be removed as they stayed on the flesh. This could have caused bias in the fish microbiomes though, which could have easily been avoided by taking swabs, in my opinion. This was then frozen in order to perform nutrient analyses.
I hope this summary of their methods makes this clearer for you. I didn't include where they got the samples from as the authors used the whole fish, therefore I did not state it, otherwise I would have said the organ or tissue. Please say if you need anything further to be clarified.
Thank you,
Sophie,
Hi Sophie,
DeleteThank you so much for such a detailed reply! It is very clear now.
Anastasiia
Hi Sophie,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your post! Interesting that the change in salinity led to a change in microbial communities - did the authors mention if the change in microbiome community had an affect on the health of the fish? As this could potentially be applied to aquaculture.
Many thanks,
Sophie
Hi Sophie,
ReplyDeleteNo the authors didn't mention anything about the affect on the health of the fish unfortunately.
Thank you,
Sophie