DOCSLIB.ORG

Rooting Phylogenies

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rooting Phylogenies Rooting phylogenies Dissertation Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Doktor der Naturwissenschaften (Dr. rer. Nat.) in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences of the Christian-Albrechts University Kiel Submitted by Fernando Domingues Kümmel Tria Kiel, August 2018 1 2 First examiner: Prof. Dr. Tal Dagan Second examiner: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Haubold Date of the oral examination: 12.10.2018 3 4 Declaration I hereby declare that the thesis entitled “Rooting Phylogenies“ has been carried out in the Institute of General Microbiology at the Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany, under the guidance of Prof. Dr. Tal Dagan and Dr. Giddy Landan. The work is original and has not been submitted in part or full by me for any degree at any other University. I further declare that the material obtained from other sources has been duly acknowledged in the thesis. My work has been produced in compliance to the principles of good scientific practice in accordance with the guidelines of the German science foundation. Kiel, 01.08.2018 ___________________________ Fernando Domingues Kümmel Tria 5 6 Table of Contents 1 Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... 8 2 Zusammenfasung (abstract in German) .................................................................................... 9 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 10 4 Rooting trees with minimal ancestor deviation ......................................................................... 13 4.1 Results ............................................................................................................................. 13 4.1.1 Algorithm ................................................................................................................... 13 4.1.2 Performance ............................................................................................................. 16 4.2 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 20 4.3 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 21 4.3.1 Datasets preparation ................................................................................................. 21 4.3.2 Detailed algorithm ..................................................................................................... 22 5 Rooting species trees .............................................................................................................. 26 5.1 Terminology ..................................................................................................................... 26 5.2 Results ............................................................................................................................. 28 5.2.1 Demonstrative datasets ............................................................................................. 28 5.2.2 Phylogenomic rooting by majority rule ....................................................................... 28 5.2.3 The root support test for alternative root partitions .................................................... 31 5.2.4 Phylogenetic signal from partial and multi-copy gene trees ....................................... 38 5.2.5 Root inferences in biological datasets ....................................................................... 41 5.3 Conclusions ..................................................................................................................... 60 5.4 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 64 6 Outlook.................................................................................................................................... 65 7 References .............................................................................................................................. 66 8 Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................... 69 9 Supplementary ........................................................................................................................ 70 7 1 Abstract Ancestor-descendent relations play a cardinal role in evolutionary theory. Those relations are determined by rooting phylogenetic trees. Existing rooting methods are hampered by evolutionary rate heterogeneity among lineages or the unavailability of auxiliary phylogenetic information. In this thesis I propose two novel rooting approaches, each approach applicable to address different research questions. In section 4, I introduce a general method to infer the roots of phylogenetic trees, without assuming prior knowledge about phylogenetic relations among the studied lineages. The method, named Minimal Ancestor Deviation (MAD), takes as input any type of unrooted tree and infers the most likely root using branch length and topological information contained in the tree. When applied to biological datasets, I show that MAD is more accurate and more robust to known confounding factors than existing methods. In the next sections, I use Ancestor Deviations (r) in a phylogenomic context to infer the roots of species trees, using whole genomes for the inferences. The approach is grounded in a statistical framework that evaluates all candidate roots of the underlying species tree and formally tests the relative strength of competing root hypotheses. This phylogenomic rooting approach uses information from multiple gene trees and does not require knowledge of the species tree, making it suitable for root inferences even in face of reticulated evolution. When applied to biological datasets, our approaches reveal evidence for: 1) the origin of photosynthesis in the ocean; 2) the anaerobic and chemolithoautotrophic lifestyle of the last common ancestor of proteobacteria; and 3) the chimeric nature of modern archaea genomes. 8 2 Zusammenfasung (abstract in German) Die Beziehungen zwischen Vorfahren und ihren Nachfahren spielen eine entscheidende Rolle in der Evolutionstheorie. Diese Beziehungen werden durch die Bestimmung der Wurzeln von phylogenetischen Stammbäumen ermittelt. Solche Wurzeln können durch verschiedene Methoden festgelegt werden, deren Anwendung jedoch durch heterogene Evolutionsraten oder fehlende phylogenetische Information sehr eingeschränkt ist. In dieser Arbeit stelle ich zwei neue Wurzel-Methoden vor, welche auf unterschiedliche Fragestellungen anwendbar sind. Der erste Ansatz wird in Kapitel 4 dieser Arbeit vorgestellt und ist eine Methode zur generellen Bestimmung von phylogenetischen Wurzeln. Sie ist ohne Vorwissen über die zu untersuchenden Abstammungen anwendbar. Die neue Methode, genannt‚ Minimal Ancestor Deviation (kurz MAD), kann mit jeglicher Art von ungewurzeltem, phylogenetischem Baum durchgeführt werden. In der MAD-Methode wird mit Hilfe der Ast-Längen und topologischer Informationen des Stammbaumes die wahrscheinlichste Wurzel bestimmt. Ich zeige weiterhin, dass die MAD-Methode bei biologischen Daten ein genaueres Ergebnis produziert als bisherige Methoden und sich stabiler gegenüber Störfaktoren verhält. Im anschließenden Kapitel verwende ich die Vorfahren-Abweichungs-Statistik (Ancestor Deviations, r) in einem phylogenetischen Kontext um die Wurzel von Speziesbäumen anhand von kompletten Genomen zu bestimmen. Diese Methode basiert auf einem statistischen Vorgehen, bei welchem alle möglichen Wurzeln eines Stammbaumes direkt verglichen und evaluiert werden. Zur Bestimmung der Abstammungswurzel werden hier die Informationen von mehreren Genbäumen und nicht nur die einzelner Speziesbäume berücksichtigt. Dadurch ist diese Methode auch anwendbar, wenn eine netzartige Evolution vorliegt. Mit den neuen Methoden aus dieser Arbeit zeige ich abschließend, 1) dass der Ursprung von Photosynthese in den Ozeanen liegt, 2) dass der letzte gemeinsame Vorfahr von Proteobakterien eine anaerobe und chemolithoautotrophische Lebensweise hatte und 3) dass Archaeen chimäre Genome, zusammengesetzt aus unterschiedlichen Spezies, aufweisen. 9 3 Introduction Phylogenetic trees are used to describe and investigate the evolutionary relations between entities. A phylogenetic tree is an acyclic bifurcating graph whose topology is inferred from a comparison of the sampled entities. In the field of molecular evolution, phylogenetic trees are mostly reconstructed from DNA or protein sequences (Fitch and Margoliash 1967). Other types of data have also been used to reconstruct phylogenetic trees, including species phenotypic characteristics, biochemical makeup as well as language vocabularies (for a historical review see (Ragan 2009)). In most tree reconstruction methods the inferred phylogeny is unrooted, and the ancestral relations between the taxonomic units are not resolved. The determination of ancestor-descendant relations in an unrooted tree is achieved by the inference of a root node, which a priori can be located on any of the branches of the unrooted tree. The root represents the last common ancestor (LCA) from which all operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in the tree descended. Several root inference methods have been described in the literature, differing in the type of data that can be analyzed, the assumptions regarding
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Phylogenetic Rooting Using Minimal Ancestor Deviation
    Phylogenetic rooting using minimal ancestor deviation Fernando D. K. Tria1, Giddy Landan1*, Tal Dagan Genomic Microbiology Group, Institute of General Microbiology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany 1 Equally contributed. * Corresponding author: [email protected] This preprint PDF is the revised manuscript as submitted to Nature Ecology & Evolution on 30-Mar-2017. It includes both the main text and the supplementary information. The final version published in Nature Ecology & Evolution on 19-Jun-2017 (and submitted on 08-May-2017), is here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0193 Readers without subscription to NatE&E can see a read-only (no save or print) version here: http://rdcu.be/tywU The main difference between the versions is that the ‘Detailed Algorithm’ section is part of the main text 'Methods' section in the NatE&E final version, but is part of the supplementary information of this preprint version. Be sure to page beyond the references to see it. 1 Abstract Ancestor-descendent relations play a cardinal role in evolutionary theory. Those relatio ns are determined by rooting phylogenetic trees. Existing rooting methods are hampered by evolutionary rate heterogeneity or the unavailability of auxiliary phylogenetic information. We present a novel rooting approach, the minimal ancestor deviation (MAD) method, which embraces heterotachy by utilizing all pairwise topological and metric information in unrooted trees. We demonstrate the method in comparison to existing rooting methods by the analysis of phylogenies from eukaryotes and prokaryotes. MAD correctly recovers the kno wn root of eukaryotes and uncovers evidence for cyanobacteria origins in the ocean. MAD is more robust and co nsistent than existing methods, provides measures of the root inference quality, and is applicable to any tree with branch lengths.
    [Show full text]
  • Contrasting Environmental Preferences of Photosynthetic and Non-Photosynthetic Soil Cyanobacteria Across the Globe
    Received: 31 October 2019 | Revised: 8 July 2020 | Accepted: 20 July 2020 DOI: 10.1111/geb.13173 RESEARCH PAPER Contrasting environmental preferences of photosynthetic and non-photosynthetic soil cyanobacteria across the globe Concha Cano-Díaz1 | Fernando T. Maestre2,3 | David J. Eldridge4 | Brajesh K. Singh5,6 | Richard D. Bardgett7 | Noah Fierer8,9 | Manuel Delgado-Baquerizo10 1Departamento de Biología, Geología, Física y Química Inorgánica, Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, Móstoles, 28933, Spain 2Instituto Multidisciplinar para el Estudio del Medio “Ramón Margalef”, Universidad de Alicante, Edificio Nuevos Institutos, Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig s/n, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690, Spain 3Departamento de Ecología, Universidad de Alicante, Carretera de San Vicente del Raspeig s/n, San Vicente del Raspeig, 03690, Spain 4Centre for Ecosystem Science, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia 5Global Centre for Land-Based Innovation, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia 6Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia 7Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK 8Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA 9Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA 10Departamento de Sistemas Físicos, Químicos y Naturales, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Sevilla, 41013, Spain Correspondence Concha Cano-Díaz, Departamento de Abstract Biología, Geología, Física y Química Aim: Cyanobacteria have shaped the history of life on Earth and continue to play Inorgánica, Escuela Superior de Ciencias Experimentales y Tecnología, Universidad important roles as carbon and nitrogen fixers in terrestrial ecosystems.
    [Show full text]
  • Table S4. Phylogenetic Distribution of Bacterial and Archaea Genomes in Groups A, B, C, D, and X
    Table S4. Phylogenetic distribution of bacterial and archaea genomes in groups A, B, C, D, and X. Group A a: Total number of genomes in the taxon b: Number of group A genomes in the taxon c: Percentage of group A genomes in the taxon a b c cellular organisms 5007 2974 59.4 |__ Bacteria 4769 2935 61.5 | |__ Proteobacteria 1854 1570 84.7 | | |__ Gammaproteobacteria 711 631 88.7 | | | |__ Enterobacterales 112 97 86.6 | | | | |__ Enterobacteriaceae 41 32 78.0 | | | | | |__ unclassified Enterobacteriaceae 13 7 53.8 | | | | |__ Erwiniaceae 30 28 93.3 | | | | | |__ Erwinia 10 10 100.0 | | | | | |__ Buchnera 8 8 100.0 | | | | | | |__ Buchnera aphidicola 8 8 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pantoea 8 8 100.0 | | | | |__ Yersiniaceae 14 14 100.0 | | | | | |__ Serratia 8 8 100.0 | | | | |__ Morganellaceae 13 10 76.9 | | | | |__ Pectobacteriaceae 8 8 100.0 | | | |__ Alteromonadales 94 94 100.0 | | | | |__ Alteromonadaceae 34 34 100.0 | | | | | |__ Marinobacter 12 12 100.0 | | | | |__ Shewanellaceae 17 17 100.0 | | | | | |__ Shewanella 17 17 100.0 | | | | |__ Pseudoalteromonadaceae 16 16 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pseudoalteromonas 15 15 100.0 | | | | |__ Idiomarinaceae 9 9 100.0 | | | | | |__ Idiomarina 9 9 100.0 | | | | |__ Colwelliaceae 6 6 100.0 | | | |__ Pseudomonadales 81 81 100.0 | | | | |__ Moraxellaceae 41 41 100.0 | | | | | |__ Acinetobacter 25 25 100.0 | | | | | |__ Psychrobacter 8 8 100.0 | | | | | |__ Moraxella 6 6 100.0 | | | | |__ Pseudomonadaceae 40 40 100.0 | | | | | |__ Pseudomonas 38 38 100.0 | | | |__ Oceanospirillales 73 72 98.6 | | | | |__ Oceanospirillaceae
    [Show full text]
  • Within-Arctic Horizontal Gene Transfer As a Driver of Convergent Evolution in Distantly Related 1 Microalgae 2 Richard G. Do
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.07.31.454568; this version posted August 2, 2021. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 1 Within-Arctic horizontal gene transfer as a driver of convergent evolution in distantly related 2 microalgae 3 Richard G. Dorrell*+1,2, Alan Kuo3*, Zoltan Füssy4, Elisabeth Richardson5,6, Asaf Salamov3, Nikola 4 Zarevski,1,2,7 Nastasia J. Freyria8, Federico M. Ibarbalz1,2,9, Jerry Jenkins3,10, Juan Jose Pierella 5 Karlusich1,2, Andrei Stecca Steindorff3, Robyn E. Edgar8, Lori Handley10, Kathleen Lail3, Anna Lipzen3, 6 Vincent Lombard11, John McFarlane5, Charlotte Nef1,2, Anna M.G. Novák Vanclová1,2, Yi Peng3, Chris 7 Plott10, Marianne Potvin8, Fabio Rocha Jimenez Vieira1,2, Kerrie Barry3, Joel B. Dacks5, Colomban de 8 Vargas2,12, Bernard Henrissat11,13, Eric Pelletier2,14, Jeremy Schmutz3,10, Patrick Wincker2,14, Chris 9 Bowler1,2, Igor V. Grigoriev3,15, and Connie Lovejoy+8 10 11 1 Institut de Biologie de l'ENS (IBENS), Département de Biologie, École Normale Supérieure, CNRS, 12 INSERM, Université PSL, 75005 Paris, France 13 2CNRS Research Federation for the study of Global Ocean Systems Ecology and Evolution, 14 FR2022/Tara Oceans GOSEE, 3 rue Michel-Ange, 75016 Paris, France 15 3 US Department of Energy Joint Genome Institute, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 1 16 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley,
    [Show full text]
  • Supplemental Materials Adaptations of Atribacteria to Life In
    1 Supplemental Materials 2 Adaptations of Atribacteria to life in methane hydrates: hot traits for cold life 3 Authors: Jennifer B. Glass1*, Piyush Ranjan2*, Cecilia B. Kretz1#, Brook L. Nunn3, Abigail M. Johnson1, James McManus4, Frank J. Stewart2 4 Affiliations: 5 1School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA 6 2School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA 7 3Department of Genome Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 8 4Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, East Boothbay, ME, USA 9 10 #Now at: Division of Bacterial Diseases, National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 11 Atlanta, Georgia, USA 12 *Correspondence to: [email protected] 13 Dedication: To Katrina Edwards 14 1 15 Table S1. Additional geochemical data for ODP Site 1244 at Hydrate Ridge drilled on IODP Leg 204. 16 See Fig. 1 for methane, sulfate, manganese, iron, and iodide concentrations. 17 Depth reactive reactive Hole (mbsf) %TC %TN %TS %TIC %TOC C:N %CaCO3 Fe (%) Mn (%) C1H2 1.95/2.25 2.07 0.2 0.42 0.17 1.9 11.05 1.46 0.38 0.002 C1H3 3.45/3.75 1.88 0.14 0.55 0.70 1.2 9.85 5.81 0.45 0.004 F2H4 8.6 1.54 0.17 0.39 0.44 1.1 7.55 3.66 0.57 0.005 F3H4 18.1 1.55 0.24 0.64 0.08 1.5 7.14 0.68 0.80 0.004 C3H4 20.69 1.22 0.18 0.22 0.08 1.1 7.40 0.65 1.10 0.004 E10H5 68.55 1.71 0.22 0.42 0.13 1.6 8.38 1.08 0.51 0.003 E19H5 138.89 1.42 0.20 0.07 0.51 0.9 5.32 4.23 1.41 0.012 18 2 19 Table S2.
    [Show full text]
  • Compile.Xlsx
    Silva OTU GS1A % PS1B % Taxonomy_Silva_132 otu0001 0 0 2 0.05 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Acidobacteria_un;Acidobacteria_un;Acidobacteria_un;Acidobacteria_un; otu0002 0 0 1 0.02 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Acidobacteriia;Solibacterales;Solibacteraceae_(Subgroup_3);PAUC26f; otu0003 49 0.82 5 0.12 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Aminicenantia;Aminicenantales;Aminicenantales_fa;Aminicenantales_ge; otu0004 1 0.02 7 0.17 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;AT-s3-28;AT-s3-28_or;AT-s3-28_fa;AT-s3-28_ge; otu0005 1 0.02 0 0 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Blastocatellia_(Subgroup_4);Blastocatellales;Blastocatellaceae;Blastocatella; otu0006 0 0 2 0.05 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Holophagae;Subgroup_7;Subgroup_7_fa;Subgroup_7_ge; otu0007 1 0.02 0 0 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;ODP1230B23.02;ODP1230B23.02_or;ODP1230B23.02_fa;ODP1230B23.02_ge; otu0008 1 0.02 15 0.36 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_17;Subgroup_17_or;Subgroup_17_fa;Subgroup_17_ge; otu0009 9 0.15 41 0.99 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_21;Subgroup_21_or;Subgroup_21_fa;Subgroup_21_ge; otu0010 5 0.08 50 1.21 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_22;Subgroup_22_or;Subgroup_22_fa;Subgroup_22_ge; otu0011 2 0.03 11 0.27 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_26;Subgroup_26_or;Subgroup_26_fa;Subgroup_26_ge; otu0012 0 0 1 0.02 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_5;Subgroup_5_or;Subgroup_5_fa;Subgroup_5_ge; otu0013 1 0.02 13 0.32 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_6;Subgroup_6_or;Subgroup_6_fa;Subgroup_6_ge; otu0014 0 0 1 0.02 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_6;Subgroup_6_un;Subgroup_6_un;Subgroup_6_un; otu0015 8 0.13 30 0.73 Bacteria;Acidobacteria;Subgroup_9;Subgroup_9_or;Subgroup_9_fa;Subgroup_9_ge;
    [Show full text]
  • Analysis of Microbial Contamination of Household Water Purifiers
    Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology (2020) 104:4533–4545 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-020-10510-5 ENVIRONMENTAL BIOTECHNOLOGY Analysis of microbial contamination of household water purifiers Wenfang Lin1 & Chengsong Ye2 & Lizheng Guo 1,3 & Dong Hu1,3 & Xin Yu2 Received: 23 October 2019 /Revised: 13 February 2020 /Accepted: 28 February 2020 / Published online: 19 March 2020 # Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020 Abstract Household water purifiers are increasingly used to treat drinking water at the household level, but their influence on the microbiological safety of drinking water has rarely been assessed. In this study, representative purifiers, based on different filtering processes, were analyzed for their impact on effluent water quality. The results showed that purifiers reduced chemical qualities such as turbidity and free chlorine. However, a high level of bacteria (102–106 CFU/g)wasdetectedateachstageof filtration using a traditional culture-dependent method, whereas quantitative PCR with propidium monoazide (PMA) treatment showed 106–108 copies/L of total viable bacteria in effluent water, indicating elevated microbial contaminants after purifiers. In addition, high-throughput sequencing revealed a diverse microbial community in effluents and membranes. Proteobacteria (22.06–97.42%) was the dominant phylum found in all samples, except for purifier B, in which Melainabacteria was most abundant (65.79%). For waterborne pathogens, Escherichia coli (100–106 copies/g) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (100–105 copies/g) were frequently detected by qPCR. Sequencing also demonstrated the presence of E. coli (0–6.26%), Mycobacterium mucogenicum (0.01–3.46%), and P. aeruginosa (0–0.16%) in purifiers. These finding suggest that water from commonly used household purifiers still impose microbial risks to human health.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrogen-Based Metabolism – an Ancestral Trait in Lineages Sibling to the Cyanobacteria 2 3 Paula B
    bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/328856; this version posted May 25, 2018. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission. 1 Hydrogen-based metabolism – an ancestral trait in lineages sibling to the Cyanobacteria 2 3 Paula B. Matheus Carnevali^1, Frederik Schulz^2, Cindy J. Castelle1, Rose Kantor1,13, Patrick 4 Shih3,4,14, Itai Sharon1,15,16, Joanne M. Santini5, Matthew Olm6, Yuki Amano7,8, Brian C. 5 Thomas1, Karthik Anantharaman1,17, David Burstein1,18, Eric D. Becraft9, Ramunas 6 Stepanauskas9, Tanja Woyke2 and Jillian F. Banfield*1,6,10,11,12 7 8 9 ^Contributed equally 10 *Corresponding Author ([email protected]) 11 12 13 14 1Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 15 2DOE Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA, USA. 16 3Feedstocks Division, Joint BioEnergy Institute, Emeryville, CA, USA. 17 4Environmental Genomics and Systems Biology Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, 18 USA. 19 5Institute of Structural & Molecular Biology, Division of Biosciences, University College London, London, UK. 20 6Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. 21 7Nuclear Fuel Cycle Engineering Laboratories, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Tokai, Ibaraki, Japan. 22 8Horonobe Underground Research Center, Japan Atomic Energy Agency, Horonobe, Hokkaido, Japan. 23 9Bigelow Laboratory for Ocean Sciences, East Boothbay, ME, USA. 24 10Earth Sciences Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, California, USA. 25 11Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA, USA. 26 12Innovative Genomics Institute, Berkley, CA, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Sex, Age, and Bacteria: How the Intestinal Microbiota Is Modulated in a Protandrous Hermaphrodite Fish
    fmicb-10-02512 October 29, 2019 Time: 16:10 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 31 October 2019 doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02512 Sex, Age, and Bacteria: How the Intestinal Microbiota Is Modulated in a Protandrous Hermaphrodite Fish M. Carla Piazzon1*, Fernando Naya-Català2, Paula Simó-Mirabet2, Amparo Picard-Sánchez1, Francisco J. Roig3,4, Josep A. Calduch-Giner2, Ariadna Sitjà-Bobadilla1 and Jaume Pérez-Sánchez2* 1 Fish Pathology Group, Institute of Aquaculture Torre de la Sal (CSIC), Castellón, Spain, 2 Nutrigenomics and Fish Growth Endocrinology Group, Institute of Aquaculture Torre de la Sal (CSIC), Castellón, Spain, 3 Biotechvana S.L., Valencia, Spain, 4 Instituto de Medicina Genomica, S.L., Valencia, Spain Intestinal microbiota is key for many host functions, such as digestion, nutrient metabolism, disease resistance, and immune function. With the growth of the Edited by: aquaculture industry, there has been a growing interest in the manipulation of fish Malka Halpern, gut microbiota to improve welfare and nutrition. Intestinal microbiota varies with many University of Haifa, Israel factors, including host species, genetics, developmental stage, diet, environment, and Reviewed by: Zhigang Zhou, sex. The aim of this study was to compare the intestinal microbiota of adult gilthead sea Feed Research Institute (CAAS), bream (Sparus aurata) from three groups of age and sex (1-year-old males and 2- and China Luis Caetano Martha Antunes, 4-year-old females) maintained under the same conditions and fed exactly the same National School of Public Health, diet. Microbiota diversity and richness did not differ among groups. However, bacterial Brazil composition did, highlighting the presence of Photobacterium and Vibrio starting at *Correspondence: 2 years of age (females) and a higher presence of Staphylococcus and Corynebacterium M.
    [Show full text]
  • S41598-017-07241-5.Pdf
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN In silico analyses of conservational, functional and phylogenetic distribution of the LuxI and LuxR Received: 16 December 2016 Accepted: 26 June 2017 homologs in Gram-positive bacteria Published online: 10 August 2017 Akanksha Rajput & Manoj Kumar LuxI and LuxR are key factors that drive quorum sensing (QS) in bacteria through secretion and perception of the signaling molecules e.g. N-Acyl homoserine lactones (AHLs). The role of these proteins is well established in Gram-negative bacteria for intercellular communication but remain under-explored in Gram-positive bacteria where QS peptides are majorly responsible for cell-to- cell communication. Therefore, in the present study, we explored conservation, potential function, topological arrangements and evolutionarily aspects of these proteins in Gram-positive bacteria. Putative LuxI/LuxR containing proteins were retrieved using the domain-based strategy from InterPro v62.0 meta-database. Conservational analyses via multiple sequence alignment and domain showed that these are well conserved in Gram-positive bacteria and possess relatedness with Gram- negative bacteria. Further, Gene ontology and ligand-based functional annotation explain their active involvement in signal transduction mechanism via QS signaling molecules. Moreover, Phylogenetic analyses (LuxI, LuxR, LuxI + LuxR and 16s rRNA) revealed horizontal gene transfer events with signifcant statistical support among Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. This in-silico study ofers a detailed overview of potential LuxI/LuxR distribution in Gram-positive bacteria (mainly Firmicutes and Actinobacteria) and their functional role in QS. It would further help in understanding the extent of interspecies communications between Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria through QS signaling molecules.
    [Show full text]
  • Crown Group Oxyphotobacteria Postdate the Rise Of
    360 Appendix 5 CROWN GROUP OXYPHOTOBACTERIA POSTDATE THE RISE OF OXYGEN Patrick M. Shih, James Hemp, Lewis M. Ward, Nicholas J. Matzke, and Woodward W. Fischer. “Crown group Oxyphotobacteria postdate the rise of oxygen." Geobiology 15.1 (2017): 19-29. DOI: 10.1111/gbi.12200 Abstract: The rise of oxygen ca. 2.3 billion years ago (Ga) is the most distinct environmental transition in Earth history. This event was enabled by the evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis in the ancestors of Cyanobacteria. However, longstanding questions concern the evolutionary timing of this metabolism, with conflicting answers spanning more than one billion years. Recently, knowledge of the Cyanobacteria phylum has expanded with the discovery of non-photosynthetic members, including a closely related sister group termed Melainabacteria, with the known oxygenic phototrophs restricted to a clade recently designated Oxyphotobacteria. By integrating genomic data from the Melainabacteria, cross-calibrated Bayesian relaxed molecular clock analyses show that crown group Oxyphotobacteria evolved ca. 2.0 billion years ago (Ga), well after the rise of atmospheric dioxygen. We further estimate the divergence between Oxyphotobacteria and Melainabacteria ca. 2.5-2.6 Ga, which—if oxygenic photosynthesis is an evolutionary synapomorphy of the Oxyphotobacteria—marks an upper limit for the origin of oxygenic 361 photosynthesis. Together these results are consistent with the hypothesis that oxygenic photosynthesis evolved relatively close in time to the rise of oxygen. Introduction: Oxygenic photosynthesis was responsible for the most profound environmental shift in Earth history: the rise of oxygen. It was long recognized that this metabolism evolved in the Cyanobacteria phylum, and that this unique ability was a necessary precondition for the rise of oxygen at ca.
    [Show full text]
  • Supplementary Tables for Photosynthesis Is Not a Universal
    Supplementary Tables for Photosynthesis is not a Universal Feature of the Phylum Cyanobacteria Rochelle M. Soo, Connor T. Skennerton, Yuji Sekiguchi, Michael Imelfort, Samuel J. Paech, Paul G. Dennis, Jason A. Steen, Donovan H. Parks, Gene W. Tyson, and Philip Hugenholtz† † Correspondence to: Philip Hugenholtz, [email protected] Table S1. Sequencing statistics EBPR1_T1 to EBPR1_T6 and EBPR2_T1 to EBPR2_T3 (blue) correspond to the nine samples collected from two enhanced biological phosphorous removal bioreactor (EBPR), Zag_T1 to Zag_T3 (red) correspond to the three time points where samples were collected from koala feces, MH_F2, F3, F5, F6, F8, M3 and M8 correspond to human feces collected from seven Danish females and males (http://www.metahit.eu/) (purple) and A1, A2, F1 and F2 from the UASB (green). The combined assembly statistics is the amount of sequencing performed for all of the samples collected from EBPR, koala feces, Danish individuals or UASB. Genome population bins is the number of genome bins that was produced by GroopM v.1.0. The N50 is for all of the combined metagenomic data for each sample. Combined shotgun sequencing assembly statistics for GroopM Mate pair sequencing Sample ID Sampling Shotgun sequence (Gbp) Number N50 Genome Mate pair Insert size Date of population sequencing (kbp) contigs bins (Gbp) EBPR1_T1 05/27/11 26.2 (174,720,232 x 150bp) 148,338 1.4 kbp 299 4.88 3.2-3.8 EBPR1_T2 06/22/11 21.49 (143,317,626 x 150bp) EBPR1_T3 08/01/11 23.76 (158,451,996 x 150bp) EBPR1_T4 09/08/11 38.01 (253,461,380 x 150bp)
    [Show full text]