Skip to main content
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Issues
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Editor's Picks
    • Special Series: Sponsored Minireviews and Video Abstracts
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Novel Systems Biology Techniques
    • Early-Career Systems Microbiology Perspectives
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics
  • About the Journal
    • About mSystems
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mSystems
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Issues
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Editor's Picks
    • Special Series: Sponsored Minireviews and Video Abstracts
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Novel Systems Biology Techniques
    • Early-Career Systems Microbiology Perspectives
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics
  • About the Journal
    • About mSystems
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Special Issue Perspective | Host-Microbe Biology

Microbiomes In Natura: Importance of Invertebrates in Understanding the Natural Variety of Animal-Microbe Interactions

Jillian M. Petersen, Jay Osvatic
Jillian M. Petersen
aDepartment of Microbiology and Ecosystem Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jillian M. Petersen
Jay Osvatic
aDepartment of Microbiology and Ecosystem Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00179-17
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Animals evolved in a world teeming with microbes, which play pivotal roles in their health, development, and evolution. Although the overwhelming majority of living animals are invertebrates, the minority of “microbiome” studies focus on this group. Interest in invertebrate-microbe interactions is 2-fold—a range of immune components are conserved across almost all animal (including human) life, and their functional roles may be conserved. Thus, understanding cross talk between microbes and invertebrate animals can lead to insights of broader relevance. Invertebrates offer unique opportunities to “eavesdrop” on intricate host-microbe conversations because they tend to associate with fewer microbes. On the other hand, considering the vast diversity of form and function that has evolved in the invertebrates, they likely evolved an equally diverse range of ways to interact with beneficial microbes. We have investigated only a few of these interactions in detail; thus, there is still great potential for fundamentally new discoveries.

mSystems® vol. 3, no. 2, is a special issue sponsored by Janssen Human Microbiome Institute (JHMI).

PERSPECTIVE

Microbes evolved billions of years before animals; thus, all animals evolved among and with the teeming world of microbes in their environment. It should be self-evident that these microbes, with us since the dawn of our evolutionary history, have directed our evolution as much as any physical or chemical aspect of our environment. However, the “microbiome revolution” has only recently brought microbes’ beneficial roles widespread appreciation. In this Perspective, we define microbiome as the characteristic microbial community occupying the host-associated niche, according to Whipps et al. (1).

EXCITING TIMES FOR MICROBIOLOGY AND SYMBIOSIS RESEARCH

Life as we know it would not exist without the profound impact of beneficial host-microbe interactions. As Lynn Margulis, influential thinker and champion of the endosymbiosis theory for the origin of eukaryotes, elegantly remarked, “Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking” (2). There is now overwhelming evidence that life could not persist without the beneficial activities of microbes that underpin virtually every aspect of plant and animal biology, including human biology (3). The field of animal microbiome research, which aims to understand how microbes drive animal health, development, function, and evolution, has exploded in the past 5 years (Fig. 1). In a recent blog post, Kolter and Schaechter called this the “most exciting time in the history of microbiology” (4). This is clearly also an exciting time for symbiosis research, as beneficial microbes have never had a more prominent position in biology, medicine, and public interest. So far, we have investigated host-microbe interactions in detail in only a few (model) animals, and those studies have been grossly skewed toward vertebrates (see, e.g., Fig. S1 in the supplemental material). Thus, there is still enormous potential for discovering fundamentally new modes and mechanisms of interaction among the plethora of (non-model) animals and their microbial symbionts in nature.

FIG S1

Distribution of all host-associated samples from the Earth Microbiome Project according to origin (invertebrate plant, unknown, vertebrate). Download FIG S1, PDF file, 0 MB.
Copyright © 2018 Petersen and Osvatic.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

(A) The microbiome field has exploded in recent years. This graph shows the number of publications per year since the first appearance in 2002 of the term “microbiome.” (Source: ISI web of knowledge [https://webofknowledge.com/].) *, numbers for 2017 represent data from the period up to 4 December. (B) Invertebrate microbiomes are simpler than vertebrate microbiomes. These box plots show the numbers of unique tag sequences detected in samples of various categories. Categories were defined by the Earth Microbiome Project (http://www.earthmicrobiome.org/), which used a Deblur reference-free method of clustering sequences (15). In this data set of hundreds of samples, there is a clear trend toward simpler microbiomes in invertebrates containing fewer microbial sequences per individual. Intriguingly, the surfaces of vertebrate animals (right panel) and invertebrate animals (left panel) mostly appear to host similar numbers of different microbes. Despite the massive sampling effort of this extensive survey, there are differences in sampling methods and efforts between studies of vertebrates and invertebrates and a bias toward particular phylogenetic groups in both categories (see Fig. S2). Numbers in brackets indicate the number of samples in each category.

FIG S2

Distribution of the Earth Microbiome Project invertebrate-associated samples, according to scientific names of the host animals, as defined by the Earth Microbiome Project. Download FIG S2, PDF file, 0 MB.
Copyright © 2018 Petersen and Osvatic.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Although most “microbiome” studies performed to date focused on vertebrates such as mice and humans, the vast majority of animal diversity is in the so-called “spineless majority,” the invertebrates. Their biodiversity is so extraordinary that, by some estimates, only 3% of animal species alive on Earth today are not invertebrates (5). The other 97% are insects, crabs, worms, clams, snails, comb jellies, corals, lobsters, sea urchins, spiders, and any of a range of other such life forms lacking a vertebral column. Despite their overwhelming dominance of the biosphere, we would wager that, if asked, a nonexpert would be able to name more vertebrate species than invertebrate. Humans and all other vertebrates share much of their basic biology with invertebrates. For example, both use the ancient innate immune system to interact with the microbes in their bodies and their environment. The innate immune system emerged early in metazoan evolution and is thus conserved across virtually all animal life. Its dysfunction is the cause of many human diseases; therefore, mechanisms of cross talk between microbes and the innate immune system are of broad interest and may be widely conserved.

MICROBIOMES OF THE “SPINELESS MAJORITY”

Although they face an array of diverse microbes in their natural environments, a surprisingly large range of invertebrates have evolved exclusive associations with only one or a few microbial types. For example, of the 30 million insect species that possibly exist on Earth, 1 in 5 may harbor intracellular bacterial symbionts (6). Microbial symbionts and their invertebrate hosts associate faithfully over their lifetimes, across generations, and over evolution. Hosts and symbionts diverge and often reproduce, evolve, and speciate in concert. The microbes can form profuse “pure cultures” in or on the body of the host, reaching densities sometimes higher than Escherichia coli achieves in rich culture media (7). These observations raise two key questions. (i) How can these invertebrate animals, which lack the “memory” function of the antibody-based adaptive immune system, achieve this extraordinary specificity? (ii) How do they maintain such strict control over the growth and division of this massive population of microbes, which sometimes start off as a miniscule population of only a few cells?

Answers are beginning to emerge from a number of experimental host-microbe models. Binary associations, where one animal species hosts one prominent microbial symbiont species, have been a source of major breakthroughs in understanding the molecular basis of beneficial host-microbe interactions. For example, the association between marine bobtail squid and bioluminescent Vibrio bacteria, one of the best-known experimental models of symbiosis, has revealed the key roles of diverse components of the innate immune system in host-microbe communication and the profound influence of bacterial symbionts on the animal’s development and circadian rhythms (8, 9). Such intimate associations with specific microbes could leave evolutionary imprints on the host’s immune biology. However, with a few exceptions, the general effects of these prominent one-to-one symbioses on how these animals interact with other microbes, for example, those in their digestive tracts or on their outer surface, are still poorly understood, as is their influence on immune system evolution. One exception is the pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum, which shows evidence of immune system degeneration, possibly linked to its association with intracellular symbionts (10).

THE UNIQUE ADVANTAGES OF INVERTEBRATE MODELS

Our ever-more-detailed picture of life’s inner molecular workings, a product of a century of work on model organisms, has logically come at the cost of a broad view of the range of biological solutions that have evolved in nature to allow animals and microbes to live a cooperative existence. Invertebrates have (at least) two outstanding features that make them ideal for understanding this variety. First, invertebrate microbiomes tend to be far simpler than vertebrate microbiomes. There has been some debate about this assertion, possibly because some invertebrates such as corals, sponges, and termites are known to host highly complex microbiomes, and also because systematic studies that generate truly comparable data are rare (11–14). We have reexamined this theory using data from the most extensive microbiome survey to date, the Earth Microbiome Project. These data are highly comparable thanks to the use of standard experimental and analysis methods (15). Our analysis confirms that microbiomes of invertebrates are generally simpler than those of vertebrates (Fig. 1). This means that fewer microbes associate with invertebrate individuals than with vertebrate individuals; thus, the molecular dialog between the host and individual members of its microbiome, a prerequisite to establishing and maintaining such specific and long-term partnerships, can be more easily deciphered in invertebrates.

Second, just as the invertebrates represent rich natural diversity, they have evolved virtually every known type of beneficial host-microbe interaction. The microbial symbionts can be passed strictly from parent to offspring (vertical transmission) or be taken up strictly from the environment during development (horizontal transmission) or participate in a mixture of the two (16). The association can be obligate for both host and microbe or optional (termed “facultative”) for either partner at certain stages of development. Invertebrates have also evolved a multitude of solutions to the problem of housing microbial symbionts. The symbionts can be hosted outside or inside the body. If they are inside, they can be found outside host cells or, in a uniquely intimate form of symbiosis, inside cells exclusively dedicated to housing symbionts. So far, all known examples of intracellular symbioses except one have been found in invertebrates (17). In summary, for virtually every conceptual issue concerning host-microbe research, there is an invertebrate in which it could be investigated.

Paradoxically, intracellular associations are not always obligate for both partners despite their advanced level of cellular integration. There are many examples of marine invertebrate animals with intracellular symbionts that are taken up from the environment during development. Many of these are chemosynthetic symbioses, where symbiotic chemosynthetic bacteria transform reduced, sometimes toxic chemicals in the environment into a rich source of nutrition for their hosts (18). It is often assumed that these symbionts have active, free-living forms. For some animals such as the deep-sea Riftia tubeworms, symbionts were recently shown to escape dead hosts to seed the environment with presumably active free-living forms (19). For others, such as Bathymodiolus mussels, the symbionts likely disperse in a dormant or inactive state because they have lost central metabolic enzymes (20). Intracellular symbioses are of major evolutionary significance—the remnants of ancient alphaproteobacterial invaders exist today as mitochondria in virtually every animal cell (21). Intracellular bacteria were long thought to be invisible to the immune system, but discoveries such as that of the expression of specific receptors for microbial components in animal cell nuclei are calling this assumption into question (22). In addition, when these symbionts are taken up from the environment, their journey into host cells must bring them in contact with the host’s immune system; however, there is so far no experimental system in which beneficial intracellular bacterial symbionts infect an animal host from the environment where this infection process could be studied.

Intracellular chemosynthetic symbioses offer unique opportunities for understanding the molecular underpinnings of beneficial host-microbe interactions. Like those in the squid-Vibrio model, their microbiomes are naturally very simple—most hosts associate with one or only a few symbiont species. Recent breakthroughs in cultivating the symbionts promise a new era in understanding how these intimate and sometimes ancient symbioses are established (23). Some of the host animals can also be cultivated and experimentally manipulated in the laboratory. For example, lucinid clams were raised aposymbiotically several years before Euprymna scolopes, and yet their reciprocal molecular interactions upon “first contact” are still completely unknown (24) (Fig. 2). In addition, symbiont loss can be experimentally induced, by depriving adult lucinids of their symbionts’ energy sources. The symbiosis can be restored by returning the clams to their native habitat, where free-living symbionts colonize the sediments (25). The symbiosis can also be restored in the laboratory by adding symbiont cells harvested from freshly collected adults. Surprisingly, recent research suggests that these essentially aposymbiotic adults can reestablish symbiosis only with the symbiont strain with which they had previously associated before symbiont loss and that highly similar (but not identical) strains fail to colonize these hosts (26). This represents a striking contrast to the behavior of the juveniles, which are competent to establish symbiosis with any one of a range of different symbiont strains (27). These experiments show tantalizing indications of shifts in symbiosis flexibility occurring during animal development which mirror the early development of human microbiomes (28). They also raise the sensational idea that these invertebrate animals might have a specific immune “memory” function, which would throw into question our current understanding of the function and specificity of the innate immune system.

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Some marine invertebrates such as lucinid clams host a massive population consisting of an almost pure culture of bacteria in their tissues. (A) The natural habitat of the clams around seagrass beds in the Mediterranean Sea (photo courtesy of Ulisse Cardini). (B) These clams (about 1 cm in length) have an almost transparent shell through which the symbiont-hosting organ, the gill, can be clearly seen (photo courtesy of Ulisse Cardini). (C) Fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) performed with probes specific for the symbionts showed that epithelial cells of the gill filaments are packed with symbiotic bacteria (insert photo courtesy of Marc Mussmann; FISH image courtesy of Anna Kemper).

Nobel laureate and biochemist Jacques Monod famously quipped that “anything true of E. coli must also be true of elephants,” but when it comes to the microbiome, even within a single species, each individual can host its own unique microbial ecosystem (29, 30). Individual differences matter. For example, the field of human medicine is waking up to the importance of interpersonal differences, which cause many drugs to be highly effective in some patients and ineffective or even harmful in others (31). These differences are thought to be due to diversity in the underlying molecular causes of disease and to the influence of each person’s diverse and yet unique set of microbial partners (32). In the future, we will likely discover that many of the mechanisms at work in host-microbe interactions are widely conserved across vast phylogenetic and evolutionary spaces. However, the magnificent diversity of modes of host-microbe interactions in the invertebrates demonstrates that major differences in the underlying mechanisms, even in closely related organisms, are likely. We now have a range of “omics” technologies to investigate non-model (symbiotic) organisms in remarkable molecular detail, even if methods for genetic manipulation are not always available. Embracing the idea of the range of diverse host-microbe associations in nature will lead to a much better understanding of the varied mechanisms by which microbes drive animal health, development, and evolution.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

The Petersen laboratory is supported by a Vienna Research Groups for Young Investigators grant from the Vienna Science and Technology Fund (WWTF).

FOOTNOTES

    • Received November 10, 2017.
    • Accepted December 18, 2017.
  • Copyright © 2018 Petersen and Osvatic.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Whipps JM,
    2. Lewis K,
    3. Cooke RC
    . 1988. Mycoparasitism and plant disease control, p 161–187. Burge MN (ed), Fungi and biological control systems. Manchester University Press, Manchester, United Kingdom.
  2. 2.↵
    1. Margulis L,
    2. Sagan D
    . 1997. Microcosmos: four billion years of evolution from our microbial ancestors. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
  3. 3.↵
    1. McFall-Ngai M,
    2. Hadfield MG,
    3. Bosch TCG,
    4. Carey HV,
    5. Domazet-Lošo T,
    6. Douglas AE,
    7. Dubilier N,
    8. Eberl G,
    9. Fukami T,
    10. Gilbert SF,
    11. Hentschel U,
    12. King N,
    13. Kjelleberg S,
    14. Knoll AH,
    15. Kremer N,
    16. Mazmanian SK,
    17. Metcalf JL,
    18. Nealson K,
    19. Pierce NE,
    20. Rawls JF,
    21. Reid A,
    22. Ruby EG,
    23. Rumpho M,
    24. Sanders JG,
    25. Tautz D,
    26. Wernegreen JJ
    . 2013. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:3229–3236. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218525110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Schaechter M,
    2. Kolter R
    . 3 November 017. Celebrating Woese – forty years and entirely new views of the microbial world. Small Things Considered. http://schaechter.asmblog.org/schaechter/2017/11/celebrating-woese-forty-years-and-entirely-new-views-of-the-microbial-world.html.
  5. 5.↵
    1. May RM
    . 1988. How many species are there on Earth? Science 241:1441–1449. doi:10.1126/science.241.4872.1441.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Douglas AE
    . 2011. Lessons from studying insect symbioses. Cell Host Microbe 10:359–367. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2011.09.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    1. Duperron S,
    2. Quiles A,
    3. Szafranski KM,
    4. Léger N,
    5. Shillito B
    . 2016. Estimating symbiont abundances and gill surface areas in specimens of the hydrothermal vent mussel Bathymodiolus puteoserpentis maintained in pressure vessels. Front Mar Sci 3:16. doi:10.3389/fmars.2016.00016.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. McFall-Ngai MJ
    . 2014. The importance of microbes in animal development: lessons from the squid-Vibrio symbiosis. Annu Rev Microbiol 68:177–194. doi:10.1146/annurev-micro-091313-103654.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. McFall-Ngai M,
    2. Heath-Heckman EAC,
    3. Gillette AA,
    4. Peyer SM,
    5. Harvie EA
    . 2012. The secret languages of coevolved symbioses: insights from the Euprymna scolopes-Vibrio fischeri symbiosis. Semin Immunol 24:3–8. doi:10.1016/j.smim.2011.11.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Douglas AE,
    2. Bouvaine S,
    3. Russell RR
    . 2011. How the insect immune system interacts with an obligate symbiotic bacterium. Proc Biol Sci 278:333–338. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1563.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Nyholm SV,
    2. Graf J
    . 2012. Knowing your friends: invertebrate innate immunity fosters beneficial bacterial symbioses. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:815–827. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2894.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Brune A
    . 2006. Symbiotic associations between termites and prokaryotes, p 439–472. In Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer KH, Stackebrandt E (ed), The prokaryotes, 3rd ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
  13. 13.↵
    1. Ainsworth TD,
    2. Krause L,
    3. Bridge T,
    4. Torda G,
    5. Raina JB,
    6. Zakrzewski M,
    7. Gates RD,
    8. Padilla-Gamiño JL,
    9. Spalding HL,
    10. Smith C,
    11. Woolsey ES,
    12. Bourne DG,
    13. Bongaerts P,
    14. Hoegh-Guldberg O,
    15. Leggat W
    . 2015. The coral core microbiome identifies rare bacterial taxa as ubiquitous endosymbionts. ISME J 9:2261–2274. doi:10.1038/ismej.2015.39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Webster NS,
    2. Taylor MW,
    3. Behnam F,
    4. Lücker S,
    5. Rattei T,
    6. Whalan S,
    7. Horn M,
    8. Wagner M
    . 2010. Deep sequencing reveals exceptional diversity and modes of transmission for bacterial sponge symbionts. Environ Microbiol 12:2070–2082. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02065.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  15. 15.↵
    1. Thompson LR,
    2. Sanders JG,
    3. McDonald D,
    4. Amir A,
    5. Ladau J,
    6. Locey KJ,
    7. Prill RJ,
    8. Tripathi A,
    9. Gibbons SM,
    10. Ackermann G,
    11. Navas-Molina JA,
    12. Janssen S,
    13. Kopylova E,
    14. Vázquez-Baeza Y,
    15. González A,
    16. Morton JT,
    17. Mirarab S,
    18. Xu ZZ,
    19. Jiang L,
    20. Haroon MF,
    21. Kanbar J,
    22. Zhu Q,
    23. Song SJ,
    24. Kosciolek T,
    25. Bokulich NA,
    26. Lefler J,
    27. Brislawn CJ,
    28. Humphrey G,
    29. Owens SM,
    30. Hampton-Marcell J,
    31. Berg-Lyons D,
    32. McKenzie V,
    33. Fierer N,
    34. Fuhrman JA,
    35. Clauset A,
    36. Stevens RL,
    37. Shade A,
    38. Pollard KS,
    39. Goodwin KD,
    40. Jansson JK,
    41. Gilbert JA,
    42. Knight R; Earth Microbiome Project Consortium
    . 2017. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551:457–463. doi:10.1038/nature24621.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Bright M,
    2. Bulgheresi S
    . 2010. A complex journey: transmission of microbial symbionts. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:218–230. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2262.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  17. 17.↵
    1. Kerney R,
    2. Kim E,
    3. Hangarter RP,
    4. Heiss AA,
    5. Bishop CD,
    6. Hall BK
    . 2011. Intracellular invasion of green algae in a salamander host. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:6497–6502. doi:10.1073/pnas.1018259108.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  18. 18.↵
    1. Dubilier N,
    2. Bergin C,
    3. Lott C
    . 2008. Symbiotic diversity in marine animals: the art of harnessing chemosynthesis. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:725–740. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1992.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    1. Klose J,
    2. Polz MF,
    3. Wagner M,
    4. Schimak MP,
    5. Gollner S,
    6. Bright M
    . 2015. Endosymbionts escape dead hydrothermal vent tubeworms to enrich the free-living population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:11300–11305. doi:10.1073/pnas.1501160112.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  20. 20.↵
    1. Ponnudurai R,
    2. Kleiner M,
    3. Sayavedra L,
    4. Petersen JM,
    5. Moche M,
    6. Otto A,
    7. Becher D,
    8. Takeuchi T,
    9. Satoh N,
    10. Dubilier N,
    11. Schweder T,
    12. Markert S
    . 2017. Metabolic and physiological interdependencies in the Bathymodiolus azoricus symbiosis. ISME J 11:463–477. doi:10.1038/ismej.2016.124.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  21. 21.↵
    1. Roger AJ,
    2. Muñoz-Gómez SA,
    3. Kamikawa R
    . 2017. The origin and diversification of mitochondria. Curr Biol 27:R1177–R1192. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2017.09.015.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Troll JV,
    2. Adin DM,
    3. Wier AM,
    4. Paquette N,
    5. Silverman N,
    6. Goldman WE,
    7. Stadermann FJ,
    8. Stabb EV,
    9. McFall-Ngai MJ
    . 2009. Peptidoglycan induces loss of a nuclear PGRP during host tissue development in a beneficial animal–bacterial symbiosis. Cell Microbiol 11:1114–1127. doi:10.1111/j.1462-5822.2009.01315.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Distel DL,
    2. Altamia MA,
    3. Lin Z,
    4. Shipway JR,
    5. Han A,
    6. Forteza I,
    7. Antemano R,
    8. Limbaco MGJP,
    9. Tebo AG,
    10. Dechavez R,
    11. Albano J,
    12. Rosenberg G,
    13. Concepcion GP,
    14. Schmidt EW,
    15. Haygood MG
    . 2017. Discovery of chemoautotrophic symbiosis in the giant shipworm Kuphus polythalamia (Bivalvia: Teredinidae) extends wooden-steps theory. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:E3652–E3658. doi:10.1073/pnas.1620470114.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    1. Alatalo P,
    2. Berg CJ, Jr,
    3. D’Asaro CN
    . 1984. Reproduction and development in the lucinid clam Codakia orbicularis (Linne, 1758). Bull Mar Sci 34:424–434.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    1. Gros O,
    2. Elisabeth NH,
    3. Gustave SD,
    4. Caro A,
    5. Dubilier N
    . 2012. Plasticity of symbiont acquisition throughout the life cycle of the shallow-water tropical lucinid Codakia orbiculata (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Environ Microbiol 14:1584–1595. doi:10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02748.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    1. Brissac T,
    2. Higuet D,
    3. Gros O,
    4. Merçot H
    . 2016. Unexpected structured intraspecific diversity of thioautotrophic bacterial gill endosymbionts within the Lucinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia). Mar Biol 163:176. doi:10.1007/s00227-016-2949-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  27. 27.↵
    1. Gros O,
    2. Liberge M,
    3. Felbeck H
    . 2003. Interspecific infection of aposymbiotic juveniles of Codakia orbicularis by various tropical lucinid gill-endosymbionts. Mar Biol 142:57–66. doi:10.1007/s00227-002-0921-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  28. 28.↵
    1. Johnson CL,
    2. Versalovic J
    . 2012. The human microbiome and its potential importance to pediatrics. Pediatrics 129:950–960. doi:10.1542/peds.2011-2736.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Schloissnig S,
    2. Arumugam M,
    3. Sunagawa S,
    4. Mitreva M,
    5. Tap J,
    6. Zhu A,
    7. Waller A,
    8. Mende DR,
    9. Kultima JR,
    10. Martin J,
    11. Kota K,
    12. Sunyaev SR,
    13. Weinstock GM,
    14. Bork P
    . 2013. Genomic variation landscape of the human gut microbiome. Nature 493:45–50. doi:10.1038/nature11711.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    1. Friedmann HC
    . 2004. From “Butyribacterium” to E. coli: an essay on unity in biochemistry. Perspect Biol Med 47:47–66. doi:10.1353/pbm.2004.0007.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Schork NJ
    . 2015. Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature 520:609–611. doi:10.1038/520609a.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Virgin HW,
    2. Todd JA
    . 2011. Metagenomics and personalized medicine. Cell 147:44–56. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.09.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Microbiomes In Natura: Importance of Invertebrates in Understanding the Natural Variety of Animal-Microbe Interactions
Jillian M. Petersen, Jay Osvatic
mSystems Mar 2018, 3 (2) e00179-17; DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00179-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mSystems article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Microbiomes In Natura: Importance of Invertebrates in Understanding the Natural Variety of Animal-Microbe Interactions
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mSystems
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mSystems.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Microbiomes In Natura: Importance of Invertebrates in Understanding the Natural Variety of Animal-Microbe Interactions
Jillian M. Petersen, Jay Osvatic
mSystems Mar 2018, 3 (2) e00179-17; DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00179-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • PERSPECTIVE
    • EXCITING TIMES FOR MICROBIOLOGY AND SYMBIOSIS RESEARCH
    • MICROBIOMES OF THE “SPINELESS MAJORITY”
    • THE UNIQUE ADVANTAGES OF INVERTEBRATE MODELS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • FOOTNOTES
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

microbiome
invertebrate
symbiosis
chemosynthesis

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mSystems
  • Author Videos
  • Board of Editors
  • Policies
  • Overleaf Pilot
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Types of Articles
  • Getting Started
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mSystemsJ

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2379-5077