Effects of intestinal culturable non-anaerobic bacteria in Musca domestica larvae on feeding and oviposition of M. domestica adults

doi:10.11853/j.issn.1003.8280.2020.03.010

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To investigate the effects of intestinal bacteria in Musca domestica larvae on their feeding and oviposition into the adulthood. Methods Traditional methods were used for isolation and culture of culturable non-anaerobic bacteria from the intestinal tracts of 3-day-old M. domestica larvae. These bacteria were used to carry out feeding and oviposition preference experiments on M. domestica adults. With SPSS 20.0 software for statistical analysis, one-way analysis of variance was conducted for comparison between groups, and the t-test was used for comparison between two independent samples. Results Ten bacteria belonging to 9 genera were isolated from the intestinal tracts of M. domestica larvae:Enterobacter hormaechei, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter bereziniae, Providencia stuartii, E. cloacae, Lactococcus lactis, Lysinibacillus fusiformis, P. vermicola, and Bacillus safensis. E. hormaechei, L. lactis, and E. cloacae were found to exert attracting effects on feeding of M. domestica adults, yielding attracting rates of (80.88±5.60)%, (60.77±4.13)%, and (61.59±4.13)%, respectively, and the other seven bacteria were found to inhibit feeding. Ten bacteria were all revealed to have attracting effects on oviposition of M. domestica adults. E. hormaechei, E. cloacae, L. lactis, L. fusiformis, and B. safensis showed strongest attracting effects, with attracting rates of 100%. Conclusion It has been confirmed that intestinal bacteria in M. domestica larvae have effects on their feeding and oviposition into their adulthood, and it is clarified that M. domestica adults' feeding and oviposition are mainly regulated by nutrition and odor, respectively. The results lay a foundation for research and development of new bacterial repellents or attractants of M. domestica adults.

Key words: Musca domestica larva, Intestinal culturable non-anaerobic bacteria, Feeding preference experiments on adult insects, Oviposition preference experiments on adult insects

摘要： 目的探究家蝇幼虫各种肠道细菌对家蝇成虫取食及产卵的影响。方法采用传统分离培养法分离家蝇3日龄幼虫肠道内可培养非厌氧细菌，并利用这些细菌进行成虫取食选择及产卵选择实验。统计学分析用SPSS 20.0软件，组间比较采用单因素方差分析，独立样本两两比较采用t检验。结果在家蝇幼虫肠道中共分离出9属10种细菌，分别为霍氏肠杆菌、肺炎克雷伯菌、铜绿假单胞菌、贝雷兹不动杆菌、斯氏普罗威登斯菌、阴沟肠杆菌、乳酸乳球菌、纺锤形赖氨酸芽孢杆菌、居幼虫普罗威登斯菌和沙福芽孢杆菌。其中霍氏肠杆菌、乳酸乳球菌和阴沟肠杆菌对家蝇成虫取食有吸引作用，吸引率分别为（80.88±5.60）%、（60.77±4.13）%和（61.59±4.13）%，而其余7种细菌有抑制作用；10种细菌对家蝇成虫产卵均有吸引作用，其中吸引效果最好的有霍氏肠杆菌、阴沟肠杆菌、乳酸乳球菌、纺锤形赖氨酸芽孢杆菌和沙福芽孢杆菌，吸引率均可达100%。结论明确了家蝇幼虫肠道细菌对成虫取食及产卵的影响，阐明了家蝇成虫取食主要受营养调控，产卵主要受气味调控，为家蝇成虫引诱剂或驱避剂研发奠定了基础。

关键词: 家蝇幼虫, 肠道可培养非厌氧细菌, 成虫取食选择实验, 成虫产卵选择实验

CLC Number:

R384.2
R378

CHANG Rui-rui, CHEN Hai-min, CHEN Hong-min, WAN Qing, LE Qian-qian, ZHANG Rui-ling, ZHANG Zhong. Effects of intestinal culturable non-anaerobic bacteria in Musca domestica larvae on feeding and oviposition of M. domestica adults[J]. Chines Journal of Vector Biology and Control, 2020, 31(3): 294-299.

常锐锐, 陈海敏, 陈宏敏, 万晴, 乐倩倩, 张瑞玲, 张忠. 家蝇幼虫肠道可培养非厌氧细菌对家蝇成虫取食及产卵的影响[J]. 中国媒介生物学及控制杂志, 2020, 31(3): 294-299.

References

[1] Dillon RJ,Dillon VM. The gut bacteria of insects:nonpathogenic interactions[J]. Annu Rev Entomol,2004,49:71-92. DOI:10.1146/annurev.ento.49.061802.123416.
[2] Chang PT,Rao K,Longo LO,et al. Thiopeptide defense by an ant's bacterial symbiont[J]. J Nat Prod,2020. DOI:10.1021/acs.jnatprod.9b00897.
[3] Chung SH,Parker BJ,Blow F,et al. Host and symbiont genetic determinants of nutritional phenotype in a natural population of the pea aphid[J]. Mol Ecol,2020. DOI:10.1111/mec.15355.
[4] Munzone A,El Kerdi B,Fanuel M,et al. Characterization of a bacterial copper-dependent lytic polysaccharide monooxygenase with an unusual second coordination sphere[J]. FEBS J,2020. DOI:10.1111/febs.15203.
[5] Jones JE,Hurst GDD. Symbiont-mediated protection varies with wasp genotype in the Drosophila melanogaster-Spiroplasma interaction[J]. Heredity,2020. DOI:10.1038/s41437-019-0291-2.
[6] Juárez ML,Pimper LE,Bachmann GE,et al. Gut bacterial diversity and physiological traits of Anastrepha fraterculus Brazilian-1 morphotype males are affected by antibiotic treatment[J]. BMC Microbiol,2019,19 Suppl 1:283. DOI:10.1186/s12866-019-1645-x.
[7] Kobiałka M,Michalik A,Świerczewski D,et al. Complex symbiotic systems of two treehopper species:Centrotus cornutus (Linnaeus,1758) and Gargara genistae (Fabricius,1775) (Hemiptera:Cicadomorpha:Membracoidea:Membracidae)[J]. Protoplasma,2019. DOI:10.1007/s00709-019-01466-z.
[8] Xu TT,Chen J,Jiang LY,et al. Diversity of bacteria associated with Hormaphidinae aphids (Hemiptera:Aphididae)[J]. Insect Sci,2019. DOI:10.1111/1744-7917.12746
[9] Blow F,Gioti A,Goodhead IB,et al. Functional genomics of a symbiotic community:shared traits in the olive fruit fly gut microbiota[J]. Genome Biol Evol,2020,12(2):3778-3791. DOI:10.1093/gbe/evz258.
[10] Zhang B,Leonard SP,Li YY,et al. Obligate bacterial endosymbionts limit thermal tolerance of insect host species[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2019,116(49):24712-24718. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1915307116.
[11] Hall RJ,Flanagan LA,Bottery MJ,et al. A tale of three species:adaptation of Sodalis glossinidius to tsetse biology,Wigglesworthia metabolism,and host diet[J]. mBio,2019,10(1):e02106-18. DOI:10.1128/mBio.02106-18.
[12] Yukuhiro F,Miyoshi T,Noda H. Actin-mediated transovarial transmission of a yeastlike symbiont in the brown planthopper[J]. J Insect Physiol,2014,60:111-117. DOI:10.1016/j.jinsphys.2013.11.010.
[13] Bing XL,Zhao DS,Sun JT,et al. Genomic analysis of Wolbachia from Laodelphax striatellus (Delphacidae,Hemiptera) reveals insights into its "Jekyll and Hyde" mode of infection pattern[J]. Genome Biol Evol,2020. DOI:10.1093/gbe/evaa006.
[14] Kyritsis GA,Augustinos AA,Ntougias S,et al. Enterobacter sp. AA26 gut symbiont as a protein source for Mediterranean fruit fly mass-rearing and sterile insect technique applications[J]. BMC Microbiol,2019,19 Suppl 1:S288. DOI:10.1186/s12866-019-1651-z.
[15] Lee J,Mao XR,Lee YS,et al. Putative host-derived growth factors inducing colonization of Burkholderia gut symbiont in Riptortus pedestris insect[J]. Dev Comp Immunol,2020,104:103570. DOI:10.1016/j.dci.2019.103570.
[16] Hegde S,Nilyanimit P,Kozlova E,et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene deletion of the ompA gene in symbiotic Cedecea neteri impairs biofilm formation and reduces gut colonization of Aedes aegypti mosquitoes[J]. PLoS Negl Trop Dis,2019,13(12):e0007883. DOI:10.1371/journal.pntd.0007883.
[17] Michaud C,Hervé V,Dupont S,et al. Efficient but occasionally imperfect vertical transmission of gut mutualistic protists in a wood-feeding termite[J]. Mol Ecol,2020,29(2):308-324. DOI:10.1111/mec.15322.
[18] Itoh H,Jang S,Takeshita K,et al. Host-symbiont specificity determined by microbe-microbe competition in an insect gut[J]. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA,2019,116(45):22673-22682. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1912397116.
[19] Morrison M,Pope PB,Denman SE,et al. Plant biomass degradation by gut microbiomes:more of the same or something new?[J]. Curr Opin Biotechnol,2009,20(3):358-363. DOI:10.1016/j.copbio.2009.05.004.
[20] Kashkouli M,Fathipour Y,Mehrabadi M. Heritable gammaproteobacterial symbiont improves the fitness of Brachynema germari Kolenati (Hemiptera:Pentatomidae)[J]. Environ Entomol,2019,48(5):1079-1087. DOI:10.1093/ee/nvz089.
[21] Meng FQ,Bar-Shmuel N,Shavit R,et al. Gut bacteria of weevils developing on plant roots under extreme desert conditions[J]. BMC Microbiol,2019,19:311. DOI:10.1186/s12866-019-1690-5.
[22] Schmidtberg H,Shukla SP,Halitschke R,et al. Symbiont-mediated chemical defense in the invasive ladybird Harmonia axyridis[J]. Ecol Evol,2019,9(4):1715-1729. DOI:10.1002/ece3.4840.
[23] Gonella E,Mandrioli M,Tedeschi R,et al. Activation of immune genes in leafhoppers by phytoplasmas and symbiotic bacteria[J]. Front Physiol,2019,10:795. DOI:10.3389/fphys.2019.00795.
[24] Bai L,Wang LL,Vega-Rodríguez J,et al. A gut symbiotic bacterium Serratia marcescens renders mosquito resistance to Plasmodium infection through activation of mosquito immune responses[J]. Front Microbiol,2019,10:1580. DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2019.01580.
[25] Zhang YL,Kong LC,Jiang DH,et al. Phytotoxic and antifungal metabolites from Curvularia sp. FH01 isolated from the gut of Atractomorpha sinensis[J]. Bioresour Technol,2011,102(3):3575-3577. DOI:10.1016/j.biortech.2010.10.028.
[26] Shao YQ,Chen BS,Sun C,et al. Symbiont-derived antimicrobials contribute to the control of the Lepidopteran gut microbiota[J]. Cell Chem Biol,2017,24(1):66-75. DOI:10.1016/j.chembiol.2016.11.015.
[27] 谭周进,肖启明,谢丙炎,等. 昆虫内共生菌研究概况[J]. 微生物学通报,2005,32(4):140-143. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0253-2654.2005.04.028. Tan ZJ,Xiao QM,Xie BY,et al. A review on endosymbionts in insects[J]. Microbiol China,2005,32(4):140-143. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.0253-2654.2005.04.028.
[28] Li Q,Fan J,Sun JX,et al. Anti-plant defense response strategies mediated by the secondary symbiont Hamiltonella defensa in the wheat aphid Sitobion miscanthi[J]. Front Microbiol,2019,10:2419. DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2019.02419.
[29] Lee JB,Park KE,Lee SA,et al. Gut symbiotic bacteria stimulate insect growth and egg production by modulating hexamerin and vitellogenin gene expression[J]. Dev Comp Immunol,2017,69:12-22. DOI:10.1016/j.dci.2016.11.019.
[30] Devescovi F,Conte CA,Augustinos A,et al. Symbionts do not affect the mating incompatibility between the Brazilian-1 and Peruvian morphotypes of the Anastrepha fraterculus cryptic species complex[J]. Sci Rep,2019,9:18319. DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-54704-y.