Monday 18 March 2013

Vibrios: A Big Family?



Vibrios have undoubtedly been a recurrent theme in our lectures this year: from their importance as symbionts in the Hawaiian squid Euprymna scolopes to their role as potential pathogens, vibrios occupy a wide variety of geographical and ecological niches. Especially the close association of vibrios to zooplankton due to the presence of a specific chitinase may have facilitated their widespread distribution. But what about the genetic relationship between vibrios occupying different niches:  did adaptive radiation lead to genetic segregation or do Vibrio populations have a panmictic population structure?  

Hoffmann et al. (2012) aimed to clarify Vibrio population dynamics within natural marine environments by studying genetic relatedness and phylogenies of both sponge-derived (SD) and shallow, coastal water Vibrio populations. Sponges have a diverse microbiota (e.g. see Robyn’s blog “Shedding light on the function of marine sponge microbiota”), including vibrios, and occupy a range of benthic habitats ranging from shallow waters to 900 metre depth. Vibrio species have been reported to be involved in both secondary metabolism and synthesis of antibacterial compounds in sponges; however it remained unclear how these SD Vibrio species are related to the nearshore counterparts.

Hoffmann et al. used a variety of state-of-the-art techniques to elucidate this relationship between different Vibrio populations. Basically Vibrio strains very isolated from sponge samples and cultured in highly selective agar. PCR, 16 rRNA gene sequencing, 16S-23S rRNA intergenic spacer region (ISR), multi-locus sequence analyses (MLSA), as well as phylogenetic analyses were then used to investigate the degree of relatedness and to construct phylogenies.

In accordance with previous studies, they found that most SD Vibrio isolates (74%) clustered within the Vibrio Harveyi clade. The MLSA approach was applied on these isolates to further distinguish the phylogenetic relatedness of SD and the coastal reference Vibrio strains. Results pointed towards strong evidence for extensive recombination among SD vibrios and their nearshore counterparts strains, isolated from a variety of globally distinct locations, which supported the hypothesis that SD and shallow-water vibrios are not two disparate populations, but members of a larger single panmictic group. Moreover there was evidence for horizontal gene transfer occurring between both groups, suggesting that DNA may be exchange even across these expansive niches.

Overall these findings may help to explain the wide distribution of vibrios, but particularly interesting are the implications of this study on the movement of marine pathogens such as the highly pathogenic V. parahaemolyticus O3:K6 clone, which spread from Calcutta in India to South-East Asia, Atlantic and Gulf coast of the United States, Europe, Africa and South America. In fact, the panmictic population structure could be a critical component of the global distribution of the O3:K6 pandemic strain. Like Vezzulli (see Vicky’s comment on my blog “Early warning systems for Vibrio disease risks”), Hoffmann et al. suggested that the association of vibrios with copepods could provide a means by which vibrios traverse disparate niches, from the near-shore pelagic to the deep benthic habitats, which is supported by the copepod life cycle overlapping these two regions.  

I think this is a very interesting study which links together several themes covered in previous blogs: sponge microbiota (authors briefly mention in their conclusion that sponges may support Vibrio speciation events), horizontal gene transfer, vibrios and chitin, and vibrios as human pathogens. 

Hoffmann, M., Monday, S. R., McCarthy, P. J., Lopez, J. V., Fischer, M. & Brown, E. W. 2012. Genetic and phylogenetic evidence for horizontal gene transfer among ecologically disparate groups of marine Vibrio. Cladistics, 1–19.

3 comments:

  1. Anna, great paper! You never know, maybe we can use this reference in more than one of our exam questions...

    You indicate evidence is pointing towards panmitic population structure, but after reviewing the paper what do you think the answer is to the question you posed in your introductory paragraph: "did adaptive radiation lead to genetic segregation or do Vibrio populations have a panmictic population structure?" and how do you think this paper fits into the one ocean model discussion we have on the "Is the ocean just one big seed bank of microbial diversity? - The One Ocean Model" blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Vicky

    thanks for your questions, I think you are right, the question in my introduction may not be formulated correctly. Hoffmann et al. compare six housekeeping genes, so genes that are involved in the maintenance of basic cell functions; so can adaptive radiation in other parts of the genome, related to more specific roles, be excluded? Although the ISR typing method of more rapidly evolving genetic markers pointed towards lack of allopatric divergence too. Moreover they chose to focus on Harveyi clade-associated Vibrio only, which may not be representative for all vibrios.
    But overall, as far as I can judge their methods, the absence of a clear segregation in the phylogenetic trees along with the homology of the housekeeping genes and evidence for HGT and recombination seem to form a strong case for a single panmictic population structure.

    Going over O'Dor et al.'s paper on the One Ocean Model again, this paper seems to fit into the idea that the survival strategy of "prokaryotes" is to maintain low concentrations of every gene throughout the ocean volume. Again HGT seems to be an important factor in acheiving this pattern, although I like the idea that zooplankton may facilitate movement of vibrios across niches as well. As to our discussion we had after that blog on how this model fits into current paradigms of evolution through natural selection and adaptive radiation, I am still confused... What do you think? Do you think that all vibrios have the potential to live in association with sponges, as would be suggested by the results of the presented paper? If sponges were merely a sink for vibrios rather than partner of an obligate symbiosis, we wouldn't expect the loss of constitutive genes in vibrios.

    I am sure you have more thoughts on this ;)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anna,

      I do have lots of thoughts on this, I just wish they were based on pure objective evidence rather than my speculative imagination. I also wish I had a better understanding of cladistics and the methods described in the paper, but never mind we will have to persevere with my somewhat limited understanding.

      So if the shallow water and sponge vibrios are a panmictic population, by definition, all individuals must be potential recombination partners and basically they’re all the same. Seems like a pretty crazy idea, but from our recent discussion on the one ocean model, it also looks strangely plausible.

      I too am confused about why they have picked only six housekeeping genes. This appears to be the standard method (I watched countryfile last night and they used the same method to assess inbreeding depression in U.K. Adder populations). Surely it’s all the extra, non-housekeeping genes which make populations different. The way I see it is the housekeeping genes are what makes a vibrio a vibrio, the non-housekeeping specialist genes is what makes them adapted to specific niches. I think this is where my lack of understanding on the significance of the methodology is hampering my judgement.

      So there’s lots of evidence for horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in vibrios in this paper, this isn’t new. As we’ve discussed previously, if everything is everywhere and everything is swapping genes, what is there for selection to act on. What I wonder is at what point does some HGT merge into a whole panmictic population. How much similarity does there have to be? And who decided how much similarity there has to be, what is all this cladistics and % similarity based on??

      I certainly agree the results help explain the wide distribution of vibrios. But… I can’t really make an opinion of whether or not they can explain a panmictic population as I find the language and methodology around this subject somewhat impenetrable. I will persevere however, I’m determined to understand it someday and I think it’s seriously important when thinking about mechanisms of evolution. Can you shed any light on the methods?

      Sorry I couldn’t give you a more succinct and reasonable reply, I find this stuff totally brain baffling!

      Delete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.