4.6 Article

Codivergence of the primary bacterial endosymbiont of psyllids versus host switches and replacement of their secondary bacterial endosymbionts

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 18, 期 8, 页码 2591-2603

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.13351

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Postgraduate Awards
  2. Hermon Slade Foundation [HSF 12/10]
  3. NSW Government through its Environmental Trust [2012 MG 0003]
  4. Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Coevolution between insects and bacterial endosymbionts contributes to the success of many insect lineages. For the first time, we tested for phylogenetic codivergence across multiple taxonomic scales, from within genera to superfamily between 36 psyllid species of seven recognised families (Hemiptera: Psylloidea), their exclusive primary endosymbiont Carsonella and more diverse secondary endosymbionts (S-endosymbionts). Within Aphalaridae, we found that Carsonella and S-endosymbionts were fixed in one Glycaspis and 12 Cardiaspina populations. The dominant S-endosymbiont was Arsenophonus, while Sodalis was detected in one Cardiaspina species. We demonstrated vertical transmission for Carsonella and Arsenophonus in three Cardiaspina species. We found strong support for strict cospeciation and validated the informative content of Carsonella as extended host genome for inference of psyllid relationships. However, S-endosymbiont and host phylogenies were incongruent, and displayed signs of host switching and endosymbiont replacement. The high incidence of Arsenophonus in psyllids and other plant sap-feeding Hemiptera may be due to repeated host switching within this group. In two psyllid lineages, Arsenophonus and Sodalis genes exhibited accelerated evolutionary rates and AT-biases characteristic of long-term host associations. Together with strict vertical transmission and 100% prevalence within host populations, our results suggest an obligate, and not facultative, symbiosis between psyllids and some S-endosymbionts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据