Advertisement

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology

, Volume 103, Issue 2, pp 633–641 | Cite as

Concept of microbial gatekeepers: Positive guys?

  • Wenfang Dai
  • Jiong Chen
  • Jinbo XiongEmail author
Mini-Review
  • 108 Downloads

Abstract

Microorganisms contribute diverse and fundamental roles in biogeochemical processes. In a given microbial community, individuals interact with one another to form complex regulatory networks in which gatekeepers contribute disproportional roles in sustaining stability, dynamics, and function. Owing to the ecological and functional importance of microbial gatekeeper, this review provides an overview on its history, identification, roles, application in biological sciences, and clinical diagnostics. The roles of microbial gatekeepers can be beneficial or detrimental, which depends on our purpose. As the field is rather new, some limitations are raised, and further efforts devoted to solving these concerns are proposed. Collectively, gatekeepers provide promising targets for sustaining and re-establishing a desired microbial community. However, substantial obstacles, such as factors governing gatekeepers, must be overcome to manipulate gatekeepers as positive guys.

Keywords

Microbial gatekeeper Disproportional role Community stability Co-occurrence network Fragmentation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the invitation from Editors Alexander Steinbüchel and Ursula Kües, which offers us an opportunity to share our viewpoints in this filed.

Funding information

The authors received supports from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31872693), the Natural Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars of Zhejiang Province (LR19C030001), the Technology Innovation Team of Ningbo (2015C110018), the Xinmiao Talent Program of Zhejiang Province (2018R405080), and the K.C. Wong Magna Fund in Ningbo University.

Compliance with ethical standards

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Banerjee S, Baah-Acheamfour M, Carlyle CN, Bissett A, Richardson AE, Siddique T, Bork EW, Chang SX (2016) Determinants of bacterial communities in Canadian agroforestry systems. Environ Microbiol 18:1805–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Banerjee S, Schlaeppi K, Mga VDH (2018) Keystone taxa as drivers of microbiome structure and functioning. Nat Rev Microbiol 16:567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry D, Widder S (2014) Deciphering microbial interactions and detecting keystone species with co-occurrence networks. Front Microbiol 5:219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brandtzaeg P (2013) Gate-keeper function of the intestinal epithelium. Benef Microbes 4:67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buffie CG, Bucci V, Stein RR, Mckenney PT, Ling L, Gobourne A, No D, Liu H, Kinnebrew M, Viale A (2015) Precision microbiome reconstitution restores bile acid mediated resistance to Clostridium difficile. Nature 517:205–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cardona C, Weisenhorn P, Henry C, Gilbert JA (2016) Network-based metabolic analysis and microbial community modeling. Curr Opin Microbiol 31:124–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cavaliere M, Feng S, Soyer OS, Jiménez JI (2017) Cooperation in microbial communities and their biotechnological applications. Environ Microbiol 19:2949–2963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cerdó T, Ruiz A, Acuña I, Jáuregui R, Jehmlich N, Haange SB, Bergen MV, Suárez A, Campoy C (2018) Gut microbial functional maturation and succession during human early life. Environ Microbiol 20:2160–2177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen WY, Ng TH, Wu JH, Chen JW, Wang HC (2017) Microbiome dynamics in a shrimp grow-out pond with possible outbreak of acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease. Sci Rep 7:9395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coyte KZ, Schluter J, Foster KR (2015) The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability. Science 350:663–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dai W, Zhang J, Tu Q, Ye D, Qiu Q, Xiong J (2017) Bacterioplankton assembly and interspecies interaction indicating increasing coastal eutrophication. Chemosphere 177:317–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dai W, Yu W, Xuan L, Tao Z, Xiong J (2018a) Integrating molecular and ecological approaches to identify potential polymicrobial pathogens over a shrimp disease progression. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102:3755–3764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dai W, Zhang J, Qiu Q, Chen J, Yang W, Ni S, Xiong J (2018b) Starvation stress affects the interplay among shrimp gut microbiota, digestion and immune activities. Fish Shellfish Immunol 80:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dekker D, Krackhardt D, Snijders TAB (2017) Transitivity correlation: measuring network transitivity as comparative quantity. arXiv:1708.00656Google Scholar
  15. Deng Y, Jiang YH, Yang Y, He Z, Luo F, Zhou J (2012) Molecular ecological network analyses. BMC Bioinformatics 13:113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deng Y, Zhang P, Qin Y, Tu Q, Yang Y, He Z, Schadt CW, Zhou J (2016) Network succession reveals the importance of competition in response to emulsified vegetable oil amendment for uranium bioremediation. Environ Microbiol 18:205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunne JA, Williams RJ, Martinez ND (2002) Network structure and biodiversity loss in food webs: robustness increases with connectance. Ecol Lett 5:558–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Faust K, Raes J (2012) Microbial interactions: from networks to models. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:538–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Faust K, Sathirapongsasuti JF, Izard J, Segata N, Gevers D, Raes J, Huttenhower C (2012) Microbial co-occurrence relationships in the human microbiome. PLoS Comput Biol 8:e1002606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fierer N (2017) Embracing the unknown: disentangling the complexities of the soil microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 15:579–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Freeman LC (1980) The gatekeeper, pair-dependency and structural centrality. Qual Quant 14:585–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fuhrman JA (2009) Microbial community structure and its functional implications. Nature 459:193–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Giovannoni SJ, Thrash JC, Temperton B (2014) Implications of streamlining theory for microbial ecology. ISME J 8:1553–1565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodrich JK, Davenport ER, Clark AG, Ley RE (2017) The relationship between the human genome and microbiome comes into view. Annu Rev Genet 51:413–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grace JB, Anderson TM, Olff H, Scheiner SM (2010) On the specification of structural equation models for ecological systems. Ecol Monogr 80:67–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hajishengallis G, Darveau RP, Curtis MA (2012) The keystone-pathogen hypothesis. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:717–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Herren CM, Mcmahon KD (2017) Cohesion: a method for quantifying the connectivity of microbial communities. ISME J 11:2426–2438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Herren CM, McMahon KD (2018) Keystone taxa predict compositional change in microbial communities. Environ Microbiol 20:2207–2217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hill R, Saetnan ER, Scullion J, Gwynnjones D, Ostle N, Edwards A (2016) Temporal and spatial influences incur reconfiguration of Arctic heathland soil bacterial community structure. Environ Microbiol 18:1942–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hopkins MJ, Macfarlane GT (2002) Changes in predominant bacterial populations in human faeces with age and with Clostridium difficile infection. J Med Microbiol 51:448–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Konopka A (2009) What is microbial community ecology? ISME J 3:1223–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lebeer S, Vanderleyden J, De Keersmaecker SC (2010) Host interactions of probiotic bacterial surface molecules: comparison with commensals and pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol 8:171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Li H, Li T, Tu B, Kou Y, Li X (2017) Host species shapes the co-occurrence patterns rather than diversity of stomach bacterial communities in pikas. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101:5519–5529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lynch M, Neufeld J (2015) Ecology and exploration of the rare biosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol 13:217–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Man WH, Bogaert D (2017) The microbiota of the respiratory tract: gatekeeper to respiratory health. Nat Rev Microbiol 15:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mas A, Jamshidi S, Lagadeuc Y, Eveillard D, Vandenkoornhuyse P (2016) Beyond the black queen hypothesis. ISME J 10:2085–2091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morris JJ, Lenski RE, Zinser ER (2012) The black queen hypothesis: evolution of dependencies through adaptive gene loss. mBio 3:e00036–e00012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mougi A, Kondoh M (2012) Diversity of interaction types and ecological community stability. Science 337:349–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mouquet N, Gravel D, Massol F, Calcagno V (2012) Extending the concept of keystone species to communities and ecosystems. Ecol Lett 16:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nie L, Zhou Q, Yan Q, Chen J (2017) Interplay between the gut microbiota and immune responses of ayu (Plecoglossus altivelis) during Vibrio anguillarum infection. Fish Shellfish Immunol 68:479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Noh JD, Rieger H (2002) Stability of shortest paths in complex networks with random edge weights. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlinear Soft Matter Phys 66:066127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Paine RT (1966) Food web complexity and species diversity. Am Nat 100:65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Paine RT (1969) A note on trophic complexity and community stability. Am Nat 103:91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pocock MJ, Evans DM, Memmott J (2012) The robustness and restoration of a network of ecological networks. Science 335:973–977CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Power ME, Tilman D, Estes JA, Menge BA, Bond WJ, Mills LS, Daily G, Castilla JC, Lubchenco J, Paine RT (1996) Challenges in the quest for keystones: identifying keystone species is difficult-but essential to understanding how loss of species will affect ecosystems. Bioscience 46:609–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saavedra S, Stouffer DB, Uzzi B, Bascompte J (2011) Strong contributors to network persistence are the most vulnerable to extinction. Nature 478:233–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shade A, Peter H, Allison S, Baho D, Berga M, Bürgmann H, Huber DH, Silke L, Lennon JT, Martiny JBH, Matulich KL, Schmidt TM, Handelsman J (2012) Fundamentals of microbial community resistance and resilience. Front Microbiol 3:417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shade A, Jones SE, Caporaso JG, Handelsman J, Knight R, Fierer N, Gilbert JA (2014) Conditionally rare taxa disproportionately contribute to temporal changes in microbial diversity. mBio 5:e01371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Shetty SA, Hugenholtz F, Lahti L, Smidt H, Vos WMD (2017) Intestinal microbiome landscaping: insight in community assemblage and implications for microbial modulation strategies. FEMS Microbiol Rev 41:182–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shi S, Nuccio EE, Shi ZJ, He Z, Zhou J, Firestone MK (2016) The interconnected rhizosphere: high network complexity dominates rhizosphere assemblages. Ecol Lett 19:926–936CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stachowicz JJ, Hay ME (1999) Mutualism and coral persistence: the role of herbivore resistance to algal chemical defense. Ecology 80:2085–2101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Surana NK, Kasper DL (2017) Moving beyond microbiome-wide associations to causal microbe identification. Nature 552:244–247Google Scholar
  53. Tao J, Meng D, Qin C, Liu X, Liang Y, Xiao Y, Liu Z, Gu Y, Li J, Yin H (2018) Integrated network analysis reveals the importance of microbial interactions for maize growth. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102:3805–3818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tews J, Brose U, Grimm V, Tielbörger K, Wichmann MC, Schwager M, Jeltsch F (2004) Animal species diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: the importance of keystone structures. J Biogeogr 31:79–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Trosvik P, de Muinck EJ (2015) Ecology of bacteria in the human gastrointestinal tract—identification of keystone and foundation taxa. Microbiome 3:44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wagner MB, Waite DW, Hoggard M, Douglas RG, Taylor MW, Biswas K (2017) Bacterial community collapse: a meta-analysis of the sinonasal microbiota in chronic rhinosinusitis. Environ Microbiol 19:381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weng FC, Shaw GT, Weng CY, Yang YJ, Wang D (2017) Inferring microbial interactions in the gut of the Hong Kong whipping frog (Polypedates megacephalus) and a validation using probiotics. Front Microbiol 8:525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Widder S, Besemer K, Singer GA, Ceola S, Bertuzzo E, Quince C, Sloan WT, Rinaldo A, Battin TJ (2014) Fluvial network organization imprints on microbial co-occurrence networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:12799–12804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wolf T, Kämmer P, Brunke S, Linde J (2018) Two’s company: studying interspecies relationships with dual RNA-seq. Curr Opin Microbiol 42:7–12Google Scholar
  60. Xiong J (2018) Progress in the gut microbiota in exploring shrimp disease pathogenesis and incidence. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102:7343–7350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Xiong J, Dai W, Qiu Q, Zhu J, Yang W, Li C (2018a) Response of host–bacterial colonization in shrimp to developmental stage, environment and disease. Mol Ecol 27:3686–3699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Xiong J, Nie L, Chen J (2018b) Current understanding on the roles of gut microbiota in fish disease and immunity. Zool Res  https://doi.org/10.24272/j.issn.2095-8137.2018.069
  63. Zhu J, Dai W, Qiu Q, Dong C, Zhang J, Xiong J (2016) Contrasting ecological processes and functional compositions between intestinal bacterial community in healthy and diseased shrimp. Microb Ecol 72:975–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Marine SciencesNingbo UniversityNingboChina
  2. 2.Collaborative Innovation Center for Zhejiang Marine High-Efficiency and Healthy AquacultureNingboChina

Personalised recommendations