Advertisement

Annals of Microbiology

, Volume 69, Issue 8, pp 861–866 | Cite as

A comparison of microeukaryote communities inhabiting sponges and seawater in a Taiwanese coral reef system

  • Daniel Francis Richard ClearyEmail author
Short Communication

Abstract

Purpose

Assess microeukaryote community composition in seawater and sponge samples from Taiwanese coral reefs.

Methods

In the present study, we used Illumina sequencing to explore the microeukaryote communities of seven biotopes (six sponge species and seawater) sampled in the Penghu archipelago of Taiwan.

Result

Microeukaryote communities were dominated by Dinoflagellates with Dinophyceae and Syndiniales well represented in all biotopes. Other abundant taxa included metazoa, red and green algae and Radiolaria. The only significant differences were a significantly higher relative abundance of Picobiliphyta and Stramenopiles_X in seawater and Metamonada in the sponge Acanthostylotella cornuta. There was also a significant difference in composition among biotopes with samples from sponges and seawater forming distinct clusters. There was, however, no congruence between prokaryote and microeukaryote community composition. After removing all OTUs < 100 sequences, more than 90% of remaining OTUs representing > 99.5% of sequences were shared between sponge and seawater samples.

Conclusion

This data in the present study would appear to suggest that marine microeukaryote communities in sponges are largely derived from the surrounding seawater. Abundant OTUs were also related to organisms previously retrieved from seawater. A number of these OTUs though had relatively low sequence similarity to organisms in GenBank suggesting that more research of the microeukaryote communities in the Penghu archipelago may yield novel organisms in this relatively unexplored area.

Keywords

Agelasidae Composition Coral reefs Illumina Penghu islands 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Support in the field and lab was provided by Julian Cleary, Floris Cleary, Yusheng Huang, Kate, Ana R.M. Polónia and Nicole J de Voogd.

Funding

Financial support was provided to CESAM (UID/AMB/50017 – POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007638) and for the project LESS CORAL (PTDC/AAC-AMB/115304/2009) by FCT/MEC through national funds, and co-funding by FEDER, within the PT2020 Partnership Agreement and Compete 2020.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants and/or animals

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or laboratory animals.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Supplementary material

13213_2019_1476_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1 Relative abundance of the most abundant microeukaryote higher taxa in sponges: Ac - Agelas cavernosa, Ar - Acanthostylotella cornuta, He - Hyrtios erectus, Xt - Xestospongia testudinaria, Echinodictyum asperum, Sc - Stylissa carteri, Su - Suberites diversicolor and Wt - water. (PDF 6.94 kb)
13213_2019_1476_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (67 kb)
Supplementary Figure 2 Relative abundance of significantly discriminating OTUs between pairs of biotopes identified using Simper analysis (P < 0.001) and colour-coded according to microeukaryote taxon for Ac - Agelas cavernosa, Ar - Acanthostylotella cornuta, He - Hyrtios erectus, Xt - Xestospongia testudinaria, Ea - Echinodictyum asperum, Sc - Stylissa carteri, Su - Suberites diversicolor and Wt – water. The circle size of the OTU is proportional to the mean percentage of sequences per sample as indicated by the symbol legend in the bottom right corner. (PDF 66.6 kb)
13213_2019_1476_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (12 kb)
Supplementary Figure 3 Heatmap showing the abundance of abundant microeukaryote OTUs (≥ 4000 sequences). The heatmap was generated using the function heatmap2() in the R package gplots (http://www.cran.r-project.org/). The OTUs were log-transformed and clustered according to their occurrence by UPGMA hierarchical clustering. Sponge species: Ac - Agelas cavernosa, Ar - Acanthostylotella cornuta, He - Hyrtios erectus, Xt - Xestospongia testudinaria, Ea - Echinodictyum asperum, Sc - Stylissa carteri, Su - Suberites diversicolor and Wt - water. (PDF 11.9 kb)
13213_2019_1476_MOESM4_ESM.xls (20 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 A summary of the samples collected is presented study including the name of the site, the location of the site in the northern or southern Penghu islands, the GPS coordinates, the biotope (host species, sediment or seawater), order and family of the host species. (XLS 20.5 kb)
13213_2019_1476_MOESM5_ESM.xls (78 kb)
Supplementary Table 2 Results of emmeans analysis showing pairwise comparisons of differences in the relative abundances of selected eukaryote higher taxa and the percentage of OTUs100 recorded in seawater as a percentage of total OTUs100 (WtToPr) between biotopes based on the ‘fdr’ test. Estimate (Estimated marginal means), SE (standard error), P (probability), Sig. (Significance): * 0.01 < Pr < 0.05 ** 0.001 < Pr < 0.01; *** Pr < 0.001. Variable: the dependent variable, Contrast: Contrasts between pairs of biotopes, SE: standard error. (XLS 78.5 kb)
13213_2019_1476_MOESM6_ESM.xls (340 kb)
Supplementary Table 3 Results of Simper analysis showing the contribution of microeukaryote OTUs to differences in similarity between pairs of biotopes. Contrast: contrasts between pairs of biotopes. Average: average contribution to overall dissimilarity. Sd: Standard deviation of contribution. Ratio: Average to sd ratio. Ava, Avb: average abundances per biotope. CumSum: ordered cumulative contribution. P: permutation p value. OTUs that contributed significantly to differences are indicated by significance (Sig.): * 0.01 < P < 0.05 ** 0.001 < P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001. (XLS 340 kb)
13213_2019_1476_MOESM7_ESM.xls (14 kb)
Supplementary Table 4 List of abundant (≥ 4000 sequence reads) OTUs and closely related organisms identified using BLAST search. OTU: OTU number; Sum: number of sequence reads; Group: biotope or biotopes where the OTUs were mainly found; Acc: Genbank accession numbers of closely related organisms identified using BLAST; Seq: sequence similarity of these organisms with our representative OTU sequences; Source: isolation source of organisms identified using BLAST. In the Group column the abbreviations stand for sponge species: Ac - Agelas cavernosa, Ar - Acanthostylotella cornuta, He - Hyrtios erectus, Xt - Xestospongia testudinaria, Ea - Echinodictyum asperum, Sc - Stylissa carteri, Su - Suberites diversicolor and Wt – seawater. (XLS 13.5 kb)

References

  1. Annenkova NV, Lavrov DV, Belikov SI (2011) Dinoflagellates associated with freshwater sponges from the ancient Lake Baikal. Protist 162:222–236.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protis.2010.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell J (2008) The functional roles of marine sponges. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci 79:341–353.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2008.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK et al (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods 7:335–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaib De Mares M, Sipkema D, Huang S, Bunk B, Overmann J and van Elsas JD (2017) Host specificity for bacterial, archaeal and fungal communities determined for high- and low-microbial abundance sponge species in two genera. Front. Microbiol 8:2560.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02560
  5. Cleary DFR, Polónia ARM (2018) Bacterial and archaeal communities inhabiting mussels, sediment and water in Indonesian anchialine lakes. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 111:237–257.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-017-0944-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cleary DFR, Polónia ARM, de Voogd NJ (2018) Bacterial communities inhabiting the sponge Biemna fortis, sediment and water in marine lakes and the open sea. Microb Ecol 76:610–624.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-018-1156-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coelho FJRC, Cleary DFR, Gomes NCM, Pólonia ARM, Huang YM, Liu LL, de Voogd NJ (2018) Sponge prokaryote communities in Taiwanese coral reef and shallow hydrothermal vent ecosystems. Microb Ecol 75:239–254.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-017-1023-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diaz MC, Rützler K (2001) Sponges: an essential component of Caribbean coral reefs. Bull Mar Sci 69:535–546Google Scholar
  9. Edgar RC (2013) UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nat Methods 10:996–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan L, Reynolds D, Liu M, Stark M, Kjelleberg S, Webster NS, Thomas T (2012) Functional equivalence and evolutionary convergence in complex communities of microbial sponge symbionts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:E1878–E1887.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1203287109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gómez F (2012) A quantitative review of the lifestyle, habitat and trophic diversity of dinoflagellates (Dinoflagellata, Alveolata). Syst Biodivers 10:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. González-Pech RA, Ragan MA, Chan CX (2017) Signatures of adaptation and symbiosis in genomes and transcriptomes of Symbiodinium. Sci Rep 7:15021.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-15029-w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guillou L, Bachar D, Audic S et al (2013) The Protist Ribosomal Reference database (PR2): a catalog of unicellular eukaryote Small Sub-Unit rRNA sequences with curated taxonomy. Nucleic Acids Res 41(Database issue):D597–D604.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1160 Google Scholar
  14. Hentschel U, Usher KM, Taylor MW (2006) Marine sponges as microbial fermenters. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 55:167–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hentschel U, Piel J, Degnan SM, Taylor MW (2012) Genomic insights into the marine sponge microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:641–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hochmuth T, Niederkrüger H, Gernert C, Siegl A, Taudien S, Platzer M, Crews P, Hentschel U, Piel J (2010) Linking chemical and microbial diversity in marine sponges: possible role for poribacteria as producers of methyl-branched fatty acids. Chembiochem 11:2572–2578.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cbic.201000510 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang YM, de Voogd NJ, Cleary DFR, Li T-H, Mok HK, Ueng JP (2016) Biodiversity pattern of subtidal sponges (Porifera: Demospongiae) in the Penghu Archipelago (Pescadores), Taiwan. J Mar Biol Assoc UK 96:417–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maldonado M, Aguilar R, Bannister RJ, Bell D, Conway KW, Dayton PK, Díaz C, Gutt J, Kelly M et al (2016) Sponge grounds as key marine habitats: a synthetic review of types, structure, functional roles, and conservation concerns. Marine Animal Forests. Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17001-5_24-1 Google Scholar
  19. Piel J (2009) Metabolites from symbiotic bacteria. Nat Prod Rep 26:338–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Price DC, Bhattacharya D (2017) Robust Dinoflagellata phylogeny inferred from public transcriptome databases. J Phycol 53:725–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Quast C et al (2013) The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41(D1):D590–D596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. R Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna 3-900051-07-0. http://www.R-project.org Google Scholar
  23. Ramsby BD, Hill MS, Thornhill DJ, Steenhuizen SF, Achlatis M, Lewis AM, LaJeunesse TC (2017) Sibling species of mutualistic Symbiodinium clade G from bioeroding sponges in the western Pacific and western Atlantic oceans. J Phycol 53:951–960.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jpy.12576 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rodríguez-Marconi S, De la Iglesia R, Díez B, Fonseca CA, Hajdu E, Trefault N (2015) Characterization of bacterial, archaeal and eukaryote symbionts from antarctic sponges reveals a high diversity at a three-domain level and a particular signature for this ecosystem. PLoS One 10:e0138837.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138837 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stoeck T, Bass D, Nebel M, Christen R, Jones MD, Breiner HW, Richards TA (2010) Multiple marker parallel tag environmental DNA sequencing reveals a highly complex eukaryotic community in marine anoxic water. Mol Ecol 19:21–31.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2009.04480.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Strehlow B, Friday S, McCauley M, Hill M (2016) The potential of azooxanthellate poriferan hosts to assess the fundamental and realized Symbiodinium niche: evaluating a novel method to initiate Symbiodinium associations. Coral Reefs 35:1201–1212.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-016-1465-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Swierts T, Cleary DFR, de Voogd NJ (2018) Biogeography of prokaryote communities in closely related giant barrel sponges across the Indo-Pacific. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 94(12):fiy194.  https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiy194
  28. Taylor MW, Radax R, Steger D, Wagner M (2007) Sponge-associated microorganisms: evolution, ecology, and biotechnological potential. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71:295–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wecker P, Fournier A, Bosserelle P, Debitus C, Lecellier G, Berteaux-Lecellier V (2015) Dinoflagellate diversity among nudibranchs and sponges from French Polynesia: insights into associations and transfer. C R Biol 338:278–283.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2015.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Università degli studi di Milano 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology & CESAMUniversity of Aveiro, Campus de SantiagoAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.Tropical Island Sustainable Development Research CenterNational Penghu University of Science and TechnologyPenghuTaiwan

Personalised recommendations