OpenLB
Open Library of Bioscience
Advanced Search
The ISME journal
01, 2022;16 (1): 58-67.

Microbiome diversity and host immune functions influence survivorship of sponge holobionts under future ocean conditions.

Niño Posadas, Jake Ivan P Baquiran, Michael Angelou L Nada, Michelle Kelly, Cecilia Conaco
Author Information
  1. Niño Posadas: Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. ORCID
  2. Jake Ivan P Baquiran: Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. ORCID
  3. Michael Angelou L Nada: Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. ORCID
  4. Michelle Kelly: National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Ltd., Auckland, New Zealand.
  5. Cecilia Conaco: Marine Science Institute, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. cconaco@msi.upd.edu.ph. ORCID
PMID: 34218251 DOI: 10.1038/s41396-021-01050-5

Abstract

The sponge-associated microbial community contributes to the overall health and adaptive capacity of the sponge holobiont. This community is regulated by the environment and the immune system of the host. However, little is known about the effect of environmental stress on the regulation of host immune functions and how this may, in turn, affect sponge-microbe interactions. In this study, we compared the bacterial diversity and immune repertoire of the demosponge, Neopetrosia compacta, and the calcareous sponge, Leucetta chagosensis, under varying levels of acidification and warming stress based on climate scenarios predicted for 2100. Neopetrosia compacta harbors a diverse microbial community and possesses a rich repertoire of scavenger receptors while L. chagosensis has a less diverse microbiome and an expanded range of pattern recognition receptors and immune response-related genes. Upon exposure to RCP 8.5 conditions, the microbiome composition and host transcriptome of N. compacta remained stable, which correlated with high survival (75%). In contrast, tissue necrosis and low survival (25%) of L. chagosensis was accompanied by microbial community shifts and downregulation of host immune-related pathways. Meta-analysis of microbiome diversity and immunological repertoire across poriferan classes further highlights the importance of host-microbe interactions in predicting the fate of sponges under future ocean conditions.

References

  1. Le Quéré C, Moriarty R, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Sitch S, Korsbakken JI, et al. Global carbon budget 2015. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2015;7:349–96. [DOI: 10.5194/essd-7-349-2015]
  2. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Mumby PJ, Hooten AJ, Steneck RS, Greenfield P, Gomez E, et al. Coral reefs under rapid climate change and ocean acidification. Science. 2007;318:1737–42. [PMID: 18079392]
  3. Bell JJ, Bennett HM, Rovellini A, Webster NS. Sponges to be winners under near-future climate scenarios. Bioscience. 2018;68:955–68. [DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biy142]
  4. Bell JJ. The functional roles of marine sponges. Estuar Coast Shelf Sci. 2008;79:341–53. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ecss.2008.05.002]
  5. Pita L, Rix L, Slaby BM, Franke A, Hentschel U. The sponge holobiont in a changing ocean: from microbes to ecosystems. Microbiome. 2018;6:46. [PMID: 29523192]
  6. Smith AM, Berman J, Key MM Jr, Winter DJ. Not all sponges will thrive in a high-CO ocean: Review of the mineralogy of calcifying sponges. Palaeogeogr Palaeoclimatol Palaeoecol. 2013;392:463–72. [DOI: 10.1016/j.palaeo.2013.10.004]
  7. Webster NS, Thomas T. The sponge hologenome. MBio. 2016;7:e00135–16. [PMID: 27103626]
  8. Hentschel U, Piel J, Degnan SM, Taylor MW. Genomic insights into the marine sponge microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10:641–54. [PMID: 22842661]
  9. Thompson JR, Rivera HE, Closek CJ, Medina M. Microbes in the coral holobiont: partners through evolution, development, and ecological interactions. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2014;4:176. [PMID: 25621279]
  10. Fan L, Liu M, Simister R, Webster NS, Thomas T. Marine microbial symbiosis heats up: the phylogenetic and functional response of a sponge holobiont to thermal stress. ISME J. 2013;7:991–1002. [PMID: 23283017]
  11. Egan S, Gardiner M. Microbial dysbiosis: rethinking disease in marine ecosystems. Front Microbiol. 2016;7:991. [PMID: 27446031]
  12. Voolstra CR, Ziegler M. Adapting with microbial help: microbiome flexibility facilitates rapid responses to environmental change. Bioessays. 2020;42:e2000004. [PMID: 32548850]
  13. Botte ES, Nielsen S, Abdul Wahab MA, Webster J, Robbins S, Thomas T, et al. Changes in the metabolic potential of the sponge microbiome under ocean acidification. Nat Commun. 2019;10:4134. [PMID: 31515490]
  14. Morrow KM, Bourne DG, Humphrey C, Botté ES, Laffy P, Zaneveld J, et al. Natural volcanic CO seeps reveal future trajectories for host–microbial associations in corals and sponges. ISME J. 2015;9:894–908. [PMID: 25325380]
  15. Pollock FJ, Lamb JB, van de Water J, Smith HA, Schaffelke B, Willis BL, et al. Reduced diversity and stability of coral-associated bacterial communities and suppressed immune function precedes disease onset in corals. R Soc Open Sci. 2019;6:190355. [PMID: 31312497]
  16. Pinzon JH, Kamel B, Burge CA, Harvell CD, Medina M, Weil E, et al. Whole transcriptome analysis reveals changes in expression of immune-related genes during and after bleaching in a reef-building coral. R Soc Open Sci. 2015;2:140214. [PMID: 26064625]
  17. Pita L, Hoeppner MP, Ribes M, Hentschel U. Differential expression of immune receptors in two marine sponges upon exposure to microbial-associated molecular patterns. Sci Rep. 2018;8:16081. [PMID: 30382170]
  18. Guzman C, Conaco C. Gene expression dynamics accompanying the sponge thermal stress response. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0165368. [PMID: 27788197]
  19. Riesgo A, Farrar N, Windsor PJ, Giribet G, Leys SP. The analysis of eight transcriptomes from all poriferan classes reveals surprising genetic complexity in sponges. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;31:1102–20. [PMID: 24497032]
  20. Germer J, Cerveau N, Jackson DJ. The holo-transcriptome of a calcified early branching metazoan. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:81.
  21. Ryu T, Seridi L, Moitinho-Silva L, Oates M, Liew YJ, Mavromatis C, et al. Hologenome analysis of two marine sponges with different microbiomes. BMC Genomics. 2016;17:158. [PMID: 26926518]
  22. Hooper JNA, Van Soest RWM. Systema Porifera. A guide to the classification of sponges. In: Hooper JNA, Van Soest RWM, editors. Systema Porifera. New York, NY: Springer; 2002. p. 1–7.
  23. Pachauri RK, Allen MR, Barros VR, Broome J, Cramer W, Christ R, et al. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva: IPCC; 2014.
  24. Pierrot DE, Lewis E, Wallace DWR. MS Excel program developed for CO system calculations. Oak Ridge, TN: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, US Department of Energy, ORNL/CDIAC-IOS; 2006.
  25. Herlemann DP, Labrenz M, Jurgens K, Bertilsson S, Waniek JJ, Andersson AF. Transitions in bacterial communities along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. ISME J. 2011;5:1571–9. [PMID: 21472016]
  26. Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol. 2019;37:852–7. [PMID: 31341288]
  27. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJ, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3. [PMID: 27214047]
  28. Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–6. [PMID: 23193283]
  29. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e61217. [PMID: 23630581]
  30. Dixon P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J Veg Sci. 2003;14:927–30. [DOI: 10.1111/j.1654-1103.2003.tb02228.x]
  31. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS Comput Biol. 2014;10:e1003531. [PMID: 24699258]
  32. Douglas GM, Maffei VJ, Zaneveld JR, Yurgel SN, Brown JR, Taylor CM, et al. PICRUSt2 for prediction of metagenome functions. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38:685–8. [PMID: 32483366]
  33. Asshauer KP, Wemheuer B, Daniel R, Meinicke P. Tax4Fun: predicting functional profiles from metagenomic 16S rRNA data. Bioinformatics. 2015;31:2882–4. [PMID: 25957349]
  34. Kanehisa M, Sato Y. KEGG Mapper for inferring cellular functions from protein sequences. Protein Sci. 2020;29:28–35. [PMID: 31423653]
  35. Bolger AM, Lohse M, Usadel B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics. 2014;30:2114–20. [PMID: 24695404]
  36. Haas BJ, Papanicolaou A, Yassour M, Grabherr M, Blood PD, Bowden J, et al. De novo transcript sequence reconstruction from RNA-seq using the Trinity platform for reference generation and analysis. Nat Protoc. 2013;8:1494. [PMID: 23845962]
  37. Conesa A, Gotz S. Blast2GO: A comprehensive suite for functional analysis in plant genomics. Int J Plant Genomics. 2008;2008:619832. [PMID: 18483572]
  38. Finn RD, Bateman A, Clements J, Coggill P, Eberhardt RY, Eddy SR, et al. Pfam: the protein families database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014;42:D222–D30. [PMID: 24288371]
  39. Eddy SR. Profile hidden Markov models. Bioinformatics. 1998;14:755–63. [PMID: 9918945]
  40. Li B, Dewey CN. RSEM: accurate transcript quantification from RNA-Seq data with or without a reference genome. BMC Bioinformatics. 2011;12:323. [PMID: 21816040]
  41. Langmead B, Trapnell C, Pop M, Salzberg SL. Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome. Genome Biol. 2009;10:R25. [PMID: 19261174]
  42. Robinson MD, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. edgeR: a Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics. 2010;26:139–40. [PMID: 19910308]
  43. Alexa A, Rahnenführer J. Gene set enrichment analysis with topGO. Bioconductor Improv. 2009;27:1–26.
  44. Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Lyon D, Junge A, Wyder S, Huerta-Cepas J, et al. STRING v11: protein-protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D607–D13. [PMID: 30476243]
  45. Shannon P, Markiel A, Ozier O, Baliga NS, Wang JT, Ramage D, et al. Cytoscape: a software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks. Genome Res. 2003;13:2498–504. [PMID: 14597658]
  46. Moitinho-Silva L, Nielsen S, Amir A, Gonzalez A, Ackermann GL, Cerrano C, et al. The sponge microbiome project. Gigascience. 2017;6:1–7. [PMID: 29020741]
  47. Lurgi M, Thomas T, Wemheuer B, Webster NS, Montoya JM. Modularity and predicted functions of the global sponge-microbiome network. Nat Commun. 2019;10:992. [PMID: 30824706]
  48. Srivastava M, Simakov O, Chapman J, Fahey B, Gauthier ME, Mitros T, et al. The Amphimedon queenslandica genome and the evolution of animal complexity. Nature. 2010;466:720–6. [PMID: 20686567]
  49. Guzman C, Conaco C. Comparative transcriptome analysis reveals insights into the streamlined genomes of haplosclerid demosponges. Sci Rep. 2016;6:18774. [PMID: 26738846]
  50. Fortunato SA, Adamski M, Ramos OM, Leininger S, Liu J, Ferrier DE, et al. Calcisponges have a ParaHox gene and dynamic expression of dispersed NK homeobox genes. Nature. 2014;514:620–3. [PMID: 25355364]
  51. Voigt O, Fradusco B, Gut C, Kevrekidis C, Vargas S, Wörheide G. Carbonic anhydrases: an ancient tool in calcareous sponge biomineralization. Front Genet. 2021;12:624533.
  52. Yuen B, Bayes JM, Degnan SM. The characterization of sponge NLRs provides insight into the origin and evolution of this innate immune gene family in animals. Mol Biol Evol. 2014;31:106–20. [PMID: 24092772]
  53. Madeira F, Park YM, Lee J, Buso N, Gur T, Madhusoodanan N, et al. The EMBL-EBI search and sequence analysis tools APIs in 2019. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:W636–41. [PMID: 30976793]
  54. Darriba D, Taboada GL, Doallo R, Posada D. ProtTest 3: fast selection of best-fit models of protein evolution. Bioinformatics. 2011;27:1164–5. [PMID: 21335321]
  55. Ronquist F, Huelsenbeck JP. MrBayes 3: Bayesian phylogenetic inference under mixed models. Bioinformatics. 2003;19:1572–4. [PMID: 12912839]
  56. Wickham H. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer; 2016.
  57. McDevitt-Irwin JM, Baum JK, Garren M, Vega Thurber RL. Responses of coral-associated bacterial communities to local and global stressors. Front Mar Sci. 2017;4:262.
  58. Hori K, Matsumoto S. Bacterial adhesion: from mechanism to control. Biochem Eng J. 2010;48:424–34. [DOI: 10.1016/j.bej.2009.11.014]
  59. Yao J, Allen C. Chemotaxis is required for virulence and competitive fitness of the bacterial wilt pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum. J Bacteriol. 2006;188:3697–708. [PMID: 16672623]
  60. Chu H, Mazmanian SK. Innate immune recognition of the microbiota promotes host-microbial symbiosis. Nat Immunol. 2013;14:668–75. [PMID: 23778794]
  61. Bazzoni F, Beutler B. The tumor necrosis factor ligand and receptor families. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:1717–25. [PMID: 8637518]
  62. Hayden MS, Ghosh S. Regulation of NF-kappaB by TNF family cytokines. Semin Immunol. 2014;26:253–66. [PMID: 24958609]
  63. Parrish AB, Freel CD, Kornbluth S. Cellular mechanisms controlling caspase activation and function. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Biol. 2013;5:a008672.
  64. Wiens M, Korzhev M, Krasko A, Thakur NL, Perovic-Ottstadt S, Breter HJ, et al. Innate immune defense of the sponge Suberites domuncula against bacteria involves a MyD88-dependent signaling pathway. Induction of a perforin-like molecule. J Biol Chem. 2005;280:27949–59. [PMID: 15923643]
  65. Muller WE, Muller IM. Origin of the metazoan immune system: identification of the molecules and their functions in sponges. Integr Comp Biol. 2003;43:281–92. [PMID: 21680435]
  66. Yuen B Deciphering the genomic toolkit underlying animal-bacteria interactions – insights through the demosponge Amphimedon queenslandica. Saint Lucia, QLD: School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland; 2016.
  67. Gauthier ME, Du Pasquier L, Degnan BM. The genome of the sponge Amphimedon queenslandica provides new perspectives into the origin of Toll-like and interleukin 1 receptor pathways. Evol Dev. 2010;12:519–33. [PMID: 20883219]
  68. Roue M, Quevrain E, Domart-Coulon I, Bourguet-Kondracki ML. Assessing calcareous sponges and their associated bacteria for the discovery of new bioactive natural products. Nat Prod Rep. 2012;29:739–51. [PMID: 22660834]
  69. Steinert G, Busch K, Bayer K, Kodami S, Arbizu PM, Kelly M, et al. Compositional and quantitative insights into bacterial and archaeal communities of South Pacific deep-sea sponges (Demospongiae and Hexactinellida). Front Microbiol. 2020;11:716. [PMID: 32390977]
  70. Thomas T, Moitinho-Silva L, Lurgi M, Bjork JR, Easson C, Astudillo-Garcia C, et al. Diversity, structure and convergent evolution of the global sponge microbiome. Nat Commun. 2016;7:11870. [PMID: 27306690]
  71. Yap NV, Whelan FJ, Bowdish DM, Golding GB. The evolution of the scavenger receptor cysteine-rich domain of the class a scavenger receptors. Front Immunol. 2015;6:342. [PMID: 26217337]
  72. Brown GD, Willment JA, Whitehead L. C-type lectins in immunity and homeostasis. Nat Rev Immunol. 2018;18:374–89. [PMID: 29581532]
  73. von Moltke J, Ayres JS, Kofoed EM, Chavarria-Smith J, Vance RE. Recognition of bacteria by inflammasomes. Annu Rev Immunol. 2013;31:73–106. [DOI: 10.1146/annurev-immunol-032712-095944]
  74. Robertson SJ, Rubino SJ, Geddes K, Philpott DJ. Examining host-microbial interactions through the lens of NOD: from plants to mammals. Semin Immunol. 2012;24:9–16. [PMID: 22296734]
  75. Ting JP, Lovering RC, Alnemri ES, Bertin J, Boss JM, Davis BK, et al. The NLR gene family: a standard nomenclature. Immunity. 2008;28:285–7. [PMID: 18341998]
  76. Messier-Solek C, Buckley KM, Rast JP. Highly diversified innate receptor systems and new forms of animal immunity. Semin Immunol. 2010;22:39–47. [PMID: 20022762]
  77. Bennett HM, Altenrath C, Woods L, Davy SK, Webster NS, Bell JJ. Interactive effects of temperature and pCO2 on sponges: from the cradle to the grave. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23:2031–46. [PMID: 27550825]
  78. Luter HM, Andersen M, Versteegen E, Laffy P, Uthicke S, Bell JJ, et al. Cross-generational effects of climate change on the microbiome of a photosynthetic sponge. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:4732–44.
  79. Girvan MS, Campbell CD, Killham K, Prosser JI, Glover LA. Bacterial diversity promotes community stability and functional resilience after perturbation. Environ Microbiol. 2005;7:301–13. [PMID: 15683391]
  80. Ziegler M, Grupstra CGB, Barreto MM, Eaton M, BaOmar J, Zubier K, et al. Coral bacterial community structure responds to environmental change in a host-specific manner. Nat Commun. 2019;10:3092. [PMID: 31300639]
  81. Ribes M, Calvo E, Movilla J, Logares R, Coma R, Pelejero C. Restructuring of the sponge microbiome favors tolerance to ocean acidification. Environ Microbiol Rep. 2016;8:536–44. [PMID: 27264698]
  82. Vega Thurber R, Willner-Hall D, Rodriguez-Mueller B, Desnues C, Edwards RA, Angly F, et al. Metagenomic analysis of stressed coral holobionts. Environ Microbiol. 2009;11:2148–63. [PMID: 19397678]
  83. van de Water J, Chaib De Mares M, Dixon GB, Raina JB, Willis BL, Bourne DG, et al. Antimicrobial and stress responses to increased temperature and bacterial pathogen challenge in the holobiont of a reef-building coral. Mol Ecol. 2018;27:1065–80. [PMID: 29334418]
  84. Weisz JB, Lindquist N, Martens CS. Do associated microbial abundances impact marine demosponge pumping rates and tissue densities? Oecologia. 2008;155:367–76. [PMID: 18030495]
  85. Ludeman DA, Reidenbach MA, Leys SP. The energetic cost of filtration by demosponges and their behavioural response to ambient currents. J Exp Biol. 2017;220:995–1007. [PMID: 28011822]
  86. Perea-Blazquez A, Davy SK, Bell JJ. Estimates of particulate organic carbon flowing from the pelagic environment to the benthos through sponge assemblages. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e29569. [PMID: 22238622]
  87. Morganti TM, Ribes M, Yahel G, Coma R. Size is the major determinant of pumping rates in marine sponges. Front Physiol. 2019;10:1474. [PMID: 31920688]
  88. Peck LS, Clark MS, Power D, Reis J, Batista FM, Harper EM. Acidification effects on biofouling communities: winners and losers. Glob Chang Biol. 2015;21:1907–13. [PMID: 25626420]
  89. Ribeiro B, Padua A, Barno A, Villela H, Duarte G, Rossi A, et al. Assessing skeleton and microbiome responses of a calcareous sponge under thermal and pH stresses. ICES J Mar Sci. 2020:fsaa231.
  90. Lanna E, Klautau M. Life history and reproductive dynamics of the cryptogenic calcareous sponge Sycettusa hastifera (Porifera, Calcarea) living in tropical rocky shores. J Mar Biol Assoc UK. 2018;98:505–14. [DOI: 10.1017/S0025315416001466]
  91. Pörtner HO, Langenbuch M, Michaelidis B. Synergistic effects of temperature extremes, hypoxia, and increases in CO on marine animals: from Earth history to global change. J Geophys Res. 2005;110:C09S10.
  92. Emms DM, Kelly S. OrthoFinder: phylogenetic orthology inference for comparative genomics. Genome Biol. 2019;20:238. [PMID: 31727128]

MeSH Term

Animals
Bacteria
Immunity
Microbiota
Oceans and Seas
Porifera
Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Article has an altmetric score of 37

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0immunehostcommunitymicrobialspongediversityrepertoirecompactachagosensismicrobiomeconditionsstressfunctionsinteractionsNeopetrosiadiversereceptorsLsurvivalfutureoceansponge-associatedcontributesoverallhealthadaptivecapacityholobiontregulatedenvironmentsystemHoweverlittleknowneffectenvironmentalregulationmayturnaffectsponge-microbestudycomparedbacterialdemospongecalcareousLeucettavaryinglevelsacidificationwarmingbasedclimatescenariospredicted2100harborspossessesrichscavengerlessexpandedrangepatternrecognitionresponse-relatedgenesUponexposureRCP85compositiontranscriptomeNremainedstablecorrelatedhigh75%contrasttissuenecrosislow25%accompaniedshiftsdownregulationimmune-relatedpathwaysMeta-analysisimmunologicalacrossporiferanclasseshighlightsimportancehost-microbepredictingfatespongesMicrobiomeinfluencesurvivorshipholobionts

Similar Articles

Cited By