2015
DOI: 10.1111/mec.13095
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Patterns, causes and consequences of defensive microbiome dynamics across multiple scales

Abstract: The microbiome can significantly impact host phenotypes and serve as an additional source of heritable genetic variation. While patterns across eukaryotes are consistent with a role for symbiotic microbes in host macroevolution, few studies have examined symbiont-driven host evolution or the ecological implications of a dynamic microbiome across temporal, spatial or ecological scales. The pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum, and its eight heritable bacterial endosymbionts have served as a model for studies on symbi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

8
176
1

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 130 publications
(185 citation statements)
references
References 84 publications
(214 reference statements)
8
176
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Alternative explanations for X-type maintenance include improved rates of vertical transmission in superinfections relative to single infections or frequent lateral transfer, but neither of these was supported in preliminary lab trials. While X-type appears to be an atypical case, superinfections are common in many insect species (8,10,52) and this hitchhiking strategy, or similar scenarios, may occur in other systems, even among conditional beneficial symbionts not under direct selection (e.g., coinfecting antifungal HFS spread with H. defensa under parasitism pressure [11]). Of course, confirming a purely exploitative hitchhiking status of symbionts will remain troublesome, due to the difficulty in "proving a negative," as there is always the possibility that the hitchhiker confers some unknown conditional benefit.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Alternative explanations for X-type maintenance include improved rates of vertical transmission in superinfections relative to single infections or frequent lateral transfer, but neither of these was supported in preliminary lab trials. While X-type appears to be an atypical case, superinfections are common in many insect species (8,10,52) and this hitchhiking strategy, or similar scenarios, may occur in other systems, even among conditional beneficial symbionts not under direct selection (e.g., coinfecting antifungal HFS spread with H. defensa under parasitism pressure [11]). Of course, confirming a purely exploitative hitchhiking status of symbionts will remain troublesome, due to the difficulty in "proving a negative," as there is always the possibility that the hitchhiker confers some unknown conditional benefit.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, individual hosts are often infected with multiple inherited symbionts and antagonistic or synergistic interactions between superinfecting symbionts may enhance or reduce mutualistic services or costs, influencing symbiont spread within the host population (8)(9)(10). Instances of heritable pathogens are expected to be exceedingly rare (1), yet under some conditions, a heritable symbiont that was neither providing conditional benefits nor manipulating host reproduction could spread by "hitchhiking" alongside a beneficial symbiont (11). A hitchhiking symbiont could be maintained in host populations even when superinfection causes harm to host fitness as long as the conditional benefits provided by the mutualist in the superinfection context outweigh these costs.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…; Smith et al . ). For example, the symbiont Serratia symbiotica protects its host against heat shock and is found at highest frequency in hot environments (Montllor, Maxmen & Purcell ; Henry et al .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Facultative symbiont coinfections are common in aphids and X-type is rarely found in single infections [30,31]. The presence of a second symbiont potentially changes the phenotypic effect seen in a single infection, possibly because two symbionts consume more resources [22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%