Functional Ecology 2014, 28, 293–298
doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.12258
EDITORIAL
Defensive symbiosis: a microbial perspective Keith Clay* Department of Biology, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
The enemy of my enemy is my friend (Ancient Proverb) Defensive symbioses are indirect interactions that involve at least three species (host, symbiont and enemy) where the net benefits of symbiosis are contingent on the presence of enemies (Fig. 1, Clay, Holah & Rudgers 2005; Lively et al. 2005). The performance of host and non-host populations in the presence and the absence of natural enemies distinguishes the direct benefits of symbiosis (such as nutrient provisioning) from indirect benefits arising from protection from natural enemies. Defensive symbiosis requires that the fitness of hosts is proportionally higher than non-hosts in the presence of natural enemies relative to enemy-free conditions. In the absence of enemies, the defensive symbiont may decline in frequency or be lost from the host population (Janzen 1973; Lively et al. 2005; Palmer et al. 2008). Protective or defensive mutualisms have long been recognized. Thomas Belt (1874), in The Naturalist in Nicaragua, first described the defence of acacia trees from herbivores by ants (see also Boucher, James & Keeler 1982; Janzen 1985; Palmer et al. 2008). We now know that extrafloral nectaries, Beltian bodies and other traits that attract ants for defence against herbivores are widespread in plants (Bentley 1977; Beattie 1985; Rudgers & Strauss 2004; Rico-Grey & Oliveira 2007). Outside of ant–plant protective interactions, which are based on physical aggression, defensive mutualisms involving microbial symbionts often involve the production of toxic secondary metabolites. One well-understood example is grasses infected by endophytic fungi (family Clavicipitaceae) that grow systemically in above-ground plant tissues, are vertically transmitted through seeds and produce a variety of alkaloid compounds deterrent to herbivores (Clay 1988; Clay & Schardl 2002). The endophytes are under strong selection for alkaloid diversification which may improve their protective function (Schardl et al. 2013). Defensive symbioses between insects and bacteria are also widespread. For example, Currie and colleagues (Currie, Mueller & Malloch 1999a; Currie et al. 1999b, 2006) reported that leaf cutter ants (Atta spp.) harbour antibiotic-producing actinobacteria (Pseudocardinia spp.) that inhibit Escovopsis spp. pathogens of their fungal gardens and help maintain the mutualism between ants and their fungal gardens. Many sap-sucking insects like aphids also harbour defensive symbionts which provide protection against a *Correspondence author. E-mail:
[email protected]
range of natural enemies (Oliver et al. 2003, 2008; Scarborough, Ferrari & Godfray 2005; Oliver & Moran 2009; Tsuchida et al. 2010; Lukasik et al. 2013). Microbial interactions with plants and animals are typically invisible to the naked eye, but their impacts on hosts and host communities can be very large. Higher organisms host diverse microbial communities (Arnold et al. 2000; Costello et al. 2009; Rodriguez et al. 2009; Hawlena et al. 2013), and microbial dependency on the host will favour traits that help protect that resource and ensure their transmission (Lukasik et al. 2013). Microbes have high rates of evolutionary change, and horizontal transfer of adaptive genes or genomes is common (McCutcheon, McDonald & Moran 2009; Oliver et al. 2010; Werren et al. 2010; Smillie et al. 2011; Zhu et al. 2013). New approaches and technological advances are providing novel insights into plant and animal microbiomes, and more demonstrated and hypothesized examples of defensive symbiosis (Turnbaugh et al. 2009; White & Torres 2009; Zhu et al. 2011; Lundberg et al. 2012). Identifying the key microbial players and the underlying mechanisms of protection will improve our understanding of factors affecting the dynamics of ecological communities and provide applications for agriculture and human health (Wicklow et al. 2005; Mazmanian, Round & Kasper 2008; Mao-Jones et al. 2010).
Key research directions While a few systems have been well studied, our knowledge of the diversity, distribution, mechanisms and ecological consequences of defensive symbioses is limited. This is despite increasing scientific interest and technological innovations enabling rapid discovery and novel research directions in symbiotic systems. Most macro-organisms support diverse microbial communities, but we have limited understanding of how microbes interact with each other within hosts and with enemies of the host. It is perhaps not surprising that the best understood defensive symbioses occur in hosts with just one (e.g. grasses) or a few (e.g. aphids) dominant microbial symbionts, which are easier to evaluate. A major challenge is to identify potential defensive contributions of particular microbes in hosts with diverse microbiomes or determine whether protection arises through interactions within microbial consortia. To help begin to address these and other gaps, several research directions are recommended.
© 2014 The Author. Functional Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society
294 Editorial within hosts (Klyachko et al. 2007), and q-PCR can be used to assess symbiont density in relation to host age, gender, habitat, etc. More generally, a combination of molecular and microscopic approaches can serve to identify and localize microbial symbionts and identify potential genes with defensive functions. MECHANISMS OF DEFENCE
Fig. 1. Defensive symbiosis arising from an indirect interaction of S (symbiont) with H (host). S imposes a direct cost on H for its metabolic demands, but this cost is more than offset by the negative effect of S on E (natural enemy). E has a stronger negative effect on H than S, resulting in a net positive benefit of S on H. IDENTIFYING DEFENSIVE SYMBIOSES
Are defensive symbioses common and widespread, or do they occur only in a few specific systems with particular organisms and habitats? Based on the rate at which new examples of defensive symbiosis are being described, we may be seeing only the tip of the iceberg. However, in complex communities of macro- and micro-organisms, it is nontrivial challenge to obtain direct evidence of defensive symbiosis. Comparing performance of host and non-host populations with and without natural enemies is the most direct way to identify defensive symbioses. Cases where resistance to enemies can be “cured” by antibiotic or fungicide applications, or where resistance is strictly maternally inherited, also represent strong candidates for defensive symbiosis. More typically, evidence for defensive symbiosis is indirect. Microbial production of secondary metabolites with known toxic functions is often taken as prima facie evidence of defensive symbiosis. For example, Nakabachi et al. (2013) recently described a bacterial symbiont (Candidatus Profftella armature) of the Asian citrus psyllid, Diaphorina citri, where 15% of its highly reduced genome is devoted to two biosynthetic gene clusters that encode a polyketide toxin similar in structure to pederin. In Paederus rove beetles, pederin is synthesized by a Pseudomonas symbiont and accumulates in the body fluid of the beetle, where it serves to deter predators (Kellner & Dettner 1996). Likewise, antibiotic production by insect-associated bacteria also suggests that these symbionts play a protective role (Scott et al. 2008; Um et al. 2013). The increasing availability of molecular and genomic technologies offers new opportunities to identify and characterize defensive symbioses. 16S rRNA tag sequencing using a high-throughput pyrosequencing can efficiently search for and identify particular groups of bacterial symbionts (Hawlena et al. 2013), and metagenomic, whole-genome shot-gun sequencing can be used to identify alkaloid or antibiotic production genes diagnostic for defensive symbiosis. Fluorescent in-situ hybridization can be used to visualize and localize microbial symbionts
The mechanism of defence is not known in many systems, even where defensive symbiosis has been experimentally documented (e.g. Scarborough, Ferrari & Godfray 2005; Jaenike et al. 2010; Xie, Vilchez & Mateos 2010; Busby et al. 2013). Identification of those mechanisms will enhance our understanding of defensive symbiosis and point to potential applications for pest control and improved plant and animal health. Where the mechanism of defence is clear, most defensive symbioses appear to exhibit one of two basic patterns but others may exist. First, the production (or detoxification) of bioactive secondary compounds by microbial symbionts is common to many defensive symbioses. Related chemistry can often be found in free-living relatives, suggesting that pre-existing microbial pathways have been co-opted for host defence. For example, toxinproducing bacterial and fungal endosymbionts infect poisonous plants such as locoweeds (Fabaceae, Braun et al. 2003; Panaccione, Beaulieu & Cook 2014) and some species of grasses (Clay & Schardl 2002), morning glories (Convoluvulaceae, Beaulieu et al. 2013; Cook et al. 2013) and Rubiaceae (Verstraete et al. 2011), as well as marine organisms (Lopanik, Lindquist & Targett 2004; Simmons et al. 2008). Similarly, antibiotics are produced by free-living soil bacteria but are also produced by bacterial symbionts of insects, where they provide resistance to pathogenic micro-organisms (Currie, Mueller & Malloch 1999a; Scott et al. 2008; Um et al. 2013). In the case of pea aphids and their Hamiltonella endosymbiont, host protection against parasitoids imparted by Hamiltonella depends on symbiont being infected with a toxin-producing bacteriophage (Moran et al. 2005; Weldon, Strand & Oliver 2013). Parasites and herbivores can also turn the table and use microbial symbionts to detoxify or resist their target organism’s defensive chemistry. For example, conifers respond to beetle attack by producing toxic terpenes, but bacterial symbionts associated with mountain pine beetles (Dendroctonus ponderosae) can reduce terpene concentrations in artificial media (Boone et al. 2013), suggesting that beetle–bacteria symbiosis reduces the efficacy of host plant defence responses. Similarly, secretion of symbiotic bacteria by the Colorado potato beetle during feeding elicits salicylic acid-regulated defences, which inhibits plant activation of jasmonate-mediated resistance (Chung et al. 2013), and gut microbiota of woodrats that detoxify secondary metabolites produced by their creosote bush food plant (Kohl & Dearing 2012). A second general mechanism of microbially mediated defence is priming of the host’s immune system with infec-
© 2014 The Author. Functional Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Functional Ecology, 28, 293–298
FE Spotlight tion by the symbiont, increasing resistance to subsequent parasites or pathogens (Little & Kraaijeveld 2004). This mechanism is not limited to higher animals but occurs also in invertebrates and plants (Moreira et al. 2009; Jung et al. 2012; Hussa & Goodrich-Blair 2013). For example, colonization of plant roots by mycorrhizal fungi can induce resistance to plant pathogens by the priming of jasmonic acid-dependent defences (Cameron et al. 2013), and leaf endophytes of trees reduce infection by plant pathogens (Arnold et al. 2003; Busby et al. 2013). Microbial symbionts can therefore serve as a vaccine to enhance immunological defence. The role of microbial symbionts in immunological priming also raises the more general question of how hosts permit infection by beneficial symbionts while simultaneously discriminating against damaging pathogens. Other potential mechanisms of defensive symbiosis may exist. Formation of biofilms or epiphytic layers can provide a physical or chemical barrier between host and pathogen. For example, seaweeds are often colonized by epiphytic bacteria with antifouling properties that protect chemically undefended seaweeds from secondary colonization by detrimental epiphytic growth (Egan et al. 2013). Similarly, skin bacteria of amphibians can reduce susceptibility to chytridiomycosis (Daskin & Alford 2012). Microbial symbionts may also directly interfere with the growth or replication of the pathogenic agent. For example, some Wolbachia strains protect Drosophila hosts against RNA virus infection, suggesting that Wolbachia may interfere with viral replication (Hedges et al. 2008; Teixeira, Ferreira & Ashburner 2008; Osborne et al. 2009). Other potential mechanisms of defence may include competitive exclusion of pathogens by symbionts (Koch & Schmid-Hempel 2011) and use of protective viruses by parasitoid wasps that inject symbiotic polydnaviruses during oviposition to suppress the host’s immune response (Strand & Burke 2012). COSTS AND BENEFITS OF MICROBIAL SYMBIOSIS VS. INNATE DEFENSIVE MECHANISMS
Macro-organisms possess a variety of physical, chemical and immune defence mechanisms. Under what circumstances are symbiont-based defence favoured over inherent defence? Presumably, microbial symbionts provide services that the host is not capable of, or they provide services more cheaply than can the host themselves. For example, the fungal endophyte-derived alkaloids found in many grasses occur in a plant family that does not typically produce the diverse secondary compounds found in many other plant families (Clay & Schardl 2002). Likewise, the capacity for antibiotic production is limited to bacteria and fungi but has been exploited by various insect groups via symbiosis with antibiotic-producing partners (Currie, Mueller & Malloch 1999a; Currie et al. 1999b; Kaltenpoth et al. 2005). The relative costs and benefits of microbial symbiosis vs. innate defensive mechanisms may vary within a host species or among groups of closely related species as evidenced by trade-offs between defensive strate-
295
gies. For example, fungus-growing Trachymyrmex ants exhibit a trade-off where species with bacterial symbionts do not exhibit behaviours to reduce Escovopsis infection and species with strong behavioural responses do not possess antibiotic-producing symbionts (Fern andez-Marın et al. 2013). Detailed analysis of the spatial and temporal patterns of defensive symbiosis and inherent host defences will shed light on the costs and benefits of each strategy. DYNAMICS OF DEFENSIVE SYMBIOSIS
A key question is whether defensive symbionts are fixed in host populations or whether they are dynamic in space and time, contingent on variable pest pressure? There are welldocumented cases of rapid changes in symbiont distribution and prevalence (Oliver et al. 2008; Jaenike et al. 2010), but the underlying causes may vary. In cases where symbionts cause reproductive incompatibility or induced parthenogenesis, symbionts can sweep rapidly through host populations (Perlman, Kelly & Hunter 2008; Himler et al. 2011). Relatively few experiments have directly manipulated defensive symbionts and natural enemies and measured host population responses, but they demonstrate that symbiosis is favoured in the presence of natural enemies and that symbiont prevalence increases over time. For example, endophyte-infected tall fescue grass (Lolium arundinaceum) exhibits increased resistance to herbivores due to the production of alkaloids by the symbiont (Bush, Wilkinson & Schardl 1997; Rudgers & Clay 2008). In a factorial experiment where insect and mammalian herbivory were manipulated independently, infection frequency increased significantly faster in populations with the greatest level of herbivory (Clay, Holah & Rudgers 2005). The endophyte spreads only through vertical transmission, so increasing infection frequency reflects the greater relative fitness of infected individuals under herbivore pressure (see also Koh & Hik 2007). Similarly, in population cage experiments with the pea aphid (Acythrosiphon pisum), the frequency of the protective endosymbiont Hamiltonella defensa increased dramatically after exposure to parasitoid wasps but decreased in the absence of parasitoids (Oliver et al. 2008). Evaluation of symbiont dynamics over time can also provide insights into factors leading to intermediate or fluctuating infection frequencies and frequency-dependent selection. MECHANISMS OF SYMBIONT TRANSMISSION
Understanding the mechanisms of symbiont transmission will provide additional insights into their dynamics over space and time. Most cases of defensive symbiosis involve vertically transmitted symbionts (through eggs, seeds, maternal environment, etc.), ensuring continuity of symbiosis across generations. A general threat to mutualism is the exploitation of host resources by symbionts that do not provide any benefits (i.e. cheaters; Bronstein 2001; Sachs et al. 2004; Orona-Tamayo & Heil 2013). Hereditary symbioses provide strong sanctions against cheaters because
© 2014 The Author. Functional Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Functional Ecology, 28, 293–298
296 Editorial vertically transmitted pathogens and their hosts will go extinct (Ewald 1987; Lipsitch, Siller & Nowak 1996; Haine 2008). Given the strong correlation between mutualism and vertical transmission, vertically transmitted microbes should be highly represented in defensive symbioses. Nevertheless, non-hereditary symbionts such as mycorrhizal fungi or leaf endophytes can confer protection against pathogens (Arnold et al. 2003; Busby et al. 2013), possibly by priming the plant immune system, and socially transmitted gut microbiota can protect bumblebees against intestinal parasites (Koch & Schmid-Hempel 2011). Defensive toxins, and the genetic machinery to synthesize them, may represent highly specific constitutive traits that are best maintained by vertical transmission. By contrast, immune system-priming mechanisms may be better accomplished by symbionts that are not permanent residents of the host. COMMUNITY AND ECOSYSTEM CONSEQUENCES OF DEFENSIVE SYMBIOSIS
One overarching question is how do defensive symbioses affect the structure and dynamics of communities and ecosystems? With defensive symbiosis, we should predict that the prevalence of the host and symbiont will increase while the prevalence of enemies will decrease. But we have limited understanding of how the density of natural enemies is affected by defensive symbiosis, and how those changes cascade through higher and lower trophic levels. In one example, manipulation of endophyte infection of tall fescue grass in field plots demonstrated that the structure of the plant community in plots with the symbiont became increasingly dominated by the host grass over time, while the abundance and diversity of insect herbivores in the same communities decreased (Clay, Holah & Rudgers 2005; Rudgers & Clay 2008). However, there were no changes in plant productivity (Clay & Holah 1999), and as a result, endophyte infection altered the relationship between diversity and ecosystem processes (Rudgers, Koslow & Clay 2004). There is a need for additional manipulative field studies as well as theoretical models exploring community dynamics of defensive symbioses analogous to models of nutritional or pollination symbioses (Schwartz & Hoeksema 1998; Bronstein 2001; Sachs et al. 2004; Holland & DeAngelis 2010). For example, if the density of enemies decreases with defensive symbiosis, then the advantage of symbiosis would also decrease, potentially leading to time-lagged, oscillatory dynamics in the numbers of symbiotic hosts and their enemies. This type of response may be less likely where interactions are non-specific or where there is little cost to symbiont infection. More research is required to evaluate the impacts of defensive symbioses on larger ecological processes.
Introduction to the Special Feature The goal of this Special Feature is to explore the diversity, mechanisms and consequences of defensive symbiosis mediated by micro-organisms to help organize and interpret the growing body of work and place it within a
broader ecological and evolutionary context of mutualism and symbiosis. In the accompanying papers, leading researchers in the field synthesize their own and related research on defensive symbiosis and provide independent perspectives on the current state of the field and future directions. Kaltenpoth & Engl (2014) consider defensive symbiosis in the Hymenoptera. In addition to the wellknown association of leaf cutter ants and wasps with antibiotic-producing symbiotic bacteria, there exist several other mechanisms of defence in this diverse and important insect group, including the use of symbiotic viruses to disable defensive responses of victims attacked by parasitoids. Lopanik (2014) explores the great diversity bioactive secondary chemistry in marine organisms and their role in defensive symbiosis. Many important marine groups such as corals and sponges represent complex symbiotic amalgamations (Gil-Turnes, Hay & Fenical 1989; Kwan et al. 2012) and marine bioprospecting promises to reveal more potential cases of defensive symbiosis. May & Nelson (2014) examine the important issue of interactions of symbionts within the same host. Most plants host a great diversity of fungal endosymbionts that can exhibit broad variety of effects on their hosts ranging from mutualistic to parasitic. The specific effects of these symbionts on the ecology and evolution of their hosts may be conditional on their interactions with each other such that quantifying the effects of single symbionts on hosts may be inaccurate or misleading. Oliver, Smith & Russell (2014) focus on heritable bacterial symbionts of insects and explore their population dynamics and fluctuating infection frequencies in natural host populations. Intermediate and fluctuating infection frequencies of defensive symbionts suggest that their relative costs and benefits vary in time and space. The rapid generation times and large populations of insects make them ideal systems to explore dynamics of defensive symbiosis. Finally, Panaccione, Beaulieu & Cook (2014) explore the expanding realm of heritable fungal endosymbionts of plants that produce bioactive alkaloid compounds. While the role of systemic fungal endophytes in protection of cool-season grass hosts from herbivores has been understood for several decades, recent research is revealing that the toxins produced by many poisonous plants are microbial in origin, and the microbes are systemic and vertically transmitted through seeds, suggesting convergent evolution of a common defence strategy. Several common themes emerge from this series of papers including contingency of outcomes based on the larger community context, convergent evolution of similar defensive strategies by independent groups of organisms and the exploitation of defensive symbionts by hosts, by symbionts and by enemies for a range of ecological interactions. The contributor’s focus on defensive symbiosis represents a fruitful area given that the phylogenetic and metabolic diversity of microbes provides a wealth of biochemical and immunological mechanisms by which host defence can be achieved and given that research has been greatly advanced
© 2014 The Author. Functional Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Functional Ecology, 28, 293–298
FE Spotlight by the application of powerful microbiological and molecular techniques. The results of research on defensive symbiosis have many implications for ecological communities and ecosystems, agriculture and human health.
Acknowledgements I would like to thank Charles Fox, Jennifer Meyer and other members of the Functional Ecology editorial office for their support and help in organizing this special feature. I especially thank the authors for their contributions and the reviewers for their helpful advice and suggestions.
References Arnold, A.E., Maynard, Z., Gilbert, G.S., Coley, P.D. & Kursar, T.A. (2000) Are tropical fungal endophytes hyperdiverse? Ecology Letters, 3, 267–274. Arnold, A.E., Mejia, L.C., Kyllo, D., Rojas, E.I., Maynard, Z., Robbins, N. et al. (2003) Fungal endophytes limit pathogen damage in a tropical tree. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 15649–15654. Beattie, A.J. (1985) The Evolutionary Ecology of Ant-Plant Mutualisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Beaulieu, W.T., Panaccione, D.G., Hazekamp, C.S., McKee, M.C., Ryan, K.L. & Clay, K. (2013) Differential allocation of seed-borne ergot alkaloids during early ontogeny of morning glories (Convolvulaceae). Journal of Chemical Ecology, 39, 919–930. Belt, T. (1874) The Naturalist in Nicaragua. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bentley, B. (1977) Extrafloral nectaries and protection by pugnacious bodyguards. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 8, 407–427. Boone, C.K., Keefover-Ring, K., Mapes, A.C., Adams, A.S., Bohlmann, J. & Raffa, K.F. (2013) Bacteria associated with a tree-killing insect reduce concentrations of plant defense compounds. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 39, 1003–1006. Boucher, D.H., James, S. & Keeler, K.H. (1982) The ecology of mutualism. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 13, 315–347. Braun, K., Romero, J., Liddell, C.M. & Creamer, R. (2003) Production of swainsonine by fungal endophytes of locoweed. Mycological Research, 107, 980–988. Bronstein, J. (2001) The exploitation of mutualisms. Ecology Letters, 4, 277–287. Busby, P.E., Zimmerman, N., Weston, D.J., Jawdy, S.S., Houbraken, J. & Newcombe, G. (2013) Leaf endophytes and Populus genotype affect severity of damage from the necrotrophic leaf pathogen, Drepanopeziza populi. Ecosphere, 4, art. 125. Bush, L.P., Wilkinson, H.H. & Schardl, C.L. (1997) Bioprotective alkaloids of grass-fungal endophyte symbioses. Plant Physiology, 114, 1–7. Cameron, D.D., Neal, A.L., van Wees, S.C.M. & Ton, J. (2013) Mycorrhiza-induced resistance: more than the sum of its parts? Trends in Plant Science, 18, 539–545. Chung, S.H., Rosa, C., Scully, E.D., Peiffer, M., Tooker, J.F., Hoover, K. et al. (2013) Herbivore exploits orally secreted bacteria to suppress plant defenses. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 15728–15733. Clay, K. (1988) Fungal endophytes of grasses: a defensive mutualism between plants and fungi. Ecology, 69, 10–16. Clay, K. & Holah, J. (1999) Fungal endophyte symbiosis and plant diversity in successional fields. Science, 285, 1742–1744. Clay, K., Holah, J. & Rudgers, J.A. (2005) Herbivores cause a rapid increase in hereditary symbiosis and alter plant community composition. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 12465–12470. Clay, K. & Schardl, C. (2002) Evolutionary origins and ecological consequences of endophyte symbiosis with grasses. The American Naturalist, 160, S99–S127. Cook, D., Beaulieu, W.T., Mott, I.W., Riet-Correa, F., Gardner, D.R., Grum, D. et al. (2013) Production of the alkaloid swainsonine by a fungal endosymbiont of the Ascomycete Order Chaetothyriales in the host Ipomoea carnea. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 61, 3797–3803. Costello, E.K., Lauber, C.L., Hamady, M., Fierer, N., Gordon, J.I. & Knight, R. (2009) Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science, 326, 1694–1697.
297
Currie, C.R., Mueller, U.G. & Malloch, D. (1999a) The agricultural pathology of ant fungus gardens. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96, 7998–8002. Currie, C.R., Scott, J.A., Summerbell, R.C. & Malloch, D. (1999b) Fungus-growing ants use antibiotic-producing bacteria to control garden parasites. Nature, 398, 701–704. Currie, C.R., Poulsen, M., Mendenhall, J., Boomsma, J.J. & Billen, J. (2006) Coevolved crypts and exocrine glands support mutualistic bacteria in fungus-growing ants. Science, 311, 81–83. Daskin, J.H. & Alford, R.A. (2012) Context-dependent symbioses and their potential roles in wildlife diseases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 279, 1457–1465. Egan, S., Harder, T., Burke, C., Steinberg, P., Kjelleberg, S. & Thomas, T. (2013) The seaweed holobiont: understanding seaweed–bacteria interactions. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 37, 462–476. Ewald, P. (1987) Transmission modes and evolution of the parasitismmutualism continuum. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 503, 295–306. Fernandez-Marın, H., Bruner, G., Gomez, E.B., Nash, D.R., Boomsma, J.J. & Wcislo, W.T. (2013) Dynamic disease management in Trachymyrmex fungus-growing ants (Attini: Formicidae). The American Naturalist, 181, 571–582. Gil-Turnes, M.S., Hay, M.E. & Fenical, W. (1989) Symbiotic marine bacteria chemically defend crustacean embryos from a pathogenic fungus. Science, 246, 116–118. Haine, E.R. (2008) Symbiont-mediated protection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 275, 353–361. Hawlena, H., Rynkiewicz, E., Toh, E., Alfred, A., Durden, L.A., Hastriter, M.W. et al. (2013) The arthropod, but not the vertebrate host or its environment, dictates bacterial community composition of fleas and ticks. ISME Journal, 7, 221–223. Hedges, L.M., Brownlie, J.C., O’Neill, S.L. & Johnson, K.N. (2008) Wolbachia and virus protection in insects. Science, 322, 702. Himler, A.G., Adachi-Hagimori, T., Bergen, J.E., Kozuch, A., Kelly, S.E., Tabashnik, B.E. et al. (2011) Rapid spread of a bacterial symbiont in an invasive whitefly is driven by fitness benefits and female bias. Science, 332, 254–256. Holland, J.N. & DeAngelis, D.L. (2010) A consumer-resource approach to the density-dependent population dynamics of mutualism. Ecology, 91, 1286–1295. Hussa, E.A. & Goodrich-Blair, H. (2013) It takes a village: ecological and fitness impacts of multipartite mutualism. Annual Review of Microbiology, 67, 61–78. Jaenike, J., Unckless, R., Cockburn, S.N., Boelio, L.M. & Perlman, S.J. (2010) Adaptation via symbiosis: recent spread of a Drosophila defensive symbiont. Science, 329, 212–215. Janzen, D.H. (1973) Dissolution of mutualism between Cecropia and Azteca ants. Biotropica, 5, 15–28. Janzen, D.H. (1985) The natural history of mutualisms. The Biology of Mutualism (ed. D.H. Boucher), pp. 40–99. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Jung, S.C., Martinez-Medina, A., Lopez-Raez, J.A. & Pozo, M.J. (2012) Mycorrhiza-induced resistance and priming of plant defenses. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 38, 651–664. Kaltenpoth, M., G€ ottler, W., Herzner, G. & Strohm, E. (2005) Symbiotic bacteria protect wasp larvae from fungal infestation. Current Biology, 15, 475–479. Kaltenpoth, M. & Engl, T. (2014) Defensive microbial symbionts in Hymenoptera. Functional Ecology, 28, 315–327. Kellner, R.L.L. & Dettner, K. (1996) Differential efficacy of toxic pederin in deterring potential arthropod predators of Paederus (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) offspring. Oecologia, 107, 293–300. Klyachko, O., Stein, B., Grindle, N., Clay, K. & Fuqua, C. (2007) Localization and visualization of a Coxiella-type symbiont within the Lone Star Tick Amblyomma americanum. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 73, 6584–6594. Koch, H. & Schmid-Hempel, P. (2011) Socially transmitted gut microbiota protect bumble bees against an intestinal parasite. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 19288–19292. Koh, S. & Hik, D.S. (2007) Herbivory mediates grass-endophyte relationships. Ecology, 88, 2752–2757. Kohl, K.M. & Dearing, D. (2012) Experience matters: prior exposure to plant toxins enhances diversity of gut microbes in herbivores. Ecology Letters., 15, 1008–1015.
© 2014 The Author. Functional Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Functional Ecology, 28, 293–298
298 Editorial Kwan, J.C., Donia, M.S., Han, A.W., Hirose, E., Haygood, M.G. & Schmidt, E.W. (2012) Genome streamlining and chemical defense in a coral reef symbiosis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 20655–20660. Lipsitch, M., Siller, S. & Nowak, M.A. (1996) The evolution of virulence in pathogens with vertical and horizontal transmission. Evolution, 50, 1729–1741. Little, T.J. & Kraaijeveld, A.R. (2004) Ecological and evolutionary implications of immunological priming in invertebrates. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 19, 58–60. Lively, C.M., Clay, K., Wade, M.J. & Fuqua, C. (2005) Competitive coexistence of vertically and horizontally transmitted parasites. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 7, 1183–1190. Lopanik, N.B. (2014) Chemical defensive symbioses in the marine environment. Functional Ecology, 28, 328–340. Lopanik, N., Lindquist, N. & Targett, N. (2004) Potent cytotoxins produced by a microbial symbiont protect host larvae from predation. Oecologia, 139, 131–139. Lukasik, P., van Asch, M., Guo, H.F., Ferrari, J. & Godfray, H.C.J. (2013) Unrelated facultative endosymbionts protect aphids against a fungal pathogen. Ecology Letters, 16, 214–218. Lundberg, D.S., Lebeis, S.L., Paredes, S.H., Yourstone, S., Gehring, J., Malfatti, S. et al. (2012) Defining the core Arabidopsis thaliana root microbiome. Nature, 488, 86–90. Mao-Jones, J., Ritchie, K.B., Jones, L.E. & Ellner, S.P. (2010) How microbial community composition regulates coral disease development. PLoS Biology, 8, e1000345. May, G. & Nelson, P. (2014) Defensive mutualisms: do microbial interactions within hosts drive the evolution of defensive traits? Functional Ecology, 28, 356–363. Mazmanian, S.K., Round, J.L. & Kasper, D.L. (2008) A microbial symbiosis factor prevents intestinal inflammatory disease. Nature, 453, 620–625. McCutcheon, J.P., McDonald, B.R. & Moran, N.A. (2009) Convergent evolution of metabolic roles in bacterial co-symbionts of insects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 15394–15399. Moran, N.A., Degnan, P.H., Santos, S.R., Dunbar, H.E. & Ochman, H. (2005) The players in a mutualistic symbiosis: insects, bacteria, viruses, and virulence genes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102, 16919–16926. Moreira, L.A., Iturbe-Ormaetxe, I., Jeffery, J.A., Lu, G., Pyke, A.T., Hedges, L.M. et al. (2009) A Wolbachia symbiont in Aedes aegypti limits infection with dengue, Chikungunya, and Plasmodium. Cell, 139, 1268–1278. Nakabachi, A., Ueoka, R., Oshima, K., Teta, R., Mangoni, A., Gurgui, M. et al. (2013) Defensive bacteriome symbiont with a drastically reduced genome. Current Biology, 23, 1478–1484. Oliver, K.M. & Moran, N.A. (2009) Defensive symbionts in aphids and other insects. Defensive Mutualism in Microbial Symbiosis (eds J.F. White Jr & M.S. Torres), pp. 129–148. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Oliver, K.M., Russell, J.A., Moran, N.A. & Hunter, M.S. (2003) Facultative bacterial symbionts in aphids confer resistance to parasitic wasps. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100, 1803–1807. Oliver, K.M., Campos, J., Moran, N.A. & Hunter, M.S. (2008) Population dynamics of defensive symbionts in aphids. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 275, 293–299. Oliver, K.M., Degnan, P.H., Burke, G.R. & Moran, N.A. (2010) Facultative symbionts in aphids and the horizontal transfer of ecologically important traits. Annual Review of Entomology, 55, 247–266. Oliver, K.M., Smith, A.H. & Russell, J.A. (2014) Defensive symbiosis in the real world – advancing ecological studies of heritable, protective bacteria in aphids and beyond. Functional Ecology, 28, 341–355. Orona-Tamayo, D. & Heil, M. (2013) Stabilizing mutualisms threatened by exploiters: new insights from ant–plant research. Biotropica, 45, 654–665. Osborne, S.E., Leong, Y.S., O’Neill, S.L. & Johnson, K.N. (2009) Variation in antiviral protection mediated by different Wolbachia strains in Drosophila simulans. PLoS Pathogens, 5, e1000656. Palmer, T.M., Stanton, M.L., Young, T.P., Goheen, J.R., Pringle, R.M. & Karban, R. (2008) Breakdown of an ant-plant mutualism follows the loss of large herbivores from an African Savanna. Science, 319, 192–195. Panaccione, D.G., Beaulieu, W.T. & Cook, D. (2014) Bioactive alkaloids in vertically transmitted fungal endophytes. Functional Ecology, 28, 299–314. Perlman, S.J., Kelly, S.E. & Hunter, M.S. (2008) Population biology of cytoplasmic incompatibility: maintenance and spread of Cardinium symbionts in a parasitic wasp. Genetics, 178, 1003–1011.
Rico-Grey, V. & Oliveira, P.S. (2007) The Ecology and Evolution of Ant-Plant Interactions. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Rodriguez, R.J., White, J.F., Arnold, A.E. & Redman, R.S. (2009) Fungal endophytes: diversity and functional roles. New Phytologist, 182, 314–330. Rudgers, J.A. & Clay, K. (2008) An invasive plant-fungal mutualism reduces arthropod diversity. Ecology Letters, 11, 831–840. Rudgers, J.A., Koslow, J.M. & Clay, K. (2004) Endophytic fungi alter relationships between diversity and ecosystem processes. Ecology Letters, 7, 42–51. Rudgers, J.A. & Strauss, S.Y. (2004) A selection mosaic in the facultative mutualism between ants and wild cotton. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 271, 2481–2488. Sachs, J.L., Mueller, U.G., Wilcox, T.P. & Bull, J.J. (2004) The evolution of cooperation. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 79, 135–160. Scarborough, C., Ferrari, J. & Godfray, H. (2005) Aphid protected from pathogen by endosymbiont. Science, 310, 1781. Schardl, C.L., Young, C.A., Hesse, U., Amyotte, S.G., Andreeva, K., Calie, P.J. et al. (2013) Plant-symbiotic fungi as chemical engineers: multi-genome analysis of the Clavicipitaceae reveals dynamics of alkaloid loci. PLoS Genetics, 9, e1003323. Schwartz, M.W. & Hoeksema, J.D. (1998) Specialization and resource trade: biological markets as a model of mutualisms. Ecology, 79, 1029–1038. Scott, J.J., Oh, D.C., Yuceer, M.C., Klepzig, K.D., Clardy, J. & Currie, C.R. (2008) Bacterial protection of beetle-fungus mutualism. Science, 322, 63–63. Simmons, T.L., Coates, R.C., Clark, B.R., Engene, N., Gonzalez, D., Esquenazi, E. et al. (2008) Biosynthetic origin of natural products isolated from marine microorganism-invertebrate assemblages. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105, 4587–4594. Smillie, C.S., Smith, M.B., Friedman, J., Cordero, O.X., David, L.A. & Alm, E.J. (2011) Ecology drives a global network of gene exchange connecting the human microbiome. Nature, 480, 241–244. Strand, M.R. & Burke, G.R. (2012) Polydnaviruses as symbionts and gene delivery systems. PLoS Pathogens, 8, e1002757. Teixeira, L., Ferreira, A. & Ashburner, M. (2008) The bacterial symbiont Wolbachia induces resistance to RNA viral infections in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biology, 6, e2. Tsuchida, T., Koga, R., Horikawa, M., Tsunoda, T., Maoka, T., Matsumoto, S. et al. (2010) Symbiotic bacterium modifies aphid body color. Science, 330, 1102–1104. Turnbaugh, P.J., Hamady, M., Yatsunenko, T., Cantarel, B.L., Duncan, A., Ley, R.E. et al. (2009) A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature, 457, 480–487. Um, S., Fraimout, A., Sapountzis, P., Oh, D.C. & Poulsen, M. (2013) The fungus-growing termite Macrotermes natalensis harbors bacillaene-producing Bacillus sp. that inhibit potentially antagonistic fungi. Scientific Reports, 3, art. 3250. Verstraete, B., Van Elst, D., Steyn, H., Van Wyk, B., Lemaire, B., Smets, E. et al. (2011) Endophytic bacteria in toxic South African plants: identification, phylogeny and possible involvement in gousiekte. PLoS ONE, 6, e19265. Weldon, S.R., Strand, M.R. & Oliver, K.M. (2013) Phage loss and the breakdown of a defensive symbiosis in aphids. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences, 280, 1751. Werren, J.H., Richards, S., Desjardins, C.A., Niehuis, O., Gadau, J. & Colbourne, J.K. (2010) Functional and evolutionary insights from the genomes of three parasitoid Nasonia species. Science, 327, 343–348. White, J.F. & Torres, M.S. (eds) (2009) Defensive Mutualism in Microbial Symbiosis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. Wicklow, D.T., Roth, S., Deyrup, S.T. & Gloer, J.B. (2005) A protective endophyte of maize: Acremonium zeae antibiotics inhibitory to Aspergillus flavus and Fusarium verticillioides. Mycological Research, 109, 610–618. Xie, J.L., Vilchez, I. & Mateos, M. (2010) Spiroplasma bacteria enhance survival of Drosophila hydei attacked by the parasitic wasp Leptopilina heterotoma. PLoS ONE, 5, e12149. Zhu, L.F., Wu, Q., Dai, J.Y., Zhang, S.N. & Wei, F.W. (2011) Evidence of cellulose metabolism by the giant panda gut microbiome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 17714–17719. Zhu, Y.G., Johnson, T.A., Su, J.Q., Qiao, M., Guo, G.X., Stedtfeld, R.D. et al. (2013) Diverse and abundant antibiotic resistance genes in Chinese swine farms. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 3435–3440. Received 28 Jan 2014; accepted 30 January 2014 Handling Editor: Charles Fox
© 2014 The Author. Functional Ecology © 2014 British Ecological Society, Functional Ecology, 28, 293–298
