Comparison of the bacterial abundance and diversity in the Leptocybe invasa Fisher & La Salle (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) between both sexes
A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.
Author and article information
Abstract
Background. Insects harbor a myriad of microorganisms, many of which can affect the sex ratio and manipulate the reproduction of the host. Leptocybe invasa is an invasive pest that causes serious damage to eucalyptus plantations, and both female-biased sex ratios and thelytokous parthenogenesis in L. invasa contribute to the rapid invasion and fast growth of the population. However, the interior bacterial composition and abundance of L. invasa and the differences between both sexes remain unclear.
Results. The Illumina MiSeq platform was used to compare the composition of the bacterial community in adult females and males by sequencing with variation in the V3-V4 region of the 16S ribosomal DNA gene. The results showed that 1320 operational taxonomic units (OTUs) were obtained in total. These OTUs were annotated into 24 phyla, 71 classes, 130 orders, 245 families and 501 genera. At the genus level, the dominant bacteria in females and males was Rickettsia and Rhizobium, respectively.
Conclusion. The bacteria living in L. invasa adult females and males had high diversity. There were differences in the bacterial community in L. invasa between both sexes, and the bacterial diversity in male adults was more abundant than that in female adults. This study presents a comprehensive comparison of bacterial communities living in L. invasa between sexes, which plays a significant role in reproductive strategy, sex regulation and the invasive mechanism of L. invasa and provides a basis for follow-up studies on the coevolution and interaction between L. invasa and its predominant bacteria.
Cite this as
2019. Comparison of the bacterial abundance and diversity in the Leptocybe invasa Fisher & La Salle (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae) between both sexes. PeerJ Preprints 7:e27826v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27826v1note This preprint is not peer-reviewed. You may wish to reference the subsequent peer-reviewed version of this article.
Author comment
This is a submission to PeerJ for review.
Sections
Supplemental Information
Basic information of high-throughput sequencing based on bacteria 16S rDNA in the Leptocybe invasa
Additional Information
Competing Interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author Contributions
Chunhui Guo conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Xin Peng performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, approved the final draft.
Xialin Zheng analyzed the data, approved the final draft.
Xiaoyun Wang analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Ruirui Wang conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, approved the final draft.
Zongyou Huang prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Zhende Yang conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.
Data Deposition
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
Data is available at NCBI SRA, accession numbers: SRR9591039, SRR9591038.And the data also available at Figshare, DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.8323616
Funding
The research was financially supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 31560212 and 31870634) and Guangxi Natural Science Foundation (grant number No.2018GXNSFAA294008, 2018GXNSFDA281004 and 2018GXNSFAA138099). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
