Universes within universes: microbiome diversity associated with different body parts of the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis)


Abstract

The bodies of animals host millions of microbial communities collectively known as the microbiome. The microbiome plays a crucial role in various processes related to the host’s health and well-being. Although our understanding of the microbiome’s importance to host functioning is growing rapidly, many aspects remain poorly understood. One such aspect is the role of the microbiome in chemical communication. To address this question, we used the sand lizard (Lacerta agilis), a reptile with well-developed chemosensory abilities and commonly distributed in Central Europe. Our first goal was to characterize the bacterial microbiome associated with different body parts potentially involved in chemical signalling (e.g., femoral glands, cloaca, and skin). Additionally, we examined sex-related differences in the microbiome that could be connected to intraspecific communication. Over two years, a total of 274 samples were collected. Amplicon sequencing of the 16S rRNA V3–V4 region revealed significant variation in microbial diversity across body parts, with the skin hosting the most diverse and balanced communities. In contrast, the cloaca and femoral glands contained less diverse but more specialised assemblages. No differences in microbial diversity between sexes were observed, but the year of sampling was an important factor, suggesting a highly dynamic microbiome in sand lizards. There was minimal overlap in the number of unique operational taxonomic units (OTUs) between body parts, indicating a small core microbiome (~1% of shared taxa). Sex differences in tissue-specific bacteria were more pronounced in the cloaca, supporting the idea that the cloacal microbiome is highly specialised. Our findings suggest that microbial communities vary significantly among body parts, with strong tissue specificity, indicating that each region provides a distinct ecological niche. This study offers promising directions for future research into how host-associated microbiomes could influence chemical communication in vertebrates.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].