Microbial Ecology

, Volume 53, Issue 4, pp 571–578 | Cite as

Ecological Variables Affecting Predatory Success in Myxococcus xanthus

  • Kristina L. Hillesland
  • Richard E. Lenski
  • Gregory J. Velicer
Article

Abstract

The feeding efficiency of microbial predators depends on both the availability of various prey species and abiotic variables. Myxococcus xanthus is a bacterial predator that searches for microbial prey by gliding motility, and then kills and lyses its prey with secreted compounds. We manipulated three ecological variables to examine their effects on the predatory performance of M. xanthus to better understand its behavior and how it affects prey populations. Experiments were designed to determine how surface solidity (hard vs soft agar), density of prey patches (1 vs 2 cm grids), and type of prey (Gram-positive Micrococcus luteus vs Gram-negative Escherichia coli) affect predatory swarming and prey killing by M. xanthus. The prey were dispersed in patches on a buffered agar surface. M. xanthus swarms attacked a greater proportion of prey patches when patches were densely arranged on a hard-agar surface, compared with either soft-agar surfaces or low-patch-density arrangements. These ecological variables did not significantly influence the rate of killing of individual prey within a patch, although a few surviving prey were more likely to be recovered on soft agar than on hard agar. These results indicate that M. xanthus quickly kills most nearby E. coli or M. luteus regardless of the surface. However, the ability of M. xanthus to search out patches of these prey is affected by surface hardness, the density of prey patches, and the prey species.

References

  1. 1.
    Alexander, M (1981) Why microbial predators and parasites do not eliminate their prey and hosts. Annu Rev Microbiol 35: 113–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohannan, BJM, Lenski, RE (2000) Linking genetic change to community evolution: insights from studies of bacteria and bacteriophage. Ecol Lett 3: 362–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bretscher, AP, Kaiser, D (1978) Nutrition of Myxococcus xanthus, a fruiting myxobacterium. J Bacteriol 133: 763–768PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bull, CT, Shetty, KG, Subbarao, KV (2002) Interactions between Myxobacteria, plant pathogenic fungi, and biocontrol agents. Plant Dis 86: 889–896CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carlton, BC, Brown, BJ (1981) Gene mutation. In: Gerhardt, P, Murray, R, Costilow, R, Nester, E, Wood, W, Krigg, N, Philips, G (Eds.) Manual of Methods for General Bacteriology. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C., pp 222–242Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dworkin, M (1996) Recent advances in the social and developmental biology of the Myxobacteria. Microbiol Rev 60: 70–102PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Estes, JA, Tinker, MT, Williams, TM, Doak, DF (1998) Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282: 473–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fiegna, F, Velicer, GJ (2005) Exploitative and hierarchical antagonism in a cooperative bacterium. PLoS Biol 3: 1980–1987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fontes, M, Kaiser, D (1999) Myxococcus cells respond to elastic forces in their substrate. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96: 8052–8057PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hart, BA, Zahler, SA (1966) Lytic enzyme produced by Myxococcus xanthus. J Bacteriol 92: 1632–1637PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hillesland, KL, Velicer, GJ (2005) Resource level affects relative performance of the two motility systems of Myxococcus xanthus. Microb Ecol 49: 558–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hodgkin, J, Kaiser, D (1979) Genetics of gliding motility in Myxococcus xanthus (Myxobacterales): two gene systems control movement. Mol Gen Genet 171: 177–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holling, CS (1959) Some characteristics of simple types of predation and parasitism. Can Entomol 91: 385–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jackson, L, Whiting, RC (1992) Reduction of an Escherichia coli K12 population by Bdellovibrio bacteriovorus under various in vitro conditions of parasite:host ratio, temperature, or pH. J Food Protect 55: 859–861Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jurgens, K, Matz, C (2002) Predation as a shaping force for the phenotypic and genotypic composition of planktonic bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 81: 413–434PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaiser, D (1979) Social gliding is correlated with the presence of pili in Myxococcus xanthus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 76: 5952–5956PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kaiser, D (2003) Coupling cell movement to multicellular development in Myxobacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol 1: 45–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kearns, DB, Shimkets, LJ (2001) Lipid chemotaxis and signal transduction in Myxococcus xanthus. Trends Microbiol 9: 126–129PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Martin, MO (2002) Predatory prokaryotes: an emerging research opportunity. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol 4: 467–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Messier, F (1994) Ungulate population models with predation: a case study with the North American moose. Ecology 75: 478–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mittelbach, GG, Turner, AM, Hall, DJ, Rettig, JE, Osenberg, CW (1995) Perturbation and resilience: a long-term, whole lake study of predator extinction and reintroduction. Ecology 76: 2347–2360CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pham, VD, Shebelut, CW, Diodati, ME, Bull, CT, Singer, M (2005) Mutations affecting predation ability of the soil bacterium Myxococcus xanthus. Microbiology 151: 1865–1874PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Reichenbach, H, Gerth, K, Irschik, H, Kunze, B, Höfle, G (1988) Myxobacteria: a source of new antibiotics. TIBTECH 6: 115–121Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reichenbach, H, Höfle, G (1993) Biologically active secondary metabolites from Myxobacteria. Biotechnol Adv 11: 219–277PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rønn, R, McCaig, AE, Griffiths, BS, Prosser, JI (2002) Impact of protozoan grazing on bacterial community structure in soil microcosms. Appl Environ Microbiol 68: 6094–6105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rosenberg, E, Vaks, B, Zuckerberg, A (1973) Bactericidal action of an antibiotic produced by Myxococcus xanthus. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 4: 507–513PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosenberg, E, Varon, M (1984) Antibiotics and lytic enzymes. In: Rosenberg, E (Ed.) Myxobacteria: Development and Cell Interactions. Springer-Verlag, New York, pp 109–125Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sambrook, J, Fritsch, E, Maniatis, T (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Plainview, NYGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    SAS Institute (2001) The SAS System. SAS Institute, Cary, NCGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Schmitz, OJ (1998) Direct and indirect effects of predation and predation risk in old-field interaction webs. Am Nat 151: 327–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shi, W, Zusman, DR (1993) The two motility systems of Myxococcus xanthus show different selective advantages on various surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90: 3378–3382PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Spiller, DA, Schoener, TW (1998) Lizards reduce spider species richness by excluding rare species. Ecology 79: 503–516CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Spormann, AM (1999) Gliding motility in bacteria: insights from studies of Myxococcus xanthus. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 63: 621–641PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Stenseth, NC, Shabbar, A, Chan, KS, Boutin, S, Rueness, EK, Ehrich, D, Hurrell, JW, Lingjærde, OC, Jakobsen, KS (2004) Snow conditions may create an invisible barrier for lynx. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101: 10632–10634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sudo, S, Dworkin, M (1972) Bacteriolytic enzymes produced by Myxococcus xanthus. J Bacteriol 110: 236–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sun, H, Zusman, DR, Shi, W (2000) Type IV pilus of Myxococcus xanthus is a motility apparatus controlled by the frz chemosensory system. Curr Biol 10: 1143–1146PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Varon, M, Zeigler, BP (1978) Bacterial predator–prey interaction at low prey density. Appl Environ Microbiol 36: 11–17PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Varon, M, Fine, M, Stein, A (1984) The maintenance of Bdellovibrio at low prey density. Microb Ecol 10: 95–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Velicer, GJ, Kroos, L, Lenski, RE (1998) Loss of social behaviors by Myxococcus xanthus during evolution in an unstructured habitat. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95: 12376–12380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vlamakis, HC, Kirby, JR, Zusman, DR (2004) The Che4 pathway of Myxococcus xanthus regulates type IV pilus-mediated motility. Mol Microbiol 52: 1799–1811PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wolgemuth, C, Hoiczyk, E, Kaiser, D, Oster, G (2002) How Myxobacteria glide. Curr Biol 12: 369–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Yang, Z, Geng, Y, Xu, D, Kaplan, HB, Shi, W (1998) A new set of chemotaxis homologues is essential for Myxococcus xanthus social motility. Mol Microbiol 30: 1123–1130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Yang, Z, Ma, X, Tong, L, Kaplan, HB, Shimkets, LJ, Shi, W (2000) Myxococcus xanthus dif genes are required for biogenesis of cell surface fibrils essential for social gliding motility. J Bacteriol 182: 5793–5798PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kristina L. Hillesland
    • 1
  • Richard E. Lenski
    • 2
  • Gregory J. Velicer
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Microbiology and Molecular GeneticsMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Department of Evolutionary BiologyMax-Planck Institute for Developmental BiologyTuebingenGermany

Personalised recommendations