Microbial Ecology

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 199–211 | Cite as

Microbial Community Profiling to Investigate Transmission of Bacteria Between Life Stages of the Wood-Boring Beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis

  • Scott M. Geib
  • Maria del Mar Jimenez-Gasco
  • John E. Carlson
  • Ming Tien
  • Randa Jabbour
  • Kelli HooverEmail author
Host Microbe Interactions


Many insects harbor specific bacteria in their digestive tract, and these gut microbiota often play important roles in digestion and nutrient provisioning. While it is common for a given insect species to harbor a representative gut microbial community as a population, how this community is acquired and maintained from generation to generation is not known for most xylophagous insects, except termites. In this study, we examined acquisition of gut microbiota by the wood-feeding beetle, Anoplophora glabripennis, by identifying and comparing microbial community members among different life stages of the insect and with microbes it encounters in the environment. Automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis was employed to compare bacterial communities present in the egg and larval stages of A. glabripennis as well as with microbes found in the oviposition site and the surrounding woody tissue. Multivariate analyses were used to identify relationships between sample type and specific bacterial types (operational taxonomic units). From this analysis, bacteria that were derived from the environment, the oviposition site, and/or the egg were identified and compared with taxa found in larvae. Results showed that while some larval microbes were derived from environmental sources, other members of the larval microbial community appear to be vertically transmitted. These findings could lead to a better understanding of which microbial species are critical for the survival of this insect and to development of techniques that could be used to alter this community to disrupt the digestive physiology of the host insect as a biological control measure.


Microbial Community Bark Sample Type Canonical Correspondence Analysis Oviposition Site 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



We thank E. Scully, I. Ramos, K. Pongrance, and J. Yenerall for assistance in rearing Asian longhorned beetle and laboratory assistance and the Penn State Nucleic Acid Facility for fragment analysis and DNA sequencing. Funding for this project was provided by the Alphawood Foundation, Chicago, IL and the Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences Seed Grant to K. Hoover.


  1. 1.
    Abril AB, Bucher EH (2002) Evidence that the fungus cultured by leaf-cutting ants does not metabolize cellulose. Ecol Lett 5:325–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aksoy S (2000) Tsetse—a haven for microorganisms. Parasitol Today 16:114–118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson MJ (2005) PERMANOVA: permutational multivariate analysis of variance. Department of Statistics, University of Auckland, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bauer S, Tholen A, Overmann J, Brune A (2000) Characterization of abundance and diversity of lactic acid bacteria in the hindgut of wood- and soil-feeding termites by molecular and culture-dependent techniques. Arch Microbiol 173:126–137PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breznak J ((2000) Ecology of prokaryotic microbes in the guts of wood- and litter-feeding termites. In: Abe T, Bigness D, Higashi M (eds) Termites: evolution, sociality, symbiosis, ecology. Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp 209–231Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Broderick NA, Raffa KF, Goodman RM, Handelsman J (2004) Census of the bacterial community of the gypsy moth larval midgut by using culturing and culture-independent methods. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:293–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brown MV, Schwalbach MS, Hewson I, Fuhrman JA (2005) Coupling 16S-ITS rDNA clone libraries and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis to show marine microbial diversity: development and application to a time series. Environ Microbiol 7:1466–1479PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brune A (2003) Symbionts aiding digestion. In: Resh V, Carde R (eds) Encyclopedia of insects. Academic, New York, pp 1102–1107Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchner P (1965) Endosymbiosis of animals with plant microorganisms. Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cardinale M, Brusetti L, Quatrini P, Borin S, Puglia AM, Rizzi A, Zanardini E, Sorlini C, Corselli C, Daffonchio D (2004) Comparison of different primer sets for use in automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis of complex bacterial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 70:6147–6156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cardoza YJ, Paskewitz S, Raffa KF (2006) Travelling through time and space on wings of beetles: a tripartite insect–fungi–nematode association. Symbiosis 41:71–79Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cazemier AE, Hackstein JHP, denCamp HLMO, Rosenberg J, vanderDrift C (1997) Bacteria in the intestinal tract of different species of arthropods. Microb Ecol 33:189–197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D’Ettorre P, Mora P, Dibangou V, Rouland C, Errard C (2002) The role of the symbiotic fungus in the digestive metabolism of two species of fungus-growing ants. J Comp Physiol B 172:169–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Danovaro R, Luna GM, Dell’Anno A, Pietrangeli B (2006) Comparison of two fingerprinting techniques, terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism and automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis, for determination of bacterial diversity in aquatic environments. Appl Environ Microbiol 72:5982–5989PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    de Vries EJ, Breeuwer JAJ, Jacobs G, Mollema C (2001) The association of western flower thrips, Frankliniella occidentalis, with a near Erwinia species gut bacteria: transient or permanent? J Invertebr Pathol 77:120–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Denno RF, Fagan WF (2003) Might nitrogen limitation promote omnivory among carnivorous arthropods? Ecology 84:2522–2531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Dillon R, Charnley K (2002) Mutualism between the desert locust Schistocerca gregaria and its gut microbiota. Res Microbiol 153:503–509PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dillon RJ, Dillon VM (2004) The gut bacteria of insects: nonpathogenic interactions. Annu Rev Entomol 49:71–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dubois T, Hajek AE, Smith S (2002) Methods for rearing the Asian longhorned beetle (Coleoptera : Cerambycidae) on artificial diet. Ann Entomol Soc Am 95:223–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fukatsu T, Hosokawa T (2002) Capsule-transmitted gut symbiotic bacterium of the Japanese common plataspid stinkbug, Megacopta punctatissima. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:389–396PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Haack RA (2003) Research on Anoplophora glabripennis in the United States. Nach bl Deutschen Pflanzenschutzdienstes 55:68–70Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hanks LM (1999) Influence of the larval host plant on reproductive strategies of cerambycid beetles. Annu Rev Entomol 44:483–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hosokawa T, Kikuchi Y, Fukatsu T (2007) How many symbionts are provided by mothers, acquired by offspring, and needed for successful vertical transmission in an obligate insect-bacterium mutualism? Mol Ecol 16:5316–5325PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hosokawa T, Kikuchi Y, Shimada M, Fukatsu T (2007) Obligate symbiont involved in pest status of host insect. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 274:1979–1984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kent AD, Jones SE, Yannarell AC, Graham JM, Lauster GH, Kratz TK, Triplett EW (2004) Annual patterns in bacterioplankton community variability in a humic lake. Microb Ecol 48:550–560PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kikuchi Y, Hosokawa T, Fukatsu T (2007) Insect–microbe mutualism without vertical transmission: a stinkbug acquires a beneficial gut symbiont from the environment every generation. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:4308–4316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kirk TK, Highley TL (1973) Quantitative changes in structural components of conifer woods during decay by white-rot and brown-rot fungi. Phytopathology 63:1338–1342Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lee AH, Husseneder C, Hooper-Bui L (2008) Culture-independent identification of gut bacteria in fourth-instar red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta Buren, larvae. J Invertebr Pathol 98:20–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leps J, Smilauer P (2003) Multivariate analysis of ecological data using CANOCO. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lingafelter SW, Hoebeke ER (2002) Revision of Anoplophora (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). Entomological Society of Washington, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Maechler M (2008) The cluster package, extended original from P. Rousseeuw, A. Struyf, and M. Hubert. Available at []
  32. 32.
    Maron PA, Mougel C, Siblot S, Abbas H, Lemanceau P, Ranjard L (2007) Protein extraction and fingerprinting optimization of bacterial communities in natural environment. Microb Ecol 53:426–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Martin MM (1992) The evolution of insect–fungus associations—from contact to stable symbiosis. Am Zool 32:593–605Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    McCune B, Grace JB (2002) Analysis of Ecological Communities. MjM Software Design, Gleneden Beach, OregonGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mira A, Moran NA (2002) Estimating population size and transmission bottlenecks in maternally transmitted endosymbiotic bacteria. Microb Ecol 44:137–143PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moran NA, Plague GR, Sandstrom JP, Wilcox JL (2003) A genomic perspective on nutrient provisioning by bacterial symbionts of insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:14543–14548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morewood WD, Hoover K, Neiner PR, Sellmer JC (2005) Complete development of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in northern red oak trees. Can Entomol 137:376–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morewood WD, Neiner PR, McNeil JR, Sellmer JC, Hoover K (2003) Oviposition preference and larval performance of Anoplophora glabripennis (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae) in four eastern North American hardwood tree species. Environ Entomol 32:1028–1034Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Morewood WD, Neiner PR, Sellmer JC, Hoover K (2004) Behavior of adult Anoplophora glabripennis on different tree species under greenhouse conditions. J Insect Behav 17:215–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Oliver KM, Moran NA, Hunter MS (2006) Costs and benefits of a superinfection of facultative symbionts in aphids. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 273:1273–1280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Park DS, Oh HW, Jeong WJ, Kim H, Park HY, Bae KS (2007) A culture-based study of the bacterial communities within the guts of nine longicorn beetle species and their exo-enzyme producing properties for degrading xylan and pectin. J Microbiol 45:394–401PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ranjard L, Lejon DPH, Mougel C, Schehrer L, Merdinoglu D, Chaussod R (2003) Sampling strategy in molecular microbial ecology: influence of soil sample size on DNA fingerprinting analysis of fungal and bacterial communities. Environ Microbiol 5:1111–1120PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ranjard L, Poly F, Lata JC, Mougel C, Thioulouse J, Nazaret S (2001) Characterization of bacterial and fungal soil communities by automated ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis fingerprints: biological and methodological variability. Appl Environ Microbiol 67:4479–4487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schloss PD, Delalibera I, Handelsman J, Raffa KF (2006) Bacteria associated with the guts of two wood-boring beetles: Anoplophora glabripennis and Saperda vestita (Cerambycidae). Environ Entomol 35:625–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S (2007) MEGA4: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis (MEGA) software version 4.0. Mol Biol Evol 24:1596–1599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Team R Development Core (2007) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL
  47. 47.
    ter Braak CJF, Smilauer P (2002) CANOCO reference manual and CanoDraw for Windows user’s guide: software for canonical community ordination, 4.5 edition. Microcomputer Power, Ithaca, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thao ML, Clark MA, Baumann L, Brennan EB, Moran NA, Baumann P (2000) Secondary endosymbionts of psyllids have been acquired multiple times. Curr Microbiol 41:300–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tholen A (1997) The gut microflora of Reticulitermes flavipes, its relation to oxygen, and evidence for oxygen-dependent acetogenesis by the most abundant Enterococcus sp. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 24:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Watanabe H, Tokuda G (2001) Animal cellulases. Cell Mol Life Sci 58:1167–1178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Yan J (1985) Research on distribution of basicosta whitespotted longhorn (Anoplophora glabripennis) in east China. Journal of North-Eastern Forestry College, China 13:62–69Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yang X, Zhou J, Wang F, Cui M (1995) A study on the feeding habits of the larvae of two species of longicorn (Anoplophora) to different tree species. Journal of the Northwest Forestry College, China 10:1–6Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Yu P (2005) Protein secondary structures (alpha-helix and beta-sheet) at a cellular level and protein fractions in relation to rumen degradation behaviours of protein: a new approach. Br J Nutr 94:655–665PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Scott M. Geib
    • 1
    • 2
  • Maria del Mar Jimenez-Gasco
    • 3
  • John E. Carlson
    • 4
    • 5
  • Ming Tien
    • 1
    • 2
  • Randa Jabbour
    • 6
  • Kelli Hoover
    • 2
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  2. 2.Center for Chemical EcologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant PathologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  4. 4.The School of Forest ResourcesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  5. 5.The Huck Institutes for Life SciencesThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  6. 6.Intercollege Program in EcologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA
  7. 7.Department of EntomologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations