Differences Between Bacterial Communities Associated with the Surface or Tissue of Mediterranean Sponge Species
- 324 Downloads
Bacterial communities associated with the surfaces of several Mediterranean sponge species (Agelas oroides, Chondrosia reniformis, Petrosia ficiformis, Geodia sp., Tethya sp., Axinella polypoides, Dysidea avara, and Oscarella lobularis) were compared to those associated with the mesohyl of sponges and other animate or inanimate reference surfaces as well as with those from bulk seawater. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) analysis of PCR-amplified bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA genes obtained from the surfaces and tissues of these sponges demonstrated that the bacterial communities were generally different from each other. The bacterial communities from sponges were different from those on reference surfaces or from bulk seawater. Additionally, clear distinctions in 16S rDNA fingerprint patterns between the bacterial communities from mesohyl samples of “high-microbial abundance (HMA) sponges” and “low-microbial abundance sponges” were revealed by DGGE and cluster analysis. A dominant occurrence of particularly GC-rich 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) fragments was found only in the DGGE banding pattern obtained from the mesohyl of HMA sponges. Furthermore, sequencing analysis of 16S rDNA fragments obtained from mesohyl samples of HMA sponges revealed a dominant occurrence of sponge-associated bacteria. The bacterial communities within the mesohyl of HMA sponges showed a close relationship to each other and seem to be sponge-specific.
We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Institute “Ruđer Bošković” in Rovinj, Croatia and Prof. Dr. Franz Brümmer, Biologisches Institut, Abteilung Zoologie, University of Stuttgart in the collection of marine sponge samples.
- 2.Bergquist PR (1978) Sponges. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
- 4.Schmitt S, Wehrl M, Bayer K, Siegl A, Hentschel U (2007) Marine sponges as models for commensal microbe–host interactions. Symbiosis 44:43–50Google Scholar
- 5.Thakur NL, Muller WEG (2005) Sponge–bacteria association: a useful model to explore symbiosis in marine invertebrates. Symbiosis 39:109–116Google Scholar
- 9.Ribes M, Coma R, Gili J-M (1999) Seasonal variation of particulate organic carbon, dissolved organic carbon and the contribution of microbial communities to the live particulate organic carbon in a shallow near-bottom ecosystem at the northwestern Mediterranean sea. J Plankton Res 21:1077–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 18.Thoms C, Horn M, Wagner M, Henschel U, Proksch P (2003) Monitoring microbial diversity and natural product profiles of the sponge Aplysina cavernicola following transplantation. Mar Biol 142:685–692Google Scholar
- 32.Clarke KR, Warwick RM (2001) Changes in marine communities: an approach to statistical analysis and interpretation. Primer-E Ltd, PlymouthGoogle Scholar
- 36.Bayer K, Schmitt S, Henschel U (2007) Microbial nitrification in Mediterranean sponges: possible involvement of ammonium-oxidizing Betaproteobacteria. In: Custódio MR, Lôbo-Hajdu G, Hajdu E, Muricy G (eds) Porifera research—biodiversity, innovation and sustainability—2007, vol SérieLivros 28. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, pp 165–171Google Scholar
- 43.Lachnit T, Blumel M, Imhoff JF, Wahl M (2009) Specific epibacterial communities on macroalgae: phylogeny matters more than habitat. Aquat Biol 5:181–186Google Scholar
- 49.Ivanova EP, Shevchenko LS, Sawabe TL, Lysenko AM, Svetashev VI, Gorshkova NM, Satomi M, Christen R, Mikhailov VV (2002) Pseudoalteromonas maricaloris sp nov., isolated from an Australian sponge, and reclassification of [Pseudoalteromonas aurantia] NCIMB 2033 as Pseudoalteromonas flavipulchra sp nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 52:263–271PubMedGoogle Scholar