Abstract
The giant barrel sponges (Xestospongia spp.) belong to a pan-global species complex with evidence suggesting they could encompass up to 9 cryptic species. In this study, we leveraged molecular and microbial techniques to investigate giant barrel sponges (X. testudinaria) from Singapore in relation to their placement within this species complex. Twenty-four giant barrel sponges from three sites were sequenced with mitochondrial (CO1) and nuclear (ATP6) DNA markers, identifying 6 distinct haplotypes belonging to 4 of the proposed barrel sponge species. Analysis of the X. testudinaria microbiomes was achieved with 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. The microbiome composition of X. testudinaria did not differ by reef site, deviating from a pattern frequently observed in coral microbiomes across Singapore. However, there was significant differentiation in microbiome composition by host genetics consistent with the proposed species boundaries. General linear models identified 85 amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) as highly significant (P < 0.01) in differentiating among the four Species Groups, consisting of 12 Archaea and 73 Bacteria, with the largest representation from phylum Chloroflexi. We also identified 52 core ASVs present in all sponges representing 33.0% of the total sequence reads. Our results support previous findings of microbiome differentiation in co-occurring genetic haplotypes of barrel sponges from the Caribbean. Together these studies underline the potential for ecological partitioning based on genetic haplotype that could contribute to cryptic speciation within the giant barrel sponge species complex.
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Sponges represent a functionally important component of coral reef ecosystems (Pawlik and McMurray 2020). Through active filter feeding, sponges contribute to ecosystem carbon (Perea-Blázquez et al. 2012; de Goeij et al. 2013; Pawlik and McMurray 2020), nitrogen (Wilkinson and Fay 1979; Hoffman et al. 2009; Fiore et al. 2013a, b), phosphorus (Zhang et al. 2015), and sulfur cycling (Zhang et al. 2019). These pathways are mediated by the sponge microbial symbionts (Morganti et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2019; Rix et al. 2020). Coral reef degradation and subsequent reductions in coral cover (Wolff et al. 2018; Eddy et al. 2021) result in a dynamic system of species interactions between, corals, algae, and sponges (González-Rivero et al. 2011; Pawlik and McMurray 2020). Many reefs are experiencing an increase in sponge abundance (McMurray et al. 2010; Bell et al. 2013; Powell et al. 2014; Helber et al. 2018; Marlow et al. 2019). Thus, the weighted ecological role of reef sponges in ecosystem functioning could have greater importance as their relative abundance in these systems increases.
The giant barrel sponges (Xestospongia spp.) are ubiquitous on tropical reefs in both the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific (McMurray et al. 2010; Swierts et al. 2017; McGrath et al. 2018). Barrel sponges can grow well over a meter, capable of processing large volumes of seawater (McMurray et al. 2008, 2014), particularly via the uptake of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and nitrogen cycling pathways (Fiore et al. 2013a; Fiore et al. 2015; McMurray et al. 2016). Originally thought to contain three species—X. muta (Schmidt 1870) in the Caribbean and X. testudinaria (Lamarck 1815) and X. berquistia (Fromont 1991) in the Indo-Pacific—the barrel sponges are now considered part of a pan-global species complex with 17 genetic clusters, potentially representing 9 cryptic species (Swierts et al. 2017). Cryptic speciation can mask potential differences in ecological functioning and niche separation (Xavier et al. 2010; Fišer et al. 2017). Therefore, it is important to examine the potential for cryptic speciation particularly in dominant and resilient reef megafauna, like the giant barrel sponges (Bell et al. 2014).
Sponges possess diverse and highly species-specific microbiomes (Taylor et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2011; Schmitt et al. 2012; Thomas et al. 2016); however, intraspecific differences can result from geographic separation (Fiore et al 2013b; Marino et al. 2017) and genetic differences (Griffiths et al. 2019; Díez‐Vives et al. 2020; Easson et al. 2020). Indeed, within the Caribbean giant barrel sponges, microbiome differentiation has been detected among sympatric individuals (Evans et al. 2021) consistent with the species boundaries proposed by Swierts et al. (2017). Demographic analyses of the same population revealed a shift in the dominant genetic group (Deignan et al. 2018), which when coupled with the microbiome data, suggests that there may also be a shift in ecological functioning or niche partitioning occurring for these important reef inhabitants. In the Indo-Pacific, barrel sponge microbiomes were examined across regional scales and found to differentiate by geographic location (Swierts et al. 2018); however, no fine-scale analysis to link the microbiome with genetic haplotype has been conducted within a single location. In this study, we examined the relationship between genetic separation and microbiome composition of giant barrel sponges from within Singapore to investigate whether Indo-Pacific barrel sponge microbiomes differentiate following the proposed species boundaries, as observed in the Atlantic.
Methods
Twenty-four giant barrel sponges (X. testudinaria) were sampled at three reef sites off the southern coast of Singapore, 9 at Pulau Hantu (1° 13′ 34″ N, 103° 44′ 46″ E), 6 at Sisters’ Islands Marine Park, and 9 at Kusu Island (1° 13′ 32″ N, 103° 51′ 35″ E) between 31 December 2019 and 5 January 2020. All sponges had similar barrel-shaped morphologies. Approximately 5 cm3 sponge tissue was excised with a scalpel, stored in individual Whirl-Paks® bags, and immediately flash frozen in a dry shipper. Sponge samples were stored at − 80 °C until processing.
Haplotype assignment
Genomic DNA was extracted from the inner (endosome) sponge tissue of the cryopreserved X. testudinaria with QIAGEN’s DNeasy PowerSoil extraction kit before using Zymo Research’s Genomic DNA Clean & Concentrator kit to remove potential inhibitors. All 24 sponges were sequenced for mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase 1 (COI) and adenosine triphosphate synthase subunit 6 (ATP6) genes using primer set CI-J2165 (5′-GAAGTTTATATTTTAATTTTACCDGG-3′), CI-Npor2760 (5′-TCTAGGTAATCCAGCTAAACC-3′) and ATP6porF (5′-GTAGTCCAGGATAATTTAGG-3′), ATP6porR (5′-GTTAATAGACAAAATACATAAGCCTG-3′), respectively. The PCR protocol for ATP6 amplification followed an initial denaturation at 95 °C for 15 min and 35 cycles of denaturing at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 40 °C for 45 s and extension at 68 °C for 1.5 min, with a final extension of 72 °C for 10 min. COI amplification was done at an initial denaturation of 95 °C for 5 min and 35 cycles of denaturing at 94 °C for 30 s, annealing at 40 °C for 60 s and extension at 72 °C for 1.5 min, with a final extension of 72 °C for 10 min. PCR was conducted in triplicate with a total reaction volume of 25 μL containing 0.5 μL of each primer (10 μM), 1 μL BSA (Bovine Serum Albumin; 200 ng/μL), 10 μL HotStarTaq Plus Master Mix (Qiagen), 12 μL sterile water, and 1 μL DNA template (undiluted purified DNA of varying concentrations). Purity of the DNA was measured spectrophotometrically with NanoDrop™ 2000 (Thermo Scientific) and quantified with Qubit™ 2.0 fluorometer. PCR products were purified with Zymo Clean-up and Concentrator kit and sent to a commercial company for DNA sequencing via Applied Biosystems 3730xl DNA Analyzer after processing with BigDye Terminator v3.1 Cycle Sequencing Kit.
Sequence reads were edited, aligned, and concatenated using Geneious Prime® 2020.2. The identity of Xestospongia sequences was confirmed via BLAST. Haplotype network was constructed with PopArt v1.7 (Leigh and Bryant 2015). The sequencing reads were uploaded to the NCBI Database for the ATP sequences (GenBank accession numbers: OM154214–37) and the COI sequences (GenBank accession numbers: OM154238–61).
Sponge microbiome analysis
DNA was extracted from both inner (endosome) and outer (ectosome) sponge tissues with QIAGEN’s DNeasy PowerSoil extraction kit according to the manufacturer’s protocols and purified with Zymo Research’s Genomic DNA Clean & Concentrator kit. The extracted DNA was quality-checked using NanoDrop™ 2000 Spectrophotometer, and Qubit™ 2.0 Fluorometer with dsDNA broad-range assay kits. Differentiation of inner and outer tissues was determined by the tissue color—with a deeper reddish brown for the ectosome tissue samples and white for the endosome tissue samples. This resulted in 48 total samples from the 24 sponges. 515F (Parada) and 806R (Apprill) primers were used to amplify the V4 region of the 16S rRNA gene (Caporaso et al. 2011; Apprill et al. 2015; Parada et al. 2016) for sequencing of the prokaryotic portion of the sponge microbiomes. PCR amplification was done in 20 μL volumes with the following recipe: 10 μL of HotStarTaq, 1 μL each of 515F and 806R primers (10 μM), 1 μL dimethyl sulfoxide, 1 μL BSA (Bovine Serum Albumin; 200 ng/μL), 4 μL sterile nuclease-free water, and 2 μL DNA template. Amplification was carried out using an initial denaturing step of 95 °C for 5 min followed by the following 35 cycles of: 94 °C for 30 s, 53 °C for 40 s, and 72 °C for 1 min; and a final elongation step of 72 °C for 10 min. Following PCR, the PureLink Quick Gel Extraction Kit (Invitrogen) was used to excise and purify the bands of interest. The purified DNA samples were then quality-checked on an Agilent TapeStation using Agilent D1000 ScreenTapes and reagents before being sent for amplicon sequencing on an Illumina MiSeq platform at the Singapore Centre for Environmental Life Sciences Engineering (SCELSE). The raw sequence reads were uploaded to the NCBI Sequence Read Archive under BioProject accession number PRJNA976080.
Amplicon sequence reads were processed using DADA2 version 1.16 to generate amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) for each sample. Sequence data were processed twice, once for the multi-tissue samples where both inner and outer tissue sample reads were included individually, and again for the combined tissue, wherein both inner and outer tissue sample reads were merged into a single read file for each sponge. Sequence reads were trimmed to 210 for the forward read and 165 for the reverse read before error learning algorithms were applied and chimeric sequences removed. Contaminating sequence reads based on comparison to blank extractions were removed using the decontam package (Davis et al. 2018). Taxonomy was assigned to the genus level using the built-in native Bayesian classifier assign taxonomy based on the SILVA SSU r138.1 database. Sequences identified as mitochondria, chloroplast, or unassigned to a Domain were removed. Finally, rarefaction curves were used to assess samples that reached their ASV maximum, and samples were rarefied to account for variation in sequencing depths for the calculation of diversity metrics (Weiss et al. 2017) to 97,655 sequence reads per sample and to 101,990 sequence reads per sponge for the merged analysis.
Permutational analyses of variance (PERMANOVA) based on square root transformed Bray–Curtis matrices were conducted in PRIMER v7 for comparisons between the following groups: inner and outer sponge tissue, site, haplotype, and Species Group. Follow-up permutational multivariate analyses of dispersion (PERMDISP) were performed on haplotype and Species Group comparisons to test for homogeneity of dispersion. Differences between groups were visualized with non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (nMDS) plots. Alpha diversity metrics were calculated using vegan and compared by Species Group using ANOVA. Core, defined as presence in all samples, and unique ASVs by Species Group were also determined. Finally, generalized linear models (GLM) with negative binomial distribution were performed using the mvabund package (Wang et al. 2012) to identify the top ASVs contributing to the differences among Species Groups. The dataset was subsampled to 500 ASVs for the GLM analysis to focus on the most abundant ASVs driving the group distinctions.
Results and discussion
24 COI and ATP6 sequences were combined and trimmed to a final length of 989 base pairs. A total of 6 haplotypes, encompassing 8 polymorphic sites, were found. All 6 haplotypes were previously identified by Swierts et al. (2017) within Singapore’s St John’s Island Xestospongia population, which found 7 haplotypes in a total of 15 samples. Therefore, the haplotypes are annotated following Swierts et al. (2017). C6A2 and C2A1 were the most prevalent haplotypes and were found across all sampling sites (Table 1). Two unique haplotypes, C5A4 and C1A1 were found at Hantu and Sister’s respectively. However, both haplotypes were present at St John’s Island during the 2017 study by Swierts et al.; therefore, their absence from other sites is likely an artifact of sample size and not genetic structure within the population. The 6 haplotypes identified encompassed 4 Species Groups, as proposed for X. testudinaria by Swierts et al. (2017; Table 1).
There was no significant difference in microbiome composition between the inner and outer tissue samples (Pseudo-F = 0.90733, P = 0.5196). Therefore, only the combined sequence data by individual X. testudinaria were used for further analysis. X. testudinaria microbiomes did not differ by site (Pseudo-F = 1.5765, P = 0.0543). Site differences in microbiome composition are common for corals within Singapore (Wainwright et al. 2019; Fong et al. 2020; Deignan and McDougald 2022; Moynihan et al. 2022; Deignan et al. 2023), highlighting how sponges relate to their microbiomes differently than other dominant benthic reef organisms.
Within the nMDS plot, the 6 haplotypes appeared to group together into 4 clusters, with haplotype C1A1 (n = 1) clustering within C2A1 and haplotype C5A4 (n = 1) clustering within C5A6 (Fig. 1). In both the C1A1/C2A1 and the C5A4/C5A6 haplotype clusters, the haplotypes were separated by only one base pair difference. Due to the proximity of these haplotypes, PERMANOVA analyses by haplotype were run with haplotype C1A1 merged with C2A1 and haplotype C5A4 merged with C5A6, as well as with haplotypes C1A1 and C5A4 excluded. In both analyses, there was a significant difference in microbiome composition among the haplotype groups (Merged: Pseudo-F, 3.7999, P = 0.0001; Excluded: Pseudo-F = 3.4659, P = 0.0001; Table S1). The C1A1/C2A1 cluster aligned with previous species predictions, as both haplotypes were assigned to Species Group 1 (Swierts et al. 2017). However, in the case of the C5A4/C5A6 cluster, the haplotypes were assigned to Species Groups 3 and 4, respectively. Species Group 3 also contained haplotype C6A2, which in our case had a microbial community distinct from the other haplotypes. However, PERMANOVA by Species Group was also significant (Pseudo-F = 3.0485, P = 0.001; Table S2), indicating that increased replication is required to resolve the placement of C5A4 into a Species Group with regard to its microbiome composition. Therefore, we excluded this sample from the subsequent analyses of microbiome differentiation found within the 4 Species Groups.
The most abundant microbial phyla across all the X. testudinaria samples were Chloroflexi, Crenarchaeota, Acidobacteriota, and Actinobacteriota (Fig. 2). Cyanobacteria were also abundant, although Species Group 3 had a lower relative abundance of Cyanobacteria compared to the other Species Groups. The most abundant class found in all Species Groups was Nitrososphaeria, within the phylum Crenarchaeota (Table S3). Crenarchaeota has previously been characterized as an important component in nitrogen cycling within barrel sponges (López-Legentil et al. 2010). Although previously, another nitrifying group of bacteria, Nitrospira, was identified as abundant within the Singapore giant barrel sponges (Swierts et al. 2018). Other abundant classes in the barrel sponges include Anaerolineae, Dehalococcoidia, TK30, and TK17 within the phylum Chloroflexi, Thermoanaerobaculia and Vicinamibacteria within phylum Acidobacteriota, Acidimicrobiia within phylum Actinobacteriota, Cyanobacteriia within phylum Cyanobacteria, BD2-11 terrestrial group within phylum Gemmatimonadota, and Gammaproteobacteria within phylum Proteobacteria. There were no differences in alpha diversity among Species Groups (P > 0.05; Table S4). We identified 52 core ASVs, when defined as presence in all X. testudinaria samples (Table S5), reduced from the 71 core ASVs found in 2018 (Swierts et al. 2018). Together the core ASVs represent 33.0% of the total sequence reads, with the most abundant phyla being Acidobacteriota (11.3%), Chloroflexi (9.28%), and Actinobacteriota (5.5%).
The GLM identified 85 ASVs, consisting of 12 Archaea and 73 Bacteria, as highly significant (P < 0.01) in differentiating among the four Species Groups (Table S6). The majority of significant ASVs were from the phylum Chloroflexi, of which there was a higher abundance in Species Groups 1 and 3 (Fig. 3). Species Group 1 also contained a higher abundance of significant ASVs from the following phyla: Acidobacteriota, Bacteroidota, Gemmatimonadota, Nitrospirota, and Planctomycetota. Species Group 2 had a higher relative abundance of Archaea ASVs from the phyla Crenarchaeota and Thermoplasmatota. Species Group 3 had a higher relative abundance of ASVs from the phyla Actinobacteriota, PAUC34f, and Proteobacteria; while Species Group 4 had a higher relative abundance of ASVs from phylum Crenarchaeota and phylum Cyanobacteria.
Overall, these microbiome data support the placement of X. testudinaria into the Species Groups proposed by Swierts et al. (2017). Geographic differences in microbiomes exist across the sponges’ broad range throughout the Indo-Pacific (Swierts et al. 2018), within a given region the Species Group differences in microbiome composition become evident. We recommend additional studies with increased sampling effort to include sufficient replication of all haplotypes within each geographic region to conclusively confirm the results reported here. Additionally, research coupling demographic surveys of X. testudinaria within Singapore with their genetic composition is required to determine if the barrel sponges are experiencing similar shifts in genetic structure as observed in the Caribbean (Deignan et al. 2018; Evans et al. 2021). These results highlight the usefulness of merging microbiome and molecular data in assigning species boundaries and hint at potential functional differences that allow the sponges to coexist sympatrically.
Data availability
GenBank accession numbers OM154214–37 for ATP sequences and accession numbers OM154238–61 for COI sequences, and NCBI Sequence Read Archive BioProject accession number PRJNA976080 for microbiome sequences.
References
Apprill A, McNally S, Parsons R, Weber L (2015) Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806R gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquat Microb Ecol 75:129–137
Bell JJ, Davy SK, Jones T, Taylor MW, Webster NS (2013) Could some coral reefs become sponge reefs as our climate changes? Glob Chang Biol 19:2613–2624
Bell JJ, Smith D, Hannan D, Haris A, Jompa J, Thomas L (2014) Resilience to disturbance despite limited dispersal and self-recruitment in tropical barrel sponges: implications for conservation and management. PLoS One 9(3):e91635
Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, Fierer N, Knight R (2011) Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:4516–4522
Davis NM, Proctor D, Holmes SP, Relman DA, Callahan BJ (2018) Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome 6:226
de Goeij JM, van Oevelen D, Vermeij MJA, Osinga R, Middelburg JJ, de Goeij A, Admiraal W (2013) Surviving in a marine desert: The sponge loop retains resources within coral reefs. Science 342:108–110
Deignan LK, McDougald D (2022) Differential response of the microbiome of Pocillopora acuta to reciprocal transplantation within Singapore. Microb Ecol 83:608–618
Deignan LK, Pawlik JR, López-Legentil S (2018) Evidence for shifting genetic structure among Caribbean giant barrel sponges in the Florida keys. Mar Biol 165:1–10
Deignan LK, Pwa KH, Loh AAR, Rice SA, McDougald D (2023) The microbiomes of two Singaporean corals show site-specific differentiation and variability that correlates with the seasonal monsoons. Coral Reefs. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-023-02376-6
Díez-Vives C, Taboada S, Leiva C, Busch K, Hentschel U, Riesgo A (2020) On the way to specificity - Microbiome reflects sponge genetic cluster primarily in highly structured populations. Mol Biol 29:4412–4427
Easson CG, Chaves-Fonnegra A, Thacker RW, Lopez JV (2020) Host population genetics and biogeography structure the microbiome of the sponge Cliona delitrix. Ecol Evol 10:2007–2020
Eddy TD, Lam VWY, Reygondeau G, Cisneros-Montemayor AM, Greer K, Palomares MLD, Bruno JF, Ota Y, Cheung WWL (2021) Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth 4:1278–1285
Evans JS, Lopez-Legentil S, Pawlik JR, Turnbull IG, Erwin PM (2021) Molecular detection and microbiome differentiation of two cryptic lineages of giant barrel sponges from Conch Reef, Florida Keys. Coral Reefs 40:853–865
Fiore CL, Baker DM, Lesser MP (2013a) Nitrogen Biogeochemistry in the Caribbean sponge, Xestospongia muta: a source or sink of dissolved inorganic nitrogen? PLoS One 8:e72961
Fiore CL, Jarett JK, Lesser MP (2013b) Symbiotic prokaryotic communities from different populations of the giant barrel sponge, Xestospongia muta. Microbiologyopen 2:938–952
Fiore CL, Labrie M, Jarett JK, Lesser MP (2015) Transcriptional activity of the giant barrel sponge, Xestospongia muta Holobiont: molecular evidence for metabolic interchange. Front Microbiol 6:364
Fišer C, Robinson CT, Malard F (2017) Cryptic species as a window into the paradigm shift of the species concept. Mol Ecol 27:613–635
Fong J, Deignan LK, Bauman AG, Steinberg PD, McDougald D, Todd PA (2020) Contact and water-mediated effects of macroalgae on the physiology and microbiome of three Indo-Pacific coral species. Front Mar Sci 6:831
Fromont J (1991) Descriptions of species of the Petrosida (Porifera: Demospongiae) occurring in the tropical waters of the Great Barrier Reef. Beagle Rec North Terr Mus Arts Sci 8:73–96
González-Rivero M, Yakob L, Peter J. Mumby PJ (2011) The role of sponge competition on coral reef alternative steady states. Ecol Modell 222:1847–1853
Griffiths SM, Antwis RE, Lenzi L, Lucaci A, Behringer DC, Butler MJ IV, Preziosi RF (2019) Host genetics and geography influence microbiome composition in the sponge Ircinia campana. J Anim Ecol 88:1684–1695
Helber SB, Hoeijmakers DJJ, Muhando CA, Rohde S, Schupp PJ (2018) Sponge chemical defenses are a possible mechanism for increasing sponge abundance on reefs in Zanzibar. PLoS One 13:e0197617
Hoffmann F, Radax R, Woebken D, Holtappels M, Lavik G, Rapp HT, Schläppy ML, Schleper C, Kuypers MMM (2009) Complex nitrogen cycling in the sponge Geodia barretti. Environ Microbiol 11:2228–2243. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.01944.x
Lamarck J-B (1815) Suite des polypiers empâtés. Mémoires du Muséum d'Histoire naturelle, Paris 1:69–80, 162–168, 331–340
Lee O, Wang Y, Yang J, Lafi FF, Al-Suwailem A, Qian PY (2011) Pyrosequencing reveals highly diverse and species-specific microbial communities in sponges from the Red Sea. ISME J 5:650–664
Leigh JW, Bryant D (2015) POPART: full-feature software for haplotype network construction. Methods Ecol Evol 6:1110–1116
López-Legentil S, Erwin PM, Pawlik JR, Song B (2010) Effects of sponge bleaching on ammonia-oxidizing Archaea: distribution and relative expression of ammonia monooxygenase genes associated with the barrel sponge Xestospongia muta. Microb Ecol 60:561–571
Marino C, Pawlik JR, López-Legentil S, Erwin P (2017) Latitudinal variation in the microbiome of the sponge Ircinia campana correlates with host haplotype but not anti-predatory chemical defense. MEPS 565:53–66
Marlow J, Schönberg CHL, Davy SK, Haris A, Jompa J, Bell JJ (2019) Bioeroding sponge assemblages: the importance of substrate availability and sediment. J Mar Biol Assoc U K 99:343–358
McGrath EC, Woods L, Jompa J, Haris A, Bell JJ (2018) Growth and longevity in giant barrel sponges: Redwoods of the reef or Pines in the Indo-Pacific? Sci Rep 8:15317. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-33294-1
McMurray SE, Blum JE, Pawlik JR (2008) Redwood of the reef: growth and age of the giant barrel sponge Xestospongia muta in the Florida Keys. Mar Biol 155:159–171
McMurray SE, Henkel TP, Pawlik JR (2010) Demographics of increasing populations of the giant barrel sponge Xestospongia muta in the Florida Keys. Ecology 91:560–570
McMurray SE, Pawlik JR, Finelli CM (2014) Trait-mediated ecosystem impacts: how morphology and size affect pumping rates of the Caribbean giant barrel sponge. Aquat Biol 23:1–13
McMurray SE, Johnson ZI, Hunt DE, Pawlik JR, Finelli CM (2016) Selective feeding by the giant barrel sponge enhances foraging efficiency. Limnol Oceanogr 61:1271–1286
Morganti T, Coma R, Yahel G, Ribes M (2017) Trophic niche separation that facilitates co-existence of high and low microbial abundance sponges is revealed by in situ study of carbon and nitrogen fluxes. Limnol Oceanogr 62:1963–1983
Moynihan MA, Goodkin NF, Morgan KM, Kho PYY, dos Santos AL, Lauro FM, Baker DM, Martin P (2022) Coral-associated nitrogen fixation rates and diazotrophic diversity on a nutrient-replete equatorial reef. ISME J 16:233–246
Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA (2016) Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol 18:1403–1414
Pawlik JR, McMurray SE (2020) The emerging ecological and biogeochemical importance of sponges on coral reefs. Ann Rev Mar Sci. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-marine-010419-010807
Perea-Blázquez A, Davy SK, Bell JJ (2012) Estimates of particulate organic carbon flowing from the pelagic environment to the benthos through sponge assemblages. PLoS One 7:e29569. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0029569
Powell A, Smith DJ, Hepburn LJ, Jones T, Berman J, Jompa J, Bell JJ (2014) Reduced diversity and high sponge abundance on a sedimented Indo-Pacific reef system: implications for future changes in environmental quality. PLoS One 9:e85253
Rix L, Ribes M, Coma R, Jahn MT, de Goeij JM, van Oevelen D, Escrig S, Meibom A, Hentschel U (2020) Heterotrophy in the earliest gut: a single-cell view of heterotrophic carbon and nitrogen assimilation in sponge-microbe symbioses. ISME J 14:2554–2567
Schmidt O (1870) Grundzüge einer Spongien-Fauna des atlantischen Gebietes. Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig, iiiiv, 1–88, pls I–VI: 44–45
Schmitt S, Tsai P, Bell J, Fromont J, Ilan M, Lindquist N, Perez T, Rodrigo A, Schupp PJ, Vacelet J, Webster N, Hentschel U, Taylor MW (2012) Assessing the complex sponge microbiota: core, variable and species-specific bacterial communities in marine sponges. ISME J 6:564–576
Swierts T, Peijnenburg KTCA, de Leeuw CA, Breeuwer JAJ, Cleary DFR, de Voogd NJ (2017) Globally intertwined evolutionary history of giant barrel sponges. Coral Reefs. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00338-017-1585-6
Swierts T, Cleary DFR, de Voogd NJ (2018) Prokaryotic communities of Indo-Pacific giant barrel sponges are more strongly influenced by geography than host phylogeny. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 94:fiy194
Taylor MW, Radax R, Steger D, Wagner M (2007) Sponge-associated microorganisms: evolution, ecology, and biotechnological potential. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71:295–347
Thomas T, Moitinho-Silva L, Lurgi M, Björk JR, Easson C, Astudillo-García C, Olson JB, Erwin PM, Lopez-Legentil S, Luter H, Chaves-Fonnegra A, Costa R, Schupp PJ, Steindler L, Erpenbeck D, Gilbert J, Knight R, Ackermann G, Lopez JV, Taylor MW, Thacker RW, Montoya JM, Hentschel U, Webster NS (2016) Diversity, structure and convergent evolution of the global sponge microbiome. Nat Commun 7:11870
Wainwright BJ, Afiq-Rosli L, Zahn GL, Huang D (2019) Characterisation of coral-associated bacterial communities in an urbanised marine environment shows strong divergence over small spatial scales. Coral Reefs 38:1097–1106
Wang Y, Naumann U, Wright ST, Warton DI (2012) mvabund—an R package for model-based analysis of multivariate abundance data. Methods Ecol Evol 3:471–474
Weiss S, Xu ZZ, Peddada S, Amir A, Bittinger K, Gonzalez A, Lozupone C, Zaneveld JR, Vázquez-Baeza Y, Birmingham A, Hyde ER, Knight R (2017) Normalization and microbial differential abundance strategies depend upon data characteristics. Microbiome 5:27
Wilkinson C, Fay P (1979) Nitrogen fixation in coral reef sponges with symbiotic cyanobacteria. Nature 279:527–529
Wolff NH, Mumby PJ, Devlin M, Anthony KRN (2018) Vulnerability of the Great Barrier Reef to climate change and local pressures. Glob Change Biol 24:1978–1991
Xavier JR, Rachello-Dolmen PG, Parra-Velandia F, Schönberg CHL, Breeuwer JAJ, van Soest RWM (2010) Molecular evidence of cryptic speciation in the ‘‘cosmopolitan” excavating sponge Cliona celata (Porifera, Clionaidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 56:13–20
Zhang F, Blasiak LC, Karolin JO, Powell RJ, Geddes CD, Hill RT (2015) Phosphorus sequestration in the form of polyphosphate by microbial symbionts in marine sponges. PNAS 112:4381–4386
Zhang F, Jonas L, Lin H, Hill RT (2019) Microbially mediated nutrient cycles in marine sponges. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 95:fiz155
Acknowledgements
This research was funded by the Singapore National Research Foundation and the Ministry of Education Singapore under its Research Centre of Excellence Program to the Singapore Centre for Environmental Life Sciences Engineering, Nanyang Technological University through the Seed Funding Program with in-kind support from the Singapore National Parks Board. This research was carried out under the permit (NP_RP19-107a) granted by the Singapore National Parks Board. We would also like to thank the Singapore National Parks Board for their assistance in facilitating the field work for the sponge sample collection.
Funding
This research was funded by the Singapore National Research Foundation and the Ministry of Education Singapore under its Research Centre of Excellence Program to the Singapore Centre for Environmental Life Sciences Engineering, Nanyang Technological University through the Seed Funding Program with in-kind support from the Singapore National Parks Board.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
LKD: conceived the experiment, RD and AARL: carried out the microbiome laboratory research, KHP performed the genetic laboratory work and data analysis, LKD and RD: performed the data analysis and drafted the initial manuscript, all authors contributed the writing of the manuscript and approved the final manuscript for publication.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Ethical approval
All applicable guidelines for the collection of sponge tissue samples were followed under permit NP_RP19-107a.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: C. Wild.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Deignan, L.K., Dansson, R., Loh, A.A.R. et al. Examining the giant barrel sponge species complex: molecular and microbial differentiation of Xestospongia testudinaria in Singapore. Mar Biol 170, 166 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-023-04313-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00227-023-04313-1