Microbial Ecology

, Volume 76, Issue 1, pp 121–124 | Cite as

The Intestinal Microbiota of Tadpoles Differs from Those of Syntopic Aquatic Invertebrates

  • Mariana L. LyraEmail author
  • Molly C. Bletz
  • Célio F. B. Haddad
  • Miguel Vences
Notes and Short Communications


Bacterial communities associated to eukaryotes play important roles in the physiology, development, and health of their hosts. Here, we examine the intestinal microbiota in tadpoles and aquatic invertebrates (insects and gastropods) to better understand the degree of specialization in the tadpole microbiotas. Samples were collected at the same time in one pond, and the V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene was sequenced with Illumina amplicon sequencing. We found that bacterial richness and diversity were highest in two studied snail individuals, intermediate in tadpoles, and lowest in the four groups of aquatic insects. All groups had substantial numbers of exclusive bacterial operational taxonomic units (OTUs) in their guts, but also shared a high proportion of OTUs, probably corresponding to transient environmental bacteria. Significant differences were found for all pairwise comparisons of tadpoles and snails with the major groups of insects, but not among insect groups or between snails and tadpoles. The similarity between tadpoles and snails may be related to similar feeding mode as both snails and tadpoles scratch biofilms and algae from surfaces; however, this requires confirmation due to low sample sizes. Overall, the gut microbiota differences found among syntopic aquatic animals are likely shaped by both food preferences and host identity.


Bacterial community Gut Tadpoles Aquatic invertebrates 16S rRNA Illumina sequencing 



We are grateful to Maria J. O. Campos and Marcelo de Carvalho for access to the study site; Meike Kondermann for her invaluable help with lab work; and Sabin Bhuju, Robert Geffers, and Michael Jarek for sequencing and sequence preprocessing. We also thank Flávio Dias Passos and Michael Balke for helping with identification of invertebrates.

Funding information

Work in Brazil was supported by a grant from Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES; 88881.062205/2014-01) to MV, CFBH, and ML. CFBH thanks grant #2013/50741-7, São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP) and Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), for a research fellowship. MV further acknowledges support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (grant VE247/9-1).

Compliance with ethical standards

Samples were collected under collection permit SISBIO #52865 and the study has been approved by the ethics committee at the Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP; CEUA N36/2015).

Supplementary material

248_2017_1109_MOESM1_ESM.docx (200 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 200 kb)


  1. 1.
    McFall-Ngai M, Hadfield MG, Bosch TC, Carey HV, Domazet-Lošo T, Douglas AE et al (2013) Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110:3229–3236CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clemente JC, Ursell LK, Parfrey LW, Knight R (2012) The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view. Cell 148(6):1258–1270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tuddenham S, Sears CL (2015) The intestinal microbiome and health. Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 28(5):464–470CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shapira M (2016) Gut microbiotas and host evolution: scaling up symbiosis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31:539–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Engel P, Moran NA (2013) The gut microbiota of insects—diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37:699–735CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Altig R, Whiles MR, Taylor CL (2007) What do tadpoles really eat? Assessing the trophic status of an understudied and imperiled group of consumers in freshwater habitats. Freshw. Biol. 52:386–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kohl KD, Cary TL, Karasov WH, Dearing MD (2013) Restructuring of the amphibian gut microbiota through metamorphosis. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 5:899–903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Vences M, Lyra ML, Kueneman JG, Bletz MC, Archer HM, Canitz J, Handreck S, Randrianiaina RD, Struck U, Bhuju S, Jarek M, Geffers R, McKenzie VJ, Tebbe CC, Haddad CFB, Glos J (2016) Gut bacterial communities across tadpole ecomorphs in two diverse tropical anuran faunas. Sci Nat 103:25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kohl KD, Yahn J (2016) Effects of environmental temperature on the gut microbial communities of tadpoles. Environ. Microbiol. 18:1561–1565CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bletz MC, Goedbloed DJ, Sanchez E, Reinhardt T, Tebbe CC, Bhuju S, Geffers R, Jarek M, Vences M, Steinfartz S (2016) Amphibian gut microbiota shifts differentially in community structure but converges on habitat-specific predicted functions. Nat. Commun. 7:13699CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kozich JJ, Westcott SL, Baxter NT, Highlander SK, Schloss PD (2013) Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79:5112–5120CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK et al (2010) QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7:335–336CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Amir A, McDonald D, Navas-Molina JA, Kopylova E, Morton JT, Zech Xu Z, Kightley EP, Thompson LR, Hyde ER, Gonzalez A, Knight R (2017) Deblur rapidly resolves single-nucleotide community sequence patterns. mSystems 2:e00191-16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang Q, Garrity GM, Tiedje JM, Cole JR (2007) Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73:5261–5267CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Price MN, Dehal PS, Arkin AP (2010) FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 5:e9490CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lozupone C, Knight R (2005) UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71:8228–8235CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Duron O, Bouchon D, Boutin S, Bellamy L, Zhou L, Engelstädter J, Hurst GD (2008) The diversity of reproductive parasites among arthropods: Wolbachia do not walk alone. BMC Biol. 6:27CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pernice M, Simpson SJ, Ponton F (2014) Towards an integrated understanding of gut microbiota using insects as model systems. J. Insect Physiol. 69:12–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Horn DJ, Garcia JR, Loker ES, Mitchell KR, Mkoji GM, Adema CM, Takacs-Vesbach CD (2012) Complex intestinal bacterial communities in three species of planorbid snails. J Molluscan Studies 78:74–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Godon JJ, Arulazhagan P, Steyer JP, Hamelin J (2016) Vertebrate bacterial gut diversity: size also matters. BMC Ecol. 16:12CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de ZoologiaUniversidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto de Biociências, Campus Rio ClaroRio ClaroBrazil
  2. 2.Zoological Institute, Technische Universität BraunschweigBraunschweigGermany
  3. 3.Centro de Aquicultura (CAUNESP)Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP), Instituto de Biociências, Campus Rio ClaroRio ClaroBrazil

Personalised recommendations