Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Phylogenetic analysis of bacterial communities associated with ectoparasitic chewing lice of pocket gophers: A culture-independent approach

  • Published:
Microbial Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study identifies the bacteria associated with ectoparasitic chewing lice that live in the fur of pocket gophers. Samples of chewing lice were collected from pocket gopher hosts in Florida, Missouri, New Mexico, and Costa Rica. We used a molecular sampling method whereby total community DNA was extracted from samples of chewing lice, and PCR was used to selectively amplify small-subunit rRNA genes from bacteria. This culture-independent method yielded ca. 35 distinct lineages representing eight widely divergent groups within the domain Bacteria. Phylogenetic analysis of two lineages (Acinetobacter and Staphylococcus) provides evidence that multiple species of each group are found in chewing lice. Phylogenetic analysis also demonstrated that diversification within chewing lice may be evident in both Acinetobacter and Staphylococcus. Some clones amplified from chewing louse hosts appeared to be distinct from known species of Acinetobacter and Staphylococcus. This diversification may be the result of the extreme isolation of populations of both chewing lice and their pocket gopher hosts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Baumann P, Moran NA (1997) Non-cultivable microorganisms from symbiotic associations of insects and other hosts. Antonie von Leeuwenhoek 72:39–48

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Cunningham CW, Zhu H, Hillis DM (1998) Best-fit maximum likelihood models for phylogenetic inference: empirical tests with known phylogenies. Evolution 52:978–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Demastes JW, Hafner MS (1993) Cospeciation of pocket gophers and their chewing lice. J Mamm 74:521–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Douglas AE (1989) Mycetocyte symbiosis in insects. Biol Rev Cambridge Phil Soc 64:409–434

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Hafner MS, Nadler SA (1988) Phylogenetic trees support the coevolution of parasites and their hosts. Nature 332:258–259

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Hafner MS, Demastes JW, Spradling TA, Reed DL In press. Cophylogeny between pocket gophers and chewing lice. In: RDM Page (ed), Tangled Trees: Phylogenies, Cospeciation, and Coevolution. University of Chicago Press

  7. Hafner MS, Sudman PD, Villabianca FX, Spradling TA, Demastes JW, Nadler SA (1994) Disparate rates of molecular evolution in cospeciating hosts and parasites. Science 265:1087–1090

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Hugenholtz P, Goebel BM, Pace NR (1998) Impact of culture-independent studies on the emerging phylogenetic view of bacterial diversity. J Bacteriol 180:4765–4774

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Ishikawa H (1989) Biochemical and molecular aspects of endosymbiosis in insects. Int Rev Cytol 116:1–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Jeyaprakash A, Hoy MA (2000) Long PCR improves Wolbachia DNA amplification: wsp sequences found in 76% of sixty-three arthropod species. Insect Mol Biol 9:393–405

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Komatsoulis GA, Waterman MS (1997) A new computational method for detection of chimeric 16S rRNA artifacts generated by PCR amplification from mixed bacterial populations. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:2338–2346

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lambert LH, Cox T, Mitchell K, Rossello-Mora RA, Del Cueto C, Dodge DE, Orkland P, Cano RJ (1998) Staphylococcus succinus sp. nov., isolated from Dominican amber. Int J Syst Bacteriol 48:511–518

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Moran NA, Telang A (1998) Bacteriocyte-associated symbiosis of insects. Bioscience 48:295–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Nardon P, Grenier AM (1989) CRC Handbook on endocytobiosis in Coleoptera: Biological, biochemical, and genetic aspects. In: W Schwemmler, G Gassner (eds) Insect Endocytobiosis: Morphology, Physiology, Genetics, and Evolution. Boca Raton, FL pp 175–216

  15. Pace NR (1997) A molecular view of microbial diversity and the biosphere. Science 276:734–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Page RDM (1990) Temporal congruence and cladistic analysis of biogeography and cospeciation. Syst Zool 39:205–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Patton JL, Smith MF, Price RD, Hellenthal RA (1984) Genetics of hybridization between the pocket gophers Thomomys bottae and Thomomys townsendii in northeastern California. Great Basin Naturalist 44:431–440

    Google Scholar 

  18. Posada D, Crandall KA (1998) Modeltest: testing the model of DNA substitution. Bioinformatics 14:817–818

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Rainey FA, Lang E, Stackebrandt E (1994) The phylogenetic structure of the genus Acinetobacter. FEMS Microbiol Lett 124:349–354

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Ries E (1931) Die symbiose der Läuse und Federlinge. Zeitschr Morph Ökol Tiere 20:233–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Robison-Cox JF, Bateson MM, Ward DM (1995) Evaluation of nearest-neighbor methods for detection of chimeric small-subunit rRNA sequences. Appl Environ Microbiol 61:1240–1245

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Saffo MB (1992) Invertebrates in endosymbiotic associations. Am Zoologist 32:57–565

    Google Scholar 

  23. Saxena AK, Agarwal GP (1985) Mycetocytes in Aegypoecus perspicuus (Phthiraptera). Curr Sei 54(15):763–764

    Google Scholar 

  24. Suzuki MT, Giovannoni SJ (1996) Bias caused by template annealing in the amplification of mixtures of 16S rRNA genes by PCR. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:625–630

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Swofford DL (2001) PAUP*. Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (and Other Methods). Version 4. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA

    Google Scholar 

  26. Thompson JD, Gibson TJ, Plewniak F, Jeanmougin F, Higgins DG (1997) The ClustalX windows interface: flexible strategies for multiple sequence alignment aided by quality analysis tools. Nucleic Acids Res 24:4876–4882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Timm RM (1983) Farenholz’s Rule and resource tracking: A study of host-parasite coevolution. In: M Nitecki (ed) Coevolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 225–266

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wang GC-Y, Wang Y (1997) Frequency of formation of chimeric molecules as a consequence of PCR coamplification of 16S rRNA genes from mixed bacterial genomes. Appl Environ Microbiol 63:4645–4650

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ward DM, Ferris MJ, Nold SC, Bateson MM (1998) Natural view of microbial biodiversity within hot spring cyanobacterial mat communities. Microbial Molec Biol Rev 62:1–18

    Google Scholar 

  30. Woese CR (1994) There must be prokaryote somwehere: microbiology’s search for itself. Microbiol Rev 58:1–9

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. D. L. Reed

    Present address: Department of Biology, University of Utah, 257 South 1400 East, 84112, Salt Lake City, UT

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Museum of Natural Science and Department of Biological Sciences, Louisiana State University, 70803, Baton Rouge, LA

    D. L. Reed & M. S. Hafner

Authors
  1. D. L. Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. S. Hafner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. L. Reed.

Additional information

Online publication: 20 May 2002

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reed, D.L., Hafner, M.S. Phylogenetic analysis of bacterial communities associated with ectoparasitic chewing lice of pocket gophers: A culture-independent approach. Microb Ecol 44, 78–93 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-002-0009-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-002-0009-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation