Signatures and likely sources of the male pregnancy microbiome in wild bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Understanding the origin and structure of microbiomes and their associations with ecologically significant host traits is essential for understanding the evolution of host-microbe interactions. These interactions support a wide range of physiological processes important for development, survival, and reproduction. Syngnathid fishes (seahorses, pipefish, and seadragons) represent a compelling system for investigating host-microbiome interactions due to their unique evolution of male pregnancy. Males harbor a fitness-critical brood pouch that provides embryos with protection, osmoregulation, and nutrient exchange through a placenta-like structure, all while requiring the male to modulate his immune system to accommodate developing offspring. These features create a tightly regulated internal environment where microbial interactions could be especially influential to supporting a successful pregnancy. While we have some understanding of the physiological and genetic factors underlying brood pouch development and maintenance, the role of the microbiome and host-microbe interactions in male pregnancy has remained underexplored across the broader diversity of Syngnathidae species and geographic regions. To investigate this relationship further, and for the first time sampling microbiota from a wild syngnathid population, we characterized microbiomes of the bay pipefish (Syngnathus leptorhynchus) using high-throughput 16S rRNA gene sequencing. We quantified microbial community diversity and composition across the brood pouch, embryos, ovaries, gills, intestines, and outer skin body tissues, focusing on sex-specific (brood pouch, embryo, ovary) and sex-shared (gill, intestine, skin) tissues, and variation in pregnancy stage (non-pregnant, early, mid, and late pregnancy). RESULTS: We found that the male brood pouch microbiome was distinct from all other body sites (ovaries, embryos, gills, intestines, and outer skin) in community composition, and in that it exhibited the highest richness and phylogenetic diversity of microbes of any site on average, possibly supporting a specialized environment for embryonic development. Moreover, we found that microbial diversity was lower in non-pregnant brood pouches compared to each pregnancy stage (non-pregnant, early, mid, and late pregnancy) but found no significant differences among the pregnancy stages. Female ovaries had the lowest microbial richness and phylogenetic diversity compared to nonpregnant brood pouches, pregnant brood pouches, and embryos. Source tracking analysis using fast expectation-maximization for microbial source tracking (FEAST) indicated that the male outer skin serves as a significant microbial source for both the pregnant brood pouch and developing embryos, establishing a strong paternal influence on the offsprings’ microbial communities. Overall, we identified Proteobacteria, Bacteroidota, Cyanobacteria, Planctomycetota, and Actinobacteriota as the dominant phyla spanning all surveyed bay pipefish tissue sites, consistent with previous teleost fish microbiome studies. Analysis of core microbiome and indicator species further revealed that sequences classified as Methylotenera_A_557637 (two species), GCA-2862085 sp., Yoonia_491068 sp., Pla163 sp007750655, and Roseibacillus_B sp. show relatively high abundance and specificity with respect to the male brood pouch, suggesting that these taxa may have functional connections to the biology of male pregnancy. CONCLUSIONS: These findings reveal insights into the microbial ecology of a unique reproductive system in its natural environment, highlighting the paternal microbiome’s potential functional role in shaping the developing offspring. Our results also indicate a likely influence of both environmental and host-specific factors in shaping the bay pipefish microbiome, but there is need for future research on the functional implications of these microbial communities, especially in the brood pouch during pregnancy, and with respect to offspring viability and fitness.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».