The effects of geographic origin and antibiotic treatment on the gut symbiotic communities of Bactrocera oleae populations

Abstract

The olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae (Rossi) (Diptera: Tephritidae), is the major insect pest of olive orchards (Olea europaea L.), causing extensive damages on cultivated olive crops worldwide. Due to its economic importance, it has been the target species for a variety of population control approaches including the sterile insect technique (SIT). However, the inefficiency of the current mass‐rearing techniques impedes the successful application of area‐wide integrated pest management programs with an SIT component. It has been shown that insect mass rearing and quality of sterile insects can be improved by the manipulation of the insect gut microbiota and probiotic applications. In order to exploit the gut bacteria, it is important to investigate the structure of the gut microbial community. In the current study, we characterized the gut bacterial profile of two wild olive fruit fly populations introduced in laboratory conditions using next generation sequencing of two regions of the 16S rRNA gene. We compared the microbiota profiles regarding the geographic origin of the samples. Additionally, we investigated potential changes in the gut bacteria community before and after the first exposure of the wild adult flies to artificial adult diet with and without antibiotics. Various genera – such as Erwinia, Providencia, Enterobacter, and Klebsiella – were detected for the first time in B. oleae. The most dominant species was Candidatus Erwinia dacicola Capuzzo et al. and it was not affected by the antibiotics in the artificial adult diet used in the first generation of laboratory rearing. Geographic origin affected the overall structure of the gut community of the olive fruit fly, but antibiotic treatment in the first generation did not significantly alter the gut microbiota community.

Next‐generation biological control: the need for integrating genetics and genomics

“…Currently, there is much interest in the role of the microbiome in organismal functioning. In a biocontrol context, it is known that microbes can generate chemical signals that attract parasitoids to their host, and that bacteria can have a defensive role against parasitoids, such as in aphids (Oliver, Moran, & Hunter, 2006; Schmid et al ., 2012; Rothacher, Ferrer‐Suay, & Vorburger, 2016; Jamin & Vorburger, 2019; Koskinioti et al ., 2019; Dicke, Cusumano, & Poelman, 2020). Nowadays, universal DNA markers can be applied to characterise the microbiome, that is to identify all bacterial symbionts to at least family or genus level, and their proportionate presence (Ras et al ., 2017).…”

Comparative Microbiomics of Tephritid Frugivorous Pests (Diptera: Tephritidae) From the Field: A Tale of High Variability Across and Within Species

“…A number of studies have targeted one ( Wang H. et al, 2014 ; Deutscher et al, 2018 ; Malacrinò et al, 2018 ; De Cock et al, 2019 ) or a few ( Morrow et al, 2015 ) fruit fly species and compared the microbiomes of wild and laboratory populations. Other studies investigated relationships between the microbiome composition of a single fruit fly species and the host plant attacked ( Zaada et al, 2019 ) or the geographic origin of larvae ( Hadapad et al, 2015 ; Koskinioti et al, 2019 ). Regardless of that, there is still the need for a better understanding of patterns of variability of microbiome profiles in wild flies, and studies providing wide inter- and intra-specific comparisons in field conditions are, to our knowledge, currently missing.…”

Host Species Determines the Composition of the Prokaryotic Microbiota in Phlebotomus Sandflies

“…The gut of P. tobbi and P. similis were co-colonized by bacteria showing low relative abundance (1%–4%) and belonged to Cutibacterium, Rhizobiaceae and Pseudomonas . Cutibacterium are common members of the insect gut microbiota of Bactocera oleae at early developmental stages [ 53 ]. They are mostly known as early colonizers of infants where they function as lactate-consumer and propionate-producer [ 54 ].…”