Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mBio
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Clinical Science and Epidemiology
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Therapeutics and Prevention
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About mBio
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • AAM Fellows
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Minireview

Speciation by Symbiosis: the Microbiome and Behavior

J. Dylan Shropshire, Seth R. Bordenstein
Nicole Dubilier, Invited Editor, R. John Collier, Editor
J. Dylan Shropshire
aDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Seth R. Bordenstein
aDepartment of Biological Sciences, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
bDepartment of Pathology, Microbiology, and Immunology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Nicole Dubilier
Max Planck Institute for Marine Microbiology
Roles: Invited Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
R. John Collier
Harvard Medical School
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01785-15
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Species are fundamental units of comparison in biology. The newly discovered importance and ubiquity of host-associated microorganisms are now stimulating work on the roles that microbes can play in animal speciation. We previously synthesized the literature and advanced concepts of speciation by symbiosis with notable attention to hybrid sterility and lethality. Here, we review recent studies and relevant data on microbes as players in host behavior and behavioral isolation, emphasizing the patterns seen in these analyses and highlighting areas worthy of additional exploration. We conclude that the role of microbial symbionts in behavior and speciation is gaining exciting traction and that the holobiont and hologenome concepts afford an evolving intellectual framework to promote research and intellectual exchange between disciplines such as behavior, microbiology, genetics, symbiosis, and speciation. Given the increasing centrality of microbiology in macroscopic life, microbial symbiosis is arguably the most neglected aspect of animal and plant speciation, and studying it should yield a better understanding of the origin of species.

INTRODUCTION

In 1998, Carl Woese referred to the microbial world as the “sleeping giant” of biology (1). Almost two decades later, unprecedented attention to our microbial world has turned the fields of zoology (2) and botany (3) inward—toward an increased awareness and understanding of individual animals and plants as holobionts (4–6). The term “holobiont” denotes a host plus all of its microbial symbionts, including inconstant and constant members that are either vertically or horizontally transmitted or environmentally acquired; it was first coined in 1991 by Lynn Margulis (reviewed in reference 5). The ubiquity and importance of microbes in and on holobionts, including humans, are evident in studies of host development (7), immunity (8), metabolism (9–12), behavior (13, 14), speciation (15, 16), and numerous other processes. Host-microbe interactions provide the holobiont with disadvantages (17–19), such as increasing the risk of cancer (20), and advantages (7, 21–23), such as driving the evolution of resistance to parasites and pathogens (24–26), and among other things producing signal components (i.e., metabolites) used to recognize differences in potential mates (27, 28).

The newfound importance of diverse microbial communities in and on animals and plants led to the development of the hologenome theory of evolution (4, 29). The “hologenome” refers to all of the genomes of the host and its microbial symbionts, and the theory emphasizes that holobionts are a level of phenotypic selection in which many phenotypes are produced by the host and microbial members of the holobiont. This developing scientific framework distinguishes itself by placing importance not only on well-studied primary microbial symbionts and vertical microbial transmission but also on the vast diversity of host-associated microbes and horizontal microbial transmission. The key reason for aligning these different transmission modes and levels of complexity into an ecoevolutionary framework is that the community-level parameters among host and symbionts in the holobiont (e.g., community heritability, selection, and coinheritance) can be analyzed under a common set of concepts to the parameters that occur in the nuclear genome (6, 30).

As natural selection operates on variation in phenotypes, the hologenome theory’s most significant utility is that it reclassifies the target of “individual” selection for many animal and plant traits to the holobiont community. This claim is straightforward given the overwhelming influence of microbes on host traits (31–34). The question going forward is whether the response to this community-level selection is relevant to the biology of holobionts. In other words, can host-associated microbial communities be selected such that shifts in the microbial consortia over multiple generations are a response to selection on holobiont traits? Community selection at the holobiont level is shaped by genetic variation in the host and microbial species and covariance between hosts and their microbial consortia, the latter of which can be driven by (i) inheritance of the microbial community from parents to offspring (35, 36) and/or (ii) community heritability H2C (30, 37). We recently summarized 10 foundational principles of the holobiont and hologenome concepts, aligned them with preexisting theories and frameworks in biology, and discussed critiques and questions to be answered by future research (6).

In the context of the widely accepted biological species concept (38, 39), the principles of holobionts and hologenomes offer an integrated paradigm for the study of the origin of species. The biological species concept operationally defines species as populations no longer capable of interbreeding. Reproductive isolation mechanisms that prevent interbreeding between holobiont populations are either prezygotic (occurring before fertilization) or postzygotic (occurring after fertilization). In the absence of reproductive isolation and population structure, unrestricted interbreeding between holobiont populations will homogenize populations of their genetic and microbial differences (6). While postzygotic isolation mechanisms include hybrid sterility or inviability, prezygotic isolation mechanisms can include biochemical mismatches between gametes and behavior mismatches between potential partners.

Symbionts can cause prezygotic reproductive isolation in two modes: broad sense and narrow sense (40). Broad-sense symbiont-induced reproductive isolation refers to divergence in host genes that result in a reproductive barrier because of selection on the host to accommodate microorganisms. In this case, loss or alteration of the symbiont does not have an impact on the capacity to interbreed; instead, host genetic divergence and reproductive isolation evolve in response to microbial symbiosis and cause isolation regardless of whether the hosts are germfree or not. Conversely, narrow-sense symbiont-induced reproductive isolation occurs when host-microbe or microbe-microbe associations result in a reproductive barrier, namely, one that can be ameliorated or removed via elimination of the microbes. Therefore, narrow-sense isolation can be experimentally validated if it is reversible under microbe-free rearing conditions and inducible with the reintroduction of microbes. Isolation barriers that require host and microbial components underpin hologenomic speciation (6, 16).

We recently synthesized the literature and concepts of various speciation mechanisms related to symbiosis, with notable attention to postzygotic isolation (40–42). While aspects of the microbiology of prezygotic isolation are less understood, seminal cases exist (43–45), and control of behavior by symbionts is an emerging area of widespread interest (14, 46, 47). Here we emphasize the patterns seen in these new and old analyses (Table 1) and highlight important and tractable questions about the microbiome, behavior, and speciation by symbiosis. For the purposes of this minireview, we refer to the microbiome as the community of microorganisms in and on a host.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1 

Microbe-induced traits that associate with or cause changes in behavior and barriers to interbreeding

SIGNALING AND MICROBIOME HOMOGENIZATION

Recognizing signals of species membership (48), gender (49), genetic relatedness (50), and colony or group membership (51) is relevant to choosing a mate. Visual (48), auditory (49), and chemosensory (52) signals can each be used to relay this information, with the latter being sometimes influenced by the microbiome in either “microbe-specific” or “microbe-assisted” ways. Both mechanisms involve the expression of chemosensory cues, but microbe-specific processes involve bacterium-derived products such as metabolites, while microbe-assisted mechanisms involve bacterial modulation of host-derived odorous products (Fig. 1).

FIG 1 
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1 

Microbe-assisted and microbe-specific signaling. (A) Microbe-assisted processes denote the production of a host signal with input from the microbiome. It occurs in two possible scenarios. On the left, the host and microbial symbionts produce products that interact or combine to form a signaling compound; on the right, microbial symbionts modify host signal expression, but they do not make a specific product directly involved in the signal itself. (B) Microbe-specific processes denote the production of a microbial signal without input from the host. It occurs in two possible scenarios. On the left, the host and microbial symbionts produce products that are both required to elicit a response; on the right, microbial symbionts produce compounds used by the host for signaling. Mouse image source: Wikimedia Commons, Angelus (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rat_2.svg).

The microbiome’s capacity to provide identity information used in mate choice may rely on products being an honest signal of holobiont group membership, requiring that many or all members of the group (i.e., gender, population, or species) contain appropriate microbial members that express equivalent signal profiles. Holobionts can be colonized by similar microbes via a number of different mechanisms, spanning behavioral similarities and contact with shared environmental sources (53, 54), similar ecological niches and diets (55–57), and host genetic effects (16, 58). Each of these mechanisms may explain a portion of the variation in the microbial communities of holobionts (40, 42, 59–61).

In the context of group living, humans in the same household (54, 62) and chimpanzees (63) or baboons (53) in the same social group have more similar microbial communities than nongroup members. Among several mammalian species, microbial community composition covaries with odorous secretions, and similarities are shared based on host age, sex, and reproductive status allowing for potential signaling and recognition of these traits (27, 64). In hyenas, there is less microbial community variation within species than between them, and clans have more-comparable microbial communities due to the marking and remarking of collective territory to signal clan ownership (64). In baboons, there is less microbiome variation within social groups than between them, and baboons involved in communal grooming behaviors share even more similarities (53). Insect populations such as termites can stabilize their gut microbiomes by way of trophallaxis, a behavior in which nestmates supply nutrients and microbes (e.g., cellulolytic microbes) to other colony members through fluids they excrete from their hindgut (65). However, Tung et al. appropriately note that “one of the most important unanswered questions is whether social network-mediated microbiome sharing produces net fitness benefits or costs for hosts” (53). From the perspective of the origin of species, it will be similarly important to determine whether fitness impacts of the microbiome in turn affect the evolution of group living and reproductive isolation. On one hand, socially shared microbiomes could drive the evolution of population-specific mating signals and ensuing behavioral isolation. On the other hand, they could fuse incipient species in sympatry that socially share bacterial communities responsible for mating signals.

Similarities in diet can also influence microbiome homogenization, particularly in the digestive tract. For instance, Drosophila melanogaster reared on similar food sources carry comparable microbial communities (43). Trophically similar ant species also share microbial species (66). In humans, gut microbiome variation in taxonomy and functions correlates with dietary variation (67), and alterations in human diet can rapidly and reproducibly change the structure of the microbiome (68, 69). Seasonal variation in the diet of wild howler monkeys is also correlated to shifts in the microbiome (70). Mediterranean fruit flies (71) and olive flies (72) acquire microbes from their food that increase clutch size and oviposition rate of females exposed to diets lacking essential amino acids (71, 72). Intriguingly, the sexual competitiveness of male Mediterranean fruit flies increases up to twofold with diets enriched with Klebsiella oxytoca versus a conventional diet (73).

Host genetics also affects microbial community assembly. In mice, there are 18 candidate loci for modulation and homeostatic maintenance of Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Rikenellaceae, and Provetellaceae in the gut (58, 74). Moreover, the presence of many rare bacterial groups in the gills of the Pacific oyster are correlated to genetic relatedness (75). Congruently, genetic variability in human immune-related pathways are associated with microbial profiles on several body sites, including various locations along the digestive tract (76), and a study of the largest twin cohort thus far examined members of the gut microbiome and found that the bacterial family Christensenellaceae has the highest heritability (h2 = 0.39) and associates closely with other heritable gut bacterial families (77). Human genetic background also influences the risk of developing gastric cancer caused by Helicobacter pylori, indicating that incompatibilities between hosts and symbionts can produce deleterious effects (20). Phylosymbiosis, characterized by microbial community relationships that reflect host phylogeny (30), has also been reported in several cases. For instance, closely related Nasonia species that diverged roughly 400,000 years ago share more similar microbial communities than species pairs that diverged a million years ago (16, 40). Similar phylosymbiotic patterns are observed in hydra (59), ants (60), and primates (61).

The overall complexity inherent in microbial community structures and processes may be problematic for animal holobionts seeking to interpret a vast array of signaling information. However, recognition and differentiation of these microbe-induced signals may be possible if a subset of the microbiome affects the production of the particular signal. Furthermore, it may also be challenging to disentangle social, environmental, and diet effects on microbial assemblages in natural populations (53). Nonetheless, the important theme among all of these cases is that there often appears to be less microbial community variation within holobiont groups/species than between them. This pattern, if sustained in natural populations, could facilitate the evolution of microbe-specific and/or microbe-assisted mating signals that promote recognition within populations or species and discrimination between them. Once this critical point is passed, speciation has commenced. There are parallels here with inclusive fitness theory, which posits that individuals can influence their own reproductive success or the reproductive success of other individuals with which they share genes (78, 79). If one follows the continuity from genes to microbial symbionts, then the inclusive fitness framework may also apply to holobionts in which specific microbial symbionts may influence their reproductive success by increasing the reproductive success of their hosts through microbe-specific and/or microbe-assisted mating. A case-by-case analysis of the reliance of the symbiont on the host for transmission (e.g., maternal, social, environmental transmission) will augment the relevance of this framework.

MICROBE-ASSISTED MODIFICATION OF MATING SIGNALS

A common, microbe-assisted modification involves manipulation of host signals (Fig. 1A). One seminal study found that D. melanogaster acquires more Lactobacillus when reared on starch than on a cornmeal-molasses-yeast mixture (43, 80). The increased Lactobacillus colonization correlates with an upregulation of 7,11-heptacosadiene, a cuticular hydrocarbon sex pheromone in the female fly, resulting in an ability to distinguish fly holobionts raised in the starch environment from those reared on the cornmeal-molasses-yeast substrate (43, 81). This microbe-assisted positive assortative mating is reproducible, reversible, and maintained for several dozen generations after diet homogenization (43, 82). Moreover, this diet-dependent homogamy appears to be directly mediated by different gut bacteria, as inoculation of germfree flies with Lactobacillus causes a significant increase in mating between flies reared on the different diets (43). Replication of these experiments found that inbred strains specifically followed this mating pattern (82). Moreover, another D. melanogaster study involving male mate choice and antibiotics revealed that female attractiveness is mediated by commensal microbes (83). These laboratory studies provide a critical model for how microbe-assisted modifications in a signaling pathway, ensuing behavioral changes, and mating assortment can potentiate behavioral isolation. Indeed, natural populations of D. melanogaster express positive assortative mating and differential signal production based on food sources (84), and a bacterial role in these instances should be explored.

Microbe-assisted signaling also occurs in laboratory mice (Mus musculus), in which bacterial conversion of dietary choline into trimethylamine (TMA) leads to attraction of mice while also repelling rats (85). Antibiotic treatment decreases TMA production, and genetic knockout of the mouse receptor for TMA leads to decreased attraction in mice (85). Antibiotic treatment and subsequent depletion of TMA in mice could in turn result in a decrease in repellence of rats (85), though this possibility has not yet been tested in vivo. Another study found that female mice are more attracted to males not infected with Salmonella enterica than to those that are, yet females mated multiply and equally in mating choice tests with the two types of males (86).

Mate preference based on infection status fits well with the Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis of parasite-mediated sexual selection, which posits that traits related to infection status can influence mating success (87). One seminal study showed that male jungle fowl infected with a parasitic roundworm produce less developed ornamentation and are less attractive to females (87). In house finches, male plumage brightness indicates their quality of broodcare and is associated with resistance to the bacterial pathogen Mycoplasma gallisepticum (88). The Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis has been reviewed in detail (89).

MICROBE-SPECIFIC SIGNALS

Microbe-specific signals frequently involve the release of volatile microbial metabolites, often through excretions from specialized glands on the host’s body (Fig. 1B). Microbial volatiles can transmit information utilized for social signaling (13, 90) and intra- or interspecies mate recognition (85, 91). For example, beetles (91), termites (51), nematodes (92), hyenas (64), meerkats (27), and badgers (93) produce and recognize bacterial metabolites in communication that can modulate their behavior. In termites, fecal metabolites produced by intestinal bacteria (51) coat the termite body and hive walls to signal colony membership. Termite holobionts lacking colony-specific metabolite profiles are attacked and killed by the hive (51). In contrast, some beetles and mammal species excrete bacterial metabolites from colleterial and anal scent glands, respectively (27, 64, 91). For example, female grass grub beetles house bacteria within their colleterial glands peripheral to the vagina that are used to attract males to mate (91).

An exciting area of research regarding microbe-specific bacterial signaling involves mammalian fermentation. The mammalian fermentation hypothesis (27, 64) states that fermentative bacteria within mammalian scent glands produce odorous metabolites involved in recognition. For example, hyena subcaudal scent pouches store bacteria that are mostly fermentative (64). When marking territory, hyenas deposit species-specific, bacterium-derived volatile fatty acids from this gland onto grass stalks (64). Bacterial metabolite secretions are more variable in the social hyena species, presumably because the complexity of signals from social species improves intraspecies identification (64). Alternatively, social hyenas may permissively transmit more diverse bacteria leading to different metabolite profiles. Hyena microbiomes also covary with group membership, sex, and reproductive state (64). Similarly, bacterial communities in meerkat anal scent secretions vary with host sex, age, and group membership (27). In both cases, the signal diversity may allow animal holobionts to recognize diverse biotic characteristics.

Humans also carry bacteria related to odor production. Breath (94, 95), foot (96), and underarm (97) odor covary with oral and skin microbiomes, respectively. Many diseases (e.g., smallpox, bacterial vaginosis, syphilis, etc.) are associated with distinct odors, which have historically been used by physicians in diagnosis (98). Clothing made from different materials even carry different odor profiles based on material-specific bacterial colonization (99, 100). Male odor has been associated with women’s interpretation of a male’s attractiveness (101–103), possibly influencing their choice in a mate.

The salient theme among the aforementioned cases is that host-associated microbes frequently emit odors, and sometimes this microbe-specific chemosensory information can affect mate choice. Reciprocally, ample evidence shows that chemical signals mediate sexual isolation (104), and a full understanding of whether these signals are traceable to host-associated microbes is worthy of serious attention. Germfree experiments and microbial inoculations should be a prerequisite for such studies; otherwise, they risk missing the significance of microbes in chemosensory speciation (104). Additional behaviors involved in speciation, such as habitat choice and pollinator attraction, are also likely to be influenced by microbe-specific products. Indeed, classic model systems of speciation await further experimentation in this light. For example, food-specific odors on apples and hawthorn translate directly into premating isolation of incipient host races of fruit flies of the genus Rhagoletis (105). Furthermore, the fruit fly Drosophila sechellia exclusively reproduces on the ripe fruit of Morinda citrifolia, which is toxic to other phylogenetically related Drosophila species, including D. melanogaster and D. simulans. Some of the volatile compounds involved in these interactions, such as isoamyl acetate, have been associated with fermentative bacteria like Lactobacillus plantarum (106), suggesting that food-based premating isolation may be related to bacterial associations with the food source, though this requires further study.

In summary, new challenges necessitate the concerted effort of scientists of diverse backgrounds to explore questions at the boundaries of many biological disciplines and to develop the tools to untangle and interpret this intricate web of interactions. Critical topics to be explored in the future include determining the microbial role in animal mate choice, quantifying the extent to which microbe-induced mating assortment impacts the origin of species, and identifying the mechanisms involved in these interactions.

ENDOSYMBIONTS AND MATE CHOICE

Wolbachia, Spiroplasma, Rickettsia, Cardinium, and several other endosymbiotic bacteria can change animal sex ratios and sex determination mechanisms to increase their maternal transmission and thus frequency in the host population from one generation to the next. Notably, these reproductive alterations affect mate choice (107), and here we highlight a few prominent examples and discuss how endosymbiotic bacteria can influence behavioral isolation and the origin of species.

Cytoplasmic incompatibility.Wolbachia bacteria are the most well-studied reproductive distorters (108, 109) and are estimated to infect approximately 40% of all arthropod species (110). Across the major insect orders, Wolbachia cause cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI), a phenomenon in which Wolbachia-modified sperm from infected males leads to postfertilization embryonic lethality in eggs from uninfected females or from females infected with a different strain of Wolbachia, but not in eggs from infected females (111).

In this context, Wolbachia-induced CI can promote the evolution of mate discrimination between populations or species because females can be selected to avoid males that they are not compatible with (Fig. 2C). Among closely related species of mushroom-feeding flies, Wolbachia-infected Drosophila recens and uninfected Drosophila subquinaria contact each other and interspecifically mate in their sympatric range in eastern Canada. However, gene flow between them in either cross direction is severely reduced due to the complementary action of CI and behavioral isolation. Wolbachia-induced CI appears to be the agent for evolution of behavioral isolation, as asymmetric mate discrimination occurs in flies from the zones of sympatry but not in flies from the allopatric ranges (112). A similar pattern of Wolbachia-induced mate discrimination occurs among strains of the two-spotted spider mite, Tetranychus urticae (113) and D. melanogaster cage populations (45). Moreover, discrimination between particular semispecies of Drosophila paulistorum is associated with their Wolbachia infections (44). In cases where host populations or species harbor different Wolbachia infections that are bidirectionally incompatible, for example in different Nasonia species that exist sympatrically (114, 115), reciprocal mate discrimination has evolved (114, 116). In contrast to these examples, interspecific mate discrimination in Nasonia giraulti is diminished when nonnative transfections of Wolbachia spread throughout the whole body, including to the brain, suggesting that Wolbachia can also inhibit preexisting mate discrimination (117).

FIG 2 
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2 

Endosymbiont-induced behavioral isolation and extinction. U (blue) and I (pink) represent the uninfected and infected populations, respectively. Horizontal solid arrows represent the direction of gene flow (from males to females), and vertical dashed arrows represent divergence time. Different subscript numbers for U and I represent evolutionary change in traits involved in behavioral extinction and behavioral isolation. (A and B) Behavioral changes induced by male killing (MK) (A) and feminization (FM) (B) evolve in response to selection on uninfected males to mate preferentially with uninfected females. If male preference is completely penetrant, then total loss of mating between the uninfected and infected population ensues, effectively leading the infected population to extinction, since infected females rely on (the now discriminating) uninfected males to reproduce. We term this model “behavioral extinction.” (C and D) In contrast, behavioral changes induced by cytoplasmic incompatibility (CI) (C) and parthenogenesis induction (PI) (D) can result in reduced or no gene flow between the infected and uninfected populations. CI-assisted reproductive isolation can be enhanced by the evolution of mate discrimination and specifically uninfected female mate choice for uninfected males. While this model does not sever gene flow in reciprocal cross directions, asymmetric isolation barriers can act as an initial step in speciation. PI-assisted reproductive isolation is mediated by two possible mechanisms: (i) sexual degeneration which involves the degeneration of sexual traits in the infected population that ultimately lock the populations into uninfected sexual and infected parthenogenetic species, and (ii) relaxed sexual selection which involves the evolution of new sexual characteristics in the uninfected sexual population that prevent mating with the infected parthenogenetic population. Wolbachia image source: Tamara Clark, Encyclopedia of Life, Wolbachia page (http://eol.org/data_objects/466412).

These cases reveal, to various degrees, that Wolbachia can be causal to the evolution of assortative mating within and between species. Indeed, population genetic theory demonstrates that mate choice alleles spread quicker in populations or species with CI than those with nuclear incompatibilities (118). This is primarily due to the dominance of these Wolbachia-induced incompatibilities, since CI causes F1 inviability, while nuclear incompatibilities are typically expressed in the F2 hybrids due to the recessive nature of hybrid incompatibility alleles.

Male killing.Male killing is the most common form of endosymbiont-induced sex ratio manipulation and can occur during embryonic (119, 120) or larval (121, 122) development. The effect of male killing is to increase the number of female hosts in a population, thereby increasing endosymbiont transmission rates. To prevent complete fixation of females and population extinction (123), selection can favor hosts to (i) suppress male killing via genes that reduce Wolbachia densities or functions (25, 124–126) or (ii) electively choose mates whereby uninfected males preferentially mate with uninfected females (127, 128). If mate choice evolves as a behavioral adaptation to avoid male killing, it could begin to splinter infected and uninfected populations and initiate the first steps of the speciation process (Fig. 2A). One significant caveat in this conceptual model is that the infected population will go extinct without uninfected males to mate with. Thus, if mate preference based on infection status was complete, it would cause speciation between the infected and uninfected populations, resulting in the immediate extinction of the infected population that requires uninfected males to reproduce. We term this phenomena “behavioral extinction” (Fig. 2).

Wolbachia-induced male killing can reach a state of equilibrium, as suggested by their long-term maintenance in natural populations of butterflies (129). Discriminatory males occasionally mate with infected females, allowing the infection to remain in the population (127), and eventually, an equilibrium is reached (129). However, in some cases, the infection rate is high (>95%), and male preference for uninfected females has not been identified (123). It is not known what mechanisms are involved in preventing male killing from reaching fixation in these situations.

Feminization.Feminization, or the conversion of genetic males to morphological and functional females, has similar evolutionary consequences to male killing (Fig. 2B). This process occurs in many different arthropod species, including butterflies (130, 131), leafhoppers (132), and wood louse (133). Resistance to these effects in the pill bug Armadillidium vulgare has evolved in the form of feminization suppressors and male preference for uninfected females. Males that mate with infected females produce feminized males (24, 134). Ultimately, a female-biased sex ratio in feminized wood louse populations results in an increase in male mate choice, male mating multiplicity, and sperm depletion. In the context of sperm depletion, initial mating encounters are normal, but upon increased mating frequency, males provide less sperm to subsequent females. Moreover, infected females are curiously less fertile at lower sperm densities, possibly because they are less efficient at utilizing small quantities of sperm (128). Insufficient sperm utilization and slight differences in infected female courtship behaviors can result in male preference for uninfected females within the population (133). Just as with male killing, assortative mating within infected and uninfected populations may initiate the early stages of speciation and lead to behavioral extinction (Fig. 2).

Parthenogenesis.Microbe-induced parthenogenesis is common among haplodiploid arthropods such as wasps, mites, and thrips (135–137), wherein unfertilized eggs become females (138, 139). As we previously discussed (140), parthenogenesis-induced speciation by endosymbiotic bacteria falls neatly with the biological species concept because parthenogenesis can sever gene flow and cause the evolution of reproductive isolation between sexual and asexual populations. Microbe-induced parthenogenesis does not necessarily exclude the sexual capability of parthenogenetic females, but instead it removes the necessity of sexual reproduction and can potentially drive divergence in sexual behaviors and mate choice (141). Speciation therefore commences between sexual and asexual populations under two models: (i) sexual degeneration and (ii) relaxed sexual selection (140) (Fig. 2D).

The sexual degeneration model posits that the asexual population becomes incompetent to engage in sexual interactions due to mutational accumulation and thus trait degeneration, while the sexual population remains otherwise the same (140). In this case, parthenogenetic lineages accumulate mutations in genes involved in sexual reproduction. Traits subject to mutational meltdown may span secondary sexual characteristics, fertilization, mating behavior, and signal production, among other traits (142–144). For instance, long-term Wolbachia-induced parthenogenesis in mealybugs and some parasitoid wasps prevents females from attracting mates or properly expressing sexual behaviors (144, 145). Similarly, in primarily asexual populations, male courtship behavior and sexual functionality are often impaired (142, 146, 147). The accrual of these mutations prevents sexual reproduction, thus causing the parthenogenetic population to become “locked in” to an asexual lifestyle. While this model is an attractive hypothesis for the onset of reproductive isolation between asexual and sexual populations, it is not always easily distinguishable from the alternative relaxed sexual selection model (140). In this model, the sexual population diverges by evolving new or altered mating factors (e.g., courtship sequence, signals, etc.), while the asexual population does not degrade, but rather stays the same and thus can no longer mate with individuals from the diverging sexual population (140).

CONCLUSIONS

Over the past decade, biology has stood vis-a-vis with what Carl Woese referred to as the “sleeping giant” of biology—the microbial world (1). During this period of groundbreaking research, a new vision for the increasing importance of microbiology in many subdisciplines of the life sciences has emerged. As such, studies of animal and plant speciation that do not account for the microbial world are incomplete. We currently know that microbes are involved in a multitude of host processes spanning behavior, metabolite production, reproduction, and immunity. Each of these processes can in theory or in practice cause mating assortment and commence population divergence, the evolution of reproductive isolation, and thus speciation. Understanding the contributions of microbes to behavior and speciation will require concerted efforts and exchanges among these biological disciplines, namely, ones that embrace the recent “unified microbiome” proposal to merge disciplinary boundaries (148).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

J.D.S. thanks Laci J. Baker for moral support during the writing process and Daniel LePage and Edward van Opstal for critique on figures. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their critical feedback on the manuscript.

Any opinions, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

  • Copyright © 2016 Shropshire and Bordenstein.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Woese CR
    . 1998. Default taxonomy: Ernst Mayr’s view of the microbial world. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:11043–11046. doi:10.1073/pnas.95.19.11043.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. McFall-Ngai M,
    2. Hadfield MG,
    3. Bosch TCG,
    4. Carey HV,
    5. Domazet-Lošo T,
    6. Douglas AE,
    7. Dubilier N,
    8. Eberl G,
    9. Fukami T,
    10. Gilbert SF,
    11. Hentschel U,
    12. King N,
    13. Kjelleberg S,
    14. Knoll AH,
    15. Kremer N,
    16. Mazmanian SK,
    17. Metcalf JL,
    18. Nealson K,
    19. Pierce NE,
    20. Rawls JF,
    21. Reid A,
    22. Ruby EG,
    23. Rumpho M,
    24. Sanders JG,
    25. Tautz D,
    26. Wernegreen JJ
    . 2013. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:3229–3236. doi:10.1073/pnas.1218525110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Turner TR,
    2. James EK,
    3. Poole PS
    . 2013. The plant microbiome. Genome Biol 14:209. doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-6-209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Zilber-Rosenberg I,
    2. Rosenberg E
    . 2008. Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution. FEMS Microbiol Rev 32:723–735. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00123.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Gilbert SF,
    2. Sapp J,
    3. Tauber AI
    . 2012. A symbiotic view of life: we have never been individuals. Q Rev Biol 87:325–341. doi:10.1086/668166.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. 6.↵
    1. Bordenstein SR,
    2. Theis KR
    . 2015. Host biology in light of the microbiome: ten principles of holobionts and hologenomes. PLoS Biol 13:e1002226. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002226.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. McFall-Ngai M,
    2. Heath-Heckman EAC,
    3. Gillette AA,
    4. Peyer SM,
    5. Harvie EA
    . 2012. The secret languages of coevolved symbioses: insights from the Euprymna scolopes-Vibrio fischeri symbiosis. Semin Immunol 24:3–8. doi:10.1016/j.smim.2011.11.006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Lee YK,
    2. Mazmanian SK
    . 2010. Has the microbiota played a critical role in the evolution of the adaptive immune system? Science 330:1768–1773. doi:10.1126/science.1195568.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. McCutcheon JP,
    2. Von Dohlen CD
    . 2011. An interdependent metabolic patchwork in the nested symbiosis of mealybugs. Curr Biol 21:1366–1372. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.06.051.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Nicholson JK,
    2. Holmes E,
    3. Kinross J,
    4. Burcelin R,
    5. Gibson G,
    6. Jia W,
    7. Pettersson S
    . 2012. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions. Science 336:1262–1267. doi:10.1126/science.1223813.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. 11.↵
    1. Kamra DN
    . 2005. Rumen microbial ecosystem. Curr Sci 89:124–135.
    OpenUrlWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Taylor MW,
    2. Radax R,
    3. Steger D,
    4. Wagner M
    . 2007. Sponge-associated microorganisms: evolution, ecology, and biotechnological potential. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71:295–347. doi:10.1128/MMBR.00040-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Archie EA,
    2. Theis KR
    . 2011. Animal behaviour meets microbial ecology. Anim Behav 82:425–436. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.029.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    1. Ezenwa VO,
    2. Gerardo NM,
    3. Inouye DW,
    4. Medina M,
    5. Xavier JB
    . 2012. Animal behavior and the microbiome. Science 338:198–199. doi:10.1126/science.1227412.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  15. 15.↵
    1. Wang J,
    2. Kalyan S,
    3. Steck N,
    4. Turner LM,
    5. Harr B,
    6. Künzel S,
    7. Vallier M,
    8. Häsler R,
    9. Franke A,
    10. Oberg H-H,
    11. Ibrahim SM,
    12. Grassl GA,
    13. Kabelitz D,
    14. Baines JF
    . 2015. Analysis of intestinal microbiota in hybrid house mice reveals evolutionary divergence in a vertebrate hologenome. Nat Commun 6:6440.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.↵
    1. Brucker RM,
    2. Bordenstein SR
    . 2013. The hologenomic basis of speciation: gut bacteria cause hybrid lethality in the genus Nasonia. Science 341:667–669. doi:10.1126/science.1240659.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  17. 17.↵
    1. Morgan JAW
    . 2005. Biological costs and benefits to plant-microbe interactions in the rhizosphere. J Exp Bot 56:1729–1739. doi:10.1093/jxb/eri205.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.↵
    1. Polin S,
    2. Simon J-C,
    3. Outreman Y
    . 2014. An ecological cost associated with protective symbionts of aphids. Ecol Evol 4:826–830. doi:10.1002/ece3.991.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Nougué O,
    2. Gallet R,
    3. Chevin L-M,
    4. Lenormand T
    . 2015. Niche limits of symbiotic gut microbiota constrain the salinity tolerance of brine shrimp. Am Nat 186:390–403. doi:10.1086/682370.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Kodaman N,
    2. Pazos A,
    3. Schneider BG,
    4. Piazuelo MB,
    5. Mera R,
    6. Sobota RS,
    7. Sicinschi LA,
    8. Shaffer CL,
    9. Romero-Gallo J,
    10. de Sablet T,
    11. Harder RH,
    12. Bravo LE,
    13. Peek RM,
    14. Wilson KT,
    15. Cover TL,
    16. Williams SM,
    17. Correa P
    . 2014. Human and Helicobacter pylori coevolution shapes the risk of gastric disease. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111:1455–1460. doi:10.1073/pnas.1318093111.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  21. 21.↵
    1. Teixeira L,
    2. Ferreira A,
    3. Ashburner M
    . 2008. The bacterial symbiont Wolbachia induces resistance to RNA viral infections in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Biol 6:e2. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    1. Round JL,
    2. Mazmanian SK
    . 2009. The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nat Rev Immunol 9:313–323. doi:10.1038/nri2515.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    1. Chung H,
    2. Pamp SJ,
    3. Hill JA,
    4. Surana NK,
    5. Edelman SM,
    6. Troy EB,
    7. Reading NC,
    8. Villablanca EJ,
    9. Wang S,
    10. Mora JR,
    11. Umesaki Y,
    12. Mathis D,
    13. Benoist C,
    14. Relman DA,
    15. Kasper DL
    . 2012. Gut immune maturation depends on colonization with a host-specific microbiota. Cell 149:1578–1593. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2012.04.037.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  24. 24.↵
    1. Rigaud T,
    2. Juchault P
    . 1993. Conflict between feminizing sex ratio distorters and an autosomal masculinizing gene in the terrestrial isopod Armadillidium vulgare Latr. Genetics 133:247–252.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  25. 25.↵
    1. Hornett EA,
    2. Moran B,
    3. Reynolds LA,
    4. Charlat S,
    5. Tazzyman S,
    6. Wedell N,
    7. Jiggins CD,
    8. Hurst GDD
    . 2014. The evolution of sex ratio distorter suppression affects a 25-cM genomic region in the butterfly Hypolimnas bolina. PLoS Genet 10:e1004822. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1004822.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  26. 26.↵
    1. Oliver KM,
    2. Campos J,
    3. Moran NA,
    4. Hunter MS
    . 2008. Population dynamics of defensive symbionts in aphids. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 275:293–299. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1192.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  27. 27.↵
    1. Leclaire S,
    2. Nielsen JF,
    3. Drea CM
    . 2014. Bacterial communities in meerkat anal scent secretions vary with host sex, age, and group membership. Behav Ecol 25:996–1004. doi:10.1093/beheco/aru074.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  28. 28.↵
    1. Venu I,
    2. Durisko Z,
    3. Xu J,
    4. Dukas R
    . 2014. Social attraction mediated by fruit flies’ microbiome. J Exp Biol 217:1346–1352. doi:10.1242/jeb.099648.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  29. 29.↵
    1. Rosenberg E,
    2. Zilber-Rosenberg I
    . 2013. The hologenome concept: human, animal and plant microbiota. Springer, Berlin, Germany.
  30. 30.↵
    1. van Opstal EJ,
    2. Bordenstein SR
    . 2015. Rethinking heritability of the microbiome. Science 349:1172–1173. doi:10.1126/science.aab3958.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  31. 31.↵
    1. Tsuchida T,
    2. Koga R,
    3. Horikawa M,
    4. Tsunoda T,
    5. Maoka T,
    6. Matsumoto S,
    7. Simon JC,
    8. Fukatsu T
    . 2010. Symbiotic bacterium modifies aphid body color. Science 330:1102–1104. doi:10.1126/science.1195463.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. 32.↵
    1. Gilbert SF,
    2. Bosch TCG,
    3. Ledón-Rettig C
    . 2015. Eco-Evo-Devo: developmental symbiosis and developmental plasticity as evolutionary agents. Nat Rev Genet 16:611–622. doi:10.1038/nrg3982.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Berg G,
    2. Rybakova D,
    3. Grube M,
    4. Köberl M
    . 2016. The plant microbiome explored: implications for experimental botany. J Exp Bot 67:995–1002. doi:10.1093/jxb/erv466.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. McFall-Ngai MJ
    . 2015. Giving microbes their due—animal life in a microbially dominant world. J Exp Biol 218:1968–1973. doi:10.1242/jeb.115121.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  35. 35.↵
    1. Funkhouser LJ,
    2. Bordenstein SR
    . 2013. Mom knows best: the universality of maternal microbial transmission. PLoS Biol 11:e1001631. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001631.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    1. Gilbert SF
    . 2014. A holobiont birth narrative: the epigenetic transmission of the human microbiome. Front Genet 5:282. doi:10.3389/fgene.2014.00282.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Shuster SM,
    2. Lonsdorf EV,
    3. Wimp GM,
    4. Bailey JK,
    5. Whitham TG
    . 2006. Community heritability measures the evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects on community structure. Evolution 60:991–1003. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01177.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  38. 38.↵
    1. Dobzhansky T,
    2. Dobzhansky TG
    . 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York, NY. doi:10.2307/1439305.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  39. 39.↵
    1. Mayr E
    . 1942. Systematics and the origin of species, from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  40. 40.↵
    1. Brucker RM,
    2. Bordenstein SR
    . 2012. Speciation by symbiosis. Trends Ecol Evol 27:443–451. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.03.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.↵
    1. Brucker RM,
    2. Bordenstein SR
    . 2012. In vitro cultivation of the hymenoptera genetic model, Nasonia. PLoS One 7:e51269. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0051269.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  42. 42.↵
    1. Brucker RM,
    2. Bordenstein SR
    . 2013. The capacious hologenome. Zoology (Jena) 116:260–261. doi:10.1016/j.zool.2013.08.003.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    1. Sharon G,
    2. Segal D,
    3. Ringo JM,
    4. Hefetz A,
    5. Zilber-Rosenberg I,
    6. Rosenberg E,
    7. Collier RJ
    . 2010. Commensal of bacteria play a role in mating preference Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:20051–20056. doi:10.1073/pnas.1009906107.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    1. Miller WJ,
    2. Ehrman L,
    3. Schneider D
    . 2010. Infectious speciation revisited: impact of symbiont-depletion on female fitness and mating behavior of Drosophila paulistorum. PLoS Pathog 6:e1001214. doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1001214.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    1. Koukou K,
    2. Pavlikaki H,
    3. Kilias G,
    4. Werren JH,
    5. Bourtzis K,
    6. Alahiotis SN
    . 2006. Influence of antibiotic treatment and Wolbachia curing on sexual isolation among Drosophila melanogaster cage populations. Evolution 60:87–96. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2006.tb01084.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. 46.↵
    1. Sampson TR,
    2. Mazmanian SK
    . 2015. Control of brain development, function, and behavior by the microbiome. Cell Host Microbe 17:565–576. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2015.04.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. 47.↵
    1. O’Mahony SM,
    2. Clarke G,
    3. Dinan TG,
    4. Cryan JF
    . Early-life adversity and brain development: is the microbiome a missing piece of the puzzle? Neuroscience doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.09.068.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  48. 48.↵
    1. Carlson AD,
    2. Copeland J,
    3. Raderman R,
    4. Bulloch AGM
    . 1976. Role of interflash intervals in a firefly courtship (Photinus macdermotti). Anim Behav 24:786–792. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(76)80009-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  49. 49.↵
    1. Cator LJ,
    2. Arthur BJ,
    3. Harrington LC,
    4. Hoy RR
    . 2009. Harmonic convergence in the love songs of the dengue vector mosquito. Science 323:1077–1079. doi:10.1126/science.1166541.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  50. 50.↵
    1. Lizé A,
    2. McKay R,
    3. Lewis Z
    . 2013. Gut microbiota and kin recognition. Trends Ecol Evol 28:325–326. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2012.10.013.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    1. Matsuura K
    . 2001. Nestmate recognition mediated by intestinal bacteria in a termite, Reticulitermes speratus. Oikos 92:20–26. doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.920103.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  52. 52.↵
    1. De Cock R,
    2. Matthysen E
    . 2005. Sexual communication by pheromones in a firefly, Phosphaenus hemipterus (Coleoptera: Lampyridae). Anim Behav 70:807–818. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2005.01.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  53. 53.↵
    1. Tung J,
    2. Barreiro LB,
    3. Burns MB,
    4. Grenier J-C,
    5. Lynch J,
    6. Grieneisen LE,
    7. Altmann J,
    8. Alberts SC,
    9. Blekhman R,
    10. Archie EA
    . 2015. Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons. Elife 4:1–18. doi:10.7554/eLife.05224.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    1. Lax S,
    2. Smith DP,
    3. Hampton-Marcell J,
    4. Owens SM,
    5. Handley KM,
    6. Scott NM,
    7. Gibbons SM,
    8. Larsen P,
    9. Shogan BD,
    10. Weiss S,
    11. Metcalf JL,
    12. Ursell LK,
    13. Vázquez-Baeza Y,
    14. Van Treuren W,
    15. Hasan NA,
    16. Gibson MK,
    17. Colwell R,
    18. Dantas G,
    19. Knight R,
    20. Gilbert JA
    . 2014. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interactions between humans and indoor environment. Science 345:1048–1052. doi:10.1126/science.1254529.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    1. Ley RE,
    2. Hamady M,
    3. Lozupone C,
    4. Turnbaugh PJ,
    5. Ramey RR,
    6. Bircher JS,
    7. Schlegel ML,
    8. Tucker TA,
    9. Schrenzel MD,
    10. Knight R,
    11. Gordon JI
    . 2008. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science 320:1647–1651. doi:10.1126/science.1155725.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  56. 56.↵
    1. Spor A,
    2. Koren O,
    3. Ley R
    . 2011. Unravelling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:279–290. doi:10.1038/nrmicro2540.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  57. 57.↵
    1. Yatsunenko T,
    2. Rey FE,
    3. Manary MJ,
    4. Trehan I,
    5. Dominguez-Bello MG,
    6. Contreras M,
    7. Magris M,
    8. Hidalgo G,
    9. Baldassano RN,
    10. Anokhin AP,
    11. Heath AC,
    12. Warner B,
    13. Reeder J,
    14. Kuczynski J,
    15. Caporaso JG,
    16. Lozupone CA,
    17. Lauber C,
    18. Clemente JC,
    19. Knights D,
    20. Knight R,
    21. Gordon JI
    . 2012. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 486:222–227. doi:10.1038/nature11053.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  58. 58.↵
    1. McKnite AM,
    2. Perez-Munoz ME,
    3. Lu L,
    4. Williams EG,
    5. Brewer S,
    6. Andreux PA,
    7. Bastiaansen JWM,
    8. Wang X,
    9. Kachman SD,
    10. Auwerx J,
    11. Williams RW,
    12. Benson AK,
    13. Peterson DA,
    14. Ciobanu DC
    . 2012. Murine gut microbiota is defined by host genetics and modulates variation of metabolic traits. PLoS One 7:e39191. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039191.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  59. 59.↵
    1. Franzenburg S,
    2. Walter J,
    3. Künzel S,
    4. Wang J,
    5. Baines JF,
    6. Bosch TCG,
    7. Fraune S
    . 2013. Distinct antimicrobial peptide expression determines host species-specific bacterial associations. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:E3730–E3738. doi:10.1073/pnas.1304960110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  60. 60.↵
    1. Sanders JG,
    2. Powell S,
    3. Kronauer DJC,
    4. Vasconcelos HL,
    5. Frederickson ME,
    6. Pierce NE
    . 2014. Stability and phylogenetic correlation in gut microbiota: lessons from ants and apes. Mol Ecol 23:1268–1283. doi:10.1111/mec.12611.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  61. 61.↵
    1. Ochman H,
    2. Worobey M,
    3. Kuo C-H,
    4. Ndjango J-BN,
    5. Peeters M,
    6. Hahn BH,
    7. Hugenholtz P
    . 2010. Evolutionary relationships of wild hominids recapitulated by gut microbial communities. PLoS Biol 8:e1000546. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000546.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  62. 62.↵
    1. Song SJ,
    2. Lauber C,
    3. Costello EK,
    4. Lozupone CA,
    5. Humphrey G,
    6. Berg-Lyons D,
    7. Caporaso JG,
    8. Knights D,
    9. Clemente JC,
    10. Nakielny S,
    11. Gordon JI,
    12. Fierer N,
    13. Knight R
    . 2013. Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs. Elife 2:e00458. doi:10.7554/eLife.00458.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  63. 63.↵
    1. Degnan PH,
    2. Pusey AE,
    3. Lonsdorf EV,
    4. Goodall J,
    5. Wroblewski EE,
    6. Wilson ML,
    7. Rudicell RS,
    8. Hahn BH,
    9. Ochman H
    . 2012. Factors associated with the diversification of the gut microbial communities within chimpanzees from Gombe National Park. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:13034–13039. doi:10.1073/pnas.1110994109.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  64. 64.↵
    1. Theis KR,
    2. Venkataraman A,
    3. Dycus JA,
    4. Koonter KD,
    5. Schmitt-Matzen EN,
    6. Wagner AP,
    7. Holekamp KE,
    8. Schmidt TM
    . 2013. Symbiotic bacteria appear to mediate hyena social odors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:19832–19837. doi:10.1073/pnas.1306477110.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  65. 65.↵
    1. Klass KD,
    2. Nalepa C,
    3. Lo N
    . 2008. Wood-feeding cockroaches as models for termite evolution (Insecta: Dictyoptera): Cryptocercus vs. Parasphaeria boleiriana. Mol Phylogenet Evol 46:809–817. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2007.11.028.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  66. 66.↵
    1. Anderson KE,
    2. Russell JA,
    3. Moreau CS,
    4. Kautz S,
    5. Sullam KE,
    6. Hu Y,
    7. Basinger U,
    8. Mott BM,
    9. Buck N,
    10. Wheeler DE
    . 2012. Highly similar microbial communities are shared among related and trophically similar ant species. Mol Ecol 21:2282–2296. doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.2011.05464.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  67. 67.↵
    1. Siddharth J,
    2. Holway N,
    3. Parkinson SJ
    . 2013. A Western diet ecological module identified from the “humanized” mouse microbiota predicts diet in adults and formula feeding in children. PLoS One 8:e83689. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0083689.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.↵
    1. Claesson MJ,
    2. Jeffery IB,
    3. Conde S,
    4. Power SE,
    5. O’Connor EM,
    6. Cusack S,
    7. Harris HMB,
    8. Coakley M,
    9. Lakshminarayanan B,
    10. O’Sullivan O,
    11. Fitzgerald GF,
    12. Deane J,
    13. O’Connor M,
    14. Harnedy N,
    15. O’Connor K,
    16. O’Mahony D,
    17. van Sinderen D,
    18. Wallace M,
    19. Brennan L,
    20. Stanton C,
    21. Marchesi JR,
    22. Fitzgerald AP,
    23. Shanahan F,
    24. Hill C,
    25. Ross RP,
    26. O’Toole PW
    . 2012. Gut microbiota composition correlates with diet and health in the elderly. Nature 488:178–184. doi:10.1038/nature11319.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. 69.↵
    1. David LA,
    2. Maurice CF,
    3. Carmody RN,
    4. Gootenberg DB,
    5. Button JE,
    6. Wolfe BE,
    7. Ling AV,
    8. Devlin AS,
    9. Varma Y,
    10. Fischbach MA,
    11. Biddinger SB,
    12. Dutton RJ,
    13. Turnbaugh PJ
    . 2014. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature 505:559–563. doi:10.1038/nature12820.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  70. 70.↵
    1. Amato KR,
    2. Leigh SR,
    3. Kent A,
    4. Mackie RI,
    5. Yeoman CJ,
    6. Stumpf RM,
    7. Wilson BA,
    8. Nelson KE,
    9. White BA,
    10. Garber PA
    . 2015. The gut microbiota appears to compensate for seasonal diet variation in the wild black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra). Microb Ecol 69:434–443. doi:10.1007/s00248-014-0554-7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  71. 71.↵
    1. Ben-Yosef M,
    2. Jurkevitch E,
    3. Yuval B
    . 2008. Effect of bacteria on nutritional status and reproductive success of the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata. Physiol Entomol 33:145–154. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3032.2008.00617.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  72. 72.↵
    1. Ben-Yosef M,
    2. Aharon Y,
    3. Jurkevitch E,
    4. Yuval B
    . 2010. Give us the tools and we will do the job: symbiotic bacteria affect olive fly fitness in a diet-dependent fashion. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 277:1545–1552. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.2102.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.↵
    1. Gavriel S,
    2. Jurkevitch E,
    3. Gazit Y,
    4. Yuval B
    . 2011. Bacterially enriched diet improves sexual performance of sterile male Mediterranean fruit flies. J Appl Entomol 135:564–573. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0418.2010.01605.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  74. 74.↵
    1. Benson AK,
    2. Kelly SA,
    3. Legge R,
    4. Ma F,
    5. Low SJ,
    6. Kim J,
    7. Zhang M,
    8. Oh PL,
    9. Nehrenberg D,
    10. Hua K,
    11. Kachman SD,
    12. Moriyama EN,
    13. Walter J,
    14. Peterson DA,
    15. Pomp D
    . 2010. Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex polygenic trait shaped by multiple environmental and host genetic factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107:18933–18938. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007028107.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  75. 75.↵
    1. Wegner KM,
    2. Volkenborn N,
    3. Peter H,
    4. Eiler A
    . 2013. Disturbance induced decoupling between host genetics and composition of the associated microbiome. BMC Microbiol 13:252. doi:10.1186/1471-2180-13-252.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  76. 76.↵
    1. Blekhman R,
    2. Goodrich JK,
    3. Huang K,
    4. Sun Q,
    5. Bukowski R,
    6. Bell JT,
    7. Spector TD,
    8. Keinan A,
    9. Ley RE,
    10. Gevers D,
    11. Clark AG
    . 2015. Host genetic variation impacts microbiome composition across human body sites. Genome Biol 16:191. doi:10.1186/s13059-015-0759-1.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  77. 77.↵
    1. Goodrich JK,
    2. Waters JL,
    3. Poole AC,
    4. Sutter JL,
    5. Koren O,
    6. Blekhman R,
    7. Beaumont M,
    8. Van Treuren W,
    9. Knight R,
    10. Bell JT,
    11. Spector TD,
    12. Clark AG,
    13. Ley RE
    . 2014. Human genetics shape the gut microbiome. Cell 159:789–799. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.053.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  78. 78.↵
    1. West SA,
    2. Diggle SP,
    3. Buckling A,
    4. Gardner A,
    5. Griffin AS
    . 2007. The social lives of microbes. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 38:53–77. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095740.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  79. 79.↵
    1. Hughes WOH,
    2. Oldroyd BP,
    3. Beekman M,
    4. Ratnieks FLW
    . 2008. Ancestral monogamy shows kin selection is key to the evolution of eusociality. Science 320:1213–1217. doi:10.1126/science.1156108.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  80. 80.↵
    1. Dodd DMB
    . 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Evolution 43:1308–1311. doi:10.2307/2409365.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  81. 81.↵
    1. Ringo J,
    2. Sharon G,
    3. Segal D
    . 2011. Bacteria-induced sexual isolation in Drosophila. Fly 5:310–315. doi:10.4161/fly.5.4.15835.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  82. 82.↵
    1. Najarro MA,
    2. Sumethasorn M,
    3. Lamoureux A,
    4. Turner TL
    . 2015. Choosing mates based on the diet of your ancestors: replication of non-genetic assortative mating in Drosophila melanogaster. PeerJ 3:e1173. doi:10.7717/peerj.1173.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  83. 83.↵
    1. Arbuthnott D,
    2. Levin TC,
    3. Promislow DEL
    . 2016. The impacts of Wolbachia and the microbiome on mate choice in Drosophila melanogaster. J Evol Biol. 29:461–468. doi:10.1111/jeb.12788.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  84. 84.↵
    1. Stennett MD,
    2. Etges WJ
    . 1997. Premating isolation is determined by larval rearing substrated in cactophilic Drosophila mojavensis. III. Epicuticular hydrocarbon variation is determined by use of different host plants in Drosophila mojavensis and Drosophila arizonae. J Chem Ecol 23:2803–2824. doi:10.1023/A:1022519228346.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  85. 85.↵
    1. Li Q,
    2. Korzan WJ,
    3. Ferrero DM,
    4. Chang RB,
    5. Roy DS,
    6. Buchi M,
    7. Lemon JK,
    8. Kaur AW,
    9. Stowers L,
    10. Fendt M,
    11. Liberles SD
    . 2013. Synchronous evolution of an odor biosynthesis pathway and behavioral response. Curr Biol 23:11–20. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.10.047.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  86. 86.↵
    1. Zala SM,
    2. Bilak A,
    3. Perkins M,
    4. Potts WK,
    5. Penn DJ
    . 2015. Female house mice initially shun infected males, but do not avoid mating with them. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 69:715–722. doi:10.1007/s00265-015-1884-2.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  87. 87.↵
    1. Hamilton WD,
    2. Zuk M
    . 1982. Heritable true fitness and bright birds: a role for parasites? Science 218:384–387. doi:10.1126/science.7123238.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    1. Hill GE,
    2. Farmer KL
    . 2005. Carotenoid-based plumage coloration predicts resistance to a novel parasite in the house finch. Naturwissenschaften 92:30–34. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0582-0.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  89. 89.↵
    1. Balenger SL,
    2. Zuk M
    . 2014. Testing the Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis: past, present, and future. Integr Comp Biol 54:601–613. doi:10.1093/icb/icu059.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  90. 90.↵
    1. Ezenwa VO,
    2. Williams AE
    . 2014. Microbes and animal olfactory communication: where do we go from here? Bioessays 36:847–854. doi:10.1002/bies.201400016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  91. 91.↵
    1. Leal WS
    . 1998. Chemical ecology of phytophagous scarab beetles. Annu Rev Entomol 43:39–61. doi:10.1146/annurev.ento.43.1.39.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  92. 92.↵
    1. Meisel JD,
    2. Panda O,
    3. Mahanti P,
    4. Schroeder FC,
    5. Kim DH
    . 2014. Chemosensation of bacterial secondary metabolites modulates neuroendocrine signaling and behavior of C. elegans. Cell 159:267–280. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.011.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  93. 93.↵
    1. Sin YW,
    2. Buesching CD,
    3. Burke T,
    4. Macdonald DW
    . 2012. Molecular characterization of the microbial communities in the subcaudal gland secretion of the European badger (Meles meles). FEMS Microbiol Ecol 81:648–659. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01396.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  94. 94.↵
    1. Pianotti R,
    2. Pitts G
    . 1978. Effects of an antiseptic mouthwash on odorigenic microbes in the human gingival crevice. J Dent Res 57:175–179. doi:10.1177/00220345780570020201.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  95. 95.↵
    1. Morita M,
    2. Wang H-L
    . 2001. Association between oral malodor and adult periodontitis: a review. J Clin Periodontol 28:813–819. doi:10.1034/j.1600-051x.2001.028009813.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  96. 96.↵
    1. Stevens D,
    2. Cornmell R,
    3. Taylor D,
    4. Grimshaw SG,
    5. Riazanskaia S,
    6. Arnold DS,
    7. Fernstad SJ,
    8. Smith AM,
    9. Heaney LM,
    10. Reynolds JC,
    11. Thomas CL,
    12. Harker M
    . 2015. Spatial variations in the microbial community structure and diversity of the human foot is associated with the production of odorous volatiles. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 91:1–11. doi:10.1093/femsec/fiu018.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  97. 97.↵
    1. James AG,
    2. Austin CJ,
    3. Cox DS,
    4. Taylor D,
    5. Calvert R
    . 2013. Microbiological and biochemical origins of human axillary odour. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 83:527–540. doi:10.1111/1574-6941.12054.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  98. 98.↵
    1. Penn D,
    2. Potts WK
    . 1998. Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol 13:391–396. doi:10.1016/S0169-5347(98)01473-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  99. 99.↵
    1. Tsuchiya Y,
    2. Ohta J,
    3. Ishida Y,
    4. Morisaki H
    . 2008. Cloth colorization caused by microbial biofilm. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 64:216–222. doi:10.1016/j.colsurfb.2008.01.028.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  100. 100.↵
    1. Callewaert C,
    2. De Maeseneire E,
    3. Kerckhof F-M,
    4. Verliefde A,
    5. Van de Wiele T,
    6. Boon N
    . 2014. Microbial odor profile of polyester and cotton clothes after a fitness session. Appl Environ Microbiol 80:6611–6619. doi:10.1128/AEM.01422-14.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  101. 101.↵
    1. Havlicek J,
    2. Roberts SC,
    3. Flegr J
    . 2005. Women’s preference for dominant male odour: effects of menstrual cycle and relationship status. Biol Lett 1:256–259. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2005.0332.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.↵
    1. Saxton TK,
    2. Lyndon A,
    3. Little AC,
    4. Roberts SC
    . 2008. Evidence that androstadienone, a putative human chemosignal, modulates women’s attributions of men’s attractiveness. Horm Behav 54:597–601. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2008.06.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  103. 103.↵
    1. Lübke KT,
    2. Pause BM
    . 2015. Always follow your nose: the functional significance of social chemosignals in human reproduction and survival. Horm Behav 68:134–144. doi:10.1016/j.yhbeh.2014.10.001.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  104. 104.↵
    1. Smadja C,
    2. Butlin RK
    . 2009. On the scent of speciation: the chemosensory system and its role in premating isolation. Heredity 102:77–97. doi:10.1038/hdy.2008.55.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  105. 105.↵
    1. Linn C,
    2. Feder JL,
    3. Nojima S,
    4. Dambroski HR,
    5. Berlocher SH,
    6. Roelofs W
    . 2003. Fruit odor discrimination and sympatric host race formation in Rhagoletis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:11490–11493. doi:10.1073/pnas.1635049100.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  106. 106.↵
    1. Lee J-E,
    2. Hwang G-S,
    3. Lee C-H,
    4. Hong Y-S
    . 2009. Metabolomics reveals alterations in both primary and secondary metabolites by wine bacteria. J Agric Food Chem 57:10772–10783. doi:10.1021/jf9028442.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  107. 107.↵
    1. Beltran-Bech S,
    2. Richard FJ
    . 2014. Impact of infection on mate choice. Anim Behav 90:159–170. doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.01.026.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  108. 108.↵
    1. Werren JH,
    2. Baldo L,
    3. Clark ME
    . 2008. Wolbachia: master manipulators of invertebrate biology. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:741–751. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1969.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  109. 109.↵
    1. Kageyama D,
    2. Narita S,
    3. Watanabe M
    . 2012. Insect sex determination manipulated by their endosymbionts: incidences, mechanisms and implications. Insects 3:161–199. doi:10.3390/insects3010161.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  110. 110.↵
    1. Zug R,
    2. Hammerstein P
    . 2012. Still a host of hosts for Wolbachia: analysis of recent data suggests that 40% of terrestrial arthropod species are infected. PLoS One 7:e38544. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038544.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  111. 111.↵
    1. Serbus LR,
    2. Casper-Lindley C,
    3. Landmann F,
    4. Sullivan W
    . 2008. The genetics and cell biology of Wolbachia-host interactions. Annu Rev Genet 42:683–707. doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.41.110306.130354.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  112. 112.↵
    1. Jaenike J,
    2. Dyer KA,
    3. Cornish C,
    4. Minhas MS
    . 2006. Asymmetrical reinforcement and Wolbachia infection in Drosophila. PLoS Biol 4:e325. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040325.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  113. 113.↵
    1. Vala F,
    2. Egas M,
    3. Breeuwer JA,
    4. Sabelis MW
    . 2004. Wolbachia affects oviposition and mating behaviour of its spider mite host. J Evol Biol 17:692–700. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2003.00679.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  114. 114.↵
    1. Bordenstein SR,
    2. Werren JH
    . 2007. Bidirectional incompatibility among divergent Wolbachia and incompatibility level differences among closely related Wolbachia in Nasonia. Heredity 99:278–287. doi:10.1038/sj.hdy.6800994.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  115. 115.↵
    1. Bordenstein SR,
    2. O’Hara FP,
    3. Werren JH
    . 2001. Wolbachia-induced incompatibility precedes other hybrid incompatibilities in Nasonia. Nature 409:707–710. doi:10.1038/35055543.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  116. 116.↵
    1. Telschow A,
    2. Yamamura N,
    3. Werren JH
    . 2005. Bidirectional cytoplasmic incompatibility and the stable coexistence of two Wolbachia strains in parapatric host populations. J Theor Biol 235:265–274. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2005.01.008.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  117. 117.↵
    1. Chafee ME,
    2. Zecher CN,
    3. Gourley ML,
    4. Schmidt VT,
    5. Chen JH,
    6. Bordenstein SR,
    7. Clark ME,
    8. Bordenstein SR
    . 2011. Decoupling of host-symbiont-phage coadaptations following transfer between insect species. Genetics 187:203–215. doi:10.1534/genetics.110.120675.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  118. 118.↵
    1. Telschow A,
    2. Hammerstein P,
    3. Werren JH
    . 2005. The effect of Wolbachia versus genetic incompatibilities on reinforcement and speciation. Evolution 59:1607–1619. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2005.tb01812.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  119. 119.↵
    1. Hurst GD,
    2. Majerus ME,
    3. Walker LE
    . 1993. The importance of cytoplasmic male killing elements in natural populations of the two spot ladybird, Adalia bipunctata (Linnaeus) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Biol J Linn Soc 49:195–202.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  120. 120.↵
    1. Elnagdy S,
    2. Majerus MEN,
    3. Handley L-JL
    . 2011. The value of an egg: resource reallocation in ladybirds (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) infected with male-killing bacteria. J Evol Biol 24:2164–2172. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2011.02346.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  121. 121.↵
    1. Hurst LD,
    2. Pomiankowski A
    . 1991. Causes of sex ratio bias may account for unisexual sterility in hybrids: a new explanation of Haldane’s rule and related phenomena. Genetics 128:841–858.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  122. 122.↵
    1. Nakanishi K,
    2. Hoshino M,
    3. Nakai M,
    4. Kunimi Y
    . 2008. Novel RNA sequences associated with late male killing in Homona magnanima. Proc Biol Sci 275:1249–1254. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0013.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  123. 123.↵
    1. Jiggins FM,
    2. Randerson JP,
    3. Hurst GDD,
    4. Majerus MEN
    . 2002. How can sex ratio distorters reach extreme prevalences? Male-killing Wolbachia are not suppressed and have near-perfect vertical transmission efficiency in Acraea encedon. Evolution 56:2290–2295. doi:10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb00152.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  124. 124.↵
    1. Gilfillan GD,
    2. Dahlsveen IK,
    3. Becker PB
    . 2004. Lifting a chromosome: dosage compensation in Drosophila melanogaster. FEBS Lett 567:8–14. doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2004.03.110.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  125. 125.↵
    1. Veneti Z,
    2. Bentley JK,
    3. Koana T,
    4. Braig HR,
    5. Hurst GDD
    . 2005. A functional dosage compensation complex required for male killing in Drosophila. Science 307:1461–1463. doi:10.1126/science.1107182.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  126. 126.↵
    1. Charlat S,
    2. Reuter M,
    3. Dyson EA,
    4. Hornett EA,
    5. Duplouy A,
    6. Davies N,
    7. Roderick GK,
    8. Wedell N,
    9. Hurst GDD
    . 2007. Male-killing bacteria trigger a cycle of increasing male fatigue and female promiscuity. Curr Biol 17:273–277. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2006.11.068.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  127. 127.↵
    1. Randerson JP,
    2. Jiggins FM,
    3. Hurst LD
    . 2000. Male killing can select for male mate choice: a novel solution to the paradox of the lek. Proc Biol Sci 267:867–874. doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1083.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  128. 128.↵
    1. Rigaud T,
    2. Moreau J
    . 2004. A cost of Wolbachia-induced sex reversal and female-biased sex ratios: decrease in female fertility after sperm depletion in a terrestrial isopod. Proc Biol Sci 271:1941–1946. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2804.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  129. 129.↵
    1. Dyson EA,
    2. Hurst GDD
    . 2004. Persistence of an extreme sex-ratio bias in a natural population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 101:6520–6523. doi:10.1073/pnas.0304068101.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  130. 130.↵
    1. Hiroki M,
    2. Tagami Y,
    3. Miura K,
    4. Kato Y
    . 2004. Multiple infection with Wolbachia inducing different reproductive manipulations in the butterfly Eurema hecabe. Proc Biol Sci 271:1751–1755. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2769.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  131. 131.↵
    1. Narita S,
    2. Kageyama D,
    3. Nomura M,
    4. Fukatsu T
    . 2007. Unexpected mechanism of symbiont-induced reversal of insect sex: feminizing Wolbachia continuously acts on the butterfly Eurema hecabe during larval development. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:4332–4341. doi:10.1128/AEM.00145-07.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  132. 132.↵
    1. Negri I,
    2. Pellecchia M,
    3. Mazzoglio PJ,
    4. Patetta A,
    5. Alma A
    . 2006. Feminizing Wolbachia in Zyginidia pullula (Insecta, Hemiptera), a leafhopper with an XX/X0 sex-determination system. Proc Biol Sci 273:2409–2416. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3592.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  133. 133.↵
    1. Moreau J,
    2. Bertin A,
    3. Caubet Y,
    4. Rigaud T
    . 2001. Sexual selection in an isopod with Wolbachia-induced sex reversal: males prefer real females. J Evol Biol 14:388–394. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00292.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  134. 134.↵
    1. Rigaud T,
    2. Juchault P
    . 1992. Genetic control of the vertical transmission of a cytoplasmic sex factor in Armadiiidium vulgare Latr. (Crustacea, Oniscidea). Heredity 68:47–52. doi:10.1038/hdy.1992.6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  135. 135.↵
    1. Stouthamer R,
    2. Breeuwer JA,
    3. Hurst GD
    . 1999. Wolbachia pipientis: microbial manipulator of arthropod reproduction. Annu Rev Microbiol 53:71–102. doi:10.1146/annurev.micro.53.1.71.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  136. 136.↵
    1. Stouthamer R
    . 1997. Wolbachia-induced parthenogenesis. Oxford University Press, Oxford, United Kingdom.
  137. 137.↵
    1. Arakaki N,
    2. Miyoshi T,
    3. Noda H
    . 2001. Wolbachia-mediated parthenogenesis in the predatory thrips Franklinothrips vespiformis (Thysanoptera: Insecta). Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 268:1011–1016. doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1628.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  138. 138.↵
    1. Dunn AM,
    2. Hatcher MJ,
    3. Terry RS,
    4. Tofts C
    . 1995. Evolutionary ecology of vertically transmitted parasites: transovarial transmission of a microsporidian sex ratio distorter in Gammarus duebeni. Parasitology 111:S91. doi:10.1017/S0031182000075843.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  139. 139.↵
    1. Adachi-Hagimori T,
    2. Miura K,
    3. Stouthamer R
    . 2008. A new cytogenetic mechanism for bacterial endosymbiont-induced parthenogenesis in Hymenoptera. Proc Biol Sci 275:2667–2673. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0792.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  140. 140.↵
    1. Bordenstein SR
    . 2003. Symbiosis and the origin of life, p 283–304. In Bourtzis K, Miller T (ed), Insect symbiosis. CRC Press, New York, NY.
  141. 141.↵
    1. Stouthamer R,
    2. Luck RF,
    3. Hamilton WD
    . 1990. Antibiotics cause parthenogenetic Trichogramma (Hymenoptera/Trichogrammatidae) to revert to sex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 87:2424–2427. doi:10.1073/pnas.87.7.2424.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  142. 142.↵
    1. Gottlieb Y,
    2. Zchori-Fein E
    . 2001. Irreversible thelytokous reproduction in Muscidifurax uniraptor. Entomol Exp Appl 100:271–278. doi:10.1046/j.1570-7458.2001.00874.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  143. 143.↵
    1. Kraaijeveld K,
    2. Franco P,
    3. Reumer BM,
    4. van Alphen JJ,
    5. Jacques J
    . 2009. Effects of parthenogenesis and geographic isolation on female sexual traits in a parasitoid wasp. Evolution 63:3085–3096. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00798.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  144. 144.↵
    1. Kremer N,
    2. Charif D,
    3. Henri H,
    4. Bataille M,
    5. Prévost G,
    6. Kraaijeveld K,
    7. Vavre F
    . 2009. A new case of Wolbachia dependence in the genus Asobara: evidence for parthenogenesis induction in Asobara japonica. Heredity 103:248–256. doi:10.1038/hdy.2009.63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  145. 145.↵
    1. Pijls JWAM,
    2. van Steenbergen HJ,
    3. van Alphen JJM
    . 1996. Asexuality cured: the relations and differences between sexual and asexual Apoanagyrus diversicornis. Heredity 76:506–513. doi:10.1038/hdy.1996.73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  146. 146.↵
    1. Zchori-Fein E,
    2. Faktor O,
    3. Zeidan M,
    4. Gottlieb Y,
    5. Czosnek H,
    6. Rosen D
    . 1995. Parthenogenesis-inducing microorganisms in Aphytis (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Insect Mol Biol 4:173–178. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2583.1995.tb00023.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  147. 147.↵
    1. Pannebakker BA,
    2. Schidlo NS,
    3. Boskamp GJF,
    4. Dekker L,
    5. Van Dooren TJM,
    6. Beukeboom LW,
    7. Zwaan BJ,
    8. Brakefield PM,
    9. Van Alphen JJM
    . 2005. Sexual functionality of Leptopilina clavipes (Hymenoptera: Figitidae) after reversing Wolbachia-induced parthenogenesis. J Evol Biol 18:1019–1028. doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.00898.x.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  148. 148.↵
    1. Alivisatos AP,
    2. Blaser MJ,
    3. Brodie EL,
    4. Chun M,
    5. Dangl JL,
    6. Donohue TJ,
    7. Dorrestein PC,
    8. Gilbert JA,
    9. Green JL,
    10. Knight R,
    11. Maxon ME,
    12. Miller JF,
    13. Pollard KS,
    14. Ruby EG,
    15. Taha SA, Unified Microbiome Initiative Consortium
    . 2015. A unified initiative to harness Earth’s microbiomes. Science 350:507–508. doi:10.1126/science.aac8480.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  149. 149.
    1. Lewis Z,
    2. Heys C,
    3. Prescott M,
    4. Lizé A
    . 2014. You are what you eat: gut microbiota determines kin recognition in Drosophila. Gut Microbes 4:541–543. doi:10.4161/gmic.29153.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  150. 150.
    1. Argov Y,
    2. Gottlieb Y,
    3. Amin-Spector SS,
    4. Zchori-Fein E
    . 2000. Possible symbiont induced thelytoky in Galeopsomyia fausta, a parasitoid of the citrus leafminer Phyllocnistis citrella. Phytoparasitica 28:212–218. doi:10.1007/BF02981799.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Speciation by Symbiosis: the Microbiome and Behavior
J. Dylan Shropshire, Seth R. Bordenstein
mBio Mar 2016, 7 (2) e01785-15; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01785-15

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mBio article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Speciation by Symbiosis: the Microbiome and Behavior
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mBio
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mBio.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Speciation by Symbiosis: the Microbiome and Behavior
J. Dylan Shropshire, Seth R. Bordenstein
mBio Mar 2016, 7 (2) e01785-15; DOI: 10.1128/mBio.01785-15
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • INTRODUCTION
    • SIGNALING AND MICROBIOME HOMOGENIZATION
    • MICROBE-ASSISTED MODIFICATION OF MATING SIGNALS
    • MICROBE-SPECIFIC SIGNALS
    • ENDOSYMBIONTS AND MATE CHOICE
    • CONCLUSIONS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mBio
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • AAM Fellows
  • Policies
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Article Types
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mBio

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2150-7511