Feeding Rates of Individual Zooplankton Species
PLoS One. 2022; 17(2): e0263538.
Daily feeding rhythm linked to microbiome composition in two zooplankton species
Alaina Pfenning-Butterworth
School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States of America
Reilly O. Cooper
School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States of America
Clayton E. Cressler
School of Biological Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska, United States of America
Juan J Loor, Editor
Received 2021 Nov 15; Accepted 2022 Jan 20.
- Supplementary Materials
-
S1 Table: ASVs that are core members of the microbiome in each host species. The mean relative abundance in both host species is listed for each ASV as well as the taxonomic identity.
(PDF)
GUID: 5965710D-C186-41BA-843C-C30660BCB63A
Attachment: Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx
GUID: D376B74C-D95B-49AB-BF32-B3B8BDF0CC5D
- Data Availability Statement
-
Raw reads for the Daphnia magna and D. dentifera samples are available on NCBI (BioProject PRJNA715454). All code used to generate statistics and figures as well as raw data are available on GitHub (https://github.com/reillyowencooper/circadian_microbiome).
Abstract
Host-associated microbial communities are impacted by external and within-host factors, i.e., diet and feeding behavior. For organisms known to have a circadian rhythm in feeding behavior, microbiome composition is likely impacted by the different rates of microbe introduction and removal across a daily cycle, in addition to any diet-induced changes in microbial interactions. Here, we measured feeding behavior and used 16S rRNA sequencing to compare the microbial community across a diel cycle in two distantly related species of Daphnia, that differ in their life history traits, to assess how daily feeding patterns impact microbiome composition. We find that Daphnia species reared under similar laboratory conditions have significantly different microbial communities. Additionally, we reveal that Daphnia have daily differences in their microbial composition that correspond with feeding behavior, such that there is greater microbiome diversity at night during the host's active feeding phase. These results highlight that zooplankton microbiomes are relatively distinct and are likely influenced by host phylogeny.
Introduction
The structure and function of host-associated microbial communities are linked with both intrinsic host factors and external factors. In particular, diet quality and variety influence microbiome composition; for example, mice transitioned from wild diets to controlled laboratory diets experienced shifts in microbiome composition and microbial functional pathways associated with carbohydrate metabolism, sugar metabolism, and motility [1]. Consequently, these compositional and functional changes correlate with changes in host behavior [2], host immune function [3], and other physiological functions [4].
Host diet is strongly influenced by feeding behavior, and many organisms show a daily rhythm in feeding behavior that is regulated by clock genes [5]. This rhythm could impact microbiome composition, both by altering diet-mediated microbial interactions and by modifying the intake of new microbes through feeding and the removal of existing microbes through peristalsis. However, there are few studies that link changes in feeding behavior and microbial composition, despite the downstream effects changes in the microbiome can have on host survival, fitness, and immunity [6].
To understand the links between biological rhythms, feeding behavior, and microbiome composition, we use the Daphnia model system. Daphnia are dominant herbivores and serve as keystone species by linking primary producers with secondary consumers in freshwater systems [7]. Daphnia are an ideal system for addressing if and how feeding behavior and microbial composition are linked because (1) they have a relatively simple microbiome, which has been characterized in multiple species [8, 9], (2) they have core clock genes and show circadian expression of feeding behavior, immune, and sensory genes [10–13], and (3) quantifying individual feeding behavior is straightforward [14].
We examined two species of Daphnia, D. dentifera and D. magna. These species are not phylogenetically closely related, and they exhibit differences in life history traits [15, 16] that likely affect host-microbiome interactions. For instance, diel vertical migration (DVM), where Daphnia migrate to the top of the water column at night to feed [17], is thought to be an ancestral trait of all Daphnia species. However, more recent studies suggest that some species exhibit DVM more consistently than others. In D. magna DVM may be tightly linked to genotype [18, 19]; whereas D. dentifera show a robust DVM behavior in laboratory and natural systems regardless of genotype [20]. Daphnia dentifera also have a circadian rhythm in feeding behavior that is consistent with DVM [10]. Given these differences, we predicted that D. dentifera's microbiome composition would be more diverse during their active phase (night). In contrast, we predicted that D. magna would not have differences in their microbiome composition across a day given that they are not known to exhibit a strong DVM.
We used 16S rRNA sequencing to compare the microbiome composition of individually reared Daphnia of each species to their feeding behavior across a diel cycle to address the following questions: (1) Are there microbiome composition differences among species of Daphnia? (2) Is there time of day differences in microbiome composition within each species and are the differences consistent with feeding behavior? (3) If there are daily differences in microbiome composition, are they consistent across both host species?
We found that D. dentifera and D. magna have significantly different microbiome composition. Additionally, microbiome composition does vary with time of day and is consistent with their feeding behavior, such that increased feeding and higher microbiome diversity occurred at night in both host species. However, there are host-specific differences in the abundance of specific microbes with time of day, suggesting that host feeding behavior and microbial community abundance are linked.
Materials and methods
Experimental design
Both Daphnia dentifera and D. magna were maintained in cultures for more than 2 and 5 years, respectively. Cultured individuals were maintained at 22°C, in COMBO medium [21], under a 15:9 light:dark cycle and were fed batch-cultured Ankistrodesmus falcatus in 500 ml of high nitrogen COMBO under constant light at 22°C. Individuals were moved to new COMBO and fed A. falcatus every other day at quantities relative to their body size (1 mgC/L for D. dentifera and 2.5 mgC/L for D. magna). At fourteen days old individuals were collected for DNA extraction.
Feeding assay
Prior to the feeding assay, individual D. dentifera and D. magna were reared to 14 days old as described above with one exception. Individuals were fed 14 day old A. falcatus that was frozen in daily aliquots for the course of the feeding rate assay. This ensured that (1) individuals were fed a consistent chlorophyll:carbon ratio and (2) that algal quantity remained the same during feeding rate assays run in the dark versus in the light. Individual D. dentifera and D. magna were randomly assigned to either the day or night feeding rate assay (n = 14, N = 56).
To quantify feeding rate, we isolated D. dentifera and D. magna individuals in 15ml and 30 ml tubes (Nunc, Rochester, NY, USA) with 10 and 30 mL of COMBO media combined with 1mgC/L of A. falcatus, respectively. Individuals fed for six hours, after which they were moved to a new vial with fresh COMBO and their body size was measured. We measured algal fluorescence on a plate reader (Tecan, Maennedorf, Switzerland) following Hite et al. 2020, to compare the relative quantities of chlorophyll-a in wells with animals to control wells that did not contain animals [14]. We calculated individual feeding rates as:
where Fcontrol is the average of fluorescence of control wells, F Daphnia is the fluorescence of an animal well, v is the volume of COMBO and algae in ml, and t is the time individuals fed in hours [22]. We corrected each feeding rate by individual body size to account for species specific differences in feeding rate.
DNA extraction and sequencing
Daphnia magna were pooled in sets of 5 individuals (n = 10 samples per time point) and D. dentifera in sets of 10 individuals (n = 10 samples per time point) for DNA extraction. DNA was extracted using the DNEasy Blood & Tissue Kit, with a 24h proteinase K digestion step to ensure that all microbial cells within and on hosts were digested. The 16S rRNA V4 hypervariable region was amplified using the 515f/806r primer pair [23] and PCR steps of 95°C for 3 min; 35 cycles of 95°C for 45 sec, 58°C for 30 sec, 72°C for 45 sec; and 72°C for 5 minutes. Sample libraries were normalized with the SequalPrep Normalization Plate Kit, then quality checked using the KAPA Library Quantification Kit. Samples were pooled and PhiX spiked, then sequenced using the MiSeq Reagent Kit v2 (300 cycles) on the Illumina MiSeq (Nebraska Food for Health Center, Lincoln, NE, USA).
Sequence analysis, visualization, and statistics
Demultiplexed samples were processed using the dada2 v1.16.0 [24] algorithm in R [25]. After read processing, amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) were assigned taxonomy using the dada2-formatted GTDB taxonomy reference database v3 [26]. Sample metadata, processed ASVs, taxonomic identity, and a phylogenetic tree constructed using the phangorn v2.5.5 [27] and DECIPHER v2.16.1 [28] packages were combined in a phyloseq v1.32.0 [29] object for downstream visualization and statistics. To analyze alpha diversity, the inverse Simpson index was estimated for each sample using DivNet v0.3.6 [30]. An ANOVA was used to analyze alpha diversity differences across host species and time points, then post-hoc Tukey honest significant differences were calculated to understand differences among treatments. Beta diversity was measured across samples using weighted UniFrac distance, and statistically analyzed using PERMANOVAs across host species and time points. Core taxa in the microbiota of both species were identified using the microbiome package v1.10.0 [31], with taxa appearing across at least 50% of samples and at relative abundances ≥0.001 included in the analysis. To find taxa that differed significantly between time points, we focused on relatively common ASVs (≥0.005 relative abundance) and compared day-versus-night relative abundance using two statistical tests. For ASVs that were unique to one host species, we compared the relative abundance of each ASV at day versus night using a t-test. For ASVs abundant in both host species we compared the relative abundances of each ASV at day versus night using ANOVA.
Results
Composition of the microbiota is different across host species
Though both Daphnia dentifera and D. magna are freshwater zooplankton species and their rearing conditions are matched, their microbiomes differ substantially (Fig 1). We found that D. dentifera harbor a significantly more diverse set of bacterial taxa than D. magna (Fig 1a, Inverse Simpson index, D. dentifera = 11.39 ± 2.62, n = 19, D. magna = 3.13 ± 0.44, n = 20, p < 0.0001). The D. dentifera microbiome is not dominated by a single genus; instead, many genera exist at low abundances (Fig 1b). In contrast, the D. magna microbiome is dominated by the Limnohabitans genus (>50% relative abundance) and lacks many of the genera identified in the D. dentifera microbiome. In total, we find that community composition within each host species clusters together, indicating that D. magna and D. dentifera have statistically distinct bacterial communities (Fig 1c, PERMANOVA, pseudo-F 1, 37 = 124.47, R2 = 0.778, p = 0.001).
Host species differences in microbiota structure.
a) Inverse Simpson index estimates for individual samples of Daphnia magna and D. dentifera, with t-test results reported. b) Genus-level bacterial microbiota composition for D. magna and D. dentifera. Amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) identified at < = 1% of relative abundance in each host species and ASVs not able to be identified at the Genus level are denoted by "< = 1% Abundant/Unidentified". c) Principal coordinate analysis using weighted UniFrac distances comparing D. magna and D. dentifera, with PERMANOVA results reported. Ellipses represent the multivariate t-distribution of D. magna and D. dentifera samples.
Composition of the microbiota and feeding behavior varies across a day
Between day and night, we observed changes in both feeding behavior and microbial community diversity and composition in both Daphnia dentifera and D. magna (Fig 2). Both host species had significantly more diverse microbiomes at night than during the day (Fig 2a, D. magna: t-test p < 0.0001, D. dentifera: t-test p = 0.004). In addition, systematic shifts in composition between day and night were observed in both species (Fig 2c). In D. magna, increased bacterial diversity at night corresponded with an increase in the relative abundance of Arcticibacterium, a decrease in Limnohabitans, and a large increase in the relative abundance of rare taxa each appearing at less than 5% abundance (increasing in total from a maximum relative abundance of 35% to a maximum of 55%), though no rare taxa became prominent enough to surpass any of the taxa consistently present at >5% relative abundance. Daphnia dentifera composition changes were more difficult to disentangle, but the more diverse night microbiome corresponded with lower abundances of Hydromonas and an increase in the relative abundances of rare taxa. We also found that both Daphnia species had significantly higher feeding rates during the night than the day (Fig 2b, D. magna: paired t-test p = 0.008, D. dentifera: paired t-test p < 0.0001).
Differences in microbiota structure at different times of day.
(a) Alpha diversity, represented by the inverse Simpson index, of Daphnia magna and D. dentifera during the day and night sample timepoints. For each species t-test results are reported. (b) Size-corrected feeding rates of D. magna and D. dentifera during the day and night sample time points (n = 14 per species). For each species t-test results are reported. (c) Genus-level composition plots for each sample taken for D. magna and D. dentifera at each timepoint (D. magna, n = 10; D. dentifera, n = 9).
Specific amplicon sequence variants are associated with shifts in community composition across a day
To investigate the shifting microbiome composition in both host species beyond the genus taxonomic rank, we identified ASVs with relative abundances greater than .05% found only in D. dentifera, D. magna, or shared between the two species. We then examined whether relative abundance of these identified taxa differed during the day or night (Fig 3). Simultaneously, we identified ASVs that were core members of the microbiome in each species (S1 Table). We found seven ASVs that were considered core members in both host species, all belonging to the Gammaproteobacteria or Bacteroidia. We found a further 13 core ASVs in D. magna and 27 core ASVs in D. dentifera, though many of these ASVs were found at relative abundances less than 0.05%.
Comparisons of ASVs with more than 0.5% abundance across all samples by host species and time point.
Significance of t-tests for each ASV are denoted on the right side of each figure (*, p < 0.05; **, p < 0.01; ***, p < 0.001; ****, p < 0.0001). (a) ASVs found only in Daphnia magna in day (pink) or night (red) samples. ASV taxonomic identity is denoted at the most specific taxonomic rank possible without assigning species-level identity. (b) ASVs found only in D. dentifera in day (green) or night (blue) samples, with taxonomic identity as in (a). (c) & (d) ASVs common to both host species. Relative abundances of ASVs in D. magna in (c) and relative abundances of ASVs in D. dentifera in (d), with taxonomic identity as in (a).
In ASVs specific to D. magna, only three experienced significant shifts between day and night: an Arcticibacterium (p = 0.013), Emticicia ASV 1 (p = 0.038), and a Polyangiaceae (p = 0.004) were more relatively abundant at night (Fig 3a). More unique ASVs were found in D. dentifera, and more were significantly different between time points: a Polynucleobacter (p = 0.001) and Lacibacter (p = 0.047) were more relatively abundant during the day, while Limnohabitans ASV 1 (p = 0.017), an NS11-12g (p = 0.032), and Limnobacter (p = 0.001) were more relatively abundant at night (Fig 3b). For ASVs found in both species (Fig 3c and 3d), only Limnohabitans ASV 3 was significantly different at the time points in both species. However, the abundance shift was opposite in the two species; in D. magna, Limnohabitans ASV 3 was more abundant during the day (p < 0.0001), but in D. dentifera it was more abundant at night (p = 0.005). In D. magna, a Flavobacterium ASV was more abundant at night (p = 0.002). The same Flavobacterium was more abundant during the night in D. dentifera, though not significantly so (p = 0.06). In D. dentifera, a Chitinophagaceae ASV (p = 0.002) and Emticicia ASV 2 (p = 0.005) were more abundant at night.
Discussion
Our results show that the microbiomes of Daphnia dentifera and D. magna are distinct. While most host-associated microbiomes are strongly associated with host phylogeny [32–36], the differences between these two species are striking, as these two distantly related species have been cultured in similar in-laboratory rearing conditions for years. While phylosymbiosis, the hypothesis that host-associated microbial communities of closely related host species are more similar to each other than to less related host species [37], has been observed in other invertebrate species, this pattern is not frequently observed in zooplankton species, as much of their microbiome is acquired from the environment [8, 38]. The differences in community composition between D. dentifera and D. magna in this study, as well as the differences among other zooplankton species as demonstrated by Eckert et al. [8], provide some evidence that zooplankton microbiomes are relatively distinct. However, our results indicated that microbiome composition are not a result of environmental conditions.
Here, we find that D. magna has a far less diverse microbiome than D. dentifera. The microbiome of D. magna is consistently dominated by a Limnohabitans ASV and a Chitinophagaceae ASV, while the microbiome of D. dentifera is evenly distributed across several Burkholderiaceae ASVs (including Limnohabitans, Hydromonas, and other unidentified Burkholderiacae). Though both Daphnia species were reared in similar laboratory conditions their microbiomes were dramatically different. The Daphnia dentifera used here were originally collected from temperate lakes in Southern Michigan (USA) and the D. magna are from a pond at Kaimes Farm, Leitholm, Scottish Borders [39]. The microbiome composition differences observed may be remnants of the microbes in their natural habitat, despite having been reared in the lab for hundreds of generations. In concert with evidence that zooplankton have distinct microbiomes as compared to their local environment [9, 40, 41], these results suggest that these host species can actively shape and maintain their associated microbial communities.
Host behavior and the microbiome are intrinsically linked [42–44]. While the microbiomes of these zooplankton species are clearly distinct, the same patterns of increased bacterial diversity and increased feeding rate at night emerge here. This suggests that microbiome diversity is linked to feeding behavior in D. dentifera and D. magna, and likely both are tied to strong diel vertical migration behaviors present across Daphnia species [45–47]. Increased feeding rate at night may influence microbiome composition and diversity through dietary changes; across host species, diet is strongly associated with microbiome structure [4, 48–50]. Diet is also directly associated with host behavior, as both quality and quantity of available food influences how hosts forage [51–53]. Because diet can impact microbiome structure and composition, it is also likely that diet-derived nutrients taken up by taxa in the microbiome indirectly impact host behavior [54] and that there is a strong link between feeding behavior and the microbiome. Demonstrated microbiome-mediated behavioral changes include those involved in stress-related behavior [55] and social behavior [42, 56]. In Daphnia species, diel vertical migration (DVM) is a host behavior intrinsically tied to feeding. Zooplankton consume more food at night when migrating up the water column in the relative safety of darkness from visual predators, then return to darker, deeper layers of the water column in daylight, where they consume less food [10, 57]. Because Daphnia in this experiment were raised individually in 30 mL tubes, we demonstrate that changes in feeding behavior observed here are strongly associated with changes in microbial diversity in the absence of host migration through the water column.
Though it is difficult to infer the functional importance of taxa in the microbiota, prior work characterizing metagenome-assembled genomes of Daphnia magna has pinpointed some functions encoded by their microbes. In particular, two Limnohabitans species and one Emticicia species have had some functions characterized [58], which are likely the same species as the ASVs identified as Limnohabitans ASVs (Limnohabitans ASV 2 and 3, Fig 3) and the Emticica ASV (Emticicia ASV 2, Fig 3) in this study. Many of the functions encoded in these genomes involve amino acid biosynthesis and transport, vitamin and mineral transport, and carbohydrate degradation, and many pathways encoded by the whole D. magna metagenome are implicated in carbohydrate breakdown. This suggests that many of the taxa in the Daphnia microbiota are involved in sequestering usable nutrients from carbohydrates taken in while Daphnia feed.
In conclusion, our results suggest that zooplankton hosts may be able to maintain microbial communities associated with their natural environment even with substantial pressure of the current environment on zooplankton microbiome composition [8]. This work also emphasizes the link between daily rhythms in behavior, specifically feeding, and the microbiome. Incorporating metabolomics to infer functional differences could provide further insight into the host's metabolic processes. The continued pursuit to understand how and when daily rhythms in behavior and the microbiome impact within-host processes could provide key insights into metabolic and immune disorders.
Supporting information
S1 Table
ASVs that are core members of the microbiome in each host species.
The mean relative abundance in both host species is listed for each ASV as well as the taxonomic identity.
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr. Andrew Benson, Mallory Van Haute, and Qinnan Yang for their assistance with library preparation and amplicon sequencing. We credit Mathilde Cordellier for the Daphnia magna image used in figures.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
References
1. Wang J, Linnenbrink M, Künzel S, Fernandes R, Nadeau MJ, Rosenstiel P, et al. Dietary history contributes to enterotype-like clustering and functional metagenomic content in the intestinal microbiome of wild mice. PNAS. 2014;111(26):e2703–10. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1402342111 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Najarro MA, Sumethasorn M, Lamoureux A, Turner TL. Choosing mates based on the diet of your ancestors: replication of non-genetic assortative mating in Drosophila melanogaster . PeerJ. 2015;3:e1173. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1173 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Udayangani RM, Dananjaya SH, Nikapitiya C, Heo GJ, Lee J, De Zoysa M. Metagenomics analysis of gut microbiota and immune modulation in zebrafish (Danio rerio) fed chitosan silver nanocomposites. Fish & shellfish immunology. 2017;66:173–84. doi: 10.1016/j.fsi.2017.05.018 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Singh RK, Chang HW, Yan DI, Lee KM, Ucmak D, Wong K, et al. Influence of diet on the gut microbiome and implications for human health. Journal of translational medicine. 2017;15(1):1–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Schibler U, Ripperger J, Brown SA. Peripheral circadian oscillators in mammals: time and food. Journal of biological rhythms. 2003;18(3):250–60. doi: 10.1177/0748730403018003007 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Zheng D, Ratiner K, Elinav E. Circadian influences of diet on the microbiome and immunity. Trends in immunology. 2020;41(6):512–30. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2020.04.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Sarnelle O. Daphnia as keystone predators: effects on phytoplankton diversity and grazing resistance. Journal of plankton research. 2005;27(12):1229–38. [Google Scholar]
8. Eckert EM, Anicic N, Fontaneto D. Freshwater zooplankton microbiome composition is highly flexible and strongly influenced by the environment. Molecular Ecology. 2021;30(6):1545–58. doi: 10.1111/mec.15815 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Freese HM, Schink B. Composition and stability of the microbial community inside the digestive tract of the aquatic crustacean Daphnia magna . Microbial ecology. 2011;62(4):882. doi: 10.1007/s00248-011-9886-8 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
10. Pfenning-Butterworth AC, Amato K, Cressler CE. Circadian rhythm in feeding behavior of Daphnia dentifera . Journal of Biological Rhythms. 2021; 36(6):589–594. doi: 10.1177/07487304211054404 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Cellier-Michel S, Rehaïlia M, Berthon JL. Is the rhythm of vertical migration of Daphnia longispina circadian or simply nycthemeral?. Annales de Limnologie-International Journal of Limnology 2003;39(3):265–272. [Google Scholar]
12. Rund SS, Yoo B, Alam C, Green T, Stephens MT, Zeng E, et al. Genome-wide profiling of 24 hr diel rhythmicity in the water flea, Daphnia pulex: network analysis reveals rhythmic gene expression and enhances functional gene annotation. BMC genomics. 2016;17(1):1–20. doi: 10.1186/s12864-016-2998-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Schwarzenberger A, Chen L, Weiss LC. The expression of circadian clock genes in Daphnia magna diapause. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):1–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Hite JL, Pfenning‐Butterworth AC, Vetter RE, Cressler CE. A high‐throughput method to quantify feeding rates in aquatic organisms: A case study with Daphnia . Ecology and evolution. 2020;10(13):6239–45. doi: 10.1002/ece3.6352 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Zuykova EI, Bochkarev NA, Sheveleva NG. Genetic polymorphism, haplotype distribution, and phylogeny of Daphnia (Cladocera: Anomopoda) species from the water bodies of Russia as inferred from the 16S mtDNA gene sequencing. Russian journal of genetics. 2016;52(6):585–96. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Adamowicz SJ, Petrusek A, Colbourne JK, Hebert PD, Witt JD. The scale of divergence: a phylogenetic appraisal of intercontinental allopatric speciation in a passively dispersed freshwater zooplankton genus. Molecular phylogenetics and evolution. 2009;50(3):423–36. doi: 10.1016/j.ympev.2008.11.026 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Dawidowicz P, Pijanowska J. Diel vertical migration of aquatic crustaceans—adaptive role, underlying mechanisms, and ecosystem consequences. The Natural History of the Crustacea: Life Histories. 2018.
18. De Meester L. An analysis of the phototactic behaviour of Daphnia magna clones and their sexual descendants. In Biology of Cladocera 1991. (pp. 217–227). Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
19. De Meester L. Fish-mediated chemical, and phototactic behaviour in Daphnia magna . Ecology. 1993;74:1467–74. [Google Scholar]
20. Stich HB. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity of Daphnia in Lake Constance; intra‐and interspecific comparisons. Limnology and Oceanography. 1992;37(6):1327–34. [Google Scholar]
21. Kilham SS, Kreeger DA, Lynn SG, Goulden CE, Herrera L. COMBO: a defined freshwater culture medium for algae and zooplankton. Hydrobiologia. 1998;377(1):147–59. [Google Scholar]
22. Sarnelle O, Wilson AE. Type III functional response in Daphnia . Ecology. 2008;89(6):1723–32. doi: 10.1890/07-0935.1 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, et al. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. PNAS. 2011;108(Supplement 1):4516–4522. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJ, Holmes SP. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nature methods. 2016;13(7):581–3. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 2020; https://www.R-project.org/.
26. Alishum A. DADA2 formatted 16S rRNA gene sequences for both bacteria & archaea. Zenodo. 2019; doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3266798 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Schliep K. phangorn: phylogenetic analysis in R. Bioinformatics. 2011; 27(4), 592–593. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq706 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Wright ES. Using DECIPHER v2.0 to Analyze Big Biological Sequence Data in R. The R Journal. 2016;8(1), 352–359. [Google Scholar]
29. McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data. PLoS ONE. 2013; 8(4):e61217. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Willis AD, Martin BD. Estimating diversity in networked ecological communities. Biostatistics. 2020;00,1–17. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31. Lahti L, Shetty S, et al. Tools for microbiome analysis in R. Microbiome package version 1.15.1. Bioconductor, 2017; http://microbiome.github.com/microbiome/.
32. Amato KR, Martinez-Mota R, Righini N, Raguet-Schofield M, Corcione FP, Marini E, et al. Phylogenetic and ecological factors impact the gut microbiota of two Neotropical primate species. Oecologia. 2016;180(3):717–33. doi: 10.1007/s00442-015-3507-z [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Brooks AW, Kohl KD, Brucker RM, van Opstal EJ, Bordenstein SR. Phylosymbiosis: relationships and functional effects of microbial communities across host evolutionary history. PLoS biology. 2016;14(11):e2000225. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.2000225 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Davenport ER, Sanders JG, Song SJ, Amato KR, Clark AG, Knight R. The human microbiome in evolution. BMC biology. 2017;15(1):1–2. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. Mazel F, Davis KM, Loudon A, Kwong WK, Groussin M, Parfrey LW. Is host filtering the main driver of phylosymbiosis across the tree of life?. Msystems. 2018;3(5):e00097–18. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00097-18 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Fitzpatrick CR, Copeland J, Wang PW, Guttman DS, Kotanen PM, Johnson MT. Assembly and ecological function of the root microbiome across angiosperm plant species. PNAS. 2018;115(6):1157–65. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1717617115 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Lim SJ, Bordenstein SR. An introduction to phylosymbiosis. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 2020;287(1922):20192900. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2019.2900 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Sison-Mangus MP, Metzger CM, Ebert D. Host genotype-specific microbiota do not influence the susceptibility of D. magna to a bacterial pathogen. Scientific reports. 2018;8(1):1–0. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Auld SK, Wilson PJ, Little TJ. Rapid change in parasite infection traits over the course of an epidemic in a wild host–parasite population. Oikos. 2014;123(2):232–8. [Google Scholar]
40. Pernthaler J, Rosenberg E, DeLong E, Lory S. Freshwater microbial communities. In Rosenberg, Eugene; DeLong, Edward; Lory, Stefan. The Prokaryotes. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 97–112.
41. Mushegian AA, Arbore R, Walser JC, Ebert D. Environmental sources of bacteria and genetic variation in behavior influence host-associated microbiota. Applied and environmental microbiology. 2019;85(8):e01547–18. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01547-18 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Vernier CL, Chin IM, Adu-Oppong B, Krupp JJ, Levine J, Dantas G, et al. The gut microbiome defines social group membership in honey bee colonies. Science advances. 2020;6(42):eabd3431. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abd3431 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Vuong HE, Yano JM, Fung TC, Hsiao EY. The microbiome and host behavior. Annual review of neuroscience. 2017;40:21–49. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031347 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Buffington SA, Dooling SW, Sgritta M, Noecker C, Murillo OD, Felice DF, et al. Dissecting the contribution of host genetics and the microbiome in complex behaviors. Cell. 2021;184(7):1740–56. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.02.009 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Haney JF, Hall DJ. Diel vertical migration and filter-feeding activities of Daphnia . Arch. Hydrobiol. 1975.
46. Loose CJ, Dawidowicz P. Trade‐offs in diel vertical migration by zooplankton: the costs of predator avoidance. Ecology. 1994;75(8):2255–63. [Google Scholar]
47. Ringelberg J. An account of a preliminary mechanistic model of swimming behaviour in Daphnia: its use in understanding diel vertical migration. In Cladocera as Model Organisms in Biology 1995. (pp. 161–165). Springer, Dordrecht. [Google Scholar]
48. David LA, Maurice CF, Carmody RN, Gootenberg DB, Button JE, Wolfe BE, et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature. 2014;505(7484):559–63. doi: 10.1038/nature12820 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Macke E, Callens M, Massol F, Vanoverberghe I, De Meester L, Decaestecker E. Diet and genotype of an aquatic invertebrate affect the composition of free-living microbial communities. Frontiers in microbiology. 2020;11:380. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00380 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Mallott EK, Amato KR, Garber PA, Malhi RS. Influence of fruit and invertebrate consumption on the gut microbiota of wild white‐faced capuchins (Cebus capucinus). American journal of physical anthropology. 2018;165(3):576–88. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.23395 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Frost BW. Effects of size and concentration of food particles on the feeding behavior of the marine planktonic copepod Calanus pacificus . Limnology and oceanography. 1972;17(6):805–15. [Google Scholar]
52. Glander KE. The impact of plant secondary compounds on primate feeding behavior. American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 1982;25(S3):1–8. [Google Scholar]
53. May CE, Vaziri A, Lin YQ, Grushko O, Khabiri M, Wang QP, et al. High dietary sugar reshapes sweet taste to promote feeding behavior in Drosophila melanogaster . Cell reports. 2019;27(6):1675–85. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.04.027 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Ezenwa VO, Gerardo NM, Inouye DW, Medina M, Xavier JB. Animal behavior and the microbiome. Science. 2012;338(6104):198–9. doi: 10.1126/science.1227412 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Provensi G, Schmidt SD, Boehme M, Bastiaanssen TF, Rani B, Costa A, et al. Preventing adolescent stress-induced cognitive and microbiome changes by diet. PNAS. 2019;116(19):9644–51. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1820832116 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Desbonnet L, Clarke G, Shanahan F, Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Microbiota is essential for social development in the mouse. Molecular psychiatry. 2014;19(2):146–8. doi: 10.1038/mp.2013.65 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Ringelberg J. The photobehaviour of Daphnia spp. as a model to explain diel vertical migration in zooplankton. Biological Reviews. 1999;74(4):397–423. [Google Scholar]
58. Cooper RO, Cressler CE. Characterization of key bacterial species in the Daphnia magna microbiota using shotgun metagenomics. Scientific reports. 2020;10(1):1–1. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Decision Letter 0
22 Dec 2021
PONE-D-21-36303Daily feeding rhythm linked to microbiome composition in two zooplankton speciesPLOS ONE
Dear Dr. Pfenning-Butterworth,
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE's publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.
Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 05 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.
Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:
-
A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
-
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
-
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.
If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.
If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.
We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.
Kind regards,
Juan J Loor
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Journal Requirements:
When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.
1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.
2. Please include a copy of Table S1 which you refer to in your text on page 10.
3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article's retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.
[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
5. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: The original research presented by this group investigating the links between biological rhythms, feeding behaviors and microbial composition in Daphnia models was incredibly novel and interesting. While the data show that Daphnia species have daily differences in microbial composition that is directly related to feeding behavior, I have a few questions regarding some the statistical analyses.
In a Materials and Methods subsection titled "Sequence analysis, visualization and statistics", authors describe the use of individual t-test on amplicon sequence variants to examine taxa across time points. In many cases, the use of t-test on high-dimensional data can leave room for major error. If possible, can authors please answer the following question: Were there adjustments for p values and false discovery rates? Are there other studies that have used individual t-test to compare ASVs?
The Results and Discussion sections were well written and easy to follow. I appreciated the authors describing how the taxa affected during feeding phases may be involved in different metabolic processes. This also leaves room for deeper analysis and the development of future circadian rhythm-microbiome studies in other animal models.
Overall, I believe this manuscript could add to the overall scope of knowledge in this field.
**********
6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose "no", your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.
Reviewer #1: No
[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]
While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.
Author response to Decision Letter 0
6 Jan 2022
Dear Editor,
With this I submit a revision of our manuscript, "Daily feeding rhythm linked to microbiome composition in two zooplankton species", by myself, R.O. Copper, and C.E. Cressler. The original submission received a thoughtful review. We have revised the manuscript in accordance with the suggestion of the reviewer. Below we discuss our response (tabbed) to the reviewer's comment.
In addition, we included a copy of S1 Table in the revision and updated citation 59 with the correct information.
We hope you will find that we have addressed all the concerns of the reviewers satisfactorily, and that the revised manuscript will be suitable for publication.
Sincerely,
Alaina C. Pfenning-Butterworth
moc.liamg@gninnefpaniala
Reviewer #1: The original research presented by this group investigating the links between biological rhythms, feeding behaviors and microbial composition in Daphnia models was incredibly novel and interesting. While the data show that Daphnia species have daily differences in microbial composition that is directly related to feeding behavior, I have a few questions regarding some the statistical analyses.
In a Materials and Methods subsection titled "Sequence analysis, visualization and statistics", authors describe the use of individual t-test on amplicon sequence variants to examine taxa across time points. In many cases, the use of t-test on high-dimensional data can leave room for major error. If possible, can authors please answer the following question: Were there adjustments for p values and false discovery rates? Are there other studies that have used individual t-test to compare ASVs?
We used t-tests to compare the relative abundance of each individual ASV at day versus night within a host species (Lines 127-129). We did not compare the relative abundance of different ASVs to one another within the same host species. Because we are not conducting multiple comparisons within each host species-by-timepoint dataset and we are substantially reducing the high-dimensional dataset to only ASVs at relatively high abundance, we do not believe it is necessary to include a correction for multiple comparison. Other studies have used t-tests and ANOVAs to compare ASVs (see Wang et al. 2020 "Characterizing changes in soil microbiome abundance and diversity due to different cover crop techniques"; Lutz et al. 2019 "A Simple Microbiome in the European Common Cuttlefish, Sepia officinalis"; Aira et al. 2019 "Microbiome dynamics during cast ageing in the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa").
We reworded the sentence to describe the comparison more clearly. Lines 127 – 132 now read:
To find taxa that differed significantly between time points, we focused on relatively common ASVs (≥0.005 relative abundance) and compared day-versus-night relative abundance using two statistical tests. For ASVs that were unique to one host species, we compared the relative abundance of each ASV at day versus night using a t-test. For ASVs abundant in both host species we compared the relative abundances of each ASV at day versus night using ANOVA.
The Results and Discussion sections were well written and easy to follow. I appreciated the authors describing how the taxa affected during feeding phases may be involved in different metabolic processes. This also leaves room for deeper analysis and the development of future circadian rhythm-microbiome studies in other animal models.
Overall, I believe this manuscript could add to the overall scope of knowledge in this field.
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers.docx
Decision Letter 1
21 Jan 2022
Daily feeding rhythm linked to microbiome composition in two zooplankton species
PONE-D-21-36303R1
Dear Dr. Pfenning-Butterworth,
We're pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.
Within one week, you'll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you'll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.
An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
Kind regards,
Juan J Loor
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Additional Editor Comments (optional):
Reviewers' comments:
Reviewer's Responses to Questions
Comments to the Author
1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the "Comments to the Author" section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the "Confidential to Editor" section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.
Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed
**********
2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?
The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?
PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.
Reviewer #1: Yes
**********
6. Review Comments to the Author
Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)
Reviewer #1: Special thanks to the authors for addressing the comments regarding statistics and rewording sentences for clarity. I believe the authors have addressed all of my comments and now the manuscript reads very well.
**********
7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.
If you choose "no", your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.
Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.
Reviewer #1:Yes:Meli'sa Shaunte Crawford
Acceptance letter
24 Jan 2022
PONE-D-21-36303R1
Daily feeding rhythm linked to microbiome composition in two zooplankton species
Dear Dr. Pfenning-Butterworth:
I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.
If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno.
If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@enosolp.
Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.
Kind regards,
PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff
on behalf of
Dr. Juan J Loor
Academic Editor
PLOS ONE
Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8812976/
0 Response to "Feeding Rates of Individual Zooplankton Species"
Post a Comment