More stories

  • in

    Ocean protection needs a spirit of compromise

    Coral reef shoals in the south Pacific, part of which is a marine protected area.Credit: Pete Niesen/Alamy

    After a year of pandemic-induced delays, 2021 is set to be a big year for biodiversity, climate and the ocean. Later this year, world leaders are expected to gather for meetings of the United Nations conventions on biological diversity and climate to set future agendas. Ocean policies will be a priority for both.Momentum is building for what is called the 30 × 30 campaign — a goal to protect 30% of the planet (both land and sea) by 2030. Last December, the 30% ocean goal was backed by the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, which comprises the heads of state of 14 coastal nations, including some of the largest countries, such as Indonesia, and the smallest, like Palau. This is an important step.But this target is ambitious. At present, 15% of terrestrial surfaces are classed as protected, and only about 7% of the oceans have been designated or proposed as marine protected areas — so named because, within them, fishing and other industrial activities are prohibited or restricted. Just 2.6% of the oceans are either fully or highly protected. Although these numbers have been improving, they are behind schedule — a previous global target was to protect 17% of land and 10% of the oceans by 2020.Achieving the ocean’s full potential for helping humanity will require genuinely sustainable fishing practices, investments in renewable technologies such as offshore wind farms, and zero-emissions shipping. Carbon-hungry seagrasses and mangroves must also be restored. But efforts to achieve these goals inevitably create conflicts, because governments, the conservation community and industry tend to have different priorities. Such disagreements are impeding progress.
    Read the paper: Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate
    Research published in Nature this week could help to resolve some of these tensions when establishing protected areas. Conservationist and National Geographic explorer-in-residence Enric Sala and his colleagues present a model showing how the ocean could be protected in a way that optimizes both environmental and fishing-industry benefits1. This model needs to be studied carefully as talks progress, because it could help nations to see where compromises are possible.The researchers assessed data on the distribution of ocean biodiversity (taking in 4,242 species); 1,150 commercially exploited seafood stocks; and carbon in marine sediments. They used these data to model the spaces where marine protected areas could be situated to achieve particular outcomes across three main goals. For example, a plan that protects 71% of the ocean could yield 91% of the maximum biodiversity benefits and 48% of the carbon benefits, but with no change to existing fisheries catches. In another scenario, 28% of the ocean could be protected to obtain a maximum increase in seafood catches while securing 35% of the maximum biodiversity benefits and 27% of the maximum carbon benefits.The model makes it clear that achieving the best outcome on all three goals will require give and take. Nations and stakeholder groups will need to weigh up each goal. That will be hard, but necessary; some countries will have to give a little of their profitable fisheries, for example. And under this model, nations will need to commit to reducing bottom trawling, a fishing practice that stirs up carbon-rich sediments on the sea floor, potentially releasing that carbon. According to one estimate2, the impact of this process on the ocean’s carbon-storage capacity is greater than that of other problems that receive more attention, such as the loss of biological carbon storage when mangroves are cleared.
    Read the paper: Enabling conditions for an equitable and sustainable blue economy
    Countries must also pay attention to equity and access, and ensure that decisions to create protected areas are made in consultation with affected and often vulnerable communities. December’s high-level panel report estimates that the economic opportunities provided by marine genetic resources, ecotourism, fisheries, renewable energy and carbon credits could reel in a net benefit of US$15.5 trillion by 2050. But, as Andrés Cisneros-Montemayor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, and his colleagues point out in this issue3, many coastal nations lack access to the infrastructure or governance needed to promote what is called a ‘sustainable blue economy’. As might be expected, some nations aren’t equipped to ensure that, say, their local fish stocks are protected from being used in farm feed; or that construction of new ports doesn’t unreasonably affect local communities or ecosystems.At present, most of the ocean economy isn’t exactly blue. A study of the 100 largest companies in the ocean economy (which together account for 60% of around US$2 trillion in annual revenue) showed that the majority profit from oil and gas. Even Norway, which co-chaired the high-level panel, recently announced 61 new offshore oil and gas licences, as well as its intention to grant sea-bed mining licences as early as 2023. Such moves are disappointing. Green groups and researchers must continue to put pressure on countries to live up to their promises.World leaders at the upcoming biodiversity and climate meetings have a big task. Expanding the blue economy is difficult given the economic consequences of protecting more of the ocean. But there is now not only momentum in this direction, but also research to show that it can be done. If humanity looks after the ocean, it will look after us. More

  • in

    Social networks strongly predict the gut microbiota of wild mice

    1.Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature. 2006;444:1027–31.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Monachese M, Burton JP, Reid G. Bioremediation and tolerance of humans to heavy metals through microbial processes: a potential role for probiotics?. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012;78:6397–404.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Chevalier C, Stojanovi O, Colin DJ, Suarez-Zamorano N, Tarallo V, Veyrat-Durebex C, et al. Gut microbiota orchestrates energy homeostasis during cold. Cell. 2015;163:1360–74.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Kamada N, Kim Y-G, Sham HP, Vallance BA, Puente JL, Martens EC, et al. Regulated virulence controls the ability of a pathogen to compete with the gut microbiota. Science. 2012;336:1325–9.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Zhang N, He Q-S. Commensal microbiome promotes resistance to local and systemic infections. Chin Med J. 2015;128:2250–5.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Hooper LV, Littman DR, Macpherson AJ. Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system. Science. 2012;336:1268–73.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Honda K, Littman DR. The microbiota in adaptive immune homeostasis and disease. Nature 2016;535:75–84.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Thaiss CA, Zmora N, Levy M, Elinav E. The microbiome and innate immunity. Nature. 2016;535:65–74.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Hanski I, von Hertzen L, Fyhrquist N, Koskinen K, Torppa K, Laatikainen T, et al. Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:8334–9.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.De Luca F, Shoenfeld Y. The microbiome in autoimmune diseases. Clin Exp Immuno l. 2019;195:74–85.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Costello EK, Stagaman K, Dethlefsen L, Bohannan BJM, Relman DA. The application of ecological theory toward an understanding of the human microbiome. Science. 2012;336:1255–62.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Dominguez-Bello MG, Costello EK, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Fierer N, et al. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:11971–5.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Ferretti P, Pasolli E, Tett A, Asnicar F, Gorfer V, Fedi S, et al. Mother-to-infant microbial transmission from different body sites shapes the developing infant gut microbiome. Cell Host Microbe. 2018;24:133–45.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Lane AA, McGuire MK, McGuire MA, Williams JE, Lackey KA, Hagen EH, et al. Household composition and the infant fecal microbiome: the INSPIRE study. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2019;169:526–39.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Lehtimäki J, Karkman A, Laatikainen T, Paalanen L, von Hertzen L, Haahtela T, et al. Patterns in the skin microbiota differ in children and teenagers between rural and urban environments. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45651.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Tamburini S, Shen N, Wu H, medicine JC-N. The microbiome in early life: implications for health outcomes. Nat Med. 2016;22:713–22.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Turnbaugh PJ, Ridaura VK, Faith JJ, Rey FE, Knight R, Gordon JI. The effect of diet on the human gut microbiome: a metagenomic analysis in humanized gnotobiotic mice. Sci Transl Med. 2009;1:6ra14.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    18.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;505:559–63.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Ottman N, Ruokolainen L, Suomalainen A, Sinkko H, Karisola P, Lehtimäki J, et al. Soil exposure modifies the gut microbiota and supports immune tolerance in a mouse model. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143:1198–206.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Grieneisen LE, Charpentier MJE, Alberts SC, Blekhman R, Bradburd G, Tung J, et al. Genes, geology and germs: gut microbiota across a primate hybrid zone are explained by site soil properties, not host species. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci. 2019;286:20190431.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Sarkar A, Harty S, Johnson KV-A, Moeller AH, Archie EA, Schell LD, et al. Microbial transmission in animal social networks and the social microbiome. Nat Ecol Evol. 2020;4:1020–35.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Moeller AH, Suzuki TA, Phifer-Rixey M, Nachman MW. Transmission modes of the mammalian gut microbiota. Science. 2018;362:453–7.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Hufeldt MR, Nielsen DS, Vogensen FK, Midtvedt T, Hansen AK. Variation in the gut microbiota of laboratory mice is related to both genetic and environmental factors. Comp Med. 2010;60:336–47.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Hildebrand F, Nguyen TLA, Brinkman B, Yunta R, Cauwe B, Vandenabeele P, et al. Inflammation-associated enterotypes, host genotype, cage and inter-individual effects drive gut microbiota variation in common laboratory mice. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R4.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Lees H, Swann J, Poucher SM, Nicholson JK, Holmes E, Wilson ID, et al. Age and microenvironment outweigh genetic influence on the Zucker rat microbiome. PloS One. 2014;9:e100916.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Tung J, Barreiro LB, Burns MB, Grenier JC, Lynch J, Grieneisen LE, et al. Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons. Elife. 2015;4:e05224.PubMed Central 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Raulo A, Ruokolainen L, Lane A, Amato K, Knight R, Leigh S, et al. Social behaviour and gut microbiota in red-bellied lemurs (Eulemur rubriventer): In search of the role of immunity in the evolution of sociality. J Anim Ecol. 2018;87:388–99.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Perofsky AC, Lewis RJ, Abondano LA, Di Fiore A, Meyers LA. Hierarchical social networks shape gut microbial composition in wild Verreaux’s sifaka. Proc Biol Sci. 2017;284:20172274.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Moeller AH, Foerster S, Wilson ML, Pusey AE, Hahn BH, Ochman H. Social behavior shapes the chimpanzee pan-microbiome. Sci Adv. 2016;2:e1500997.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Wikberg EC, Christie D, Sicotte P, Ting N. Interactions between social groups of colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) explain similarities in their gut microbiomes. Anim Behav. 2020;163:17–31.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Bennett G, Malone M, Sauther ML, Cuozzo FP, White B, Nelson KE, et al. Host age, social group, and habitat type influence the gut microbiota of wild ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta). Am J Primatol. 2016;78:883–92.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Theis KR, Schmidt TM, Holekamp KE. Evidence for a bacterial mechanism for group-specific social odors among hyenas. Sci Rep. 2012;2:615.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Leclaire S, Nielsen JF, Drea CM. Bacterial communities in meerkat anal scent secretions vary with host sex, age, and group membership. Behav Ecol. 2014;25:996–1004.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Antwis RE, Lea JMD, Unwin B, Shultz S. Gut microbiome composition is associated with spatial structuring and social interactions in semi-feral Welsh Mountain ponies. Microbiome. 2018;6:207.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Song SJ, Lauber C, Costello EK, Lozupone CA, Humphrey G, Berg-Lyons D, et al. Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs. Elife. 2013;2:e00458.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Grieneisen LE, Livermore J, Alberts S, Tung J, Archie EA. Group living and male dispersal predict the core gut microbiome in wild baboons. Integr Comp Biol. 2017;57:770–85.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Dill-McFarland KA, Tang Z-Z, Kemis JH, Kerby RL, Chen G, Palloni A, et al. Close social relationships correlate with human gut microbiota composition. Sci Rep. 2019;9:703.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Wilson EO. Elementary concepts in sociobiology. In: Wilson EO, editors. Sociobiology: The New Synthesis. 25th ed. Cambridge, Massachutes, USA: Harvard University Press; 2000. p. 8.
    Google Scholar 
    39.Godsall B. Mechanisms of space use in the wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus. Doctoral Thesis, London: Imperial College; 2015.40.Wolton RJ. The ranging and nesting behaviour of Wood mice, Apodemus sylvaticus (Rodentia: Muridae), as revealed by radio-tracking. J Zool. 2009;206:203–22.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Stopka P, Macdonald DW. The market effect in the Wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus: selling information on reproductive status. Ethology. 2001;105:969–82.42.Walton JB, Andrews JF. Torpor induced by food deprivation in the Wood mouse Apodemus sylvaticus. J Zool. 2009;194:260–3.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Wolton RJ. A possible role for faeces in range-marking by the Wood mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus. J Zool. 2009;206:286–91.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Wolton RJ. Individual recognition by olfaction in the Wood Mouse, Apodemus sylvaticus. Behaviour. 1984;88:191–9.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Godsall B, Coulson T, Malo AF. From physiology to space use: energy reserves and androgenization explain home-range size variation in a woodland rodent. J Anim Ecol. 2014;83:126–35.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Wang J, Santure AW. Parentage and sibship inference from multilocus genotype data under polygamy. Genetics. 2009;181:1579–94.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Farine DR. Animal social network inference and permutations for ecologists in R using asnipe. Methods Ecol Evol. 2013;4:1187–94.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Csardi G, Nepusz T. The igraph software package for complex network research. Inter J Complex Syst. 2006;1695:1–9.
    Google Scholar 
    49.Firth JA, Sheldon BC. Social carry-over effects underpin trans-seasonally linked structure in a wild bird population. Ecol Lett. 2016;19:1324–32.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–3.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS One. 2013;8:e61217.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.McKnight DT, Huerlimann R, Bower DS, Schwarzkopf L, Alford RA, Zenger KR. Methods for normalizing microbiome data: an ecological perspective. Methods. Ecol Evol. 2019;10:389–400.
    Google Scholar 
    53.Hsieh TC, Ma KH, Chao A. iNEXT: an R package for rarefaction and extrapolation of species diversity (Hill numbers). Methods. Ecol Evol. 2016;7:1451–6.
    Google Scholar 
    54.Oksanen J, Kindt R, Legendre P, O’Hara B, Stevens MH, Oksanen MJ, et al. The vegan package. Community Ecol Package. 2007;10:719.
    Google Scholar 
    55.Bürkner PC. brms: an R package for Bayesian multilevel models using stan. J Stat Softw. 2017;80:1–28.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Bürkner PC. Advanced Bayesian multilevel modeling with the R package brms. R J. 2018;10:395–411.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Hadfield JD. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J Stat Softw. 2010;33:1–22.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Dekker D, Krackhardt D, Snijders TA. Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika. 2007;72:563–81.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Ormerod KL, Wood DLA, Lachner N, Gellatly SL, Daly JN, Parsons JD, et al. Genomic characterization of the uncultured Bacteroidales family S24-7 inhabiting the guts of homeothermic animals. Microbiome. 2016;4:36.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Wieczorek AS, Schmidt O, Chatzinotas A, von Bergen M, Gorissen A, Kolb S. Ecological functions of agricultural soil bacteria and microeukaryotes in chitin degradation: a case study. Front Microbiol. 2019;10:1293.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Huang X, Liu L, Zhao J, Zhang J, Cai Z. The families Ruminococcaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Clostridiaceae are the dominant bacterial groups during reductive soil disinfestation with incorporated plant residues. Appl Soil Ecol. 2019; 135:65–72.62.Moeller AH, Caro-Quintero A, Mjungu D, Georgiev AV, Lonsdorf EV, Muller MN, et al. Cospeciation of gut microbiota with hominids. Science. 2016;353:380–2.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Tew TE, Macdonald DW. Dynamics of space use and male vigour amongst wood mice, Apodemus sylvaticus, in the cereal ecosystem. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 1994;34:337–45.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Erazo D, Pedersen AB, Gallagher K, Fenton A. Who acquires infection from whom? Estimating herpesvirus transmission rates between wild rodent host groups. 2020, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.18.302489v1.65.Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung RAR, Updegraff JA. Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychol Rev. 2000;107:411–29.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Amato KR, Van Belle S, Di Fiore A, Estrada A, Stumpf R, White B, et al. Patterns in gut microbiota similarity associated with degree of sociality among sex classes of a neotropical primate. Micro Ecol. 2017;74:250–8.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Brito IL, Gurry T, Zhao S, Huang K, Young SK, Shea TP, et al. Transmission of human-associated microbiota along family and social networks. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:964–71.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Johnson KV-A. Gut microbiome composition and diversity are related to human personality traits. Hum Microbiome J. 2020;15:100069.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Levin II, Zonana DM, Fosdick BK, Song SJ, Knight R, Safran RJ. Stress response, gut microbial diversity and sexual signals correlate with social interactions. Biol Lett. 2016;12:20160352.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Mouquet N, Loreau M. Community patterns in source‐sink metacommunities. Am Nat. 2003;162:544–57.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Altizer S, Nunn CL, Thrall PH, Gittleman JL, Antonovics J, Cunningham AA, et al. Social organization and parasite risk in mammals: Integrating theory and empirical studies. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 2003;34:517–47.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Loehle C. Social barriers to pathogen transmission in wild animal populations. Ecology. 1995;76:326–35.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Moeller A, Dufva R, Allander K. Parasites and the evolution of host social behavior. Adv Study Behav. 1993;22:65–102.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Reese AT, Dunn RR. Drivers of microbiome biodiversity: a review of general rules, feces, and ignorance. MBio. 2018;9:4.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    75.Shade A. Diversity is the question, not the answer. ISME J. 2017;11:1–6.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Pallen MJ. The human microbiome and host-pathogen interactions. In: Metagenomics of the human body. New York, NY: Springer; 2011; p 43–61.77.Amato KR, Leigh SR, Kent A, Mackie RI, Yeoman CJ, Stumpf RM, et al. The gut microbiota appears to compensate for seasonal diet variation in the wild black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra). Micro Ecol. 2014;69:434–43.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    78.Barribeau SM, Villinger J, Waldman B. Ecological immunogenetics of life-history traits in a model amphibian. Biol Lett. 2012;8:405–7.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    79.Feng T, Elson CO. Adaptive immunity in the host-microbiota dialog. Mucosal Immunol. 2011;4:15–21.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    80.Amato KR. Incorporating the gut microbiota into models of human and non-human primate ecology and evolution. Am J Phys Anthropol. 2016;159:196–215.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    81.Knowles SCL, Eccles RM, Baltrūnaitė L. Species identity dominates over environment in shaping the microbiota of small mammals. Ecol Lett. 2019;22:826–37.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Detecting the effects of predator-induced stress on the global metabolism of an ungulate prey using fecal metabolomic fingerprinting

    1.Schmitz, O. J., Krivan, V. & Ovadia, O. Trophic cascades: the primacy of trait-mediated indirect interactions. Ecol. Lett. 7, 153–163 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Creel, S. & Christianson, D. Relationships between direct predation and risk effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23(4), 194–201 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Ritchie, E. G. et al. Ecosystem restoration with teeth: what role for predators?. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27(5), 265–271 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Terborgh, J. & Estes, J. A. Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature (Island Press, 2010).
    Google Scholar 
    5.Creel, S. & Winnie, J. A. Responses of elk herd size to fine scale spatial and temporal variation in the risk of predation by wolves. Anim. Behav. 69, 1181–1189 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Fischhoff, I. R., Sundaresan, S. R., Cordingley, J. & Rubenstein, D. I. Habitat use and movements of plains zebra (Equus burchelli) in response to predation danger from lions. Behav. Ecol. 18, 725–729 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Latombe, G., Fortin, D. & Parrott, L. Spatio-temporal dynamics in the response of woodland caribou and moose to the passage of grey wolves. J. Anim. Ecol. 83, 185–198 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Prugh, L. R. et al. Designing studies of predation risk for improved inference in carnivore-ungulate systems. Biol. Conserv. 232, 194–207 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Creel, S., Winnie, J. A. & Christianson, D. Glucocorticoid stress hormones and the effect of predation risk on elk reproduction. PNAS 106(30), 12388–12393 (2009).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Dulude-de Broin, F., Hamel, S., Mastromonaco, G. F. & Côté, S. D. Predation risk and mountain goat reproduction: evidence for stress-induced breeding suppression in a wild ungulate. Funct. Ecol. 34(5), 1003–1014 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Moberg, G. P. & Mench, J. A. The Biology of Animal Stress: Basic Principles and Implications for Animal Welfare (CABI Publishing, 2000).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Boonstra, R. The ecology of stress: a marriage of disciplines. Funct. Ecol. 27, 7–10 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Sheriff, M. J., Dantzer, B., Delehanty, B., Palme, R. & Boonstra, R. Measuring stress in wildlife: techniques for quantifying glucocorticoids. Oecologia 166, 869–887 (2011).ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Kelley, K. W. Immunological consequences of changing environmental stimuli. In Animal Stress (ed. Moberg, G. P.) 193–223 (American Physiological Society, Bethesda, 1985).15.Mӧstl, E. & Palme, R. Hormones as indicators of stress. Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 23, 67–74 (2002).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Ursin, H. & Eriksen, H. R. The cognitive activation theory of stress. Psychoneuroendocrinology 29(5), 567–592 (2004).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Lovallo, W. R. Individual differences in reactivity to stress. In Stress and Health. Biological and Psychological Interactions (ed. Lovallo, W. R.) 203–225 (Sage, 2016).18.Patchev, V. K. & Patchev, A. V. Experimental models of stress. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 8(4), 417–432 (2006).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Mills, J. L. Scientific Principles of Stress (University of the West Indie Press, 2012).
    Google Scholar 
    20.Henry, J. P. Biological basis of the stress response. Integr. Physiol. Behav. Sci. 27, 66–83 (1992).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Wu, Y., Patchev, A. V., Daniel, G., Almeida, O. F. X. & Spengler, D. Early-life stress reduces DNA methylation of the Pomc gene in male mice. Endocrinology 155(5), 1751–1762 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Novais, A., Monteiro, S., Roque, S., Correia-Neves, M. & Sousa, N. How age, sex and genotype shape the stress response. Neurob. Stress 6, 44–56 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Romero, L. M. & Gormally, B. M. G. How truly conserved is the “well-conserved” vertebrate stress response?. Integr. Comp. Biol. 59(2), 273–281 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Millspaugh, J. J. & Washburn, B. E. Use of fecal glucocorticoid metabolite measures in conservation biology research: considerations for application and interpretation. Gen. Comp. Endocrinol. 138, 189–199 (2004).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Romero, L. M. Physiological stress in ecology: lessons from biomedical research. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19(5), 249–255 (2004).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Johnstone, C. P., Reina, R. D. & Lill, A. Interpreting indices of physiological stress in free-living vertebrates. J. Comp. Physiol. B 182, 861–879 (2012).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Mayer, E. A., Knight, R., Mazmanian, S. K., Cryan, J. F. & Tillisch, K. Gut microbes and the brain: paradigm shift in neuroscience. J. Neurosci. 34, 15490–15496 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Sharon, G., Sampson, T. R., Geschwind, D. H. & Mazmanian, S. K. The central nervous system and the gut microbiome. Cell 167, 915–932 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Mohajeri, M. H., La Fata, G., Steinert, R. E. & Weber, P. Relationship between the gut microbiome and brain function. Nutr. Rev. 76, 481–496 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Bravo, J. A., Forsythe, P., Chew, M. V., Escaravage, E. & Savignac, H. M. Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve. PNAS 108(38), 16050–16055 (2011).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Beauclercq, S. et al. A multiplatform metabolomic approach to characterize fecal signatures of negative postnatal events in chicks: a pilot study. J Anim. Sci. Biotechnol. 10, 21 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Jianguo, L., Xueyang, J., Cui, W., Changxin, W. & Xuemei, Q. Altered gut metabolome contributes to depression-like behaviors in rats exposed to chronic unpredictable mild stress. Transl. Psychiatry 9, 1–14 (2019).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Valerio, A., Casadei, L., Giuliani, A. & Valerio, M. Fecal metabolomics as a novel non-invasive method for short-term stress monitoring in beef cattle. J. Proteome Res. 19(2), 845–853 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Nicholson, J. K. et al. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions. Science 336, 1262–1267 (2012).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Nicholson, J. K., Connelly, J., Lindon, J. C. & Holmes, E. Metabolomics: a platform for studying drug toxicity and gene function. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 153–161 (2002).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Lindon, J. C., Nicholson, J. K. & Holmes, E. The Handbook of Metabonomics and Metabolomics (Elsevier, 2007).
    Google Scholar 
    37.Matysik, S., Le Roy, C. I., Liebisch, G. & Claus, S. P. Metabolomics of fecal samples: a practical consideration. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 57, 244–255 (2016).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Nicholson, J. K. & Lindon, J. C. Metabonomics. Nature 455, 1054–1056 (2008).ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Viant, M. R. Environmental metabolomics using 1H-NMR spectroscopy. Methods Mol. Biol. 410, 137–150 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Ellis, D. I., Dunn, W. B., Griffin, J. L., Allwood, J. W. & Goodacre, R. Metabolic fingerprinting as a diagnostic tool. Pharmacogenomics 8(9), 1243–1266 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Worley, B. & Powers, R. Multivariate analysis in metabolomics. Curr. Metabolomics 1(1), 92–107 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Rivas-Ubach, A. et al. Ecometabolomics: optimized NMR-based method. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4(5), 464–473 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Chen, M. X., Wang, S. Y., Kuo, C. H. & Tsai, I. L. Metabolome analysis for investigating host-gut microbiota interactions. JFMA 118(1), S10–S22 (2019).
    Google Scholar 
    44.Emwas, A. H. M. The Strengths and weaknesses of NMR spectroscopy and mass spectrometry with particular focus on metabolomics research. In Metabonomics. Methods in Molecular Biology (ed. Bjerrum, J. T.) 1277, 161–193 (Human Press, 2015).45.Emwas, A. H. M. et al. NMR spectroscopy for metabolomics research. Metabolites 9(7), 123 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Nicholson, J. K., Connelly, J., Lindon, J. C. & Holmes, E. Metabonomics: a platform for studying drug toxicity and gene function. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 1, 153–161 (2002).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Wiles, G. J., Allen, H. L. & Hayes, G. E. Wolf Conservation and Management Plan for Washington (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2011).
    Google Scholar 
    48.Schmitz, O. J. & Trussell, G. C. Multiple stressors, state-dependence and predation risk-foraging trade-offs: toward a modern concept of trait-mediated indirect effects in communities and ecosystems. Curr. Opin. Behav. 12, 6–11 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Brown, J. A. Mortality of Range Livestock in Wolf-Occupied Areas of Washington. Thesis. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA (2015).50.Fieberg, J. & Kochanny, C. O. Quantification of home range overlap: the importance of the utilization distribution. J. Wildl. Manag. 69, 1346–1359 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Robert, K., Garant, D. & Pelletier, F. Keep in touch: does spatial overlap correlate with contact rate frequency?. J. Wildl. Manag. 76(8), 1670–1675 (2012).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Angel, S. P. et al. Climate change and cattle production: impact and adaptation. J. Vet. Med. Res. 5(4), 1134 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    53.Brosh, A. et al. Energy cost of cows’ grazing activity: use of the heart rate method and the global positioning system for direct field estimation. J. Anim. Sci. 84, 1951–1967 (2006).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Provenza, F. D. Postingestive feed-back as an elemental determinant of food preference and intake in ruminants. J. Range Manag. 48, 2–17 (1995).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Provenza, F. D. Acquired aversions as the basis for varied diets of ruminants foraging on rangelands. J. Anim. Sci. 74, 2010–2020 (1996).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Howery, L. D., Provenza, F. D., Ruyle, G. B. & Jordan, N. C. How do animals learn if rangeland plants are toxic or nutritious?. Rangelands 20, 4–9 (1998).
    Google Scholar 
    57.Davitt, B. B. & Nelson, J. R. Methodology for the determination of DAPA in feces of large ruminants. In Proceedings of the Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop (ed. Nelson, R.W.) 133–147 (Edmonton, 1984).58.Church, D. C. Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants I (Oxford Press, 1969).
    Google Scholar 
    59.Sato, S. Leadership during actual grazing in a small herd of cattle. Appl. Anim. Ethol. 8, 53–65 (1982).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Frair, J. L. et al. Resolving issues of imprecise and habitat-biased locations in ecological analyses using GPS telemetry data. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B 365, 2187–2200 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Deda, O., Gika, H. G., Wilson, I. D. & Theodoridis, G. A. An overview of fecal preparation for global metabolic profiling. J. Pharm. Biomed. 113, 137–150 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Landakadurai, B. P., Nagato, E. G. & Simpson, M. J. Environmental metabolomics: an emerging approach to study organism responses to environmental stressors. Environ. Rev. 21, 180–205 (2013).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Wiklund, S. et al. Visualization of GC/TOF-MS-based metabolomics data for identification of biochemically interesting compounds using OPLS class models. Anal. Chem. 80, 115–122 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Wishart, D. S. et al. HMDB: a knowledgebase for the human metabolome. Nucl. Acids Res. 37, D603–D610 (2009).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Frair, J. L. et al. Scale of movement by elk (Cervus elaphus) in response to heterogeneity in forage resources and predation risk. Landsc. Ecol. 20, 273–287 (2005).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Valerio, A. Stress-Mediated and Habitat-Mediated Risk Effects of Free-Ranging Cattle in Washington. Dissertation. Washington State University, Pullman, WA (2019).67.Winnie, J. & Creel, S. Sex-specific behavioral responses of elk to spatial and temporal variation in the threat of wolf predation. Anim. Behav. 73, 215–225 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Bundy, J. G., Davey, M. P. & Viant, M. R. Environmental metabolomics: a critical review and future perspectives. Metabolomics 5, 3–21 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Regulation of olfactomedin 4 by Porphyromonas gingivalis in a community context

    1.Lamont RJ, Koo H, Hajishengallis G. The oral microbiota: dynamic communities and host interactions. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2018;16:745–59.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Fitzsimonds ZR, Rodriguez-Hernandez CJ, Bagaitkar J, Lamont RJ. From beyond the pale to the pale riders: The emerging association of bacteria with oral cancer. J Dent Res. 2020;99:604–12.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Al-Hebshi NN, Borgnakke WS, Johnson NW. The microbiome of oral squamous cell carcinomas: a functional perspective. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2019;6:145–60.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Hajishengallis G, Lamont RJ. Dancing with the stars: how choreographed bacterial interactions dictate nososymbiocity and give rise to keystone pathogens, accessory pathogens, and pathobionts. Trends Microbiol. 2016;24:477–89.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Jiao Y, Hasegawa M, Inohara N. The role of oral pathobionts in dysbiosis during periodontitis development. J Dent Res. 2014;93:539–46.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Daep CA, Novak EA, Lamont RJ, Demuth DR. Structural dissection and in vivo effectiveness of a peptide inhibitor of Porphyromonas gingivalis adherence to Streptococcus gordonii. Infect Immun. 2011;79:67–74.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Kuboniwa M, Houser JR, Hendrickson EL, Wang Q, Alghamdi SA, Sakanaka A, et al. Metabolic crosstalk regulates Porphyromonas gingivalis colonization and virulence during oral polymicrobial infection. Nat Microbiol. 2017;2:1493–9.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Mahmoud MY, Steinbach-Rankins JM, Demuth DR. Functional assessment of peptide-modified PLGA nanoparticles against oral biofilms in a murine model of periodontitis. J Control Release. 2019;297:3–13.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Mans JJ, von Lackum K, Dorsey C, Willis S, Wallet SM, Baker HV, et al. The degree of microbiome complexity influences the epithelial response to infection. BMC Genomics. 2009;10:380.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Ohshima J, Wang Q, Fitzsimonds ZR, Miller DP, Sztukowska MN, Jung YJ, et al. Streptococcus gordonii programs epithelial cells to resist Zeb2 induction by Porphyromonas gingivalis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116:8544–53.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Miller DP, Fitzsimonds ZR, Lamont RJ. Metabolic signaling and spatial interactions in the oral polymicrobial community. J Dent Res. 2019;98:1308–14.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Lamont RJ, Hajishengallis G. Polymicrobial synergy and dysbiosis in inflammatory disease. Trends Mol Med. 2015;21:172–83.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Benjamini Y, Drai D, Elmer G, Kafkafi N, Golani I. Controlling the false discovery rate in behavior genetics research. Behav Brain Res. 2001;125:279–84.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Lyon D, Junge A, Wyder S, Huerta-Cepas J, et al. String v11: Protein-protein association networks with increased coverage, supporting functional discovery in genome-wide experimental datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019;47:D607–13.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-Seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biol. 2014;15:550.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Team RCR: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2019.17.Tang Y, Horikoshi M, Li W. Ggfortify: Unified interface to visualize statistical results of popular R packages. R J. 2016;8:478–89.Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Gu Z, Eils R, Schlesner M. Complex heatmaps reveal patterns and correlations in multidimensional genomic data. Bioinformatics. 2016;32:2847–9.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Lex A, Gehlenborg N, Strobelt H, Vuillemot R, Pfister H. Upset: Visualization of intersecting sets. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph. 2014;20:1983–92.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Liu W, Lee HW, Liu Y, Wang R, Rodgers GP. Olfactomedin 4 is a novel target gene of retinoic acids and 5-aza-2’-deoxycytidine involved in human myeloid leukemia cell growth, differentiation, and apoptosis. Blood. 2010;116:4938–47.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Liu W, Rodgers GP. Olfactomedin 4 expression and functions in innate immunity, inflammation, and cancer. Cancer Metastasis Rev. 2016;35:201–12.PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Chen T, Siddiqui H, Olsen I. In silico comparison of 19 Porphyromonas gingivalis strains in genomics, phylogenetics, phylogenomics and functional genomics. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7:28.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Dashper SG, Mitchell HL, Seers CA, Gladman SL, Seemann T, Bulach DM, et al. Porphyromonas gingivalis uses specific domain rearrangements and allelic exchange to generate diversity in surface virulence factors. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:48.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.To TT, Liu Q, Watling M, Bumgarner RE, Darveau RP, McLean JS. Draft genome sequence of low-passage clinical isolate Porphyromonas gingivalis MP4-504. Genome Announc. 2016;4:e00256–16.25.Acuna-Amador L, Primot A, Cadieu E, Roulet A, Barloy-Hubler F. Genomic repeats, misassembly and reannotation: a case study with long-read resequencing of Porphyromonas gingivalis reference strains. BMC Genom. 2018;19:54.Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Ye L, Kriegl L, Reiter FP, Munker SM, Itzel T, Teufel A, et al. Prognostic significance and functional relevance of olfactomedin 4 in early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2020;11:e00124.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Li Y, Gong Y, Ma J, Gong X. Overexpressed circ-RPL15 predicts poor survival and promotes the progression of gastric cancer via regulating mir-502-3p/OLFM4/STAT3 pathway. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020;127:110219.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Cong Z, Ye G, Bian Z, Yu M, Zhong M. Jagged-1 attenuates LPS-induced apoptosis and ROS in rat intestinal epithelial cells. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2018;11:3994–4003.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Ashizawa Y, Kuboki S, Nojima H, Yoshitomi H, Furukawa K, Takayashiki T, et al. OLFM4 enhances STAT3 activation and promotes tumor progression by inhibiting GRIM19 expression in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol Commun. 2019;3:954–70.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Lu J, Ye X, Fan F, Xia L, Bhattacharya R, Bellister S, et al. Endothelial cells promote the colorectal cancer stem cell phenotype through a soluble form of Jagged-1. Cancer Cell. 2013;23:171–85.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Zhou Y, Sztukowska M, Wang Q, Inaba H, Potempa J, Scott DA, et al. Noncanonical activation of β-catenin by Porphyromonas gingivalis. Infect Immun. 2015;83:3195–203.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Lasica AM, Ksiazek M, Madej M, Potempa J. The type IX secretion system (T9SS): highlights and recent insights into its structure and function. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2017;7:215.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Bozkulak EC, Weinmaster G. Selective use of ADAM10 and ADAM17 in activation of Notch1 signaling. Mol Cell Biol. 2009;29:5679–95.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Mark Welch JL, Ramirez-Puebla ST, Borisy GG. Oral microbiome geography: micron-scale habitat and niche. Cell Host Microbe. 2020;28:160–8.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Mark Welch JL, Rossetti BJ, Rieken CW, Dewhirst FE, Borisy GG. Biogeography of a human oral microbiome at the micron scale. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113:E791–800.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Stacy A, McNally L, Darch SE, Brown SP, Whiteley M. The biogeography of polymicrobial infection. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:93–105.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Meuric V, Martin B, Guyodo H, Rouillon A, Tamanai-Shacoori Z, Barloy-Hubler F, et al. Treponema denticola improves adhesive capacities of Porphyromonas gingivalis. Mol Oral Microbiol. 2013;28:40–53.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Redanz S, Cheng X, Giacaman RA, Pfeifer CS, Merritt J, Kreth J. Live and let die: Hydrogen peroxide production by the commensal flora and its role in maintaining a symbiotic microbiome. Mol Oral Microbiol. 2018;33:337–52.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Kuboniwa M, Tribble GD, James CE, Kilic AO, Tao L, Herzberg MC, et al. Streptococcus gordonii utilizes several distinct gene functions to recruit Porphyromonas gingivalis into a mixed community. Mol Microbiol. 2006;60:121–39.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Potempa J, Nguyen KA. Purification and characterization of gingipains. Curr Protoc Protein Sci. 2007; 20:1–27.41.Liu X, Ramsey MM, Chen X, Koley D, Whiteley M, Bard AJ. Real-time mapping of a hydrogen peroxide concentration profile across a polymicrobial bacterial biofilm using scanning electrochemical microscopy. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:2668–73.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Shinozaki S, Nakamura T, Iimura M, Kato Y, Iizuka B, Kobayashi M, et al. Upregulation of Reg 1α and GW112 in the epithelium of inflamed colonic mucosa. Gut. 2001;48:623–9.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Liu W, Yan M, Liu Y, Wang R, Li C, Deng C, et al. Olfactomedin 4 down-regulates innate immunity against Helicobacter pylori infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107:11056–61.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Jauregui CE, Wang Q, Wright CJ, Takeuchi H, Uriarte SM, Lamont RJ. Suppression of T-cell chemokines by Porphyromonas gingivalis. Infect Immun. 2013;81:2288–95.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Takeuchi H, Hirano T, Whitmore SE, Morisaki I, Amano A, Lamont RJ. The serine phosphatase SerB of Porphyromonas gingivalis suppresses IL-8 production by dephosphorylation of NF-κB RelA/p65. PLoS Pathog. 2013;9:e1003326.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Bostanci N, Belibasakis GN. Porphyromonas gingivalis: an invasive and evasive opportunistic oral pathogen. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2012;333:1–9.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Hajishengallis G. Porphyromonas gingivalis-host interactions: open war or intelligent guerilla tactics? Microbes Infect. 2009;11:637–45.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Zhang X, Huang Q, Yang Z, Li Y, Li CY. GW112, a novel antiapoptotic protein that promotes tumor growth. Cancer Res. 2004;64:2474–81.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Stark JE, Opoka AM, Fei L, Zang H, Davies SM, Wong HR, et al. Longitudinal characterization of olfactomedin-4 expressing neutrophils in pediatric patients undergoing bone marrow transplantation. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0233738.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Marimuthu A, Chavan S, Sathe G, Sahasrabuddhe NA, Srikanth SM, Renuse S, et al. Identification of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma biomarker candidates through proteomic analysis of cancer cell secretome. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2013;1834:2308–16.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Gao XZ, Wang GN, Zhao WG, Han J, Diao CY, Wang XH, et al. Blocking OLFM4/HIF-1α axis alleviates hypoxia-induced invasion, epithelial-mesenchymal transition, and chemotherapy resistance in non-small-cell lung cancer. J Cell Physiol. 2019;234:15035–43.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Kobayashi D, Koshida S, Moriai R, Tsuji N, Watanabe N. Olfactomedin 4 promotes S-phase transition in proliferation of pancreatic cancer cells. Cancer Sci. 2007;98:334–40.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Xiu MX, Liu YM, Kuang BH. The oncogenic role of Jagged1/Notch signaling in cancer. Biomed Pharmacother. 2020;129:110416.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Al-Attar A, Alimova Y, Kirakodu S, Kozal A, Novak MJ, Stromberg AJ, et al. Activation of Notch-1 in oral epithelial cells by P. gingivalis triggers the expression of the antimicrobial protein PLA2-IIA. Mucosal Immunol. 2018;11:1047–59.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Zhang B, Elmabsout AA, Khalaf H, Basic VT, Jayaprakash K, Kruse R, et al. The periodontal pathogen Porphyromonas gingivalis changes the gene expression in vascular smooth muscle cells involving the TGFβ/Notch signalling pathway and increased cell proliferation. BMC Genom. 2013;14:770.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Xing Q, Ye Q, Fan M, Zhou Y, Xu Q, Sandham A. Porphyromonas gingivalis lipopolysaccharide inhibits the osteoblastic differentiation of preosteoblasts by activating Notch1 signaling. J Cell Physiol. 2010;225:106–14.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Weber S, Saftig P. Ectodomain shedding and ADAMs in development. Development. 2012;139:3693–709.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Smith TM Jr, Tharakan A, Martin RK. Targeting ADAM10 in cancer and autoimmunity. Front Immunol. 2020;11:499.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Stasikowska-Kanicka O, Wagrowska-Danilewicz M, Kulicka P, Danilewicz M. Overexpression of ADAM10 in oral squamous cell carcinoma with metastases. Pol J Pathol. 2018;69:67–72.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Saha N, Robev D, Himanen JP, Nikolov DB. ADAM proteases: Emerging role and targeting of the non-catalytic domains. Cancer Lett. 2019;467:50–57.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Hocevar K, Vizovisek M, Wong A, Koziel J, Fonovic M, Potempa B, et al. Proteolysis of gingival keratinocyte cell surface proteins by gingipains secreted from Porphyromonas gingivalis—proteomic insights into mechanisms behind tissue damage in the diseased gingiva. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:722.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Aw J, Scholz GM, Huq NL, Huynh J, O’Brien-Simpson NM, Reynolds EC. Interplay between Porphyromonas gingivalis and EGF signalling in the regulation of CXCL14. Cell Microbiol. 2018;20:e12837.PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Tada H, Matsuyama T, Nishioka T, Hagiwara M, Kiyoura Y, Shimauchi H, et al. Porphyromonas gingivalis gingipain-dependently enhances IL-33 production in human gingival epithelial cells. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0152794.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Kesavalu L, Holt SC, Ebersole JL. Virulence of a polymicrobic complex, Treponema denticola and Porphyromonas gingivalis, in a murine model. Oral Microbiol Immunol. 1998;13:373–7.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Ebersole JL, Feuille F, Kesavalu L, Holt SC. Host modulation of tissue destruction caused by periodontopathogens: effects on a mixed microbial infection composed of Porphyromonas gingivalis and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Micro Pathog. 1997;23:23–32.CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Orth RK, O’Brien-Simpson NM, Dashper SG, Reynolds EC. Synergistic virulence of Porphyromonas gingivalis and Treponema denticola in a murine periodontitis model. Mol Oral Microbiol. 2011;26:229–40.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Bradshaw DJ, Marsh PD, Watson GK, Allison C. Role of Fusobacterium nucleatum and coaggregation in anaerobe survival in planktonic and biofilm oral microbial communities during aeration. Infect Immun. 1998;66:4729–32.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Tan KH, Seers CA, Dashper SG, Mitchell HL, Pyke JS, Meuric V, et al. Porphyromonas gingivalis and Treponema denticola exhibit metabolic symbioses. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10:e1003955.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Diaz PI, Zilm PS, Rogers AH. Fusobacterium nucleatum supports the growth of Porphyromonas gingivalis in oxygenated and carbon-dioxide-depleted environments. Microbiology. 2002;148:467–72.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Aruni AW, Roy F, Fletcher HM. Filifactor alocis has virulence attributes that can enhance its persistence under oxidative stress conditions and mediate invasion of epithelial cells by Porphyromonas gingivalis. Infect Immun. 2011;79:3872–86.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Aruni AW, Zhang K, Dou Y, Fletcher H. Proteome analysis of coinfection of epithelial cells with Filifactor alocis and Porphyromonas gingivalis shows modulation of pathogen and host regulatory pathways. Infect Immun. 2014;82:3261–74.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Wang Q, Wright CJ, Dingming H, Uriarte SM, Lamont RJ. Oral community interactions of Filifactor alocis in vitro. PLoS One. 2013;8:e76271.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Chioma O, Aruni AW, Milford TA, Fletcher HM. Filifactor alocis collagenase can modulate apoptosis of normal oral keratinocytes. Mol Oral Microbiol. 2017;32:166–77.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Ishihara K. Virulence factors of Treponema denticola. Periodontol 2000. 2010;54:117–35.PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    75.Aruni AW, Roy F, Sandberg L, Fletcher HM. Proteome variation among Filifactor alocis strains. Proteomics. 2012;12:3343–64.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Umana A, Sanders BE, Yoo CC, Casasanta MA, Udayasuryan B, Verbridge SS, et al. Utilizing whole fusobacterium genomes to identify, correct, and characterize potential virulence protein families. J Bacteriol. 2019;201:e00273–19.77.Duan D, Scoffield JA, Zhou X, Wu H. Fine-tuned production of hydrogen peroxide promotes biofilm formation of Streptococcus parasanguinis by a pathogenic cohabitant Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:4023–36.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    78.Stacy A, Everett J, Jorth P, Trivedi U, Rumbaugh KP, Whiteley M. Bacterial fight-and-flight responses enhance virulence in a polymicrobial infection. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:7819–24.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    79.Stacy A, Fleming D, Lamont RJ, Rumbaugh KP, Whiteley M. A commensal bacterium promotes virulence of an opportunistic pathogen via cross-respiration. mBio 2016;7:e00782–16.80.Smalley JW, Birss AJ, Withnall R, Silver J. Interactions of Porphyromonas gingivalis with oxyhaemoglobin and deoxyhaemoglobin. Biochem J. 2002;362:239–45.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    81.Brown JL, Yates EA, Bielecki M, Olczak T, Smalley JW. Potential role for Streptococcus gordonii-derived hydrogen peroxide in heme acquisition by Porphyromonas gingivalis. Mol Oral Microbiol. 2018;33:322–35.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    82.Hajishengallis G. Periodontitis: from microbial immune subversion to systemic inflammation. Nat Rev Immunol. 2015;15:30–44.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    83.Valm AM, Mark Welch JL, Rieken CW, Hasegawa Y, Sogin ML, Oldenbourg R, et al. Systems-level analysis of microbial community organization through combinatorial labeling and spectral imaging. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011;108:4152–7.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    84.Griffen AL, Beall CJ, Campbell JH, Firestone ND, Kumar PS, Yang ZK, et al. Distinct and complex bacterial profiles in human periodontitis and health revealed by 16S pyrosequencing. ISME J. 2012;6:1176–85.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Integrative analysis of the microbiome and metabolome in understanding the causes of sugarcane bitterness

    Soil microbial diversity and community structureIn total, 1,334,381 reads were obtained for the bacterial 16S rRNA genes by high-throughput sequencing. After screening these gene sequences with strict criteria (described in “Materials and methods”), 1,061,916 valid sequences were obtained, accounting for 79.6% of the raw reads. Figure 1A shows that the observed richness, Chao1, and Shannon index in the SS (sweet sugarcane) group supported significantly higher richness (P  More

  • in

    Vaccinate in biodiversity hotspots to protect people and wildlife from each other

    Rural areas of low-to-middle-income countries host most biodiversity hotspots, where interactions between people and wildlife are frequent. These regions have less access to vaccines than do urban centres (Local Burden of Disease Vaccine Coverage Collaborators Nature 589, 415–419; 2021).Given the broad potential range of hosts for SARS-CoV-2, we suggest that vaccinating often-neglected populations around protected areas will reduce the risk of people infecting wildlife and creating secondary reservoirs of disease, and thence risking potential reinfection of humans with new variants. This should be considered after vaccination of priority groups, such as older people and health workers.Vaccinating people who live near felids, non-human primates, bats and other animals protects wildlife and limits ‘reverse spillovers’. Such events have been documented for various human respiratory viruses, for instance in wild great apes in west Africa (S. Köndgen et al. Curr. Biol. 18, 260–264; 2008).Non-standard actors, such as national park authorities or conservation organizations, could help vaccination to reach remote regions. This is called a One Health approach: it protects the health of people, animals and the environment. More

  • in

    Contaminant organisms recorded on plant product imports to South Africa 1994–2019

    Sample collection and handlingSource of samples to be screenedSouth Africa currently has 72 official points of entry—8 seaports, 10 airports and 54 land border posts10. The DALRRD has border inspectors at most of these points (although staffing levels have varied considerably). DALRRD border inspectors inspect goods and travellers entering the country for plant contaminants. As part of DALRRD’s biosecurity protocol, three types of samples are collected and sent to DALRRD laboratories in Stellenbosch or Pretoria for further investigation (Fig. 1).

    1.

    Intervention samples. If the border inspector finds or suspects a pest or pathogen in a consignment, he/she will take a sample and send it to one of DALRRD’s diagnostic laboratories. A suspicion of contamination is often the result of quarantine organisms being detected on previous consignments of the same commodity. The imported consignment is detained at the border until laboratory results are completed. Due to the time-sensitivity of such imports, the samples are usually only inspected or tested for the taxa of concern.

    2.

    Audit samples. As above, these samples are drawn from consignments of plant products for immediate use. However, they are drawn on an ad hoc (haphazard) basis from consignments that show no signs of contamination during border inspections. In the laboratory, these samples are often inspected or tested for multiple taxa.

    3.

    Post-entry quarantine (PEQ) samples. Plant products for propagation purposes or nursery material (e.g. in vitro plantlets, seedlings, budwood) are shipped in sealed packages and transported directly to DALRRD’s agricultural quarantine facilities. For small consignments (under 50 units), all units in the consignment are tested and inspected by laboratory officials. For larger consignments, random samples are drawn and inspected following a hypergeometric sampling protocol11. Inspection for arthropods and initial examination for micro-organisms takes place in a biosecurity containment facility (see Saccaggi & Pieterse12 for further details). The material is then grown in a dedicated quarantine facility and further testing for pathogens takes place when the plants are in active growth.

    Fig. 1Summary of border and laboratory processes associated with each of the three import sample sources included in this dataset, namely post-entry quarantine (PEQ), intervention and audit samples. Solid lines indicate that these processes are always followed, while dashed lines indicate that the process is sometimes followed. PEQ samples are received from plant propagation or nursery material that needs to be quarantined upon arrival. Intervention samples are received from consignments in which the border inspector finds or suspects a pest or pathogen. Audit samples are ad hoc samples drawn from consignments that show no sign of contamination. These sample sources are explained in more detail in the text.Full size imageTaxa inspection, testing and identification methodsAll inspections, testing and identifications are carried out by DALRRD laboratory officials specialised in each taxonomic group. Taxonomic identifications are routinely done by DALRRD officials, taxonomists at the Biosystematics Division of the South African Agricultural Research Council (ARC) or higher education institutions, depending on the expertise available at the time. All recorded identifications in the dataset were retained, regardless of level of identification or biosecurity status of the organism. It should, however, be noted that all organisms found were not always recorded (see below for further explanation).Arthropods (mostly insects and mites) and Molluscs are detected via visual inspection using a stereo-microscope. For these taxa, all organisms detected are recorded. Organisms are most commonly identified morphologically, with molecular identification being performed for certain groups. Identification is performed to the point at which a reasonable phytosanitary decision can be made (i.e. sometimes taxonomic precision is sacrificed for time and/or resource efficiency and logistic reasons). Thus specimens from predatory or saprophytic groups are often only identified to family or genus, while specimens within plant-feeding groups are identified to species where possible.Nematodes are detected by extraction from samples using relevant extraction methods. Saprophytic and predatory nematodes are sometimes noted, but often ignored as they are not considered to be of phytosanitary concern. Plant-feeding nematodes are identified morphologically to species where possible.Fungi and Bacteria are detected visually in the growing plant, as well as by conventional isolation and plating techniques, followed by biochemical tests and/or morphological identification. Some targeted pathogens are detected and identified by molecular techniques such as PCR and DNA sequencing. Saprophytic or secondary fungi or bacteria are sometimes noted, but often not recorded as part of the sample record.Viruses are screened for by immunological techniques, notably ELISA and hardwood and herbaceous indexing. ELISA techniques detect a target virus of concern and give no information as to the presence or absence of other viruses in the sample. Hardwood and herbaceous indexing are used to determine if any graft- or mechanically-transmissible viruses are present in the sample, although these methods cannot be used to determine the viruses’ identity.Phytoplasma screening is done by nested PCR designed to detect any phytoplasma. On specific crops, phytoplasma groups are detected by using targeted PCR methods. If necessary, sequencing of PCR products is used for more specific identification.Data collection and handlingMetadata for samples were recorded by the border inspector before submission to DALRRD’s laboratories. Ideally, he/she recorded geographic origin of the commodity, crop and sample type, date of collection, details of importer and exporter, organisms to test for and any additional observations. However, in practice, this information was not always recorded in full. See Tables 1, 2 and 3 for more details on information included in the dataset. Due to the sensitivity of this kind of trade data, some of the data in the current dataset are grouped or anonymised to protect confidentiality. In particular, import date is only listed as month and year and the names of importers and exporters are removed.Table 1 A summary of information fields and descriptions for each imported sample recorded in the South African plant import dataset used in the datasheet “List of contaminants on SA plant imports 1994–2019.csv”23.Full size tableTable 2 Information fields and descriptions for taxa information associated with contaminant organisms detected on import samples received by South Africa used in the datasheet “Metadata of contaminants on SA plant imports 1994–2019.csv”23.Full size tableTable 3 List of import commodity types used in the datasheet “List of contamiants on SA plant imports 1994–2019.csv”23. The original categories listed by the inspectors were expanded to 30 commodity types based on additional laboratory information and expert experience.Full size tableElectronic databases of samples received by the DALRRD laboratories were maintained by the laboratory staff. These databases were not official departmental databases and therefore did not need to include information relevant to other sections involved in biosecurity. For instance, total number of imports, total size of each consignment, observations of the inspector, details of phytosanitary certificates and release or detention of the consignment were never recorded. The databases also included samples processed by the laboratory for export or for national pest surveys. Partly due to their unofficial status, the databases were transient, with new databases started once software became outdated, the old one became too big or when new categories or information were to be included. For this study, we collated, curated and cross-checked information from nine of these databases, spanning 26 years from 1994 to 2019.Recorded laboratory data varied between taxa and over time and as priorities and understanding of biosecurity changed. In the initial years considered here (ca. 1994–2000), the focus was on pests or pathogens of quarantine importance, i.e. those on the prohibited list. Other organisms found on samples were not consistently recorded and, when they were, they were often recorded in broad groupings (e.g. “saprophytic nematodes”). More recently, there has been a shift towards recording all organisms detected, but this has still not been done consistently [although from ~2005 onwards the officials responsible for arthropods and molluscs have tried to record everything found (DS, MA personal observations)]. Thus prohibited (i.e. quarantine organisms) were always recorded, but the recording of other contaminants was inconsistent.Data clean-up started with collation of all data from the nine databases. Initially, these contained 99,023 records, with 50,655 recorded as imports, 31,163 as exports, 11,004 as surveys with the remaining 6,201 falling into other categories or uncategorised. Only imports were retained, as this was the only category of interest for this study. For some imports, sample information was recorded in one database, while results of inspections/tests for different taxa were recorded in other databases. Thus a single sample could have up to four duplicate records. Each of these was checked individually and collated into one record for the sample. Spelling mistakes, incorrectly recorded information (e.g. information recorded in the wrong field) and missing information were traced back through paper records and corrected wherever possible. If the original data could not be found, these ambiguous records were excluded. After this data clean-up, the dataset comprised a list of 26,291 import records, of which 2,572 resulted from intervention samples (sample source 1 above, Fig. 1), 10,629 were audit samples (sample source 2 above, Fig. 1) and 13,090 were PEQ samples (sample source 3 above, Fig. 1). Data clean-up then continued for the organisms found on the imported samples.Taxon names were extracted and spelling and classification were corrected and/or added by hand. The list of taxa was checked against the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)13 using the software package ‘rgbif’14 in Rstudio version 1.3.95915 running R version 4.0.216. This highlighted additional spelling mistakes and provided a taxonomic backbone to work from. The classification of a number of taxa had changed over the years and thus using a common taxonomic backbone was needed for consistency. Some taxa, most notably some mite species, could not be found on GBIF. In these cases, the taxonomy provided by the taxonomist who initially identified the organism was retained. Virus taxonomic information was also not available on GBIF and the database of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV) was used17.Species occurrence in South Africa was determined by consulting published species distribution lists. The following data sources were consulted: GBIF13 (accessed 29 July and 03 Aug 2020); CABI Crop Pest Compendiums and Invasive Species Compendium18,19,20; the Catalogue of Life21; animal species checklists published by the South African Biodiversity Institute (SANBI)22; and for any remaining species internet searches were conducted for literature citing distributions (listed in Table 2).In South Africa, lists of organisms prohibited from entering the country have been compiled by DALRRD and the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFtE). DFFtE’s list of prohibited species focussed mostly on organisms of environmental concern, although some prohibited organisms were also of agricultural concern, while DALRRD is only concerned with agricultural pests. DALRRD issues import permits for each unique crop, commodity and country combination from which plant products originate. Thus there is no single consolidated quarantine list for South Africa. Furthermore, any quarantine list is not static, but needs to change as species’ distributions, taxonomic revisions or pest status changes. Thus it is very difficult to provide a list of which detected organisms are of quarantine status to South Africa at any given time and particularly in a dataset spanning 26 years. As far as possible, we have indicated the regulatory status of the species in the datasheet “Metadata of contaminants on SA plant imports 1994–2019.csv”23. This regulatory status would have been of critical importance to inform contemporary phytosanitary decisions. However, given that such lists are dynamic and a core aim of presenting these data is to facilitate analyses of future invaders9, it is important to present information on all organisms detected. Moreover, this allows a more comprehensive assessment of the role of different pathways and will facilitate comparisons with other countries. More

  • in

    Benthic and coral reef community field data for Heron Reef, Southern Great Barrier Reef, Australia, 2002–2018

    This study describes a unique point-based data set for coral reef environments, collected using a photoquadrat survey method published for seagrass environments1. The data set describes the spatial and temporal distribution of benthic community abundance and composition for Heron Reef, a 28 km2 shallow platform reef located in the Capricorn Bunker Group, Southern Great Barrier Reef (GBR), Australia. On average, 3,600 coral reef data points were collected annually over the period 2002 to 2018. Annual data sets were acquired for independent research projects, but the collection methods were consistent. The initial field data collection design was planned to acquire detailed field data to describe the spatial distribution and variability of benthic composition across the study site to assist with calibration and validation of earth observation-based mapping products.To create a map based on earth observation imagery, it is common to use training or calibration data to transform the imagery into a map of surface properties using a supervised algorithm (e.g. multivariate statistical clustering, random forest)2. To report on the accuracy measures of the maps, reference or validation data are contrasted with the output maps3. Hence for calibration and validation purposes, georeferenced field data must be representative of all the features to be mapped and collection should ideally coincide with satellite image acquisition. Many earth observation approaches have been implemented for mapping the benthic communities of Heron Reef4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 and several of these maps are now accessible online6,13,14.Several studies have utilised time series benthic data to analyse changes in benthic community and coral type trends, supporting broad ecological knowledge of coral reef ecosystems such as the Caribbean reef degradation15 and coral cover decline on the GBR16. Similarly, benthic community and coral cover data sets have been identified as important indicators of coral reef health providing the backbone for monitoring and management initiatives around the world17,18.Articles and data sets have been published that describe the benthic community properties of Heron Reef, however, their spatial coverage, number of georeferenced data points, and revisit times are limited19. The time series photoquadrat data sets presented in this paper could be used for further understanding of benthic community distribution, including statistical analysis of trends in coral cover, analysis of changes in benthic community and coral type, or used for testing of other earth observation-based mapping and modelling approaches. Additionally, as our methodology describes machine annotation of the field photoquadrats, it would be possible to reanalyse the photoquadrats with new categories not previously considered important from a biological perspective (e.g. unknown disease or impact, or a specific benthic community type), or for other features (e.g. the counting of sea cucumbers (Holothuroidea sp.)).Detailed analyses of our complete data set may permit a greater understanding of the persistence and/or dynamics of the benthic community at Heron Reef. As such, our ongoing analyses include evaluation of changes in community composition following major impacts such as cyclones, coral bleaching, crown of thorns predation, etc., and additionally, statistical analyses of coral recovery after such impacts. To this degree, these benthic community data sets are invaluable. More