More stories

  • in

    Gene drives gaining speed

    1.Serebrovsky, A. S. On the possibility of a new method for the control of insect pests. Zool. Zh. 19, 618–630 (1940).
    Google Scholar 
    2.Curtis, C. F. Possible use of translocations to fix desirable genes in insect pest populations. Nature 218, 368–369 (1968). This paper is one of the first to describe how reciprocal chromosomal translocations could be used to drive a favoured linked trait in a threshold-dependent fashion.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Dawkins, R. The Selfish Gene Vol. 345 (Oxford University Press, 1976).4.Bastide, H. et al. Rapid rise and fall of selfish sex-ratio X chromosomes in Drosophila simulans: spatiotemporal analysis of phenotypic and molecular data. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28, 2461–2470 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Corbett-Detig, R., Medina, P., Frerot, H., Blassiau, C. & Castric, V. Bulk pollen sequencing reveals rapid evolution of segregation distortion in the male germline of Arabidopsis hybrids. Evol. Lett. 3, 93–103 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Kingan, S. B., Garrigan, D. & Hartl, D. L. Recurrent selection on the Winters sex-ratio genes in Drosophila simulans. Genetics 184, 253–265 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.McLaughlin, R. N. Jr. & Malik, H. S. Genetic conflicts: the usual suspects and beyond. J. Exp. Biol. 220, 6–17 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Presgraves, D. C., Gerard, P. R., Cherukuri, A. & Lyttle, T. W. Large-scale selective sweep among segregation distorter chromosomes in African populations of Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS Genet. 5, e1000463 (2009).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Seymour, D. K., Chae, E., Arioz, B. I., Koenig, D. & Weigel, D. Transmission ratio distortion is frequent in Arabidopsis thaliana controlled crosses. Heredity 122, 294–304 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Courret, C., Chang, C. H., Wei, K. H., Montchamp-Moreau, C. & Larracuente, A. M. Meiotic drive mechanisms: lessons from Drosophila. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286, 20191430 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Kusano, A., Staber, C., Chan, H. Y. & Ganetzky, B. Closing the (Ran)GAP on segregation distortion in Drosophila. Bioessays 25, 108–115 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Merel, V., Boulesteix, M., Fablet, M. & Vieira, C. Transposable elements in Drosophila. Mob. DNA 11, 23 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Boulesteix, M. & Biemont, C. Transposable elements in mosquitoes. Cytogenet. Genome Res. 110, 500–509 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Lee, Y. C. & Langley, C. H. Transposable elements in natural populations of Drosophila melanogaster. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 365, 1219–1228 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Kelleher, E. S. Reexamining the P-element invasion of Drosophila melanogaster through the lens of piRNA silencing. Genetics 203, 1513–1531 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Majumdar, S. & Rio, D. C. P transposable elements in drosophila and other eukaryotic organisms. Microbiol. Spectr. 3, MDNA3–0004-2014 (2015).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Burns, K. H. & Boeke, J. D. Human transposon tectonics. Cell 149, 740–752 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Doring, H. P., Tillmann, E. & Starlinger, P. DNA sequence of the maize transposable element Dissociation. Nature 307, 127–130 (1984).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Wallau, G. L., Capy, P., Loreto, E. & Hua-Van, A. Genomic landscape and evolutionary dynamics of mariner transposable elements within the Drosophila genus. BMC Genomics 15, 727 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Hawkins, J. S., Hu, G., Rapp, R. A., Grafenberg, J. L. & Wendel, J. F. Phylogenetic determination of the pace of transposable element proliferation in plants: copia and LINE-like elements in Gossypium. Genome 51, 11–18 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Biemont, C., Vieira, C., Borie, N. & Lepetit, D. Transposable elements and genome evolution: the case of Drosophila simulans. Genetica 107, 113–120 (1999).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Buchman, A. B., Ivy, T., Marshall, J. M., Akbari, O. S. & Hay, B. A. Engineered reciprocal chromosome translocations drive high threshold, reversible population replacement in drosophila. ACS Synth. Biol. 7, 1359–1370 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Akbari, O. S. et al. Novel synthetic Medea selfish genetic elements drive population replacement in Drosophila; a theoretical exploration of Medea-dependent population suppression. ACS Synth. Biol. 3, 915–928 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Buchman, A., Marshall, J. M., Ostrovski, D., Yang, T. & Akbari, O. S. Synthetically engineered Medea gene drive system in the worldwide crop pest Drosophila suzukii. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 4725–4730 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Champer, J., Zhao, J., Champer, S. E., Liu, J. & Messer, P. W. Population dynamics of underdominance gene drive systems in continuous space. ACS Synth. Biol. 9, 779–792 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Chen, C. C. et al. EXO1 suppresses double-strand break induced homologous recombination between diverged sequences in mammalian cells. DNA Repair. 57, 98–106 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Leftwich, P. T. et al. Recent advances in threshold-dependent gene drives for mosquitoes. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 46, 1203–1212 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Raban, R. R., Marshall, J. M. & Akbari, O. S. Progress towards engineering gene drives for population control. J. Exp. Biol. 223 (Suppl. 1), jeb208181 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Ward, C. M. et al. Medea selfish genetic elements as tools for altering traits of wild populations: a theoretical analysis. Evolution 65, 1149–1162 (2011).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Oberhofer, G., Ivy, T. & Hay, B. A. Gene drive and resilience through renewal with next generation Cleave and Rescue selfish genetic elements. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9013–9021 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Oberhofer, G., Ivy, T. & Hay, B. A. Cleave and Rescue, a novel selfish genetic element and general strategy for gene drive. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 6250–6259 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Champer, J. et al. A toxin-antidote CRISPR gene drive system for regional population modification. Nat. Commun. 11, 1082 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Yen, P. S. & Failloux, A. B. A review: Wolbachia-based population replacement for mosquito control shares common points with genetically modified control approaches. Pathogens 9, 404 (2020).PubMed Central 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    34.O’Neill, S. L. The use of wolbachia by the world mosquito program to interrupt transmission of aedes aegypti transmitted viruses. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 1062, 355–360 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Niang, E. H. A., Bassene, H., Fenollar, F. & Mediannikov, O. Biological control of mosquito-borne diseases: the potential of wolbachia-based interventions in an IVM framework. J. Trop. Med. 2018, 1470459 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Chevalier, B. S. & Stoddard, B. L. Homing endonucleases: structural and functional insight into the catalysts of intron/intein mobility. Nucleic Acids Res. 29, 3757–3774 (2001).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Macreadie, I. G., Scott, R. M., Zinn, A. R. & Butow, R. A. Transposition of an intron in yeast mitochondria requires a protein encoded by that intron. Cell 41, 395–402 (1985).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Rong, Y. S. & Golic, K. G. The homologous chromosome is an effective template for the repair of mitotic DNA double-strand breaks in Drosophila. Genetics 165, 1831–1842 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Chan, Y. S., Huen, D. S., Glauert, R., Whiteway, E. & Russell, S. Optimising homing endonuclease gene drive performance in a semi-refractory species: the Drosophila melanogaster experience. PLoS ONE 8, e54130 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Windbichler, N. et al. A synthetic homing endonuclease-based gene drive system in the human malaria mosquito. Nature 473, 212–215 (2011). This study is the first demonstration of nuclease-mediated gene drive in mosquitoes based on the homing endonuclease gene I-SceI.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Carroll, D. Genome engineering with targetable nucleases. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 83, 409–439 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Barrangou, R. et al. CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315, 1709–1712 (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Jinek, M. et al. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337, 816–821 (2012). This foundational study developed the most widely used dual synthetic CRISPR system consisting of Cas9 endonuclease and gRNA components.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Doudna, J. A., Sternberg, S. H. A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution 281 (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017).45.Gantz, V. M. & Bier, E. The mutagenic chain reaction: a method for converting heterozygous to homozygous mutations. Science 348, 442–444 (2015). This study reported the first CRISPR-based gene drive in a metazoan organism (D. melanogaster) with a specialized germline.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Gantz, V. M. et al. Highly efficient Cas9-mediated gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E6736–E6743 (2015). This study describes the first efficient CRISPR-based gene drive system in mosquitoes, which carried a dual anti-malarial effector cassette.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Hammond, A. et al. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive system targeting female reproduction in the malaria mosquito vector Anopheles gambiae. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 78–83 (2016). This study describes the first efficient CRISPR-based suppression gene drive system in mosquitoes.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Kyrou, K. et al. A CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive targeting doublesex causes complete population suppression in caged Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 1062–1066 (2018). This study describes a highly efficient suppression gene drive system in mosquitoes targeting an invariant genome target site in the doublesex locus.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Li, M. et al. Development of a confinable gene drive system in the human disease vector Aedes aegypti. eLife 9, e51701 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Grunwald, H. A. et al. Super-Mendelian inheritance mediated by CRISPR-Cas9 in the female mouse germline. Nature 566, 105–109 (2019). This study provided the first proof-of-principle gene drive system in mammals, which selectively sustained drive via the female germline.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.DiCarlo, J. E., Chavez, A., Dietz, S. L., Esvelt, K. M. & Church, G. M. Safeguarding CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives in yeast. Nat. Biotechnol. 33, 1250–1255 (2015). This study demonstrated CRISPR-based gene conversion in diploid yeast, which could then be transmitted meiotically.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Valderrama, J. A., Kulkarni, S. S., Nizet, V. & Bier, E. A bacterial gene-drive system efficiently edits and inactivates a high copy number antibiotic resistance locus. Nat. Commun. 10, 5726 (2019). This study generalizes the concept of gene drive to bacteria, where it is applied to efficiently reduce the frequency of antibiotic reistance.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Esvelt, K. M., Smidler, A. L., Catteruccia, F. & Church, G. M. Concerning RNA-guided gene drives for the alteration of wild populations. eLife 3, e03401 (2014).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Adolfi, A. et al. Efficient population modification gene-drive rescue system in the malaria mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Nat. Commun. 11, 5553 (2020). This study reports on the first recoded gene drive in mosquitoes that drove efficiently through both males and females based on the process of lethal/sterile mosaicism.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Champer, J. et al. A CRISPR homing gene drive targeting a haplolethal gene removes resistance alleles and successfully spreads through a cage population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 24377–24383 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Kandul, N. P., Liu, J., Bennett, J. B., Marshall, J. M. & Akbari, O. S. A confinable home-and-rescue gene drive for population modification. eLife 10, e65939 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Terradas, G. et al. Inherently confinable split-drive systems in Drosophila. Nat. Commun. 12, 1480 (2021). This study further develops the strategy of inserting a recoded gene drive in genes essential for viability or reproduction in the context of split drive systems.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Xu, X. S., Gantz, V. M., Siomava, N. & Bier, E. CRISPR/Cas9 and active genetics-based trans-species replacement of the endogenous Drosophila kni-L2 CRM reveals unexpected complexity. eLife 6, e30281 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Lopez Del Amo, V. et al. A transcomplementing gene drive provides a flexible platform for laboratory investigation and potential field deployment. Nat. Commun. 11, 352 (2020). This study reports on the reconstitution of a full gene drive from split constituent parts.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.Guichard, A. et al. Efficient allelic-drive in Drosophila. Nat. Commun. 10, 1640 (2019). The study develops two allelic drive systems, copy-cutting and copy-grafting, to propagate favoured alleles of an essential gene.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Kandul, N. P. et al. Assessment of a split homing based gene drive for efficient knockout of multiple genes. G3 10, 827–837 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Xu, X.-R. S. et al. Active-genetic neutralizing elements for halting or deleting gene-drives. Mol. Cell 80, 246–262 (2020). This study reports on two drive-neutralizing systems that either inactivate (e-CHACR) or delete and replace (ERACR) a gene drive.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Burt, A. Site-specific selfish genes as tools for the control and genetic engineering of natural populations. Proc. Biol. Sci. 270, 921–928 (2003). This seminal modelling study provides the theoretical underpinnings for the modern gene-drive field.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.North, A. R., Burt, A. & Godfray, H. C. J. Modelling the potential of genetic control of malaria mosquitoes at national scale. BMC Biol. 17, 26 (2019). This study provides a comprehensive analysis of the perfomance of suppressive gene drives following iterative releases across various topographies.PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.North, A. R., Burt, A. & Godfray, H. C. J. Modelling the suppression of a malaria vector using a CRISPR-Cas9 gene drive to reduce female fertility. BMC Biol. 18, 98 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Collins, C. M., Bonds, J. A. S., Quinlan, M. M. & Mumford, J. D. Effects of the removal or reduction in density of the malaria mosquito, Anopheles gambiae s.l., on interacting predators and competitors in local ecosystems. Med. Vet. Entomol. 33, 1–15 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.James, A. A. Gene drive systems in mosquitoes: rules of the road. Trends Parasitol. 21, 64–67 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Gantz, V. M. & Bier, E. The dawn of active genetics. Bioessays 38, 50–63 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Macias, V. M. & James, A. A. in Genetic Control of Malaria and Dengue (ed. Adelman, Z. N.) 423–444 (Elsevier Academic Press, 2015).70.Eckhoff, P. A., Wenger, E. A., Godfray, H. C. & Burt, A. Impact of mosquito gene drive on malaria elimination in a computational model with explicit spatial and temporal dynamics. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E255–E264 (2017). This study provides a detailed analysis of drive parameters relevant to both suppression-based and modification-based drives and is the first to model a drive in the context of a two-dimensional environment.CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    71.Hammond, A. M. et al. The creation and selection of mutations resistant to a gene drive over multiple generations in the malaria mosquito. PLoS Genet. 13, e1007039 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    72.Joyce, E. F., Paul, A., Chen, K. E., Tanneti, N. & McKim, K. S. Multiple barriers to nonhomologous DNA end joining during meiosis in Drosophila. Genetics 191, 739–746 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    73.Bozas, A., Beumer, K. J., Trautman, J. K. & Carroll, D. Genetic analysis of zinc-finger nuclease-induced gene targeting in Drosophila. Genetics 182, 641–651 (2009).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    74.Do, A. T., Brooks, J. T., Le Neveu, M. K. & LaRocque, J. R. Double-strand break repair assays determine pathway choice and structure of gene conversion events in Drosophila melanogaster. G3 4, 425–432 (2014).PubMed 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    75.Wei, D. S. & Rong, Y. S. A genetic screen for DNA double-strand break repair mutations in Drosophila. Genetics 177, 63–77 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    76.Lin, C. C. & Potter, C. J. Non-Mendelian dominant maternal effects caused by CRISPR/Cas9 transgenic components in Drosophila melanogaster. G3 6, 3685–3691 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    77.Champer, J. et al. Novel CRISPR/Cas9 gene drive constructs reveal insights into mechanisms of resistance allele formation and drive efficiency in genetically diverse populations. PLoS Genet. 13, e1006796 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    78.Anopheles gambiae 1000 Genomes Consortiumet al. Genetic diversity of the African malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Nature 552, 96–100 (2017).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    79.Deredec, A., Burt, A. & Godfray, H. C. The population genetics of using homing endonuclease genes in vector and pest management. Genetics 179, 2013–2026 (2008).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    80.Fasulo, B. et al. A fly model establishes distinct mechanisms for synthetic CRISPR/Cas9 sex distorters. PLoS Genet. 16, e1008647 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    81.Galizi, R. et al. A synthetic sex ratio distortion system for the control of the human malaria mosquito. Nat. Commun. 5, 3977 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    82.Galizi, R. et al. A CRISPR-Cas9 sex-ratio distortion system for genetic control. Sci. Rep. 6, 31139 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    83.Turner, J. M. Meiotic sex chromosome inactivation. Development 134, 1823–1831 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    84.Simoni, A. et al. A male-biased sex-distorter gene drive for the human malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Nat. Biotechnol. 38, 1054–1060 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    85.Carballar-Lejarazu, R. & et al. Next-generation gene drive for population modification of the malaria vector mosquito, Anopheles gambiae.Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 22805–22814 (2020). This study describes a modification gene drive that propagates with high efficiency through both males and females.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    86.Pham, T. B. et al. Experimental population modification of the malaria vector mosquito, Anopheles stephensi. PLoS Genet. 15, e1008440 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    87.Dong, Y., Simoes, M. L. & Dimopoulos, G. Versatile transgenic multistage effector-gene combinations for Plasmodium falciparum suppression in Anopheles. Sci. Adv. 6, eaay5898 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    88.Dong, Y. et al. Engineered anopheles immunity to Plasmodium infection. PLoS Pathog. 7, e1002458 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    89.Isaacs, A. T. et al. Transgenic Anopheles stephensi coexpressing single-chain antibodies resist Plasmodium falciparum development. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, E1922–E1930 (2012). This study demonstrates 100% protection against parasite transmission in transgenic mosquitoes carrying a dual anti-parasite effector cassette.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    90.Haber, J. E. TOPping off meiosis. Mol. Cell 57, 577–581 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    91.Hammond, A. et al. Regulating the expression of gene drives is key to increasing their invasive potential and the mitigation of resistance. PLoS Genet. 17, e1009321 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    92.Lee, Y. et al. Genome-wide divergence among invasive populations of Aedes aegypti in California. BMC Genomics 20, 204 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    93.Callaway, E. Gene drives thwarted by emergence of resistant organisms. Nature 542, 15 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    94.Unckless, R. L., Clark, A. G. & Messer, P. W. Evolution of resistance against CRISPR/Cas9 gene drive. Genetics 205, 827–841 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    95.Drury, D. W., Dapper, A. L., Siniard, D. J., Zentner, G. E. & Wade, M. J. CRISPR/Cas9 gene drives in genetically variable and nonrandomly mating wild populations. Sci. Adv. 3, e1601910 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    96.Schmidt, H. et al. Abundance of conserved CRISPR-Cas9 target sites within the highly polymorphic genomes of Anopheles and Aedes mosquitoes. Nat. Commun. 11, 1425 (2020). This study provides computational evidence that conserved CRISPR cleavage sites are abundant in the genome.CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    97.Akbari, O. S. et al. Safeguarding gene drive experiments in the laboratory. Science 349, 927–929 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    98.Li, J. et al. Genome-block expression-assisted association studies discover malaria resistance genes in Anopheles gambiae. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 20675–20680 (2013).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    99.Niu, G. et al. The fibrinogen-like domain of FREP1 protein is a broad-spectrum malaria transmission-blocking vaccine antigen. J. Biol. Chem. 292, 11960–11969 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    100.Zhang, G. et al. Anopheles midgut FREP1 mediates plasmodium invasion. J. Biol. Chem. 290, 16490–16501 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    101.Dong, Y., Simoes, M. L., Marois, E. & Dimopoulos, G. CRISPR/Cas9 -mediated gene knockout of Anopheles gambiae FREP1 suppresses malaria parasite infection. PLoS Pathog. 14, e1006898 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    102.Simoes, M. L., Caragata, E. P. & Dimopoulos, G. Diverse host and restriction factors regulate mosquito-pathogen interactions. Trends Parasitol. 34, 603–616 (2018).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    103.Nash, A. et al. Integral gene drives for population replacement. Biol. Open 8, bio037762 (2019). This study describes a bipartite drive system that can enable testing of anti-parasite effector cassettes under standard mosquito confinement protocols.CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    104.Enayati, A., Hanafi-Bojd, A. A., Sedaghat, M. M., Zaim, M. & Hemingway, J. Evolution of insecticide resistance and its mechanisms in Anopheles stephensi in the WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region. Malar. J. 19, 258 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    105.Ffrench-Constant, R. H., Williamson, M. S., Davies, T. G. & Bass, C. Ion channels as insecticide targets. J. Neurogenet. 30, 163–177 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    106.Silva, J. J. & Scott, J. G. Conservation of the voltage-sensitive sodium channel protein within the Insecta. Insect Mol. Biol. 29, 9–18 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    107.Casida, J. E. & Durkin, K. A. Novel GABA receptor pesticide targets. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 121, 22–30 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    108.Ihara, M., Buckingham, S. D., Matsuda, K. & Sattelle, D. B. Modes of action, resistance and toxicity of insecticides targeting nicotinic acetylcholine receptors. Curr. Med. Chem. 24, 2925–2934 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    109.Thapa, S., Lv, M. & Xu, H. Acetylcholinesterase: a primary target for drugs and insecticides. Mini Rev. Med. Chem. 17, 1665–1676 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    110.Kleinstiver, B. P. et al. Engineered CRISPR-Cas12a variants with increased activities and improved targeting ranges for gene, epigenetic and base editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 37, 276–282 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    111.Walton, R. T., Christie, K. A., Whittaker, M. N. & Kleinstiver, B. P. Unconstrained genome targeting with near-PAMless engineered CRISPR-Cas9 variants. Science 368, 290–296 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    112.Committee on Gene Drive Research in Non-Human Organisms: Recommendations for Responsible Conduct; Board on Life Sciences; Division on Earth and Life Studies; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values (The National Academies Press, 2016). This comprehensive advisory and historical review document summarizes consensus views for how to safely rear and study gene-drive systems in the laboratory.113.Adelman, Z. et al. Rules of the road for insect gene drive research and testing. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 716–718 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    114.James, S. et al. Pathway to deployment of gene drive mosquitoes as a potential biocontrol tool for elimination of malaria in Sub-Saharan Africa: recommendations of a scientific working group(dagger). Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 98, 1–49 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    115.James, S. L., Marshall, J. M., Christophides, G. K., Okumu, F. O. & Nolan, T. Toward the definition of efficacy and safety criteria for advancing gene drive-modified mosquitoes to field testing. Vector Borne Zoonotic Dis. 20, 237–251 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    116.Warmbrod, K. L. et al. Gene Drives: Pursuing Opportunities, Minimizing Risk – A Johns Hopkins University Report on Responsible Governance (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Health Security, Johns Hopkins University, 2020).117.Vella, M. R., Gunning, C. E., Lloyd, A. L. & Gould, F. Evaluating strategies for reversing CRISPR-Cas9 gene drives. Sci. Rep. 7, 11038 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    118.Rode, N. O., Courtier-Orgogozo, V. & Debarre, F. Can a population targeted by a CRISPR-based homing gene drive be rescued? G3 10, 3403–3415 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    119.Fedoroff, N., Wessler, S. & Shure, M. Isolation of the transposable maize controlling elements Ac and Ds. Cell 35, 235–242 (1983).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    120.Paix, A. et al. Precision genome editing using synthesis-dependent repair of Cas9-induced DNA breaks. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E10745–E10754 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    121.Wu, B., Luo, L. & Gao, X. J. Cas9-triggered chain ablation of cas9 as a gene drive brake. Nat. Biotechnol. 34, 137–138 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    122.Taxiarchi, C. et al. A genetically encoded anti-CRISPR protein constrains gene drive spread and prevents population suppression. Nat. Commun. 12, 3977 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    123.Conklin, B. R. On the road to a gene drive in mammals. Nature 566, 43–45 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    124.Salkeld, D. J. Vaccines for conservation: plague, prairie dogs & black-footed ferrets as a case study. Ecohealth 14, 432–437 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    125.Teem, J. L. et al. Genetic biocontrol for invasive species. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 452 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    126.Godwin, J. et al. Rodent gene drives for conservation: opportunities and data needs. Proc. Biol. Sci. 286, 20191606 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    127.McFarlane, G. R., Whitelaw, C. B. A. & Lillico, S. G. CRISPR-based gene drives for pest control. Trends Biotechnol. 36, 130–133 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    128.Klompe, S. E., Vo, P. L. H., Halpin-Healy, T. S. & Sternberg, S. H. Transposon-encoded CRISPR-Cas systems direct RNA-guided DNA integration. Nature 571, 219–225 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    129.Koonin, E. V., Makarova, K. S., Wolf, Y. I. & Krupovic, M. Evolutionary entanglement of mobile genetic elements and host defence systems: guns for hire. Nat. Rev. Genet. 21, 119–131 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    130.Strecker, J. et al. RNA-guided DNA insertion with CRISPR-associated transposases. Science 365, 48–53 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    131.Peters, J. E., Makarova, K. S., Shmakov, S. & Koonin, E. V. Recruitment of CRISPR-Cas systems by Tn7-like transposons. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, E7358–E7366 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    132.Wiegand, T. & Wiedenheft, B. CRISPR Surveillance Turns Transposon Taxi. CRISPR J. 3, 10–12 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    133.Hamilton, T. A. et al. Efficient inter-species conjugative transfer of a CRISPR nuclease for targeted bacterial killing. Nat. Commun. 10, 4544 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    134.Price, V. J. et al. Enterococcus faecalis CRISPR-cas is a robust barrier to conjugative antibiotic resistance dissemination in the murine intestine. mSphere 4, e00464-19 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    135.Rodrigues, M., McBride, S. W., Hullahalli, K., Palmer, K. L. & Duerkop, B. A. Conjugative delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 for the selective depletion of antibiotic-resistant enterococci. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 63, e01454-19 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    136.Carraro, N. et al. Plasmid-like replication of a minimal streptococcal integrative and conjugative element. Microbiology 162, 622–632 (2016).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    137.Brophy, J. A. N. et al. Engineered integrative and conjugative elements for efficient and inducible DNA transfer to undomesticated bacteria. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 1043–1053 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    138.Bikard, D. et al. Exploiting CRISPR-Cas nucleases to produce sequence-specific antimicrobials. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1146–1150 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    139.Citorik, R. J., Mimee, M. & Lu, T. K. Sequence-specific antimicrobials using efficiently delivered RNA-guided nucleases. Nat. Biotechnol. 32, 1141–1145 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    140.Yosef, I., Manor, M., Kiro, R. & Qimron, U. Temperate and lytic bacteriophages programmed to sensitize and kill antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7267–7272 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    141.Park, J. Y. et al. Genetic engineering of a temperate phage-based delivery system for CRISPR/Cas9 antimicrobials against Staphylococcus aureus. Sci. Rep. 7, 44929 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    142.Pazda, M., Kumirska, J., Stepnowski, P. & Mulkiewicz, E. Antibiotic resistance genes identified in wastewater treatment plant systems – a review. Sci. Total. Env. 697, 134023 (2019).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    143.Kraemer, S. A., Ramachandran, A. & Perron, G. G. Antibiotic pollution in the environment: from microbial ecology to public policy. Microorganisms 7, 180 (2019).CAS 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    144.Ram, G., Ross, H. F., Novick, R. P., Rodriguez-Pagan, I. & Jiang, D. Conversion of staphylococcal pathogenicity islands to CRISPR-carrying antibacterial agents that cure infections in mice. Nat. Biotechnol. 36, 971–976 (2018).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    145.Bier, E. & Nizet, V. Driving to safety: CRISPR-based genetic approaches to reducing antibiotic resistance. Trends Genet. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2021.02.007 (2021).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    146.Rossati, A. et al. Climate, environment and transmission of malaria. Infez. Med. 24, 93–104 (2016).PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    147.Fontenille, D. & Powell, J. R. From anonymous to public enemy: how does a mosquito become a feared arbovirus vector? Pathogens 9, 265 (2020).PubMed Central 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    148.Lidani, K. C. F. et al. Chagas disease: from discovery to a worldwide health problem. Front. Public Health 7, 166 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    149.Buscher, P., Cecchi, G., Jamonneau, V. & Priotto, G. Human African trypanosomiasis. Lancet 390, 2397–2409 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    150.Desjeux, P. Leishmaniasis: current situation and new perspectives. Comp. Immunol. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 27, 305–318 (2004).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    151.Saxena, V., Bolling, B. G. & Wang, T. West nile virus. Clin. Lab. Med. 37, 243–252 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    152.Simon, L. V., Kong, E. L. & Graham, C. in St. Louis Encephalitis (StatPearls, 2020).153.Feng, X. et al. Optimized CRISPR tools and site-directed transgenesis towards gene drive development in Culex quinquefasciatus mosquitoes. Nat. Commun. 12, 2960 (2021).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    154.Nepomichene, T. N., Andrianaivolambo, L., Boyer, S. & Bourgouin, C. Efficient method for establishing F1 progeny from wild populations of Anopheles mosquitoes. Malar. J. 16, 21 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    155.Marchand, R. P. A new cage for observing mating behavior of wild Anopheles gambiae in the laboratory. J. Am. Mosq. Control. Assoc. 1, 234–236 (1985).CAS 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    156.Nunes-da-Fonseca, R., Berni, M., Tobias-Santos, V., Pane, A. & Araujo, H. M. Rhodnius prolixus: from classical physiology to modern developmental biology. Genesis https://doi.org/10.1002/dvg.22995 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    157.Chaverra-Rodriguez, D. et al. Targeted delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein into arthropod ovaries for heritable germline gene editing. Nat. Commun. 9, 3008 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    158.Macias, V. M. et al. Cas9-mediated gene-editing in the malaria mosquito anopheles stephensi by ReMOT Control. G3 10, 1353–1360 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    159.Chaverra-Rodriguez, D. et al. Germline mutagenesis of Nasonia vitripennis through ovarian delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein. Insect Mol. Biol. 29, 569–577 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    160.Heu, C. C., McCullough, F. M., Luan, J. & Rasgon, J. L. CRISPR-Cas9-based genome editing in the silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia tabaci). CRISPR J. 3, 89–96 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    161.Prowse, T. A., Adikusuma, F., Cassey, P., Thomas, P. & Ross, J. V. A Y-chromosome shredding gene drive for controlling pest vertebrate populations. eLife 8, e41873 (2019).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    162.Carballar-Lejarazu, R. & James, A. A. Population modification of Anopheline species to control malaria transmission. Pathog. Glob. Health 111, 424–435 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    163.Annas, G. J. et al. A code of ethics for gene drive research. CRISPR J. 4, 19–24 (2021).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    164.Bier, E. & Sober, E. Gene editing and the war against malaria. Am. Sci. 108, 162–169 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    165.Long, K. C. et al. Core commitments for field trials of gene drive organisms. Science 370, 1417–1419 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    166.Kormos, A. et al. Application of the relationship-based model to engagement for field trials of genetically engineered malaria vectors.Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 104, 805–811 (2020).PubMed Central 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    167.World Health Organization. Guidance framework for testing of genetically modified mosquitoes. WHO http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/127889/1/9789241507486_eng.pdf (2014).168.Smith, D. L., McKenzie, F. E., Snow, R. W. & Hay, S. I. Revisiting the basic reproductive number for malaria and its implications for malaria control. PLoS Biol. 5, e42 (2007).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    169.Brauer, F., Castillo-Chavez, C., Mubayi, A. & Towers, S. Some models for epidemics of vector-transmitted diseases. Infect. Dis. Model. 1, 79–87 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    170.Deredec, A., Godfray, H. C. & Burt, A. Requirements for effective malaria control with homing endonuclease genes. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, E874–E880 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    171.Escalante, A. A. & Pacheco, M. A. Malaria molecular epidemiology: an evolutionary genetics perspective. Microbiol. Spectr. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.AME-0010-2019 (2019).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    172.Selvaraj, P. et al. Vector genetics, insecticide resistance and gene drives: An agent-based modeling approach to evaluate malaria transmission and elimination. PLoS Comput. Biol. 16, e1008121 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    A large dataset of detection and submeter-accurate 3-D trajectories of juvenile Chinook salmon

    JSATS acoustic receiver deploymentsTwo types of acoustic receivers were deployed for this study: cabled and autonomous acoustic receivers (Table 1). These systems were deployed in the Snake River in eastern Washington State and in the lower Columbia River along the Oregon/Washington border. Two hydropower dams were outfitted with cabled acoustic receiver arrays: LGS and LMN. This allowed passage routes to be defined at each of these dams for each of the tagged fish. Transects of autonomous acoustic receivers (i.e., receiver arrays) were deployed immediately upstream and downstream of each of these dams for computing dam passage survival, and at several other locations to estimate cumulative mortality. From the release site to the final autonomous acoustic receiver array, fish detected at the final array will have passed through LGS, LMN, Ice Harbor, McNary, John Day, The Dalles, and Bonneville Dams. Each of these dams feature powerhouses with large, vertical Kaplan runners19 and spillways utilizing radial or vertical lift spillway gates. Most also include juvenile bypass systems (JBS; Table 1) and surface spill weirs20 to provide safer passage routes for fish.Before deployment, all hydrophones and receivers were evaluated in an acoustic tank lined with anechoic materials at the PNNL Bio-Acoustics & Flow Laboratory (BFL21). The BFL is accredited by the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation to ISO/IEC 17025:2005, which is the international standard for calibration and testing laboratories. The accreditation scope (Certificate Number 3267.01) includes hydrophone sensitivity measurements and power-level measurements of sound sources for frequencies from 50 to 500 kHz for both military equipment and commercial components. The evaluation involved simulating transmissions from tags located at increasing distances. This allowed the performance of each receiver to be validated prior to deployment to ensure the expected detection range will likely be achieved.Cabled receivers – deployment, hardware, and data processingA JSATS cabled acoustic receiver system2 consists of up to four narrowband hydrophones; various types of hydrophone cables (e.g., four-channel “deck” cables, “y-blocks” that split the “deck” cables to individual connectors, and “wet” cables that run from the surface down into the water); a signal-conditioning, variable-gain amplifier; a data acquisition card that features a high-speed, analog-to-digital converter, a digital signal processor and field-programmable gate array; a GPS receiver for synchronizing time among multiple systems; a data acquisition computer; and software for detecting22 and decoding23,24 the acoustic waveforms. Deploying these systems within the forebay of a hydropower dam typically involves rigidly mounting slotted pipes to the upstream edge of the pier nose between the powerhouse and spillway bays. The cabled hydrophones are mounted on “trolleys” that have an L-shaped arm that protrudes and rides in the slot in the pipe and allows the hydrophone to be mounted pointing upstream. Conical baffles containing anechoic material are installed around the hydrophones to block noise coming from behind the hydrophone—either noise from the dam or reflections off the concrete. To obtain the locations of hydrophones that have been lowered below the water surface, survey equipment is used to sight the tip of the hydrophone as it is lowered down the pier nose. This provides the true direction and slope of the pier nose, which is used, along with the length of braided steel cable attached to the trolley to lower it into place, to calculate the 3-D location in space for each hydrophone. The individual “wet” cables for each hydrophone are routed to the forebay deck, where they are combined into “deck” cables carrying four signals using the “y-block” cables. The deck cables are routed to mobile trailers that house the acoustic receiver equipment. Acoustic beacons that send out JSATS tag-code signals every 15 to 60 s are deployed alongside several of the hydrophones across the array. These beacons are used primarily for quality control, to monitor (typically through the internet from an off-site location) the performance of each hydrophone to determine whether there is a reduction in performance so that any malfunctioning hydrophones can be repaired as soon as possible.Two main programs run on the JSATS cabled receiver data acquisition computer. The first program is an energy-based detector software22 that collects the raw acoustic waveforms whenever the hydrophone signal meets a prescribed set of criteria. The second is decoder software24 that processes the waveforms saved by the detector to determine whether there is a valid detection (i.e., a decoded signal that has a valid CRC). If there is a valid detection, the decoded tag-code is saved to a text file, along with the detection time and other metadata. The detector software writes the binary waveform files to the hard drive using the *.bwm file type. The decoder is configured to wait for *.bwm files to be generated. Once a new *.bwm file is detected, the decoder will open the file, decode the data contained in the file, and then change the file extension to *.com to indicate that this file was decoded. If the detector saves data faster than the decoder can process it, for example at a hydraulic structure that is generating large amounts of acoustic noise (e.g., spillways with vertical lift gates), the decoder is configured to skip waveform files to avoid falling behind. Although these files may be skipped, the data contained within these files will still be used because the two different file extensions allow for readily identifying which files were not decoded in real time so that they can be decoded offline in a separate processing step after retrieving the data. The data is physically collected every 1–2 weeks, by swapping out the data collection hard drives. To make sure that all detection waveforms are processed by the decoder, the collected hard drives are put into data processing machines to decode any files that still have the *.bwm file extension. After confirming that all files have been decoded, either in real time or through post-processing after data retrieval, the decoded data from every hydrophone is checked for gaps in data. If a hydrophone is functional, there should be no large gaps in decoded data, since there are multiple stationary acoustic beacons deployed with the cabled hydrophone receiver array.Data is filtered to remove potential false positive decodes. Data filtering for the JSATS cabled acoustic receivers (Fig. 2a) begins with a multipath filter, which removes decodes from multipath signal propagations (e.g., acoustic reflections off the surface/bottom). The multipath filter is used on the data from each individual hydrophone. Any decodes of the same tag-code that occur a very short time (e.g., typically 45 m), too far away temporally from adjacent points ( >10 min), and that result in unrealistic velocities (~2 m/s for the size of fish we studied). Further quality assurance filters remove points that occur before a transmitter was released, after the PIT tag in the fish is detected downstream, and after the acoustic transmitter is detected by downstream autonomous receiver arrays.Once the 3-D trajectories have been computed, they are used to assign passage routes through the dam for each tagged fish (Fig. 3a). The route assignment for each tagged fish is divided into three parts: main route, subroute, and hole (Table 2). The main route describes the part of the general dam structure through which the tagged fish passed. This includes the powerhouse, the spillway, and a generic category, “dam,” which is used for rare scenarios where there is confidence that the fish was physically present but a lack of confidence in specifically where the fish passed the dam. The subroute further divides the main passage route into different subcategories. For a main route of “spillway,” the two subroutes are the traditional (deep) spillbays and special surface weirs (surface spillbays20). The surface weirs reside within one of the spillbays and assignment to either of these two subroutes is made directly using the acoustic telemetry results. For a main route of “powerhouse,” the two subroutes are turbine and JBS. Assignment of the JBS subroute requires that the PIT tag of a fish assigned to the powerhouse was detected by the PIT tag readers within the JBS system; otherwise the fish is assigned the turbine subroute. PIT tag detections at dams where cabled hydrophone arrays have been deployed can be used to assign the JBS subroute, and PIT tag detections at the other dams along the migration route can serve as additional detection events. The hole assignment defines the specific powerhouse intake or spillbay where the passage occurred.Table 2 Dam passage routes (main route, subroute, and hole) at LGS and LMN Dams.Full size tablePassage routes are assigned using the last 3D tracked location and the last detection. Two methods are used because the ability to consistently track the transmitter can diminish as the tagged fish approaches or passes through the plane containing the hydrophones, and the last decoded transmission could be later than the last 3-D tracked location.When the last 3-D tracked location is used, a route is assigned according to whether the last tracked point is within a specific area. This area spans the entire dam plus 25 m on each side and extends from the dam face to 30 m upstream into the forebay. If the last tracked point is within this boundary, the 3-D track passage route is assigned to the bay corresponding to the Y coordinate in the local dam coordinate system. If the last tracked point is outside the piers on either side of the dam, the passage route is assigned to the nearest bay.Route assignment based on the last detection uses the last transmission that was detected by multiple hydrophones. The detections associated with this transmission are sorted by time, and the pier numbers for the two hydrophones on different piers that first detected this transmission are averaged; the passage bay corresponding to this average pier is assigned as the last detection passage route. The default final route assignment is the 3-D tracked route assignment. However, when the two methods indicate different main routes, subroutes, or a different hole that is more than two bays away, the 3-D tracks are manually reviewed, and a decision is made regarding which method should be relied on for the final route assignment.After the final route assignment, a final quality assurance step is to compare the final route assignment to the dam operations. In case a tag-code has been assigned to a closed passage route, the 3-D tracks are reviewed to consider the trajectory of the tagged fish and the location of the nearest open passage route. As previously mentioned, the ability to consistently track a transmitter is diminished as it approaches or passes through the plane containing the hydrophones. An example of when a tagged fish could initially be assigned to a closed passage route would be when a passage route with a strong attractive flow (e.g., surface spill weir) is adjacent to a closed passage bay.Autonomous receivers – deployment, hardware, and data processingA JSATS autonomous receiver (SR5000, Advanced Telemetry Systems [ATS], USA), along with the necessary deployment accessories, consists of a hydrophone that is connected to a cylindrical, positively buoyant, self-contained, battery-powered, autonomous acoustic receiver; a submerged buoy line; an acoustic release; a braided stainless-steel cable; and a steel anchor. These receivers are typically deployed according to the methods described by Titzler et al.10, which involves using a 34 kg or 57 kg (depending on flow) steel anchor to deploy the autonomous receiver system to the river bottom. The anchor is attached to the release side of an acoustic release using a braided stainless-steel cable. The fixed end of the acoustic release is attached to the autonomous receiver using a submerged buoy line. When the acoustic release is remotely triggered, it detaches from the anchor line, and the combined buoyancy of the acoustic receiver and the submerged buoy line bring the system up to the surface. To maintain the receiver orientation in the water column during deployment, a thin plastic sheet is folded around the cylindrical body of the receiver, creating an airfoil-like shape that keeps the receiver oriented in the flow direction. Attached to each autonomous receiver is a JSATS beacon that is similar to the JSATS beacons deployed with the cabled hydrophone receiver arrays and used in the same way. The length of time that the JSATS autonomous receivers can be deployed is largely dependent on the battery life, with data retrieval and battery changes typically done every 2–3 weeks.Although it is possible to use autonomous receivers to conduct 3-D tracking, the process is much more challenging than using the cabled hydrophone receivers because the receivers are not fixed at well-defined locations (e.g., changes in river currents could change the receiver’s depth and horizontal location relative to the anchor) and are not time synchronized with each other. The autonomous receivers are typically used to detect presence of tagged fish, although recent research has investigated methods to improve the ability to conduct 3-D tracking25. Deploying an autonomous receiver array entails deploying several receivers in a line spanning the width of a river with the detection ranges of the receivers overlapping slightly. This creates a virtual detection gate that can be used to determine when a tagged fish passes through this location in the river. In addition to simply determining the migration timing of tagged fish, the autonomous receiver arrays are typically used for analyzing dam passage survival and near-dam behavior (e.g., forebay residence time, tailrace egress time).The data collected by the autonomous receivers is filtered similarly to data from the cabled receivers (Fig. 2b). The primary difference is that the data from each individual autonomous receiver is processed entirely by itself. As a result, the single-hydrophone filter is not used, and a single-node PRI filter is used instead of the message PRI filter.After the event histories for both the cabled and the autonomous acoustic receivers have been determined, individual routes were cross-checked by tracing the chronology of detections of every tagged fish as it was detected along the river in the sequence of acoustic receiver arrays. Upstream movement past a dam or out-of-sequence detections were deemed anomalous detection events. These anomalous detection events could be a few receptions resulting from noise or repeated detections of a transmitter that had been dropped near a receiver array after fish or bird predation. If the apparent behavior was impossible for a live fish, the anomalous detection was excluded from the detection history used for subsequent analysis.JSATS transmittersThe injectable transmitters used in this study (Fig. 1b) were manufactured by PNNL. Each transmitter (model microV26, which is licensed to, and currently commercially available from, Advanced Telemetry Systems as Model SS400) was 15 mm long, had an outside diameter of 3.35 mm, a volume of 0.111 mL, and a mass of 0.216 g in air and 0.105 g in water. The transmitters are generally cylindrical; excess epoxy was eliminated to reduce the weight, and epoxy surrounding the transducer element was minimized. The transmitters had a nominal transmission rate of 1 pulse every 4.2 s. Nominal transmitter life was expected to be about 28 d at a 4.2 s pulse rate. The acoustic signal is transmitted using a carrier frequency of 416.7 kHz, a source level of approximately 156 dB (ref. to 1 µPa at 1 m), and a total signal duration of 477 µs. The transmitter emits a uniquely coded 31-bit signal2, resulting in more than 65,000 individual tag-codes, using binary phase-shift keyed (BPSK) signal encoding.Each fish also bore a PIT tag (HPT12, Biomark, USA; 12.5 mm x Ø2.03 mm; 0.106 g in air). PIT tag detections were used to assign fish to passage through the JBS at LGS and LMN to distinguish between fish that were assigned to a main route of powerhouse and the turbine or JBS subroutes.Tagged fishFor this study, 682 subyearling Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were tagged with the injectable acoustic transmitter and released upstream of LGS Dam on the Snake River in Washington State, USA (Fig. 1a). The fish were obtained from the JBS at LMN Dam and selected using existing fish screening criteria utilized in previous juvenile salmon survival studies26. The fish selected for the study were held in holding tanks for 18 to 30 hours prior to tagging, and for 10 to 25 hours after tagging prior to release. The size criteria for tagged fish was also identical to other recent juvenile salmon survival studies26. For this study the fork-lengths ranged from 95 to 143 mm, and the weights ranged from 7.5 to 29.3 g (see Tagged Fish Data for information on each tagged fish).Tagging procedureWhile each anesthetized fish was at the data station for recording physical parameters, a second person inserted both a disinfected PIT tag and an injectable acoustic transmitter, assigned to a specific fish, into a sterilized 8-gauge stainless-steel hypodermic needle17. First, the injectable transmitter was placed into the needle, battery-end first. The PIT tag was then also inserted in the same needle. A sanitized plastic cap was then placed over each end of the needle to retain the tags. Once both tags had been placed in the needle, the tag loaded needle was handed to the surgeon working at the tagging station. Additional details for the tagging procedure are documented by Deng et al.11.Release procedureThe fish implanted with the injectable acoustic transmitters were released using the same methods as fish tagged with commercially available acoustic transmitters for a separate large-scale survival study26. All fish were tagged at LMN and transported in insulated totes by truck to the single release site (Fig. 1a). There were five release locations across the river at the release site, and equal numbers of fish were released at each of the five locations. Releases occurred for 11 consecutive days (between 22 June and 2 July, 2013) and were staggered between day and night.Data managementUse of JSATS can generate a large volume of data. An integrated suite of science-based tools known as the Hydropower Biological Evaluation Toolset (HBET; https://hydropassage.org/hbet)27 was developed to assist the characterization of hydraulic conditions at hydropower structures and to understand the potential impacts on aquatic life. HBET was initially developed to be utilized to facilitate use of the autonomous sensor technology known as Sensor Fish28. HBET allows researchers to use previously collected Sensor Fish data to design studies to evaluate hypotheses, archive field-collected data, process raw sensor data, compare different hydraulic structures or operating conditions, and to estimate the biological response for species with known dose-response relationships. More recently, HBET was adapted to also provide the functionality of archiving new or previously collected acoustic telemetry data and to produce visualizations from that data. Although it is not necessary to visualize the data set associated with this manuscript, PNNL offers free government and academic use of the HBET software package in the U.S. and a free 90-day trial version of the package to interested parties. More

  • in

    Purple sulfur bacteria fix N2 via molybdenum-nitrogenase in a low molybdenum Proterozoic ocean analogue

    SamplingSamples were collected on 28 August 2018 during a field campaign to Lake Cadagno29, Switzerland. In situ measurements and water collection was performed at the deepest part of the lake (21 m). Water was collected using a pump CTD system as described in Di Nezio et al.36. Online in situ data were obtained during a continuous downcast of the CTD-system from the water surface down to ~17.5 m depth. During the upcast, discrete water samples were collected from a total of 20 depths (between 12 m and 17 m) above, in, and below the chemocline for chemical analyses and from 3 depths for incubation experiments (13.7 m, 14 m, and 15.5 m).In Lake Cadagno, wind-driven internal waves lead to vertical shifts of the water masses and their corresponding physicochemical parameters56. While sampling, it was apparent that the depths of the individual water masses had slightly shifted between the down- and the upcast. Therefore, we corrected the water depths of the samples collected during the upcast so that the physicochemical parameters during sampling best matched those of the continuous downcast, to ensure that samples were assigned to the respective water mass that they originated from. A custom R script was employed for the depth correction. In brief, all parameters measured by the CTD-system during the upcast and the downcast were normalized to percent (with 100% as the maximum observed value, and 0% the minimum observed value). Per individual sampling depth (during the upcast, where the pump cast CTD remained stationary for some time), average values of conductivity, temperature, and pressure were calculated and converted to percent values. Then, the depth from the downcast profile was identified that best matched all calculated percent values. This was achieved by subtracting the percent values per parameter from all respective data points of the downcast profile. Absolute values of the calculated differences per data row were summed. The depth with the lowest resulting sum, i.e., with the most similar physicochemical parameters, was then chosen as the corrected depth.Chemical analyses, flux calculations, and rate determinationsFor chemical analyses, lake water from the individual sampling depths was sterile-filtered (0.2 µm, cellulose acetate filter) and frozen at −20 °C until analysis. Samples were analyzed with a QuAAtro39 autoanalyzer (Seal Analytical) using the methods described in Strickland and Parsons57 to determine concentrations of dissolved inorganic phosphorus (PO43−), nitrite (NO2−), nitrate (NO3−), and reactive silica (Si). Ammonium concentrations were determined from the same filtered samples using the colorimetric analysis described in Kempers et al.58. Molybdenum concentrations were determined from filtered samples after acidification with 1% HNO3 (69%, ROTIPURAN®, Roth) using an ICP-MS 7900 (Agilent, Santa Clara, USA). Molybdenum was analyzed on mass 95 in He-mode using a multi-element calibration SRM (21 elements, Bernd Kraft). The SRM NIST 1643f was analyzed in parallel to guarantee the quality of analyses. Concentrations of sulfide were determined colorimetrically from unfiltered Lake water samples, following Cline59.To calculate the turbulent flux (J) of ammonium into the chemocline, we assumed a steady-state using Fick’s first law: J = −D∂C/∂x. A turbulent diffusion coefficient (D) of 1.6 × 10−6 m2 s−1 was used, corresponding to turbulence at the Lake Cadagno chemocline boundaries60. The change in concentration (∂C) was calculated over 14.25 m to 14.77 m depth, where the steepest ammonium gradient was observed. Ammonium uptake rates were calculated for the chemocline by integrating this flux over the chemocline from 13.45 m to 14.45 m depth.To quantify N2 fixation and primary production (i.e., CO2 fixation) rates, stable isotope incubations with 15N2 and 13CO2 were performed using established protocols61. Briefly, lake water from three different depths of the chemocline was sampled directly from the CTD pump system into five 250 ml serum bottles per depth. Water was filled into the bottles from bottom to top, allowing 1–2 bottle volumes to overflow to minimize oxygen contamination before crimp-sealing the bottles headspace-free with butyl rubber stoppers. Back in the field laboratory, no more than 8 h after sampling, one bottle per depth was filtered onto pre-combusted (460 °C, 6 h) glass microfiber filters (GF/F, Whatman®, UK) for in situ natural abundance of C and N. 13C-labeled sodium bicarbonate (NaH13CO3, 98 atom% 13C, dissolved in autoclaved MilliQ water; Sigma-Aldrich) was injected (320 µL) into three bottles per depth, to achieve a final concentration of 160 µmol L−1. Then, a volume of 5 ml 15N2 gas (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, >98 atom% 15N, Lot #: I-19197/AR0586172) was injected as a bubble into the same bottles and shaken for 20 min to equilibrate the 15N2 gas. Sulfide solution was injected aiming for a final concentration of approximately 2 µM to remove trace oxygen contamination in the incubation bottles. Finally, the 15N2 gas bubble was replaced by anoxic in situ lake water from the respective depth. The bottles, together with one untreated control bottle per depth (containing unamended lake water), were incubated for a full light-dark cycle (13 h light, 11 h dark) under natural light conditions (0–8267 Lux, average: 247 Lux, median: 10.8 Lux, as determined by a HOBO pendant data logger, Onset Computer Corporation, Bourne, USA) in a water bath kept at ~12 °C.After incubation, samples were filtered onto pre-combusted GF/F filters. The filters were dried at room temperature and frozen at −20 °C for transport and storage. In addition, subsamples for nanoscale secondary ion mass spectrometry (nanoSIMS) analysis and for the determination of 13C and 15N enrichments in the substrate pools were taken from all bottles amended with 13C and 15N. NanoSIMS samples were fixed with 2% (final w/v) formaldehyde solution for 1 h at room temperature, prior to filtration onto gold-sputtered 0.22 µm polycarbonate membrane filters (GTTP IsoporeTM, Merck Millipore, USA). Subsamples for label% determinations were taken in gas-tight glass vials (Exetainer Labco, UK) and biological activity was terminated with HgCl2.Samples on GF/F filters were analyzed for C and N content and the respective isotopic composition by an elemental analyzer (Thermo Flash EA, 1112 Series) coupled to a continuous-flow isotope ratio mass spectrometer (Delta Plus XP IRMS; Thermo Finnigan, Dreieich, Germany). Enrichment of 15N in the N2 pool was determined using a membrane inlet mass spectrometer (MIMS; GAM200, IPI). Enrichment of 13C in the dissolved inorganic carbon pool was determined from 13C/12C-CO2 ratios after sample acidification with phosphoric acid using cavity ring-down spectroscopy (G2201-I coupled to a Liaison A0301, Picarro Inc., connected to an AutoMate Prep Device, Bushnell, USA). In addition, we tested the used 15N2 gas bottle for contamination with 15N-ammonia62. Briefly, a 2 ml subsample of the used 15N2 gas was injected into a 12 ml gas-tight glass vial (Exetainer) filled with MilliQ (pH 95% sequence identity to any of the MAG NifD/NifK sequences were identified with a blastp search74 to the NCBI nr database. Multiple sequence alignments were obtained with MAFFT87. All full-length sequences were used to construct base trees with RAxML88 and 100 bootstraps in ARB90. The ARB Parsimony function was employed to add partial sequences to the base trees.The resulting trees were visualized in iTOL91.FISH, cell counts, and cell sizesFrom each incubation depth, 10–30 ml lake water was filtered onto 0.22 µm polycarbonate membrane filters (GTTP IsoporeTM, Merck Millipore, USA). The filters were fixed in 2% formaldehyde solution in sterile-filtered lake water for 10–12 h at 4 °C and then washed with MilliQ water. The filters were frozen and stored at −20 °C until further processing.The 16S rRNA FISH probe “Thiosyn459” (Table S7), exclusively targeting T. syntrophicum Cad16, was designed in ARB90. In addition, two competitor probes and four helper probes92 were designed (Table S7) to ensure efficient and specific binding of the probe to the target. All FISH probes and respective formamide concentrations are listed in Table S7. Probes, but not helpers and competitors, were double-labeled with either Atto488 or Atto594 fluorophores. Samples were embedded in 0.05% low melting point agarose. Cells were permeabilized with lysozyme (1.5 mg ml−1) for 30 min at 37 °C. Hybridization was performed for 2–4.5 h at 46 °C. Washing included 15 min in washing buffer at 48 °C and 20 min in 1× PBS buffer at room temperature. We used the hybridization and washing buffers described in Barrero-Canosa et al.93 to reduce background fluorescence. Cells were counterstained with DAPI.Samples were analyzed using a Zeiss Axio Imager.M2 microscope equipped with a Zeiss Axiocam 506 mono camera. Z-stack images were taken and the number of fluorescently labeled cells per image was counted for the individual probes. For each PSB population, we analyzed ≥38 randomly selected fields of view and ≥54 target cells, on one filter replicate each (see Supplementary File S1). Total cell counts were obtained in triplicates through flow cytometry as described in Danza et al.94.For cluster-forming organisms (Thiodictyon syntrophicum, Lamprocystis purpurea, Lamprocystis roseopersicina, and Lamprocystis spp.), the cell size (length and width, for biovolume and C-content calculations, see section below) of 100 cells per population was determined from the maximum-intensity projection of the z-stack images using the Zeiss Zen blue software 3.2.Single-cell analysis with nanoSIMSFor nanoSIMS analyses, we chose the replicate sample from 13.7 m depth that exhibited the highest bulk N2 fixation rate. Random spots were marked with a laser microdissection microscope (6000 B, Leica) on the gold-sputtered GTTP filter covered with cells incubated with 15N2 and 13CO2. After laser marking, FISH was performed as described above. For analysis of Thiodictyon cells, no permeabilization was performed, while for analysis of the other population’s permeabilization was reduced to 15 min at 37 °C using 2 mg ml−1 Lysozyme. Within one hybridization reaction, we simultaneously applied Apur453 with S453D and Laro453 with Cmok453, each probe double labeled with different fluorescent dyes (Atto488 and Atto594).Single-cell 15N- and 13C-assimilation from incubation experiments with 15N2 and 13CO2 was measured using a nanoSIMS 50 L instrument (CAMECA), as described in Martínez-Pérez et al.53. Briefly, instrument precision was monitored regularly on graphite planchet. Samples were pre-sputtered with a Cs+ beam (~300 pA) before the measurements with a beam current of around 1.5 pA. The diameter of the primary beam was tuned More

  • in

    The importance of species interactions in eco-evolutionary community dynamics under climate change

    Modeling frameworkWe consider S species distributed in L distinct habitat patches. The patches form a linear latitudinal chain going around the globe, with dispersal between adjacent patches (Fig. 1). The state variables are species’ local densities and local temperature optima (the temperature at which species achieve maximum intrinsic population growth). This temperature optimum is a trait whose evolution is governed by quantitative genetics18,19,20,21,22: each species, in every patch, has a normally distributed temperature optimum with a given mean and variance. The variance is the sum of a genetic and an environmental contribution. The genetic component is given via the infinitesimal model23,24, whereby a very large number of loci each contribute a small additive effect to the trait. This has two consequences. First, a single round of random mating restores the normal shape of the trait distribution, even if it is distorted by selection or migration. Second, the phenotypic variance is unchanged by these processes, with only the mean being affected25 (we apply a reduction in genetic variance at very low population densities to prevent such species from evolving rapidly; see the Supplementary Information [SI], Section 3.4). Consequently, despite selection and the mixing of phenotypes from neighboring patches, each species retains a normally-shaped phenotypic distribution with the same phenotypic variance across all patches—but the mean temperature optimum may evolve locally and can therefore differ across patches (Fig. 1).Fig. 1: Illustration of our modeling framework.There are several patches hosting local communities, arranged linearly along a latitudinal gradient. Patch color represents the local average temperature, with warmer colors corresponding to higher temperatures. The graph depicts the community of a single patch, with four species present. They are represented by the colored areas showing the distributions of their temperature optima, with the area under each curve equal to the population density of the corresponding species. The green species is highlighted for purposes of illustration. Each species has migrants to adjacent patches (independent of local adaptedness), as well as immigrants from them (arrows from and to the green species; the distributions with dashed lines show the trait distributions of the green species’ immigrant individuals). The purple line is the intrinsic growth rate of a phenotype in the patch, as a function of its local temperature optimum (this optimum differs across patches, which is why the immigrants are slightly maladapted to the temperature of the focal patch.) Both local population densities and local adaptedness are changed by the constant interplay of temperature-dependent intrinsic growth, competition with other species in the same patch, immigration to or emigration from neighboring patches, and (in certain realizations of the model) pressure from consumer species.Full size imageSpecies in our setup may either be resources or consumers. Their local dynamics are governed by the following processes. First, within each patch, we allow for migration to and from adjacent patches (changing both local population densities and also local adaptedness, due to the mixing of immigrant individuals with local ones). Second, each species’ intrinsic rate of increase is temperature-dependent, influenced by how well their temperature optima match local temperatures (Fig. 2a). For consumers, metabolic loss and mortality always result in negative intrinsic growth, which must be compensated by sufficient consumption to maintain their populations. Third, there is a local competition between resource species, which can be thought of as exploitative competition for a set of shared substitutable lower-level resources26. Consumers, when present, compete only indirectly via their shared resource species. Fourth, each consumer has feeding links to five of the resource species (pending their presence in patches where the consumer is also present), which are randomly determined but always include the one resource which matches the consumer’s initial mean temperature optimum. Feeding rates follow a Holling type II functional response. Consumers experience growth from consumption, and resource species experience loss due to being consumed.Fig. 2: Temperature optima and climate curves.a Different growth rates at various temperatures. Colors show species with different mean temperature optima, with warmer colors corresponding to more warm-adapted species. The curves show the maximum growth rate achieved when a phenotype matches the local temperature, and how the growth rate decreases with an increased mismatch between a phenotype and local temperature, for each species. The dashed line shows zero growth: below this point, the given phenotype of a species mismatches the local temperature to the extent that it is too maladapted to be able to grow. Note the tradeoff between the width and height of the growth curves, with more warm-tolerant species having larger maximum growth at the cost of being viable for only a narrower range of temperatures62,63. b Temperature changes over time. After an initial establishment phase of 4000 years during which the pre-climate change community dynamics stabilize, temperatures start increasing at t = 0 for 300 years (vertical dotted line, indicating the end of climate change). Colors show temperature change at different locations along the spatial gradient, with warmer colors indicating lower latitudes. The magnitude and latitudinal dependence of the temperature change is based on region-specific predictions by 2100 CE, in combination with estimates giving an approximate increase by 2300 CE, for the IPCC intermediate emission scenario27.Full size imageFollowing the previous methodology, we derive our equations in the weak selection limit22 (see also the Discussion). We have multiple selection forces acting on the different components of our model. Species respond to local climate (frequency-independent directional selection, unless a species is at the local environmental optimum), to consumers and resources (frequency-dependent selection), and competitors (also frequency-dependent selection, possibly complicated by the temperature-dependence of the competition coefficients mediating frequency dependence). These different modes of selection do not depend on the parameterization of evolution and dispersal, which instead are used to adjust the relative importance of these processes.Communities are initiated with 50 species per trophic level, subdividing the latitudinal gradient into 50 distinct patches going from pole to equator (results are qualitatively unchanged by increasing either the number of species or the number of patches; SI, Section 5.9–5.10). We assume that climate is symmetric around the equator; thus, only the pole-to-equator region needs to be modeled explicitly (SI, Section 3.5). The temperature increase is based on predictions from the IPCC intermediate emission scenario27 and corresponds to predictions for the north pole to the equator. The modeled temperature increase is represented by annual averages and the increase is thus smooth. Species are initially equally spaced, and adapted to the centers of their ranges. We then integrate the model for 6500 years, with three main phases: (1) an establishment period from t = −4000 to t = 0 years, during which local temperatures are constant; (2) climate change, between t = 0 and t = 300 years, during which local temperatures increase in a latitude-specific way (Fig. 2b); and (3) the post-climate change period from t = 300 to t = 2500 years, where temperatures remain constant again at their elevated values.To explore the influence and importance of dispersal, evolution, and interspecific interactions, we considered the fully factorial combination of high and low average dispersal rates, high and low average available genetic variance (determining the speed and extent of species’ evolutionary responses), and four different ecological models. These were: (1) the baseline model with a single trophic level and constant, patch- and temperature-independent competition between species; (2) two trophic levels and constant competition; (3) single trophic level with temperature-dependent competition (where resource species compete more if they have similar temperature optima); and (4) two trophic levels as well as temperature-dependent competition. Trophic interactions can strongly influence diversity in a community, either by apparent competition28 or by acting as extra regulating agents boosting prey coexistence29. Temperature-dependent competition means that the strength of interaction between two phenotypes decreases with an increasing difference in their temperature optima. Importantly, while differences in temperature adaptation may influence competition, they do not influence trophic interactions.The combination of high and low genetic variance and dispersal rates, and four model setups, gives a total of 2 × 2 × 4 = 16 scenarios. For each of them, some parameters (competition coefficients, tradeoff parameters, genetic variances, dispersal rates, consumer attack rates, and handling times; SI, Section 6) were randomly drawn from pre-specified distributions. We, therefore, obtained 100 replicates for each of these 16 scenarios. While replicates differed in the precise identity of the species which survived or went extinct, they varied little in the overall patterns they produced.We use the results from these numerical experiments to explore patterns of (1) local species diversity (alpha diversity), (2) regional trends, including species range breadths and turnover (beta diversity), (3) global (gamma) diversity, and global changes in community composition induced by climate change. In addition, we also calculated the interspecific community-wide trait lag (the difference between the community’s density-weighted mean temperature optima and the current temperature) as a function of the community-wide weighted trait dispersion (centralized variance in species’ density-weighted mean temperature optima; see Methods). The response capacity is the ability of the biotic community to close this trait lag over time30 (SI, Section 4). Integrating trait lag through time31 gives an overall measure of different communities’ ability to cope with changing climate over this time period; furthermore, this measure is comparable across communities. The integrated trait lag summarizes, in a single functional metric, the performance and adaptability of a community over space and time. The reason it is related to performance is that species that on average live more often under temperatures closer to their optima (creating lower trait lags) will perform better than species whose temperature optima are far off from local conditions in space and/or time. Thus, a lower trait lag (higher response capacity) may also be related to other ecosystem functions, such as better carbon uptake which in turn has the potential to feedback to global temperatures32.Overview of resultsWe use our framework to explore the effect of species interactions on local, regional, and global biodiversity patterns, under various degrees of dispersal and available genetic variance. For simplicity, we focus on the dynamics of the resource species, which are present in all scenarios. Results for consumers, when present, are in the SI (Section 5.8). First, we display a snapshot of species’ movement across the landscape with time; before, during, and after climate change. Then we proceed with analyzing local patterns, followed by regional trends, and finally, global trends.Snapshots from the time series of species’ range distributions reveal useful information about species’ movement and coexistence (Fig. 3). Regardless of model setup and parameterization, there is a northward shift in species’ ranges: tropical species expand into temperate regions and temperate species into polar regions. This is accompanied by a visible decline in the number of species globally, with the northernmost species affected most. The models do differ in the predicted degree of range overlap: trophic interactions and temperature-dependent competition both lead to broadly overlapping ranges, enhancing local coexistence (the overlap in spatial distribution is particularly pronounced with high available genetic variance). Without these interactions, species ranges overlap to a substantially lower degree, diminishing local diversity. Below we investigate whether these patterns, observed for a single realization of the dynamics for each scenario, play out more generally as well.Fig. 3: Species’ range shift through time, along a latitudinal gradient ranging from polar to tropical climates (ordinate).Species distributions are shown by colored curves, with the height of each curve representing local density in a single replicate (abscissa; note the different scales in the panels), with the color indicating the species’ initial (i.e., at t = 0) temperature adaptation. The model was run with only 10 species, for better visibility. The color of each species indicates its temperature adaptation at the start of the climate change period, with warmer colors belonging to species with a higher temperature optimum associated with higher latitudes. Rows correspond to a specific combination of genetic variance and dispersal ability of species, columns show species densities at different times (t = 0 start of climate change, t = 300 end of climate change, t = 2500 end of simulations). Each panel corresponds to a different model setup; a the baseline model, b an added trophic level of consumers, c temperature-dependent competition coefficients, and d the combined influence of consumers and temperature-dependent competition.Full size imageLocal trendsTrophic interactions and temperature-dependent competition indeed result in elevated local species richness levels (Fig. 4). The fostering of local coexistence by trophic interactions and temperature-dependent competition is in line with general ecological expectations. Predation pressure can enhance diversity by providing additional mechanisms of density regulation and thus prey coexistence through predator partitioning28,29. In turn, temperature-dependent competition means species can reduce interspecific competition by evolving locally suboptimal mean temperature optima22, compared with the baseline model’s fixed competition coefficients. Hence with temperature-dependent competition, the advantages of being sufficiently different from other locally present species can outweigh the disadvantages of being somewhat maladapted to the local temperatures. If competition is not temperature-dependent, interspecific competition is at a fixed level independent of the temperature optima of each species. An important question is how local diversity is affected when the two processes act simultaneously. In fact, any synergy between their effects is very weak, and is even slightly negative when both the available genetic variance and dispersal abilities are high (Fig. 4, top row).Fig. 4: Local species richness of communities over time, from the start of climate change to the end of the simulation, averaged over replicates.Values are given in 100-year steps. At each point in time, the figure shows the mean number of species per patch over the landscape (points) and their standard deviation (shaded region, extending one standard deviation both up- and downwards from the mean). Panel rows show different parameterizations (all four combinations of high and low genetic variance and dispersal ability); columns represent various model setups (the baseline model; an added trophic level of consumers; temperature-dependent competition coefficients; and the combined influence of consumers and temperature-dependent competition). Dotted vertical lines indicate the time at which climate change ends.Full size imageRegional trendsWe see a strong tendency for poleward movement of species when looking at the altered distributions of species over the spatial landscape (Fig. 3). Indeed, looking at the effects of climate change on the fraction of patches occupied by species over the landscape reveals that initially cold-adapted species lose suitable habitat during climate change, and even afterwards (Fig. 5). For the northernmost species, this always eventuate to the point where all habitat is lost, resulting in their extinction. This pattern holds universally in every model setup and parameterization. Only initially warm-adapted species can expand their ranges, and even they only do so under highly restrictive conditions, requiring both good dispersal ability and available genetic variance as well as consumer pressure (Fig. 5, top row, second and third panel).Fig. 5: Range breadth of each species expressed as the percentage of the whole landscape they occupy (ordinate) at three different time stamps (colors).The mean (points) and plus/minus one standard deviation range (colored bands) are shown over replicates. Numbers along the abscissa represent species, with initially more warm-adapted species corresponding to higher values. The range breadth of each species is shown at three time stamps: at the start of climate change (t = 0, blue), the end of climate change (t = 300, green), and at the end of our simulations (t = 2500, yellow). Panel layout as in Fig. 4.Full size imageOne can also look at larger regional changes in species richness, dividing the landscape into three equal parts: the top third (polar region), the middle third (temperate region), and the bottom third (tropical region). Region-wise exploration of changes in species richness (Fig. 6) shows that the species richness of the polar region is highly volatile. It often experiences the greatest losses; however, with high dispersal ability and temperature-dependent competition, the regional richness can remain substantial and even increase compared to its starting level (Fig. 6, first and third rows, last two columns). Of course, change in regional species richness is a result of species dispersing to new patches and regions as well as of local extinctions. Since the initially most cold-adapted species lose their habitat and go extinct, altered regional species richness is connected to having altered community compositions along the spatial gradient. All regions experience turnover in species composition (SI, Section 5.1), but in general, the polar region experiences the largest turnover, where the final communities are at least 50% and sometimes more than 80% dissimilar to the community state right before the onset of climate change—a result in agreement with previous studies as well7,33.Fig. 6: Relative change in global species richness from the community state at the onset of climate change (ordinate) over time (abscissa), averaged over replicates and given in 100-year steps (points).Black points correspond to species richness over the whole landscape; the blue points to richness in the top third of all patches (the polar region), green points to the middle third (temperate region), and yellow points to the last third (tropical region). Panel layout as in Fig. 4; dotted horizontal lines highlight the point of no net change in global species richness.Full size imageGlobal trendsHence, the identity of the species undergoing global extinction is not random, but strongly biased towards initially cold-adapted species. On a global scale, these extinctions cause decreased richness, and the model predicts large global biodiversity losses for all scenarios (Fig. 6). These continue during the post-climate change period with stable temperatures, indicating a substantial extinction debt which has been previously demonstrated34. Temperature-dependent competition reduces the number of global losses compared to the baseline and trophic models.A further elucidating global pattern is revealed by analyzing the relationship between the time-integrated temperature trait lag and community-wide trait dispersion (Fig. 7). There is an overall negative correlation between the two, but more importantly, within each scenario (unique combination of model and parameterization) a negative relationship is evident. Furthermore, the slopes are very similar: the main difference between scenarios is in their mean trait lag and trait dispersion values (note that the panels do not share axis value ranges). The negative trend reveals the positive effect of more varied temperature tolerance strategies among the species on the community’s ability to respond to climate change. This is analogous to Fisher’s fundamental theorem35, stating that the speed of the evolution of fitness r is proportional to its variance: dr/dt ~ var(r). More concretely, this relationship is also predicted by trait-driver theory, a mathematical framework that focuses explicitly on linking spatiotemporal variation in environmental drivers to the resulting trait distributions30. Communities generated by different models reveal differences in the magnitude of this relationship: trait dispersion is much higher in models with temperature-dependent competition (essentially, niche differentiation with respect to temperature), resulting in lower trait lag. The temperature-dependent competition also separates communities based on their spatial dispersal ability, with faster dispersal corresponding to greater trait dispersion and thus lower trait lag. Interestingly, trophic interactions tend to erode the relationship between trait lag and trait dispersion slightly (R2 values are lower in communities with trophic interactions, both with and without temperature-dependent competition). We have additionally explored the relationship between species richness and trait dispersion, finding a positive relationship between the two (SI, Section 4.1).Fig. 7: The ability of communities in four different models (panels) to track local climatic conditions (ordinate), against observed variation in traits within those communities (abscissa).Larger values along the ordinate indicate that species’ temperature optima are lagging behind local temperatures, meaning a low ability of communities to track local climate conditions. Both quantities are averaged over the landscape and time from the beginning to the end of the climate change period, yielding a single number for every community (points). The greater the average local diversity of mean temperature optima in a community, the closer it is able to match the prevailing temperature conditions. Species’ dispersal ability and available genetic variance (colors) are clustered along this relationship.Full size image More

  • in

    Securing genetic integrity in freshwater pearl mussel propagation and captive breeding

    1.Geist, J. Integrative freshwater ecology and biodiversity conservation. Ecol. Indic. 11, 1507–1516 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Lopes-Lima, M. et al. Conservation status of freshwater mussels in Europe: State of the art and future challenges. Biol. Rev. 92, 572–607 (2017).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Geist, J. Strategies for the conservation of endangered freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera L.): A synthesis of conservation genetics and ecology. Hydrobiologia 644, 69–88 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Taeubert, J. E. & Geist, J. The relationship between the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) and its hosts. Biol. Bull. 44, 67–73 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Salonen, J. K. et al. Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) differ in their suitability as a host for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) in northern Fennoscandian rivers. Freshw. Biol. 62, 1346–1358 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Geist, J. & Auerswald, K. Physicochemical stream bed characteristics and recruitment of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera). Freshw. Biol. 52, 2299–2316 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Stoeckl, K., Denic, M. & Geist, J. Conservation status of two endangered freshwater mussel species in Bavaria, Germany: Habitat quality, threats, and implications for conservation management. Aquat. Conserv. 30, 647–661 (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Auerswald, K. & Geist, J. Extent and cause of siltation in a headwater stream bed: Catchment and soil erosion is less important than internal stream processes. Land Degrad. Dev. 29, 737–748. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.2779 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Bauer, G. Threats to the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. in central Europe. Biol. Conserv. 45, 239–253 (1988).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Boon, P. J. et al. Developing a standard approach for monitoring freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) populations in European rivers. Aquat. Conserv. 29, 1365–1379 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Hruska, J. Nahrungsansprüche der Flußperlmuschel und deren halbnatürliche Aufzucht in der Tschechischen Republik (Dietary requirements and semi-natural rearing of freshwater pearl mussel in the Czech Republic). Heldia 4, 69–79 (1999).
    Google Scholar 
    12.Preston, S. J., Keys, A. & Roberts, D. Culturing freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera: A breakthrough in the conservation of an endangered species. Aquat. Conserv. 17, 539–549. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.799 (2007).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Thomas, G. R., Taylor, J. & de Leaniz, C. G. Captive breeding of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera. Endanger. Species Res. 12, 1–9 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Gum, B., Lange, M. & Geist, J. A critical reflection on the success of rearing and culturing juvenile freshwater mussels with a focus on the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.). Aquat. Conserv. 21, 743–751 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Geist, J., Rottmann, O., Schröder, W. & Kühn, R. Development of microsatellite markers for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera L. (Bivalvia: Unionoidea). Mol. Ecol. Resour. 3, 444–446 (2003).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Geist, J. & Kühn, R. Genetic diversity and differentiation of central European freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) populations: Implications for conservation and management. Mol. Ecol. 14, 425–439 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Geist, J. & Kuehn, R. Host-parasite interactions in oligotrophic stream ecosystems: The roles of life history strategy and ecological niche. Mol. Ecol. 17, 997–1008 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Marchordom, A., Araujo, R., Erpenbeck, D. & Ramos, M. A. Phylogeography and conservation genetics of the endangered European Margaritiferidae (Bivalvia: Unionoidea). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 78, 235–252 (2003).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    19.Stoeckle, et al. Strong genetic differentiation and low genetic diversity of the freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) in the southwestern European distribution range. Conserv. Genet. 18, 147–157 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Karlsson, S., Larsen, B. M. & Hindar, K. Host-dependent genetic variation in freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.). Hydrobiologia 735, 179–190 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    21.Geist, J., Söderberg, H., Karlberg, A. & Kuehn, R. Drainage-independent genetic structure and high genetic diversity of endangered freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) in northern Europe. Conserv. Genet. 11, 1339–1350 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Geist, et al. Genetic structure of Irish freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera and Margaritifera durrovensis): Validity of subspecies, roles of host fish, and conservation implications. Aquat. Conserv. 28, 923–933 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Zanatta, et al. High genetic diversity and low differentiation in North American Margaritifera margaritifera (Bivalvia: Unionida: Margaritiferidae). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 123, 850–863 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Taeubert, J. E., Denic, M., Gum, B., Lange, M. & Geist, J. Suitability of different salmonid strains as hosts for the endangered freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera). Aquat. Conserv. 20, 728–734 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Marwaha, et al. Host (Salmo trutta) age influences resistance to infestation by freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) glochidia. Parasitol. Res. 118, 1519–1532 (2019).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Taeubert, J. E., Gum, B. & Geist, J. Variable development and excystment of freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) at constant temperature. Limnologica 43, 319–322 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Taeubert, J. E. & Geist, J. Critical swimming speed of brown trout (Salmo trutta) infested with freshwater pearl mussel (Margaritifera margaritifera) glochidia and implications for artificial breeding of an endangered mussel species. Parasitol. Res. 112, 1607–1613 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Marwaha, J., Jensen, K. H., Jakobsen, P. J. & Geist, J. Duration of the parasitic phase determines subsequent performance in juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera). Ecol. Evol. 7, 1375–1383 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Eybe, T., Thielen, F., Bohn, T. & Sures, B. Influence of the excystment time on the breeding success of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera). Aquat. Conserv. 25, 21–30 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    30.Denic, M., Taeubert, J. E. & Geist, J. Trophic relationships between the larvae of two freshwater mussels and their fish hosts. Invertebr. Biol. 134, 129–135 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Denic, M. et al. Influence of stock origin and environmental conditions on the survival and growth of juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera) in a cross-exposure experiment. Limnologica 50, 67–74 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Hyvärinen, H. S. H., Chowdhury, M. M. R. & Taskinen, J. Pulsed flow-through cultivation of Margaritifera margaritifera: Effects of water source and food quantity on the survival and growth of juveniles. Hydrobiologia. 3219–3229 (2021).33.Hyvärinen, H., Saarinen-Valta, M., Mäenpää, E. & Taskinen, J. Effect of substrate particle size on burrowing of the juvenile freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. Hydrobiologia https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-021-04522-z (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Taskinen, J. et al. Effect of pH, iron and aluminum on survival of early life history stages of the endangered freshwater pearl mussel, Margaritifera margaritifera. Toxicol. Environ. Chem. 93, 1764–1777 (2011).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Lavictoire, L., Moorkens, E., Ramsay, A. & Sweeting, R. Effects of substrate size and cleaning regime on growth and survival of captive-bred juvenile freshwater pearl mussels, Margaritifera margaritifera (Linnaeus, 1758). Hydrobiologia 766, 89–102 (2016).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Eybe, T., Thielen, F., Bohn, T. & Sures, B. The first millimetre: Rearing juvenile freshwater pearl mussels (Margaritifera margaritifera L.) in plastic boxes. Aquat. Conserv. 23, 964–975 (2013).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Strayer, D. L., Geist, J., Haag, W. R., Jackson, J. K. & Newbold, J. D. Essay: Making the most of recent advances in freshwater mussel propagation and restoration. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 1, e53. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.53 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Patterson, M. A. et al. Freshwater Mussel Propagation for Restoration (Cambridge University Press, 2018).Book 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Gstöttenmayr, D., Scheder, C. & Gumpinger, C. Conservation de la mulette perlière d’eau douce en Autriche: un système d’élevage contrôlé en progrès. Penn ar Bed 222, 45–49 (2015).
    Google Scholar 
    40.Gumpinger, C., Pichler-Scheder, C. & Huemer, D. Das oberösterreichische Artenschutzprojekt „Vision Flussperlmuschel“. Österreichs Fischerei 69, 259–273 (2016).
    Google Scholar 
    41.Rice, W. R. Analyzing tables of statistical tests. Evolution 43, 223–225 (1989).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    42.DeWoody, J. A. et al. Universal method for producing ROXlabeled size standards suitable for automated genotyping. Biotechniques 37, 348–352. https://doi.org/10.2144/04373BM02 (2004).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Goudet, J. Fstat (Version 1.2): A computer program to calculate F-statistics. J. Hered. 86, 485–486 (1995).44.Rousset, F. Genepop’007: A complete reimplementation of the Genepop software for Windows and Linux. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 8, 103–106 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Haldane, J. B. S. An exact test for randomness of mating. J. Genet. 52, 631–635. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02981502 (1954).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    46.Weir, B. S. & Cockerham, C. C. Estimating F-statistics for the analysis of population structure. Evolution 38, 1358–1370 (1984).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Guo, S. W. & Thompson, E. A. Performing the exact test of Hardy-Weinberg proportion for multiple alleles. Biometrics 48, 361–372 (1992).CAS 
    PubMed 
    MATH 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Raymond, M. & Rousset, F. An exact test for population differentiation. Evolution 49, 1280–1283 (1995).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    49.Kamvar, Z. N., Tabima, J. F. & Grünwald, N. J. Poppr: An R package for genetic analysis of populations with clonal, partially clonal, and/or sexual reproduction. PeerJ 2, e281. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.281 (2014).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Jombart, T. Adegenet: A R package for the multivariate analysis of genetic markers. Bioinformatics 24, 1403–1405 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Ciofi, C., Beaumont, M. A., Swingland, I. R. & Bruford, M. W. Genetic divergence and units for conservation in the Komodo dragon Varanus komodoensis. Proc. Royal Soc. B 266, 2269–2274 (1999).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Pritchard, J. K., Stephens, M. & Donnelly, P. Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155, 945–959 (2000).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Kopelman, N. M., Mayzel, J., Jakobsson, M., Rosenberg, N. A. & Mayrose, I. CLUMPAK: A program for identifying clustering modes and packaging population structure inferences across K. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 15, 1179–1191 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Evanno, G., Regnaut, S. & Goudet, J. Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software structure: A simulation study. Mol. Ecol. 14, 2611–2620 (2005).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Jakobsson, M. & Rosenberg, N. A. CLUMPP: A cluster matching and permutation program for dealing with label switching and multimodality in analysis of population structure. Bioinformatics 23, 1801–1806 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Rosenberg, N. A. DISTRUCT: A program for the graphical display of population structure. Mol. Ecol. Notes 4, 137–138 (2004).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Kalinowski, S. T. The computer program STRUCTURE does not reliably identify the main genetic clusters within species: Simulations and implications for human population structure. Heredity 106, 625–632 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Puechmaille, S. J. The program structure does not reliably recover the correct population structure when sampling is uneven: Subsampling and new estimators alleviate the problem. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 16, 608–627 (2016).PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Jombart, T., Devillard, S. & Balloux, F. Discriminant analysis of principal components: A new method for the analysis of genetically structured populations. BMC Genet. 11, 94 (2010).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    60.R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. URL: https://www.R-project.org/ (2019).61.Trushenski, J. T., Whelan, G. E. & Bowker, J. D. Why keep hatcheries? Weighing the economic cost and value of fish production for public use and public trust purposes. Fisheries 43, 285–293 (2018).
    Google Scholar 
    62.Wacker, S., Larsen, B. M., Jakobsen, P. & Karlsson, S. High levels of multiple paternity in a spermcast mating freshwater mussel. Ecol. Evol. 8, 8126–8134 (2018).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Wacker, S., Larsen, B. M., Jakobsen, P. & Karlsson, S. Multiple paternity promotes genetic diversity in captive breeding of a freshwater mussel. Glob. Ecol. Conserv. 17, e00564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00564 (2019).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Garrison, N. L., Johnson, P. D. & Whelan, N. V. Conservation genomics reveals low genetic diversity and multiple parentage in the threatened freshwater mussel, Margaritifera hembeli. Conserv. Genet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10592-020-01329-8 (2021).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    65.Bauer, G. Reproductive strategy of the freshwater pearl mussel Margaritifera margaritifera. J. Anim. Ecol. 56, 691–704 (1987).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    66.McMurray, S. E. & Roe, K. J. Perspectives on the controlled propagation, augmentation, and reintroduction of freshwater mussels (Mollusca: Bivalvia: Unionoida). Freshw. Mollusk Biol. Conserv. 20, 1–12 (2017).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Geist, J. Seven steps towards improving freshwater conservation. Aquat. Conserv. 25, 447–453 (2015).Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Metagenomic approaches reveal differences in genetic diversity and relative abundance of nitrifying bacteria and archaea in contrasting soils

    1.Spiertz, J. H. J. Nitrogen, sustainable agriculture and food security: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 30, 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2008064 (2010).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Kowalchuk, G. A. & Stephen, J. R. Ammonia-oxidizing bacteria: a model for molecular microbial ecology. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 55, 485–529. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.55.1.485 (2001).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Zumft, W. G. Cell biology and molecular basis of denitrification. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 61, 533–616 (1997).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Gelfand, I. & Yakir, D. Influence of nitrite accumulation in association with seasonal patterns and mineralization of soil nitrogen in a semi-arid pine forest. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40, 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.09.005 (2008).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Subbarao, G. V. et al. Scope and strategies for regulation of nitrification in agricultural systems-challenges and opportunities. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 25, 303–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680600794232 (2006).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Shen, T., Stieglmeier, M., Dai, J., Urich, T. & Schleper, C. Responses of the terrestrial ammonia-oxidizing archaeon Ca. Nitrososphaera viennensis and the ammonia-oxidizing bacterium Nitrosospira multiformis to nitrification inhibitors. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 344, 121–129, https://doi.org/10.1111/1574-6968.12164 (2013).7.Prosser, J. I., Head, I. M. & Stein, L. Y. in The Prokaryotes – Alphaproteobacteria and Betaproteobacteria (ed DeLong Rosenberg E., E.F., Lory, S., Stackebrandt, E., Thompson, F.) 901–918 (Springer-Verlag, 2014).8.Hayatsu, M. et al. An acid-tolerant ammonia-oxidizing gamma-proteobacterium from soil. ISME J. 11, 1130–1141. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2016.191 (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Alves, R.J.E., Minh, B.Q, Urich, T., von Haeseler, A. & Schleper, C. Unifying the global phylogeny and environmental distribution of ammonia-oxidising archaea based on amoA genes. Nat. Commun. 9, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03861-1 (2018).10.Wang, H. Et al. Distinct distribution of archaea from soil to freshwater to estuary: implications of archaeal composition and function in different environments. Front. Microbiol. 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.576661 (2020).11.Prosser, J. I. & Nicol, G. W. Archaeal and bacterial ammonia-oxidisers in soil: the quest for niche specialisation and differentiation. Trends Microbiol. 20, 523–531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2012.08.001 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Pester, M. et al. amoA-based consensus phylogeny of ammonia-oxidizing archaea and deep sequencing of amoA genes from soils of four different geographic regions. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 525–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02666.x (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Spang, A. et al. The genome of the ammonia-oxidizing Candidatus Nitrososphaera gargensis: insights into metabolic versatility and environmental adaptations. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 3122–3145. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2012.02893.x (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Daims, H. et al. Complete nitrification by Nitrospira bacteria. Nature 528, 504–509. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16461 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    15.van Kessel, M. A. et al. Complete nitrification by a single microorganism. Nature 528, 555–559. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature16459 (2015).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    16.Junier, P. et al. Phylogenetic and functional marker genes to study ammonia-oxidizing microorganisms (AOM) in the environment. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 85, 425–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-009-2228-9 (2010).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Leininger, S. et al. Archaea predominate among ammonia-oxidizing prokaryotes in soils. Nature 442, 806–809. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04983 (2006).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Zhalnina, K. et al. Ca. Nitrososphaera and Bradyrhizobium are inversely correlated and related to agricultural practices in long-term field experiments. Front. Microbiol. 4, 104, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2013.00104 (2013).19.Pjevac, P. et al. AmoA-targeted polymerase chain reaction primers for the specific detection and quantification of comammox Nitrospira in the environment. Front. Microbiol. 8, 1508. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.01508 (2017).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    20.Palomo, A., Dechesne, A. & Smets, B. F. Genomic profiling of Nitrospira species reveals ecological success of comammox Nitrospira. bioRxiv, 612226, https://doi.org/10.1101/612226 (2019).21.Poghosyan, L. et al. Metagenomic recovery of two distinct comammox Nitrospira from the terrestrial subsurface. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 3627–3637. https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.14691 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Palomo, A. et al. Comparative genomics sheds light on niche differentiation and the evolutionary history of comammox Nitrospira. ISME J. 12, 1779–1793. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-018-0083-3 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Strous, M. et al. Deciphering the evolution and metabolism of an anammox bacterium from a community genome. Nature 440, 790–794. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04647 (2006).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    24.De Boer, W. & Kowalchuk, G. A. Nitrification in acid soils: micro-organisms and mechanisms. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33, 853–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0038-0717(00)00247-9 (2001).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Tourna, M. et al. Nitrososphaera viennensis, an ammonia oxidizing archaeon from soil. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 108, 8420–8425. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013488108 (2011).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Arp, D. J., Chain, P. S. G. & Klotz, M. G. The impact of genome analyses on our understanding of ammonia-oxidizing bacteria. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 61, 503–528 (2007).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Simon, J. & Klotz, M. G. Diversity and evolution of bioenergetic systems involved in microbial nitrogen compound transformations. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 114–135, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2012.07.005 (1827).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Walker, C. B. et al. Nitrosopumilus maritimus genome reveals unique mechanisms for nitrification and autotrophy in globally distributed marine crenarchaea. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107, 8818–8823. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0913533107 (2010).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Li, C. Y., Hu, H. W., Chen, Q. L., Chen, D. L. & He, J. Z. Comammox Nitrospira play an active role in nitrification of agricultural soils amended with nitrogen fertilizers. Soil Biol. Biochem. 138, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2019.107609 (2019).30.Li, C. Y., Hu, H. W., Chen, Q. L., Chen, D. L. & He, J. Z. Niche differentiation of clade A comammox Nitrospira and canonical ammonia oxidizers in selected forest soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.107925 (2020).31.Daims, H., Lucker, S. & Wagner, M. A new perspective on microbes formerly known as nitrite-oxidizing bacteria. Trends Microbiol. 24, 699–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2016.05.004 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Castelle, C. J. et al. Extraordinary phylogenetic diversity and metabolic versatility in aquifer sediment. Nat. Commun. 4, 2120. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3120 (2013).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Sorokin, D. Y. et al. Nitrification expanded: discovery, physiology and genomics of a nitrite-oxidizing bacterium from the phylum Chloroflexi. ISME J. 6, 2245–2256. https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2012.70 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Lucker, S. et al. A Nitrospira metagenome illuminates the physiology and evolution of globally important nitrite-oxidizing bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 107, 13479–13484. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003860107 (2010).ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Mendum, T. A., Sockett, R. E. & Hirsch, P. R. Use of molecular and isotopic techniques to monitor the response of autotrophic ammonia-oxidizing populations of the beta subdivision of the class Proteobacteria in arable soils to nitrogen fertilizer. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 65, 4155–4162 (1999).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Hirsch, P. R. et al. Soil resilience and recovery: rapid community responses to management changes. Plant Soil 412, 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3068-x (2017).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    37.Hirsch, P. R., Mauchline, T. H. & Clark, I. M. Culture-independent molecular techniques for soil microbial ecology. Soil Biol. Biochem. 42, 878–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.02.019 (2010).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Vetrovsky, T. & Baldrian, P. The variability of the 16S rRNA gene in bacterial genomes and its consequences for bacterial community analyses. PLoS ONE 8, e57923. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057923 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    39.Fu, Q.L., Clark, I.M., Zhu, J., Hu, H.Q. & Hirsch, P.R The short-term effects of nitrification inhibitors on the abundance and expression of ammonia. and nitrite oxidizers in a long-term field experiment comparing land management. Biol Fertil Soils. 54, 163–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00374-017-1249-2 (2018).40.Bollmann, A., Schmidt, I., Saunders, A. M. & Nicolaisen, M. H. Influence of starvation on potential ammonia-oxidizing activity and amoA mRNA levels of Nitrosospira briensis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 71, 1276–1282. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.71.3.1276-1282.2005 (2005).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Li, C. Y., Hu, H. W., Chen, Q. L., Chen, D. L. & He, J. Z. Growth of comammox Nitrospira is inhibited by nitrification inhibitors in agricultural soils. J. Soils Sediments 20, 621–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11368-019-02442-z (2020).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Koch, H., van Kessel, M. A. H. J. & Lücker, S. Complete nitrification: insights into the ecophysiology of comammox Nitrospira. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 103, 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-018-9486-3 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Placella, S. A. & Firestone, M. K. Transcriptional response of nitrifying communities to wetting of dry soil. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 3294–3302. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00404-13 (2013).ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Hirsch, P. R. et al. Starving the soil of plant inputs for 50 years reduces abundance but not diversity of soil bacterial communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 41, 2021–2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soilbio.2009.07.011 (2009).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.Clark, I. M., Buchkina, N., Jhurreea, D., Goulding, K. W. & Hirsch, P. R. Impacts of nitrogen application rates on the activity and diversity of denitrifying bacteria in the Broadbalk Wheat Experiment. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 367, 1235–1244, https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0314 (2012).46.Buchfink, B., Xie, C. & Huson, D. H. Fast and sensitive protein alignment using DIAMOND. Nat. Meth. 12, 59–60 (2015).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Huson, D. H., Auch, A. F., Qi, J. & Schuster, S. C. MEGAN analysis of metagenomic data. Genome Res. 17, 377–386. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.5969107 (2007).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Katoh, K. & Standley, D. M. MAFFT Multiple Sequence Alignment Software Version 7: improvements in performance and usability. Mol. Biol. Evol. 30, 772–780. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/mst010 (2013).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    The phyllosphere microbiome of host trees contributes more than leaf phytochemicals to variation in the Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire gut microbiome structure

    1.Feldhaar, H. Bacterial symbionts as mediators of ecologically important traits of insect hosts. Ecol. Entomol. 36, 533–543 (2011).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    2.Popa, V., Deziel, E., Lavallee, R., Bauce, E. & Guertin, C. The complex symbiotic relationships of bark beetles with microorganisms: A potential practical approach for biological control in forestry. Pest Manag. Sci. 68, 963–975. https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.3307 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    3.Qadri, M., Short, S., Gast, K., Hernandez, J. & Wong, A.C.-N. Microbiome innovation in agriculture: Development of microbial based tools for insect pest management. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 4, 547751. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs (2020).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    4.Vasanthakumar, A., Handelsman, J., Schloss, P. D., Bauer, L. S. & Raffa, K. F. Gut microbiota of an invasive subcortical beetle, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, across various life stages. Environ. Entomol. 37, 1344–1353 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    5.Zhang, Z., Jiao, S., Li, X. & Li, M. Bacterial and fungal gut communities of Agrilus mali at different developmental stages and fed different diets. Sci. Rep. 8, 15634. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-34127-x (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    6.Franzini, P. Z., Ramond, J.-B., Scholtz, C. H., Sole, C. L., Ronca, S. & Cowan, D. A. The gut microbiomes of two Pachysoma MacLeay desert dung beetle species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae) feeding on different diets. PLoS ONE 11, e0161118 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    7.Colman, D. R., Toolson, E. C. & Takacs-Vesbach, C. Do diet and taxonomy influence insect gut bacterial communities?. Mol. Ecol. 21, 5124–5137 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    8.Kim, J. M. Choi, M.-Y., Kim, J.-W., Lee, S. A., Ahn, J.-H., Song, J., Kim, S.-H. & Weon, H.-Y. Effects of diet type, developmental stage, and gut compartment in the gut bacterial communities of two Cerambycidae species (Coleoptera). J. Microbiol. 55, 21–30 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    9.Ferguson, L. V.  Dhakal, P., Lebenzon, J. E., Heinrichs, D. E., Bucking, C., & Sinclair B. J. Seasonal shifts in the insect gut microbiome are concurrent with changes in cold tolerance and immunity. Funct. Ecol. 32, 2357–2368 (2018).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    10.Mason, C. J., Hanshew, A. S. & Raffa, K. F. Contributions by host trees and insect activity to bacterial communities in Dendroctonus valens (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) galleries, and their high overlap with other microbial assemblages of bark beetles. Environ. Entomol. 45, 348–356. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/nvv184 (2015).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    11.Mogouong, J., Constant, P., Lavallée, R. & Guertin, C. Gut microbiome of the emerald ash borer, Agrilus planipennis Fairmaire, and its relationship with insect population density. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1093/femsec/fiaa141 (2020).Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    12.Moran, N. A. & Yun, Y. Experimental replacement of an obligate insect symbiont. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, 2093–2096 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    13.Borcard, D., Legendre, P. & Drapeau, P. Partialling out the spatial component of ecological variation. Ecology 73, 1045–1055 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    14.Peres-Neto, P. R., Legendre, P., Dray, S. & Borcard, D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: Estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87, 2614–2625 (2006).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    15.Cappaert, D., McCullough, D. G., Poland, T. M. & Siegert, N. W. Emerald ash borer in North America: A research and regulatory challenge. (2005).16.Kovacs, K. F., Haight, R. G., McCullough, D. G., Mercader, R. J., Siegert, N. W. & Liebhold, A. M. Cost of potential emerald ash borer damage in U.S. communities, 2009–2019. Ecol. Econ. 69, 569–578 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    17.Aukema, J. E., Leung, B., Kovacs, K., Chivers, C., Britton, K. O., Englin, J., Frankel, S. J., Haight, R. G., Holmes, T. P., Liebhold, A. M., McCullough, D. G. & Von Holle, B. Economic impacts of non-native forest insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6, e24587 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    18.Poland, T. M. & McCullough, D. G. Emerald ash borer: Invasion of the urban forest and the threat to North America’s ash resource. J. For. 104, 118–124 (2006).
    Google Scholar 
    19.Herms, D. A. & McCullough, D. G. Emerald ash borer invasion of North America: History, biology, ecology, impacts, and management. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 59, 13–30. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ento-011613-162051 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    20.McCullough, D. G. Challenges, tactics and integrated management of emerald ash borer in North America. For. Int. J. For. Res. 93, 197–211 (2020).
    Google Scholar 
    21.Gandhi, K. J. & Herms, D. A. North American arthropods at risk due to widespread Fraxinus mortality caused by the alien emerald ash borer. Biol. Invasions 12, 1839–1846 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    22.Slesak, R. A., Lenhart, C. F., Brooks, K. N., D’Amato, A. W. & Palik, B. J. Water table response to harvesting and simulated emerald ash borer mortality in black ash wetlands in Minnesota, USA. Can. J. For. Res. 44, 961–968 (2014).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    23.Wielkopolan, B. & Obrepalska-Steplowska, A. Three-way interaction among plants, bacteria, and coleopteran insects. Planta 244, 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-016-2543-1 (2016).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    24.Howe, G. A. & Jander, G. Plant immunity to insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 59, 41–66 (2008).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    25.Stam, J. M., Kroes, A., Li, Y., Gols, R., van Loon, J. J. A., Poelman, E. H. & Dicke, M. Plant interactions with multiple insect herbivores: from community to genes. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 65, 689–713 (2014).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    26.Douglas, A. E. Multiorganismal insects: Diversity and function of resident microorganisms. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 60, 17–34 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    27.Vorholt, J. A. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 828 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    28.Shikano, I., Rosa, C., Tan, C.-W. & Felton, G. W. Tritrophic interactions: Microbe-mediated plant effects on insect herbivores. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 55, 313–331 (2017).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    29.Schowalter, T. D. Insect Ecology: An Ecosystem Approach (Academic Press, 2016).
    Google Scholar 
    30.Oliverio, A. M., Gan, H., Wickings, K. & Fierer, N. A DNA metabarcoding approach to characterize soil arthropod communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 125, 37–43 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    31.Lennon, J. T., Muscarella, M. E., Placella, S. A. & Lehmkuhl, B. K. How, when, and where relic DNA affects microbial diversity. MBio 9, e00637-e618. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00637-18 (2018).Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    32.Humphrey, P. T. & Whiteman, N. K. Insect herbivory reshapes a native leaf microbiome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 221–229 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    33.Yutthammo, C., Thongthammachat, N., Pinphanichakarn, P. & Luepromchai, E. Diversity and activity of PAH-degrading bacteria in the phyllosphere of ornamental plants. Microb. Ecol. 59, 357–368 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    34.Kadivar, H. & Stapleton, A. E. Ultraviolet radiation alters maize phyllosphere bacterial diversity. Microb. Ecol. 45, 353–361 (2003).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    35.Thapa, S. & Prasanna, R. Prospecting the characteristics and significance of the phyllosphere microbiome. Ann. Microbiol. 68, 229–245 (2018).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    36.Kembel, S. W., O’Connor, T. K., Arnold, H. K., Hubbell, S. P., Wright, S. J. & Green, J. L. Relationships between phyllosphere bacterial communities and plant functional traits in a neotropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 111, 13715–13720 (2014).37.Biedermann, P. H. & Vega, F. E. Ecology and evolution of insect–fungus mutualisms. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 65, 431–455 (2020).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    38.Fischer, R., Ostafe, R. & Twyman, R. M. In: Yellow Biotechnology II: Insect Biotechnology in Plant Protection and Industry. Ch. Cellulases from insects, 51–64 (Springer, 2013).39.Watanabe, H. & Tokuda, G. Cellulolytic systems in insects. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 55, 609–632 (2010).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    40.Mittapalli, O., Bai, X., Mamidala, P., Rajarapu, S. P., Bonello, P. & Herms, D. A. Tissue-specific transcriptomics of the exotic invasive insect pest emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis). PLoS ONE 5, e13708 (2010).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    41.Vacheron, J., Péchy-Tarr, M., Brochet, S., Heiman, C. M., Stojiljkovic, M., Maurhofer, M. & Keel, C. T6SS contributes to gut microbiome invasion and killing of an herbivorous pest insect by plant-beneficial Pseudomonas protegens. ISME J. 13, 1318–1329. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-019-0353-8 (2019).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    42.Smith, C. C., Snowberg, L. K., Caporaso, J. G., Knight, R. & Bolnick, D. I. Dietary input of microbes and host genetic variation shape among-population differences in stickleback gut microbiota. ISME J. 9, 2515–2526 (2015).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    43.Agler, M. T., Ruhe, J., Kroll, S., Morhenn, C., Kim, S.-T., Weigel, D. & Kemen, E. M. Microbial hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002352 (2016).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    44.Gupta, A. & Nair, S. Dynamics of insect-microbiome interaction influence host and microbial symbiont. Front. Microbiol. 11, 1357 (2020).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    45.AFSQ. La clé forestière. https://afsq.org/cle-forestiere/accueil.html. Association forestière du Sud du Québec (2018).46.Comeau, A. M., Li, W. K. W., Tremblay, J. -É., Carmack, E. C. & Lovejoy, C. Arctic Ocean Microbial Community Structure before and after the 2007 Record Sea Ice Minimum. PLoS ONE 6, e27492. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0027492 (2011).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    47.Toju, H., Tanabe, A. S., Yamamoto, S. & Sato, H. High-coverage ITS primers for the DNA-based identification of ascomycetes and basidiomycetes in environmental samples. PLoS ONE 7, e40863. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040863 (2012).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    48.Edgar, R. C. UNOISE2: Improved error-correction for Illumina 16S and ITS amplicon sequencing. BioRxiv 081257 (2016).49.Edgar, R. C. Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST. Bioinformatics 26, 2460–2461 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    50.Callahan, B. J., McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. P. Exact sequence variants should replace operational taxonomic units in marker-gene data analysis. ISME J. 11, 2639 (2017).PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    51.Glassman, S. I. & Martiny, J. B. H. Broadscale ecological patterns are robust to use of exact sequence variants versus operational taxonomic units. mSphere 3, e00148-e118. https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00148-18 (2018).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 
    52.Cole, J. R., Wang, Q., Fish, J. A., Chai, B., McGarrell, D. M., Sun, Y.,  Brown, C. T.,  Porras-Alfaro, A., Kuske, C. R. & Tiedje J. M. Ribosomal database project: Data and tools for high throughput rRNA analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 42, D633-642. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1244 (2014).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    53.Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naive Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    54.Chen, Y. & Poland, T. M. Interactive influence of leaf age, light intensity, and girdling on green ash foliar chemistry and emerald ash borer development. J. Chem. Ecol. 35, 806–815. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-009-9661-1 (2009).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    55.Bi, J. L., Toscano, N. C. & Madore, M. A. Effect of urea fertilizer application on soluble protein and free amino acid content of cotton petioles in relation to silverleaf whitefly (Bemisia argentifolii) populations. J. Chem. Ecol. 29, 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1022880905834 (2003).CAS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 
    56.Torti, S. D., Dearing, M. D. & Kursar, T. A. Extraction of phenolic compounds from fresh leaves: A comparison of methods. J. Chem. Ecol. 21, 117–125 (1995).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    57.Hagerman, A. E. Extraction of tannin from fresh and preserved leaves. J. Chem. Ecol. 14, 453–461 (1988).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    58.Beauchemin, N. J., Furnholm,T., Lavenus, J., Svistoonoff, S., Doumas, P., Bogusz, D., Laplaze, L. & Tisa L. S. Casuarina root exudates alter the physiology, surface properties, and plant infectivity of Frankia sp. strain CcI3. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 575–580 (2012).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    59.Garg, B. Plant Analysis: Comprehensive Methods and Protocols (Scientific Publishers, 2012).
    Google Scholar 
    60.Wellburn, R. The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as well as total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J. Plant Physiol. 144, 307–313 (1994).CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    61.Marquis, R. J., Newell, E. A. & Villegas, A. C. Non-structural carbohydrate accumulation and use in an understorey rain-forest shrub and relevance for the impact of leaf herbivory. Funct. Ecol. 11, 636–643. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2435.1997.00139.x (1997).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    62.Garcia, A. M. N., Moumen, A., Ruiz, D. Y. & Alcaide, E. M. Chemical composition and nutrients availability for goats and sheep of two-stage olive cake and olive leaves. Anim. Feed Sci. Technol. 107, 61–74 (2003).Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 
    63.Van Soest, P. V., Robertson, J. & Lewis, B. Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, and nonstarch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. J. Dairy Sci. 74, 3583–3597 (1991).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    64.Oksanen, J., Blanchet, F. G., Friendly, M., Kindt, R., Legendre, P., McGlinn, D., Minchin, P. R. & O’Hara, R. B. Package ‘vegan’. R package version 2.5-6 (2019)65.Borcard, D., Gillet, F. & Legendre, P. Numerical Ecology with R (Springer, 2018).MATH 
    Book 

    Google Scholar 
    66.Kembel, S. W., Eisen, J. A., Pollard, K. S. & Green, J. L. The phylogenetic diversity of metagenomes. PLoS ONE 6, e23214 (2011).CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 
    ADS 

    Google Scholar 
    67.Faith, D. P. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol. Cons. 61, 1–10 (1992).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    68.Kembel, S. W.,  Cowan, P. D., Helmus, M. R., Cornwell, W. K., Morlon, H., Ackerly, D. D., Blomberg, S. P., & Webb, C. O. Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26, 1463–1464 (2010).CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    69.Legendre, P. & De Cáceres, M. Beta diversity as the variance of community data: Dissimilarity coefficients and partitioning. Ecol. Lett. 16, 951–963 (2013).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 
    70.Dray, S., Bauman, D., Blanchet, G., Borcard, D., Clappe, S., Guenard, G., Jombart, T., Larocque, G., Legendre, P., Madi, N, Wagner H. H. Package ‘adespatial’, version 0.3-14. R Package version 2.5.6 (2018).71.De Cáceres, M., Legendre, P. & Moretti, M. Improving indicator species analysis by combining groups of sites. Oikos 119, 1674–1684 (2010).Article 

    Google Scholar 
    72.De Caceres, M., Jansen, F. & Caceres, D. Package ‘indicspecies’, version 1.7.9. R package version 2.5.6 (2016).73.Blanchet, F. G., Legendre, P. & Borcard, D. Forward selection of explanatory variables. Ecology 89, 2623–2632 (2008).PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar  More

  • in

    Ghostly conduits

    Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
    the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
    Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
    and JavaScript. More