Skip to main content
mBio logoLink to mBio
. 2016 Mar 31;7(2):e01785-15. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01785-15

Speciation by Symbiosis: the Microbiome and Behavior

J Dylan Shropshire a, Seth R Bordenstein a,b,
PMCID: PMC4817261  PMID: 27034284

ABSTRACT

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

INTRODUCTION

In 1998, Carl Woese referred to the microbial world as the “sleeping giant” of biology (1). Almost two decades later, unprecedented attention to our microbial world has turned the fields of zoology (2) and botany (3) inward—toward an increased awareness and understanding of individual animals and plants as holobionts (46). The term “holobiont” denotes a host plus all of its microbial symbionts, including inconstant and constant members that are either vertically or horizontally transmitted or environmentally acquired; it was first coined in 1991 by Lynn Margulis (reviewed in reference 5). The ubiquity and importance of microbes in and on holobionts, including humans, are evident in studies of host development (7), immunity (8), metabolism (912), behavior (13, 14), speciation (15, 16), and numerous other processes. Host-microbe interactions provide the holobiont with disadvantages (1719), such as increasing the risk of cancer (20), and advantages (7, 2123), such as driving the evolution of resistance to parasites and pathogens (2426), and among other things producing signal components (i.e., metabolites) used to recognize differences in potential mates (27, 28).

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

As natural selection operates on variation in phenotypes, the hologenome theory’s most significant utility is that it reclassifies the target of “individual” selection for many animal and plant traits to the holobiont community. This claim is straightforward given the overwhelming influence of microbes on host traits (3134). The question going forward is whether the response to this community-level selection is relevant to the biology of holobionts. In other words, can host-associated microbial communities be selected such that shifts in the microbial consortia over multiple generations are a response to selection on holobiont traits? Community selection at the holobiont level is shaped by genetic variation in the host and microbial species and covariance between hosts and their microbial consortia, the latter of which can be driven by (i) inheritance of the microbial community from parents to offspring (35, 36) and/or (ii) community heritability H2C (30, 37). We recently summarized 10 foundational principles of the holobiont and hologenome concepts, aligned them with preexisting theories and frameworks in biology, and discussed critiques and questions to be answered by future research (6).

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

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

We recently synthesized the literature and concepts of various speciation mechanisms related to symbiosis, with notable attention to postzygotic isolation (4042). While aspects of the microbiology of prezygotic isolation are less understood, seminal cases exist (4345), and control of behavior by symbionts is an emerging area of widespread interest (14, 46, 47). Here we emphasize the patterns seen in these new and old analyses (Table 1) and highlight important and tractable questions about the microbiome, behavior, and speciation by symbiosis. For the purposes of this minireview, we refer to the microbiome as the community of microorganisms in and on a host.

TABLE 1 .

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

Microbe-induced trait Host species Common name Symbiont(s) Behavior or reproductive outcome Reference(s)
Host signal modification Drosophila bifasciata Fruit fly Unknown Assortative mating based on familiarity 149
Drosophila subobscura Fruit fly Unknown Assortative mating based on kinship 149
Drosophila melanogaster Fruit fly Lactobacillus plantarum Assortative mating based on diet 43, 82
Mus musculus House mouse Unknown gut bacteria Species recognition 85
Bacterial metabolite production D. melanogaster Fruit fly Lactobacillus brevis, L. plantarum Assortative mating based on diet 28
Reticulitermes speratus Termite Unknown gut bacteria Exclusion of noncolony members 51
Costelytra zealandica Grass grub Unknown bacteria in colleterial glands Mate attraction 91
Crocuta crocuta Spotted hyena Unknown bacteria in anal scent glands Clan, age, sex, and reproductive status recognition 64
Hyaena hyaena Striped hyena Unknown bacteria in anal scent glands Clan, age, sex, and reproductive status recognition 64
Meles meles European badger Unknown bacteria in anal scent glands Possible mate discrimination 93
Suricata suricatta Meerkat Unknown bacteria in anal scent glands Group, age, and sex recognition 27
Odor production M. musculus House mouse Salmonella enterica Initial avoidance of infected males 86
Homo sapiens Human Unknown Attractiveness 101–103
Cytoplasmic incompatibility Drosophila paulistorum Fruit fly Wolbachia Assortment within semispecies 44
D. recens and D. subquinaria Fruit fly Wolbachia in D. recens Asymmetric mating isolation 112
D. melanogaster Fruit fly Wolbachia Increased mate discrimination 45
Nasonia giraulti Parasitoid wasp Wolbachia Decreased mate discrimination 117
Tetranychus urticae Two-spotted spider mite Wolbachia Uninfected females prefer uninfected males 113
Male killing Armadallidium vulgare Pill bug Wolbachia Reduce sperm count and female fertility 128
D. melanogaster Fruit fly Spiroplasma poulsonii Evolved suppressors to prevent male killing 125
Acraea encedon Common Acraea butterfly Wolbachia Male mate choice 127
A. encedon Common Acraea butterfly Wolbachia Populations with high infection rates are not discriminatory 123
Hypolimnas bolina Great eggfly butterfly Wolbachia Reduced female fertility 126, 129
H. bolina Great eggfly butterfly Wolbachia Evolved suppressor gene to prevent male killing 25
Feminization A. vulgare Pill bug Wolbachia Males reproductively female but masculine males prefer true females 133
Eurema hecabe Grass yellow butterfly Wolbachia Males reproductively female 130, 131
Zyginidia pullula Leafhopper Wolbachia Males reproductively female 132
Parthenogenesis Apoanagyrus diversicornis Mealybug parasite Wolbachia Females less attractive to males 145
Asobara japonica Parasitoid wasp Wolbachia Females less attractive to males 144
Leptopilina clavipes Parasitoid wasp Wolbachia Reduction in male and female sexual traits and fertility 143, 147
Muscidifurax uniraptor Parasitoid wasp Wolbachia Reduction in sexual traits 142
Neochrysocharis formosa Parasitoid wasp Wolbachia Female-biased sex ratio 139
Galeopsomyia fausta Parasitoid wasp Unknown Females not receptive 150
Franklinothrips vespiformis Thrips Wolbachia Male sperm presumably do not fertilize female eggs 137

SIGNALING AND MICROBIOME HOMOGENIZATION

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

FIG 1 .

FIG 1 

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

The microbiome’s capacity to provide identity information used in mate choice may rely on products being an honest signal of holobiont group membership, requiring that many or all members of the group (i.e., gender, population, or species) contain appropriate microbial members that express equivalent signal profiles. Holobionts can be colonized by similar microbes via a number of different mechanisms, spanning behavioral similarities and contact with shared environmental sources (53, 54), similar ecological niches and diets (5557), and host genetic effects (16, 58). Each of these mechanisms may explain a portion of the variation in the microbial communities of holobionts (40, 42, 5961).

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

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

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

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

MICROBE-ASSISTED MODIFICATION OF MATING SIGNALS

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

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

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

MICROBE-SPECIFIC SIGNALS

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

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

Humans also carry bacteria related to odor production. Breath (94, 95), foot (96), and underarm (97) odor covary with oral and skin microbiomes, respectively. Many diseases (e.g., smallpox, bacterial vaginosis, syphilis, etc.) are associated with distinct odors, which have historically been used by physicians in diagnosis (98). Clothing made from different materials even carry different odor profiles based on material-specific bacterial colonization (99, 100). Male odor has been associated with women’s interpretation of a male’s attractiveness (101103), possibly influencing their choice in a mate.

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

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

ENDOSYMBIONTS AND MATE CHOICE

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

Cytoplasmic incompatibility.

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

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

FIG 2 .

FIG 2 

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

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

Male killing.

Male killing is the most common form of endosymbiont-induced sex ratio manipulation and can occur during embryonic (119, 120) or larval (121, 122) development. The effect of male killing is to increase the number of female hosts in a population, thereby increasing endosymbiont transmission rates. To prevent complete fixation of females and population extinction (123), selection can favor hosts to (i) suppress male killing via genes that reduce Wolbachia densities or functions (25, 124126) or (ii) electively choose mates whereby uninfected males preferentially mate with uninfected females (127, 128). If mate choice evolves as a behavioral adaptation to avoid male killing, it could begin to splinter infected and uninfected populations and initiate the first steps of the speciation process (Fig. 2A). One significant caveat in this conceptual model is that the infected population will go extinct without uninfected males to mate with. Thus, if mate preference based on infection status was complete, it would cause speciation between the infected and uninfected populations, resulting in the immediate extinction of the infected population that requires uninfected males to reproduce. We term this phenomena “behavioral extinction” (Fig. 2).

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

Feminization.

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

Parthenogenesis.

Microbe-induced parthenogenesis is common among haplodiploid arthropods such as wasps, mites, and thrips (135137), wherein unfertilized eggs become females (138, 139). As we previously discussed (140), parthenogenesis-induced speciation by endosymbiotic bacteria falls neatly with the biological species concept because parthenogenesis can sever gene flow and cause the evolution of reproductive isolation between sexual and asexual populations. Microbe-induced parthenogenesis does not necessarily exclude the sexual capability of parthenogenetic females, but instead it removes the necessity of sexual reproduction and can potentially drive divergence in sexual behaviors and mate choice (141). Speciation therefore commences between sexual and asexual populations under two models: (i) sexual degeneration and (ii) relaxed sexual selection (140) (Fig. 2D).

The sexual degeneration model posits that the asexual population becomes incompetent to engage in sexual interactions due to mutational accumulation and thus trait degeneration, while the sexual population remains otherwise the same (140). In this case, parthenogenetic lineages accumulate mutations in genes involved in sexual reproduction. Traits subject to mutational meltdown may span secondary sexual characteristics, fertilization, mating behavior, and signal production, among other traits (142144). For instance, long-term Wolbachia-induced parthenogenesis in mealybugs and some parasitoid wasps prevents females from attracting mates or properly expressing sexual behaviors (144, 145). Similarly, in primarily asexual populations, male courtship behavior and sexual functionality are often impaired (142, 146, 147). The accrual of these mutations prevents sexual reproduction, thus causing the parthenogenetic population to become “locked in” to an asexual lifestyle. While this model is an attractive hypothesis for the onset of reproductive isolation between asexual and sexual populations, it is not always easily distinguishable from the alternative relaxed sexual selection model (140). In this model, the sexual population diverges by evolving new or altered mating factors (e.g., courtship sequence, signals, etc.), while the asexual population does not degrade, but rather stays the same and thus can no longer mate with individuals from the diverging sexual population (140).

CONCLUSIONS

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

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

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

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

Footnotes

Citation Shropshire JD, Bordenstein SR. 2016. Speciation by symbiosis: the microbiome and behavior. mBio 7(2):e01785-15. doi:10.1128/mBio.01785-15.

REFERENCES

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

Articles from mBio are provided here courtesy of American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

RESOURCES