Uropygial gland size and composition varies according to experimentally modified microbiome in Great tits

BMC Evolutionary Biology

Philipp Heeb²  Gilles Espinasse²  Christine Ducamp²  Nathalie Parthuisot²  Sarah Leclaire¹  Anika Immer²  Staffan Jacob³ 

[1] Laboratoire Ecologie et Evolution, UMR 7625, UPMC CNRS ENS, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, 78 quai St Bernard, 75252 Paris, France;Laboratoire Évolution et Diversité Biologique (EDB), UMR 5174 Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), Ecole Nationale de Formation Agronomique (ENFA) – Université Paul Sabatier, 118 Route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse, France;Now at Station d’Ecologie Expérimentale du CNRS à Moulis, USR2936, 09200 Saint-Girons, France

关键词: Parus major;    Wax esters;    Host-microbiome interactions;    Microorganisms;    Preen gland;   

Others  :  855235
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2148-14-134

 received in 2014-04-14, accepted in 2014-06-11,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Parasites exert important selective pressures on host life history traits. In birds, feathers are inhabited by numerous microorganisms, some of them being able to degrade feathers or lead to infections. Preening feathers with secretions of the uropygial gland has been found to act as an antimicrobial defence mechanism, expected to regulate feather microbial communities and thus limit feather abrasion and infections. Here, we used an experimental approach to test whether Great tits (Parus major) modify their investment in the uropygial gland in response to differences in environmental microorganisms.

Results

We found that males, but not females, modified the size of their gland when exposed to higher bacterial densities on feathers. We also identified 16 wax esters in the uropygial gland secretions. The relative abundance of some of these esters changed in males and females, while the relative abundance of others changed only in females when exposed to greater bacterial loads on feathers.

Conclusion

Birds live in a bacterial world composed of commensal and pathogenic microorganisms. This study provides the first experimental evidence for modifications of investment in the defensive trait that is the uropygial gland in response to environmental microorganisms in a wild bird.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Jacob et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McFall-Ngai M, Hadfield MG, Bosch TCG, Carey HV, Domazet-Loso 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: Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013, 110:3229-3236.
• [2]Gilbert S, Sapp J, Tauber A: A symbiotic view of life: we have never been individuals. Q Rev Biol 2012, 87:325-341.
• [3]Clayton DH, Moore J (Eds): Host-Parasite Evolution: General Principles and Avian Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.
• [4]Stevens CE, Hume ID: Contributions of microbes in vertebrate gastrointestinal tract to production and conservation of nutrients. Physiol Rev 1998, 78:393-427.
• [5]Davis ME, Brown DC, Baker A, Bos K, Dirain MS, Halbrook E, Johnson ZB, Maxwell C, Rehberger T: Effect of direct-fed microbial and antibiotic supplementation on gastrointestinal microflora, mucin histochemical characterization, and immune populations of weanling pigs. Livest Sci 2007, 108:249-253.
• [6]Kuehl C, Wood H, Marsh T: Colonization of the cecal mucosa by Helicobacter hepaticus impacts the diversity of the indigenous microbiota. Infect Immun 2005, 73:6952-6961.
• [7]Dillon RJ, Vennard CT, Buckling A, Charnley AK: Diversity of locust gut bacteria protects against pathogen invasion. Ecol Lett 2005, 8:1291-1298.
• [8]Morgan XC, Segata N, Huttenhower C: Biodiversity and functional genomics in the human microbiome. Trends Genet 2013, 29:51-58.
• [9]Macpherson AJ, Harris NL: Interactions between commensal intestinal bacteria and the immune system. Nat Rev Immunol 2004, 4:478-485.
• [10]Ley RE, Lozupone CA, Hamady M, Knight R, Jeffrey I: Worlds within worlds: evolution of the vertebrate gut microbiota. Nat Rev Microbiol 2009, 6:776-788.
• [11]Sharon G, Segal D, Ringo JM, Hefetz A, Zilber-Rosenberg I, Rosenberg E: Commensal bacteria play a role in mating preference of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci 2010, 107:20051-20056.
• [12]Ezenwa VO, Gerardo NM, Inouye DW, Medina M, Xavier JB: Animal behavior and the microbiome. Science (80-) 2012, 338:198-199.
• [13]Hubalek Z: An annotated checklist of pathogenic microorganisms associated with migratory birds. J Wildl Dis 2004, 40:639-659.
• [14]Burtt JE, Ichida J: Occurrence of feather-degrading bacilli in the plumage of birds. Auk 1999, 116:364-372.
• [15]Goldstein G, Flory K, Browne B, Majid S: Bacterial degradation of black and white feathers. Auk 2004, 121:656-659.
• [16]Shawkey MD, Pillai SR, Hill GE, Siefferman LM, Roberts SR: Bacteria as an agent for change in structural plumage color: correlational and experimental evidence. Am Nat 2007, 169(Suppl(january)):S112-S121.
• [17]Gunderson AR: Feather-degrading bacteria: a new frontier in avian and host-parasite research? Auk 2008, 125:972-979.
• [18]Faust K, Sathirapongsasuti JF, Izard J, Segata N, Gevers D, Raes J, Huttenhower C: Microbial co-occurrence relationships in the human microbiome. PLoS Comput Biol 2012, 8:e1002606.
• [19]Soler JJ, Martín-Vivaldi M, Peralta-Sánchez JM, Ruiz-Rodríguez M, Ruiz M: Antibiotic-producing bacteria as a possible defence of birds against pathogenic microorganisms. Open Ornithol 2010, 2:29-36.
• [20]Shawkey MD, Pillai SR, Hill GE: Chemical warfare? Effects of uropygial oil on feather-degrading bacteria. J Avian Biol 2003, 34:345-349.
• [21]Møller AP, Czirjak GÃ, Heeb P: Feather micro-organisms and uropygial antimicrobial defences in a colonial passerine bird. Funct Ecol 2009, 23:1097-1102.
• [22]Moyer BR, Rock AN, Clayton DH: Experimental test of the importance of preen oil in rock doves (Columba livia). Auk 2003, 120:490-496.
• [23]Vincze O, Vágási CI, Kovács I, Galván I, Pap PL: Sources of variation in uropygial gland size in European birds. Biol J Linn Soc 2013, 110:543-563.
• [24]Soler JJ, Peralta-Sánchez JM, Martín-Platero a M, Martín-Vivaldi M, Martínez-Bueno M, Møller a P: The evolution of size of the uropygial gland: mutualistic feather mites and uropygial secretion reduce bacterial loads of eggshells and hatching failures of European birds. J Evol Biol 2012, 25:1779-1791.
• [25]Czirják GÁ, Pap PL, Vagasi CI, Giraudeau M, Murean C, Mirleau P, Heeb P: Preen gland removal increases plumage bacterial load but not that of feather-degrading bacteria. Naturwissenschaften 2013, 100:145-151.
• [26]Ruiz-Rodríguez M, Valdivia E, Soler JJ, Martín-Vivaldi M, Martín-Platero a M, Martínez-Bueno M: Symbiotic bacteria living in the hoopoe’s uropygial gland prevent feather degradation. J Exp Biol 2009, 212(Pt 22):3621-3626.
• [27]Lucas F, Moureau B, Jourdie V, Heeb P: Brood size modifications affect plumage bacterial assemblages of European starlings. Mol Ecol 2005, 14:639-646.
• [28]Lucas FS, Heeb P: Environmental factors shape cloacal bacterial assemblages in great tit Parus major and blue tit P. caeruleus nestlings. J Avian Biol 2005, 36:510-516.
• [29]Kilgas P, Saag P, Mägi M, Tilgar V, Mänd R: Plumage bacterial load increases during nest-building in a passerine bird. J Ornithol 2012, 153:833-838.
• [30]Harvell C: The ecology and evolution of inducible defences. Q Rev Biol 1990, 65:323-340.
• [31]Piault R, Gasparini J, Bize P, Paulet M, McGraw KJ, Roulin A: Experimental support for the makeup hypothesis in nestling tawny owls (Strix aluco). Behav Ecol 2008, 19:703-709.
• [32]Reneerkens J, Piersma T, Damsté JSS: Switch to diester preen waxes may reduce avian nest predation by mammalian predators using olfactory cues. J Exp Biol 2005, 208(Pt 22):4199-4202.
• [33]Martín-Vivaldi M, Ruiz-Rodríguez M, Soler JJ, Peralta-Sánchez JM, Méndez M, Valdivia E, Martín-Platero AM, Martínez-Bueno M: Seasonal, sexual and developmental differences in hoopoe Upupa epops preen gland morphology and secretions: evidence for a role of bacteria. J Avian Biol 2009, 40:191-205.
• [34]Whittaker DJ, Soini H a, Gerlach NM, Posto AL, Novotny MV, Ketterson ED: Role of testosterone in stimulating seasonal changes in a potential avian chemosignal. J Chem Ecol 2011, 37:1349-1357.
• [35]Giraudeau M, Czirják GÁ, Duval C, Bretagnolle V, Gutierrez C, Guillon N, Heeb P: Effect of preen oil on plumage bacteria: an experimental test with the mallard. Behav Processes 2012, 92:1-5.
• [36]Tschirren B, Fitze PS, Richner H: Sexual dimorphism in susceptibility to parasites and cell-mediated immunity in great tit nestlings. J Anim Ecol 2003, 72:839-845.
• [37]Gunderson AR, Forsyth MH, Swaddle JP: Evidence that plumage bacteria influence feather coloration and body condition of eastern bluebirds Sialia sialis. J Avian Biol 2009, 40:440-447.
• [38]Pap PL, Czirják GA, Vágási CI, Barta Z, Hasselquist D: Sexual dimorphism in immune function changes during the annual cycle in house sparrows. Naturwissenschaften 2010, 97:891-901.
• [39]Gosler A: The Great Tit. Hamlyn Species Guides. London: Paul Hamlyn; 1993.
• [40]Harris L, Fleming H, Klaenhammer T: Developments in nisin research. Food Res Int 1992, 25:57-66.
• [41]Economou T, Pournis N, Ntzimani A, Savvaidis IN: Nisin–EDTA treatments and modified atmosphere packaging to increase fresh chicken meat shelf-life. Food Chem 2009, 114:1470-1476.
• [42]Wang JM, Firestone MK, Beissinger SR: Microbial and environmental effects on avian egg viability: do tropical mechanisms act in a temperate environment? Ecology 2011, 92:1137-1145.
• [43]Cook MI, Beissinger SR, Toranzos G a, Arendt WJ: Incubation reduces microbial growth on eggshells and the opportunity for trans-shell infection. Ecol Lett 2005, 8:532-537.
• [44]Galván I, Sanz JJ: Feather mite abundance increases with uropygial gland size and plumage yellowness in Great Tits Parus major. Ibis (Lond 1859) 2006, 148:687-697.
• [45]Leclaire S, Merkling T, Raynaud C, Mulard H, Bessière J-M, Lhuillier E, Hatch S a, Danchin E: Semiochemical compounds of preen secretion reflect genetic make-up in a seabird species. Proc Biol Sci 2012, 279:1185-1193.
• [46]Czirják GA, Møller AP, Mousseau TA, Heeb P: Microorganisms associated with feathers of barn swallows in radioactively contaminated areas around chernobyl. Microb Ecol 2010, 60:373-380.
• [47]Ranjard L, Brothier E, Nazaret S: Sequencing bands of ribosomal intergenic spacer analysis fingerprints for characterization and microscale distribution of soil bacterium populations responding to mercury spiking. Appl Environ Microbiol 2000, 66:5334-5339.
• [48]Ramette A: Quantitative community fingerprinting methods for estimating the abundance of operational taxonomic units in natural microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 2009, 75:2495-2505.
• [49]Anderson MJ: A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecol 2001, 26:32-46.
• [50]Schulte-Hostedde A, Zinner B, Millar J, Hickling G: Restitution of mass-size residuals: validating body condition indices. Ecology 2005, 84:155-163.
• [51]Saag P, Tilgar V, Mänd R, Kilgas P, Mägi M: Plumage bacterial assemblages in a breeding wild passerine: relationships with ecological factors and body condition. Microb Ecol 2011, 61:740-749.
• [52]Galván I, Barba E, Piculo R, Cantó JL, Cortés V, Monrós JS, Atiénzar F, Proctor H: Feather mites and birds: an interaction mediated by uropygial gland size? J Evol Biol 2008, 21:133-144.
• [53]Martín-Platero AM, Valdivia E, Ruíz-Rodríguez M, Soler JJ, Martín-Vivaldi M, Maqueda M, Martínez-Bueno M: Characterization of antimicrobial substances produced by Enterococcus faecalis MRR 10–3, isolated from the uropygial gland of the hoopoe (Upupa epops). Appl Environ Microbiol 2006, 72:4245-4249.
• [54]Martín-Vivaldi M, Peña A, Peralta-Sánchez JM, Sánchez L, Ananou S, Ruiz-Rodríguez M, Soler JJ: Antimicrobial chemicals in hoopoe preen secretions are produced by symbiotic bacteria. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 2010, 277:123-130.
• [55]Soler JJ, Martín-Vivaldi M, Ruiz-Rodríguez M, Valdivia E, Martín-Platero a M, Martínez-Bueno M, Peralta-Sánchez JM, Méndez M: Symbiotic association between hoopoes and antibiotic-producing bacteria that live in their uropygial gland. Funct Ecol 2008, 22:864-871.
• [56]Whittaker DJ, Soini H a, Atwell JW, Hollars C, Novotny MV, Ketterson ED: Songbird chemosignals: volatile compounds in preen gland secretions vary among individuals, sexes, and populations. Behav Ecol 2010, 21:608-614.
• [57]Reneerkens J, Piersma T, Sinninghe Damsté JS: Sandpipers (Scolopacidae) switch from monoester to diester preen waxes during courtship and incubation, but why? Proc Biol Sci 2002, 269:2135-2139.
• [58]Leclaire S, Merkling T, Raynaud C, Giacinti G, Bessière J-M, Hatch S a, Danchin E: An individual and a sex odor signature in kittiwakes?: study of the semiochemical composition of preen secretion and preen down feathers. Naturwissenschaften 2011, 98:615-624.
• [59]Shelley W, Hurly HJ, Nichols AC: Axillary odor: experimental study of the role of bacteria, apocrine sweat, and deodorants. Arch Dermatol 1953, 68:430.
• [60]Ara K, Hama M, Akiba S, Koike K, Okisaka K, Hagura T, Kamiya T, Tomita F: Foot odor due to microbial metabolism and its control. Can J Microbiol 2006, 52:357-364.
• [61]Currie C, Scott J, Summerbell R, Malloch D: Fungus-growing ants use antibiotic-producing bacteria to control garden parasites. Nature 1999, 398:701-704.
• [62]Kulkarni S, Heeb P: Social and sexual behaviours aid transmission of bacteria in birds. Behav Processes 2007, 74:88-92.
• [63]Møller AP, Erritzøe J, Tøttrup Nielsen J: Predators and microorganisms of prey: goshawks prefer prey with small uropygial glands. Funct Ecol 2010, 24:608-613.
• [64]Kohl KD: Diversity and function of the avian gut microbiota. J Comp Physiol 2012, 182:591-602.
• [65]Potti J, Moreno J, Yorio P, Briones V, Garcia-Borboroglu P, Villar S, Ballesteros C: Bacteria divert resources from growth for magellanic penguin chicks. Ecol Lett 2002, 5:709-714.
• [66]Jacob S, Immer A, Leclaire S, Parthuisot N, Ducamp C, Espinasse G, Heeb P: Data from: Uropygial gland size and composition varies according to experimentally modified microbiome in Great tits. Dryaddoi:10.5061/dryad.m8d1c