Next Article in Journal
Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Epidemiological Trends in Pediatric Cervical Abscess-Forming Infections
Previous Article in Journal
Vaginal Dysbiosis in Infertility: A Comparative Analysis Between Women with Primary and Secondary Infertility
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/microorganisms13010189
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Relationship Between the Host Plant Range of Insects and Symbiont Bacteria

by
Doudou Ge
1,2,
Chongwen Yin
1,2,3,
Jiayu Jing
1,2,
Zhihong Li
1,2 and
Lijun Liu
1,2,*
1
College of Plant Protection, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China
2
Key Laboratory of Surveillance and Management for Plant Quarantine Pests, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Beijing 100193, China
3
Sanya Institute, China Agricultural University, Sanya 572025, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2025, 13(1), 189; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13010189
Submission received: 26 November 2024 / Revised: 21 December 2024 / Accepted: 27 December 2024 / Published: 17 January 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Microbe Interactions)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The evolution of phytophagous insects has resulted in the development of feeding specializations that are unique to this group. The majority of current research on insect palatability has concentrated on aspects of ecology and biology, with relatively little attention paid to the role of insect gut symbiotic bacteria. Symbiont bacteria have a close relationship with their insect hosts and perform a range of functions. This research aimed to investigate the relationship between insect host plant range and gut symbiotic bacteria. A synthesis of the extant literature on the intestinal commensal bacteria of monophagous, oligophagous, and polyphagous tephritids revealed no evidence of a positive correlation between the plant host range and the diversity of larval intestinal microbial species. The gut symbionts of same species were observed to exhibit discrepancies between different literature sources, which were attributed to variations in multiple environmental factors. However, following beta diversity analysis, monophagy demonstrated the lowest level of variation in intestinal commensal bacteria, while polyphagous tephritids exhibited the greatest variation in intestinal commensal bacteria community variation. In light of these findings, this study proposes the hypothesis that exclusive or closely related plant hosts provide monophagy and oligophagy with a stable core colony over long evolutionary periods. The core flora is closely associated with host adaptations in monophagous and oligophagous tephritids, including nutritional and detoxification functions. This is in contrast to polyphagy, whose dominant colony varies in different environments. Our hypothesis requires further refinement of the data on the gut commensal bacteria of monophagy and oligophagy as the number of species and samples is currently limited.

1. Introduction

The majority of insects are herbivorous, typically consuming only fresh plant material [1,2]. The degree of specialization exhibited by herbivorous insects in their interaction with host plants can be classified into three distinct categories according to their feeding habits. Herbivores that have narrow host plants within a genus are defined as monophagous insects. In contrast, polyphagous insects exhibit a broad host range, encompassing two or more plant families. The host plants of oligophagous insects are limited to two or more genera within a family or closely related families [3]. Other researchers have employed the terms “generalist herbivores” and “specialist herbivores” to describe the feeding habits of these insects [4,5]. It is notable that the host range of herbivores is diverse, even within the same family or genus. To illustrate, the monophagous Trirhabda canadensis (Kirby, 1837) and the oligophagous Cerotoma trifurcate (Forster, 1771) and Diabrotica virgifera (LeConte, 1868) are members of the same family, the Chrysomelidae family (Coleoptera) [6]. The Tephritidae (Diptera) family is distributed globally and comprises approximately 5000 species [7,8]. This family provides an excellent model for the study of insect feeding habits, which encompass monophagy, oligophagy, and polyphagy.
The comparative study of monophagous, oligophagous, and polyphagous insects has been a topic of interest within the fields of ecology and biology. In terms of population size, the comparison of the numerical abundance of the insects in question helped elucidate that insects with a more general diet were represented by larger populations than those with more restricted diets under primitive conditions [9]. It was also reported that generalist and specialist herbivores preferred different host plant tissues. The generalist herbivores preferred mature leaves, while specialist herbivores favored young leaves [10]. The correlation between the nutritional composition of the host plant and the survival of tephritid species was also demonstrated. Compared to oligophagous fruit flies, polyphagous fruit flies exhibit superior survival rates in the fruits with high concentrations of carbohydrates, fiber, and lipids [11]. The feeding habits of insects are also thought to be influenced by vision. It has been proposed that monophagous or oligophagous insects may be visual specialists, whereas polyphagous insects are more likely to be visual generalists [12]. In the context of environmental change, there has been one report that investigated the impact of habitat loss on the density of butterflies with different host ranges, and they showed that the density of monophagous butterflies increased, whereas the density of other butterfly species decreased [13]. The polyphagous species of the Tephritidae family are provided with stronger invasive abilities than monophagous and oligophagous species and have had successful invasion cases [14,15]. Indeed, host plant specialization has led to significant differences in insect biology. While insect feeding habits and the evolution of symbionts have occurred simultaneously over time, these two factors are closely linked. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss the relationship between the host feeding range of insects and their symbionts.
Symbiosis is when different organisms ‘live together’. Symbiont interactions with hosts have been classified as mutualistic, parasitic, or commensal [16]. Symbionts form associations with their partners for the majority of their life history [17]. For humans, a healthy body requires the interaction of microorganisms with the host immune system. Low microbial diversity has been linked to a variety of diseases [18]. Microorganisms inhabit plant roots and become root symbionts, which are critical to host adaptation and impact plant productivity and health [19,20,21]. For insects, the symbiosis between insect host and microbe has had a profound impact on the evolution of life [22,23]. Symbionts not only impact their host fitness but also shape the trajectory of their phenotype [24]. Therefore, it is important to explore the relationship between microorganisms and their hosts in studies related to insects.
Bacteria are a diverse, abundant, and ubiquitous group of organisms, exhibiting a range of characteristics and functions. Insects are host to both obligate and facultative symbionts. The former provide essential nutrients required by the host and reside in specialized cells (bacteriocytes) [25,26,27]. Facultative symbionts are not essential for insect survival and reproduction [28], yet they perform other functions [29,30]. Facultative symbionts have been observed to confer resistance to entomopathogenic fungi and parasitoid wasps, enhance the detrimental effects of heat, and influence host plant adaptability to the insect host [28,31,32]. Furthermore, these microorganisms can be distinguished as either intracellular or extracellular based on their location within insect cells [33,34]. In some cases, the locations of bacteria are flexible and mobile. For example, “Candidatus Erwinia dacicola” has been found in all life stages of Bactrocera oleae (Rossi, 1790). It is one of the few non-pathogenic endosymbionts that is capable of undergoing a conversion between intracellular and extracellular lifestyles [35,36].
The microbiota associated with phytophagous insects performs a variety of functions that facilitate the exploitation of plant resources [37]. The roles of symbiont bacteria have been a subject of extensive research from a multitude of perspectives. The gut bacteria of insects have been demonstrated to contribute to a number of processes, including nutrition, immune response modulation, protection from parasites and pathogens, and communication [22,25,38,39]. It is therefore necessary to investigate the role of insect symbiotic bacteria in insect feeding habits.
The main objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between insect host plant range and gut symbiotic bacteria. To achieve this, the information on gut symbiotic bacteria in tephritids was summarized. We compared the alpha diversity of symbiont bacteria of tephritids with different plant specializations and explored the causes of variation in gut commensal bacterial communities and the presence of core bacterial groups.

2. Relationship Between the Host Plant Range of Tephritids and Symbiont Bacteria

2.1. Is the Narrowing of the Insect’s Dietary Range Accompanied by a Reduction in the Diversity and Variation in Gut Bacteria?

In the order Diptera, it has been demonstrated that microbial communities in polyphagous species are more diverse than those in monophagous species. The gut bacteria diversity of monophagous Bactrocera cacuminata (Hering, 1941) was found to be inferior to that of the polyphagous species, including Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt, 1897), Bactrocera neohumeralis (Hardy, 1951), and Bactrocera jarvisi (Tryon, 1927) [40]. In the order Hemiptera, the low diversity of symbionts associated with the oligophagous aphid Aphis citricidus (Kirkaldy, 1907) was elucidated due to the absence of two common aphid-associated secondary symbionts, namely Hamiltonella defensa and Regiella insecticola [41,42]. Nevertheless, no discernible correlations between fruit fly dietary breadth and microbiome diversity or abundance patterns have been identified [43].
In order to ascertain the veracity of this hypothesis, this study tested it with Tephritidae insects comprising monophagous, oligophagous, and monophagous species. A total of 19 articles were identified as relevant for the purposes of this study and were included in this review. These articles presented research on the composition of the gut symbiotic bacteria in larvae and included a total of 20 species. Of the species examined, B. oleae (BO) was found to be monophagous. The oligophagous species included Bactrocera minax (Enderlein, 1920) (BM), Ceratitis podocarpi (Bezzi, 1924) (CP), and Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett, 1899) (ZC). Polyphagous species, including Anastrepha ludens (Loew, 1873) (AL), Anastrepha obliqua (Macquart, 1835) (AO), Anastrepha serpentina (Wiedemann, 1830) (ASE), Anastrepha striata (Schiner, 1868) (AST), Anastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann, 1830) (AF), Anastrepha grandis (Macquart, 1846) (AG), Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912) (BD), Bactrocera zonata (Saunders, 1842) (BZ), Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt, 1897) (BT), Zeugodacus tau (Walker, 1949) (ZT), Bactrocera carambolae (Drew and Hancock, 1994) (BC), Ceratitis capitate (Wiedemann, 1824) (CC), Ceratitis quilicii (De Meyer, Mwatawala and Virgilio, 2016) (CQ), Ceratitis rosa (Karsch, 1887) (CR), Ceratitis cosyra (Walker, 1849) (CCO), and Ceratitis flexuosa (Walker, 1853) (CF), were included in this study (Table 1). The sequencing methods employed for the analysis of gut commensal bacteria include pyrophosphate sequencing and Illumina sequencing. The samples included both field-collected and laboratory samples. The host plants and the collection sites of the tephritid species exhibit considerable variation (Table 2). A total of 40 sequencing results for 20 species were re-pumped flat using the vegan package (2.6-4) in R (4.3.1). The resulting alpha diversity indices are presented in Figure 1.
Table 1. Sequencing data on the intestinal commensal bacteria of tephritid larvae from different studies.
Table 1. Sequencing data on the intestinal commensal bacteria of tephritid larvae from different studies.
NameSpeciesSequencing MethodSource
1ALAnastrepha ludens (Loew, 1873)Pyrosequencing[44]
1AOAnastrepha obliqua (Macquart, 1835)Pyrosequencing[44]
1ASEAnastrepha serpentina (Wiedemann, 1830) Pyrosequencing[44]
1ASTAnastrepha striata (Schiner, 1868)Pyrosequencing[44]
2AFAnastrepha fraterculus (Wiedemann, 1830)Illumina[45]
3AOAnastrepha obliqua (Macquart, 1835)Metatranscriptomic[37]
4AGAnastrepha grandis (Macquart, 1846)Pyrosequencing[46]
4ALAnastrepha ludens (Loew, 1873)Pyrosequencing[46]
4BOBactrocera oleae (Rossi, 1790)Pyrosequencing[46]
5CCCeratitis capitata (Wiedemann, 1824)Illumina[47]
6CCWCeratitis capitata (Wiedemann, 1824)Illumina[48]
6CCLCeratitis capitata (Wiedemann, 1824)Illumina[48]
7BMBactrocera minax (Enderlein, 1920)Pyrosequencing[49]
8BMBactrocera minax (Enderlein, 1920)Metagenomic[50]
9BOBactrocera oleae (Rossi, 1790)Illumina[51]
10ZCZeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett, 1899)Illumina[52]
11BD1Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912)Illumina[53]
11BD2Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912)Illumina[53]
11BD3Bactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912)Illumina[53]
12BDBactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912)Pyrosequencing[54]
13BDBactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912)Illumina[55]
14BDBactrocera dorsalis (Hendel, 1912)Illumina[43]
14ZCZeugodacus cucurbitae (Coquillett, 1899)Illumina[43]
14BOBactrocera oleae (Rossi, 1790)Illumina[43]
14BZBactrocera zonata (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[43]
14CCCeratitis capitata (Wiedemann, 1824)Illumina[43]
14CQCeratitis quilicii (De Meyer, Mwatawala and Virgilio, 2016)Illumina[43]
14CRCeratitis rosa (Karsch, 1887)Illumina[43]
14CCOCeratitis cosyra (Walker, 1849)Illumina[43]
14CFCeratitis flexuosa (Walker, 1853)Illumina[43]
14CPCeratitis podocarpi (Bezzi, 1924)Illumina[43]
15BTBactrocera tryoni (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[56]
16BT1Bactrocera tryoni (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[56]
16BT2Bactrocera tryoni (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[56]
16BT3Bactrocera tryoni (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[56]
16BT4Bactrocera tryoni (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[56]
16BT5Bactrocera tryoni (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[56]
17ZTBactrocera tau (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[57]
18BZBactrocera zonata (Saunders, 1842)Illumina[58]
19BCBactrocera carambolae (Drew and Hancock, 1994)Illumina[59]
The alpha diversity of intestinal commensal bacteria did not demonstrate an upward trend in conjunction with an increase in the feeding range (Figure 1). Instead, the data demonstrated a high degree of volatility. Alpha diversity index of the same species demonstrated considerable fluctuations in the sequencing results across the various articles. To illustrate, the diversity of 9BO was markedly greater than that of 4BO and 14BO in samples of intestinal commensal bacteria from B. oleae. A similar result was observed in B. minax, A. ludens, A. obliqua, B. zonata, C. capitata, Z. tau, and B. dorsalis.
Following the calculation of Bray–Curtis distances, NMDS and PCoA analyses were conducted to elucidate the discrepancies between the commensal bacterial communities (Figure 2). The data from the wild samples were selected for inclusion in this study. The research objects were divided into six groups, comprising B. oleae (BO), B. minax (BM), Z. cucurbitae (ZC), B. dorsalis (BD), C. capitata (CC), and B. tryoni (BT). Each data point within the same group was derived from a different source of literature. This indicates that alterations to the host plant, geographical environment, and sequencing methods may result in discrepancies in the intestinal symbiotic community of the same tephritid. The NMDS analysis yielded a stress value of less than 0.2, which lends credence to the reliability of the results. The results demonstrated that the distance between samples within the monophagous group BO was the shortest, followed by the samples within the oligophagous groups BM and ZC. The distance between samples within the polyphagous BD, CC, and BT groups was found to be the longest. The PCoA analysis revealed that 38.2% of the observed variation can be attributed to the differences between the samples. The distance between samples within the monophagous group was also found to be smaller than that observed between samples in the oligophagous and polyphagous groups. This suggests that the intestinal symbiotic community of monophagous tephritids is less susceptible to variation in response to different environmental factors. In contrast, the intestinal symbiotic flora of polyphagous tephritids exhibited significant alterations.

2.2. Factors Contributing to Differences in Intestinal Commensal Bacteria in the Same Species of Tephritidae

The latest research indicates that a number of factors influence the intestinal symbionts of insects [60]. A variety of factors, including insect species, geography, host plants, developmental stages, and sequencing methods, can give rise to notable variations in insect gut symbiotic bacterial communities. The interaction of biotic and abiotic factors results in alterations to the gut commensal bacteria. In terms of abiotic factors, temperature can influence the abundance of bacteria within the host or their efficiency of transmission to the offspring [61]. Nevertheless, the impact of plant hosts and geography on gut symbiotic bacteria has been the subject of the most extensive research in the context of insect larvae. The symbiotic bacterial communities are shaped by both the host and the habitat, but the specific ways in which this occurs vary [62].
Geography represents a significant factor influencing the structure of symbiont communities. A notable discrepancy was observed between peach samples from Concordia and Horco Molle in the case of A. fraterculus. The fauna was distinct and represented a biological factor that gives rise to alterations in the gut microbiology [45]. In B. dorsalis, the composition of the bacterial community varied according to the geographical location of the populations. The number of bacterial families in the gut microbiome of the Hainan population was lower than that of the Guizhou population [63]. In Z. cucurbitae, bacterial diversity and abundance varied within and between samples from three geographical regions, namely Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia, and Sarawak [64]. It has been demonstrated that geography can alter the structure of symbiont communities in two oligophagous aphids, namely Melanaphis sacchari (Zehntner, 1897) and Neophyllaphis podocarpi (Takahashi, 1920) [65]. Meanwhile, facultative symbionts displayed distinctive geographic distribution patterns in Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris, 1776) [66]. The research project concentrated on the symbionts of Aphis gossypii (Glover, 1877) and revealed significant differences between the Japanese and Australian samples [67]. There was a comprehensive overview working on the geographic distribution of aphid secondary symbionts, with a particular focus on the dominant symbionts across different continents [68]. Notable variations were found in the bacterial communities of two parthenogenetic populations collected from distinct islands in Hawaii. This underscores the significant influence of geographical distribution on the symbiotic microorganisms of aphids [69]. Additionally, the symbiotic bacteria of a monophagous caterpillar, Tyria jacobaeae (Linnaeus, 1758), also exhibited similarities to soil symbiotic bacteria in its habitat [70].
The host plant is another factor that can exert an influence on insect symbionts. The bacterial profiles of A. fraterculus larvae collected from guavas and peaches were found to be different. The gut microbiota of larvae collected from guavas exhibited greater richness, phylogenetic diversity, equitability, and lower dominance than that of larvae collected from peaches [45]. The bacterial communities in A. obliqua appear to be structured according to the insect life stage and the host plant [71]. Samples of C. capitata larvae were collected from figs, cacti, peaches, fenugreek, and citrus. Sequencing results indicate that changes in the host plant can be the cause of changes in the gut symbiotic bacteria [47]. Changes in the gut microbiota influenced by host fruits were similarly found in B. dorsalis [72]. In aphids, the host plant is identified as a significant factor in structuring bacterial communities, exerting selection pressure [73,74,75]. In Aphid craccivora (Koch, 1854), the food plant of the aphid had a significant association with the secondary symbiont, Arsenophonus, which was found to have a high prevalence in aphids collected from locusts. In contrast, Hamiltonella was dominant in the alfalfa populations [76]. The transition from a hobby host plant to a general host plant resulted in a notable decline in fitness for oligophagous aphids, in comparison to the polyphagous aphid. The density of Buchnera increased with the development of the Aphid citricidus (Kirkaldy, 1907), an oligophagous aphid, on sweet oranges, but decreased with the development of the same aphid on orange jasmines. In contrast, the polyphagous Aphid aurantii (Fonscolombe, 1841) showed an increasing trend in Buchnera density in both host plants [77]. The results demonstrated that the structure and activity of the microbial communities exhibited notable differences between infested plants [37,71]. One reason for the change in bacteria community is the presence of certain marker microorganisms in the host plant [78]. Another is that the larvae select for specific bacteria that play a role in supplementing the nutrient deficiencies of the plant host for the insect or degrading the toxic compounds of the plant host, while they feed on special plant material [79]. It has been proposed that the composition of microbial communities may be influenced by the diets of insects [40].

2.3. Core Flora Was Present in Monophagous and Oligophagous Insects

The heterogeneity of the field samples collected for a given study makes it challenging to exercise complete control over the variables. For instance, investigations into the impact of diverse geographical locations on intestinal symbiotic bacteria frequently coincided with variations in the plant hosts under consideration. This phenomenon is particularly evident in polyphagous insects. However, the gut symbiotic bacteria of monophagous insects are relatively stable in the host plant, thus allowing for more effective control of variables. This may also be the reason why the differences in gut commensal bacteria between monophagous and oligophagous tephritids are smaller than those of polyphagous tephritids in different environments. The long-term symbiosis between insects and intestinal symbiotic bacteria on the same host plant results in the establishment of a stable relationship.
A significant number of studies have indicated the existence of a robust symbiotic relationship between the olive fruit fly in the field and Candidatus Erwinia dacicola [80,81,82]. The symbiont is transferred vertically to the offspring through the contamination of the egg surface, the deposition of bacterial capsules on eggs, the consumption of the mother’s excrement, or through trans-ovarial transmission [83]. There is a paucity of research on other monophagous insects in Tephritidae, but there is a high probability of a stable symbiotic relationship. In the case of oligophagous insects, the measured intestinal commensal bacteria of B. minax exhibited a high abundance of Klebsiella [49,50]. The supplementation of adult diets with Klebsiella bacterial isolates resulted in a significant enhancement of female fecundity [84]. Additionally, Citrobacter was postulated to be the dominant bacterial species in the adult B. minax population [85]. However, the research indicated that the abundance of this bacteria is low in larvae [49]. Klebsiella, Acinetobacter, and Providencia were identified in known samples of the intestinal tract of Z. cucurbitae larvae, but their abundance was not found to be consistent [43,52]. In the case of the typical polyphagous B. dorsalis and C. capitata, no particular symbiotic bacterium was identified as being common to all samples, and the symbiotic communities were found to be highly variable across different environments.
The core flora found in monophagous and oligophagous tephritids may fulfill nutritional and detoxification functions which are closely related to the plant hosts. The majority of aphids in the Hemiptera order form deep associations with Buchnera, including those that are oligophagous. Buchnera provides essential amino acids to aphids, which are exchanged for non-essential amino acids [34,86,87,88]. The aphid host provides essential amino acids to this endosymbiont, whose genome has undergone erosion [77,89,90,91]. In the planthopper Ommatidiotus dissimilis (Fallén, 1806), the role of Sodalis-like bacteria has been postulated to be involved in the provision of essential nutrients to the host insect [92]. In the brown planthopper, microbial symbionts provide the genes necessary for insects to survive in an unbalanced diet and to conduct conservative biochemical pathways [93].
Intestinal symbionts have been demonstrated to play a role in detoxification in some monophagous insects. In B. oleae, the symbiont Candidatus Erwinia dacicola has been observed to offset the inhibitory effects of oleuropein, a principal phenolic glycoside present in unripe olives. This finding has led to the conclusion that this symbiont is essential for the development of B. oleae [80,81,82,94]. The olive moth, Prays oleae (Bernard, 1788), is a monophagous insect that feeds on olive trees. It has been observed that intestinal bacteria, specifically Acetinobacter sp. or Staphylococcus sp., play a role in detoxification, enabling the moth to overcome the secondary metabolites produced by olive trees [95]. The study of this symbiotic relationship can therefore provide a basis for the control of B. oleae [96,97]. In the order Hemiptera, the insecticide-resistant nymphs of the rice stink bug, Nilaparvata lugens (Stål, 1854), were found to be enriched with bacteria belonging to the Burkholderiales which possess detoxification functions [98]. Due to the disparate host ranges of insects, the symbiont has undergone significant specialization to overcome the detrimental effects of a fixed substance.
The current study has relatively limited data on larval gut microbial sequencing for B. oleae, B. minax, and Z. cucurbitae, and there is a paucity of results on gut microbial sequencing for the polyphagous fruit fly. In particular, only one monophagy, B. oleae, has been shown to harbor intestinal symbiotic bacteria in Tephritidae. Furthermore, the number of sample replicates for monophagous and oligophagous tephritids is relatively limited, which has an impact on the veracity of our hypothesis. It is therefore necessary to obtain further sequencing results of the intestinal commensal bacteria of monophagous and oligophagous tephritids in order to verify whether monophagy will establish stable relationships with specific intestinal commensal bacteria, which is difficult to do in polyphagy.

3. Conclusions

In conclusion, this paper focused on insects of the Diptera family Tephritidae and summarized the sequencing results of gut symbiotic bacteria from the current articles. There was no significant correlation between the diversity of gut commensal bacteria and the dietary range of tephritids, but the analysis of community differences revealed that monophagy showed the least variation in gut commensal bacteria across environments, followed by oligophagy, and the greatest variation in gut commensal bacteria was found in polyphagy. In this regard we suggested that this phenomenon may be due to the existence of core gut flora in monophagous and oligophagous tephritids that arose from their long-term evolution with plant hosts. This core flora has a role in providing nutrients and detoxification and is closely related to the plant hosts. However, since there is still a paucity of published sequencing data on oligophagous and monophagous insect gut symbionts, subsequent validation is needed.

Author Contributions

D.G. and L.L. were responsible for the initial drafting and the preparation of the manuscript. C.Y. and J.J. contributed to the critical revision of the work. Z.L. and L.L. were involved in the final editing and polishing of the document. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Projects (2022YFC2601500; 2022YFC2601503).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Friend, W.G. Nutritional requirements of phytophagous insects. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1958, 3, 57–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Mitter, C.; Farrell, B.; Wiegmann, B. The Phylogenetic Study of Adaptive Zones: Has Phytophagy Promoted Insect Diversification? Am. Nat. 1988, 132, 107–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Cates, R.G. Host plant predictability and the feeding patterns of monophagous, oligophagous, and polyphagous insect herbivores. Oecologia 1981, 48, 319–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Bjorndal, K.A. Flexibility of digestive responses in two generalist herbivores, the tortoises Geochelone carbonaria and Geochelone denticulata. Oecologia 1989, 78, 317–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Reymond, P.; Bodenhausen, N.; Van Poecke, R.M.; Krishnamurthy, V.; Dicke, M.; Farmer, E.E. A conserved transcript pattern in response to a specialist and a generalist herbivore. Plant. Cell 2004, 16, 3132–3147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jurenka, R.; Russell, K.; O’Neal, M. Phytoecdysteroids as antifeedants towards several beetles that include polyphagous and monophagous feeding guilds. Pest Manag. Sci. 2017, 73, 1633–1637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. White, I.M.; Elson-Harris, M.M. Fruit Flies of Economic Significance: Their Identification and Bionomics; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1992. [Google Scholar]
  8. Qin, Y.; Paini, D.R.; Wang, C.; Fang, Y.; Li, Z. Global establishment risk of economically important fruit fly species (Tephritidae). PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0116424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Brues, C.T. Choice of Food and Numerical Abundance Among Insects. J. Econ. Entomol. 1923, 1, 46–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cates, R.G. Feeding patterns of monophagous, oligophagous, and polyphagous insect herbivores: The effect of resource abundance and plant chemistry. Oecologia 1980, 46, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hafsi, A.; Facon, B.; Ravigne, V.; Chiroleu, F.; Quilici, S.; Chermiti, B.; Duyck, P.F. Host plant range of a fruit fly community (Diptera: Tephritidae): Does fruit composition influence larval performance? BMC Ecol. 2016, 16, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Prokopy, R.J.; Owens, E.D. Visual Generalist with Visual Specialist Phytophagous Insects: Host Selection Behaviour and Application to Management. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 1978, 3, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Tscharntke, T. Butterfly community structure in fragmented habitats. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 5, 449–456. [Google Scholar]
  14. Clarke, A.R.; Armstrong, K.F.; Carmichael, A.E.; Milne, J.R.; Raghu, S.; Roderick, G.K.; Yeates, D.K. Invasive phytophagous pests arising through a recent tropical evolutionary radiation: The Bactrocera dorsalis complex of fruit flies. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2005, 50, 293–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Raza, M.F.; Yao, Z.; Bai, S.; Cai, Z.; Zhang, H. Tephritidae fruit fly gut microbiome diversity, function and potential for applications. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2020, 110, 423–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Werren, J.H.; O’Neill, S.L. The evolution of heritable symbionts. In Influential Passengers: Inherited Microorganisms and Arthropod Reproduction; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  17. Margulis, L.; Fester, R. Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis; Biology, Environmental Science; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  18. Thomas, S.; Izard, J.; Walsh, E.; Batich, K.; Chongsathidkiet, P.; Clarke, G.; Sela, D.A.; Muller, A.J.; Mullin, J.M.; Albert, K.; et al. The Host Microbiome Regulates and Maintains Human Health: A Primer and Perspective for Non-Microbiologists. Cancer Res. 2017, 77, 1783–1812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ofek-Lalzar, M.; Sela, N.; Goldman-Voronov, M.; Green, S.J.; Hadar, Y.; Minz, D. Niche and host-associated functional signatures of the root surface microbiome. Nat. Commun. 2014, 5, 4950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Harman, G.E.; Uphoff, N. Symbiotic Root-Endophytic Soil Microbes Improve Crop Productivity and Provide Environmental Benefits. Scientifica 2019, 2019, 9106395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Glick, B.R.; Gamalero, E. Recent Developments in the Study of Plant Microbiomes. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Engel, P.; Moran, N.A. The gut microbiota of insects—Diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 37, 699–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Majumder, R.; Sutcliffe, B.; Taylor, P.W.; Chapman, T.A. Next-Generation Sequencing reveals relationship between the larval microbiome and food substrate in the polyphagous Queensland fruit fly. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 14292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Singh, S.; Singh, A.; Baweja, V.; Roy, A.; Chakraborty, A.; Singh, I.K. Molecular Rationale of Insect-Microbes Symbiosis—From Insect Behaviour to Mechanism. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Douglas, A.E. The microbial dimension in insect nutritional ecology. Funct. Ecol. 2009, 1, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Baumann, P. Biology bacteriocyte-associated endosymbionts of plant sap-sucking insects. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2005, 59, 155–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Moran, N.A.; Degnan, P.H.; Santos, S.R.; Ochman, H. The players in a mutualistic symbiosis: Insects, bacteria, viruses, and virulence genes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2005, 47, 16919–16926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Oliver, K.M.; Russell, J.A.; Moran, N.A.; Hunter, M.S. Facultative bacterial symbionts in aphids confer resistance to parasitic wasps. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 1803–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Oliver, K.M.; Moran, N.A.; Hunter, M.S. Costs and benefits of a superinfection of facultative symbionts in aphids. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2006, 273, 1273–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Montllor, C.B.; Maxmen, A.; Purcell, A.H. Facultative bacterial endosymbionts benefit pea aphids Acyrthosiphon pisum under heat stress. Ecol. Entomol. 2002, 2, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Asplen, M.K.; Bano, N.; Brady, C.M.; Desneux, N.; Hopper, K.R.; Malouines, C.; Oliver, K.M.; White, J.A.; Heimpel, G.E. Specialisation of bacterial endosymbionts that protect aphids from parasitoids. Ecol. Entomol. 2014, 39, 736–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Oliver, K.M.; Degnan, P.H.; Burke, G.R.; Moran, N.A. Facultative symbionts in aphids and the horizontal transfer of ecologically important traits. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2010, 55, 247–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Baumann, P.; Moran, N.A.; Baumann, L. The evolution and genetics of aphid endosymbionts. Bioscience 1997, 1, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hansen, A.K.; Moran, N.A. The impact of microbial symbionts on host plant utilization by herbivorous insects. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23, 1473–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Bigiotti, G.; Sacchetti, P.; Pastorelli, R.; Lauzon, C.R.; Belcari, A. Bacterial symbiosis in Bactrocera oleae, an Achilles’ heel for its pest control. Insect Sci. 2021, 28, 874–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Estes, A.M.; Hearn, D.J.; Bronstein, J.L.; Pierson, E.A. The olive fly endosymbiont, “Candidatus Erwinia dacicola,” switches from an intracellular existence to an extracellular existence during host insect development. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 7097–7106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cardenas-Hernandez, V.; Lemos-Lucumi, C.A.; Toro-Perea, N. Comparative metatranscriptomics reveals effect of host plant on microbiota gene expression of Anastrepha obliqua (Diptera: Tephritidae) larvae. Environ. Entomol. 2024, 53, 157–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Su, Q.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, Y. Symbiont-mediated functions in insect hosts. Commun. Integr. Biol. 2013, 6, e23804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Douglas, A.E. Nutritional interactions in insect-microbial symbioses: Aphids and their symbiotic bacteria Buchnera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 1998, 43, 17–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Morrow, J.L.; Frommer, M.; Shearman, D.C.; Riegler, M. The Microbiome of Field-Caught and Laboratory-Adapted Australian Tephritid Fruit Fly Species with Different Host Plant Use and Specialisation. Microb. Ecol. 2015, 70, 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Guidolin, A.S.; Cônsoli, F.L. Symbiont Diversity of Aphis (Toxoptera) citricidus (Hemiptera: Aphididae) as Influenced by Host Plants. Invertebr. Microbiol. 2017, 73, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Russell, J.A.; Moran, N.A. Costs and benefits of symbiont infection in aphids: Variation among symbionts and across temperatures. Proc. Biol. Sci. 2006, 273, 603–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. De Cock, M.; Virgilio, M.; Vandamme, P.; Bourtzis, K.; De Meyer, M.; Willems, A. Comparative Microbiomics of Tephritid Frugivorous Pests (Diptera: Tephritidae) From the Field: A Tale of High Variability Across and Within Species. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ventura, C.; Briones-Roblero, C.I.; Hernandez, E.; Rivera-Orduna, F.N.; Zuniga, G. Comparative Analysis of the Gut Bacterial Community of Four Anastrepha Fruit Flies (Diptera: Tephritidae) Based on Pyrosequencing. Curr. Microbiol. 2018, 75, 966–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Salgueiro, J.; Nussenbaum, A.L.; Milla, F.H.; Asimakis, E.; Goane, L.; Ruiz, M.J.; Bachmann, G.E.; Vera, M.T.; Stathopoulou, P.; Bourtzis, K.; et al. Analysis of the Gut Bacterial Community of Wild Larvae of Anastrepha fraterculus sp. 1: Effect of Host Fruit, Environment, and Prominent Stable Associations of the Genera Wolbachia, Tatumella, and Enterobacter. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 822990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Augustinos, A.A.; Tsiamis, G.; Cáceres, C.; Abd-Alla, A.M.M.; Bourtzis, K. Taxonomy, Diet, and Developmental Stage Contribute to the Structuring of Gut-Associated Bacterial Communities in Tephritid Pest Species. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Malacrinò, A.; Campolo, O.; Medina, R.F.; Palmeri, V. Instar- and host-associated differentiation of bacterial communities in the Mediterranean fruit fly Ceratitis capitata. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0194131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Bel Mokhtar, N.; Catalá-Oltra, M.; Stathopoulou, P.; Asimakis, E.; Remmal, I.; Remmas, N.; Maurady, A.; Britel, M.R.; García De Oteyza, J.; Tsiamis, G.; et al. Dynamics of the Gut Bacteriome During a Laboratory Adaptation Process of the Mediterranean Fruit Fly, Ceratitis capitata. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 919760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Andongma, A.A.; Dong, L.W.Y. Assessment of the Bacteria community structure across life stages of the Chinese Citrus Fly, Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae). BMC Microbiol. 2019, 19, 285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cao, S.; Ren, X.; Zhang, G.; Wang, H.; Wei, B.; Niu, C. Gut microbiota metagenomics and mediation of phenol degradation in Bactrocera minax (Diptera, Tephritidae). Pest Manag. Sci. 2024, 80, 3935–3944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Koskinioti, P.; Ras, E.; Augustinos, A.A.; Tsiamis, G.; Beukeboom, L.W.; Caceres, C.; Bourtzis, K. The effects of geographic origin and antibiotic treatment on the gut symbiotic communities of Bactrocera oleae populations. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2019, 3, 197–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Choudhary, J.S.; Naaz, N.; Prabhakar, C.S.; Das, B.; Singh, A.K.; Bhatt, B.P. High Taxonomic and Functional Diversity of Bacterial Communities Associated with Melon Fly, Zeugodacus cucurbitae (Diptera: Tephritidae). Curr. Microbiol. 2021, 78, 611–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zhao, X.; Zhang, X.; Chen, Z.; Wang, Z.; Lu, Y.; Cheng, D. The Divergence in Bacterial Components Associated with Bactrocera dorsalis across Developmental Stages. Front. Microbiol. 2018, 9, 114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Andongma, A.A.; Wan, L.; Dong, Y.; Li, P.; Desneux, N.; White, J.A.; Niu, C. Pyrosequencing reveals a shift in symbiotic bacteria populations across life stages of Bactrocera dorsalis. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 9470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Huang, H.; Li, H.; Ren, L.; Cheng, D. Microbial Communities in Different Developmental Stages of the Oriental Fruit Fly, Bactrocera dorsalis, Are Associated with Differentially Expressed Peptidoglycan Recognition Protein-Encoding Genes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e00803-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Majumder, R.; Sutcliffe, B.; Taylor, P.W.; Chapman, T.A. Microbiome of the Queensland Fruit Fly through Metamorphosis. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Noman, M.S.; Shi, G.; Liu, L.J.; Li, Z.H. Diversity of bacteria in different life stages and their impact on the development and reproduction of Zeugodacus tau (Diptera: Tephritidae). Insect Sci. 2021, 28, 363–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Naaz, N.; Choudhary, J.S.; Choudhary, A.; Dutta, A.; Das, B. Developmental stage-associated microbiota profile of the peach fruit fly, Bactrocera zonata (Diptera: Tephritidae) and their functional prediction using 16S rRNA gene metabarcoding sequencing. 3 Biotech 2020, 10, 390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yong, H.S.; Song, S.L.; Chua, K.O.; Lim, P.E. High Diversity of Bacterial Communities in Developmental Stages of Bactrocera carambolae (Insecta: Tephritidae) Revealed by Illumina MiSeq Sequencing of 16S rRNA Gene. Curr. Microbiol. 2017, 74, 1076–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Girard, M.; Luis, P.; Valiente, M.C.; Minard, G. Crosstalk between the microbiota and insect postembryonic development. Trends Microbiol. 2023, 31, 181–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Feldhaar, H. Bacterial symbionts as mediators of ecologically important traits of insect hosts. Ecol. Entomol. 2011, 5, 533–543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Yang, Z.W.; Luo, J.Y.; Men, Y.; Liu, Z.H.; Zheng, Z.K.; Wang, Y.H.; Xie, Q. Different roles of host and habitat in determining the microbial communities of plant-feeding true bugs. Microbiome 2023, 11, 244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, S.H.; Chen, Y.; Li, W.; Tang, G.H.; Yang, Y.; Jiang, H.B.; Dou, W.; Wang, J.J. Diversity of Bacterial Communities in the Intestinal Tracts of Two Geographically Distant Populations of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae). J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2861–2868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yong, H.S.; Song, S.L.; Eamsobhana, P.; Pasartvit, A.; Lim, P.E. Differential abundance and core members of the bacterial community associated with wild male Zeugodacus cucurbitae fruit flies (Insecta: Tephritidae) from three geographical regions of Southeast Asia. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2019, 46, 3765–3776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Xu, S.; Chen, J.; Qin, M.; Jiang, L.; Qiao, G. Geography-dependent symbiont communities in two oligophagous aphid species. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2021, 97, fiab132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Tsuchida, T.; Koga, R.; Shibao, H.; Matsumoto, T.; Fukatsu, T. Diversity and geographic distribution of secondary endosymbiotic bacteria in natural populations of the pea aphid, Acyrthosiphon pisum. Mol. Ecol. 2002, 11, 2123–2135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Najar-Rodriguez, A.J.; Mcgraw, E.A.; Mensah, R.K.; Pittman, G.W.; Walter, G.H. The microbial flora of Aphis gossypii: Patterns across host plants and geographical space. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2009, 100, 123–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Zytynska, S.E.; Weisser, W.W. The natural occurrence of secondary bacterial symbionts in aphids. Ecol. Entomol. 2015, 1, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Jones, R.T.; Bressan, A.; Greenwell, A.M.; Fierer, N. Bacterial communities of two parthenogenetic aphid species cocolonizing two host plants across the Hawaiian Islands. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2011, 77, 8345–8349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Gomes, S.I.F.; Kielak, A.M.; Hannula, S.E.; Heinen, R.; Jongen, R.; Keesmaat, I.; De Long, J.R.; Bezemer, T.M. Microbiomes of a specialist caterpillar are consistent across different habitats but also resemble the local soil microbial communities. Anim. Microbiome 2020, 2, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gallo-Franco, J.J.; Toro-Perea, N. Variations in the Bacterial Communities in Anastrepha obliqua (Diptera: Tephritidae) According to the Insect Life Stage and Host Plant. Curr. Microbiol. 2020, 77, 1283–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Akami, M.; Ren, X.; Wang, Y.; Mansour, A.; Cao, S.; Qi, X.; Ngakou, A.; Ngane, R.A.N.; Niu, C. Host fruits shape the changes in the gut microbiota and development of Bactrocera dorsalis (Diptera: Tephritidae) larvae. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2022, 42, 2127–2141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ferrari, J.; West, J.A.; Via, S.; Godfray, H.C. Population genetic structure and secondary symbionts in host-associated populations of the pea aphid complex. Evolution 2012, 66, 375–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Russell, J.A.; Weldon, S.; Smith, A.H.; Kim, K.L.; Hu, Y.; Lukasik, P.; Doll, S.; Anastopoulos, I.; Novin, M.; Oliver, K.M. Uncovering symbiont-driven genetic diversity across North American pea aphids. Mol. Ecol. 2013, 22, 2045–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gauthier, J.P.; Outreman, Y.; Mieuzet, L.; Simon, J.C. Bacterial communities associated with host-adapted populations of pea aphids revealed by deep sequencing of 16S ribosomal DNA. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0120664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Brady, C.M.; Asplen, M.K.; Desneux, N.; Heimpel, G.E.; Hopper, K.R.; Linnen, C.R.; Oliver, K.M.; Wulff, J.A.; White, J.A. Worldwide populations of the aphid Aphis craccivora are infected with diverse facultative bacterial symbionts. Microb. Ecol. 2014, 67, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Guidolin, A.S.; Consoli, F.L. Diversity of the Most Commonly Reported Facultative Symbionts in Two Closely-Related Aphids with Different Host Ranges. Neotrop. Entomol. 2018, 47, 440–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Vorholt, J.A. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2012, 10, 828–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Behar, A.; Yuval, B.; Jurkevitch, E. Enterobacteria-mediated nitrogen fixation in natural populations of the fruit fly Ceratitis capitata. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 2637–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ben-Yosef, M.; Aharon, Y.; Jurkevitch, E.; Yuval, B. 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. 2010, 277, 1545–1552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Ben-Yosef, M.; Pasternak, Z.; Jurkevitch, E.; Yuval, B. Symbiotic bacteria enable olive flies (Bactrocera oleae) to exploit intractable sources of nitrogen. J. Evol. Biol. 2014, 27, 2695–2705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ben-Yosef, M.; Pasternak, Z.; Jurkevitch, E.; Yuval, B. Symbiotic bacteria enable olive fly larvae to overcome host defences. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2015, 2, 150170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Szklarzewicz, T.; Michalik, A. Transovarial Transmission of Symbionts in Insects. Results Probl. Cell Differ. 2017, 63, 43–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rashid, M.A.; Andongma, A.A.; Dong, Y.C.; Ren, X.M.; Niu, C.Y. Effect of gut bacteria on fitness of the Chinese citrus fly, Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae). Symbiosis 2018, 76, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wang, A.; Yao, Z.; Zheng, W.; Zhang, H. Bacterial communities in the gut and reproductive organs of Bactrocera minax (Diptera: Tephritidae) based on 454 pyrosequencing. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e106988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Douglas, A.E. Phloem-sap feeding by animals: Problems and solutions. J. Exp. Bot. 2006, 57, 747–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Hansen, A.K.; Moran, N.A. Aphid genome expression reveals host-symbiont cooperation in the production of amino acids. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 2849–2854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Perez-Brocal, V.; Gil, R.; Ramos, S.; Lamelas, A.; Postigo, M.; Michelena, J.M.; Silva, F.J.; Moya, A.; Latorre, A. A small microbial genome: The end of a long symbiotic relationship? Science 2006, 314, 312–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Mccutcheon, J.P.; Moran, N.A. Extreme genome reduction in symbiotic bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2011, 10, 13–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Shigenobu, S.; Watanabe, H.; Hattori, M.; Sakaki, Y.; Ishikawa, H. Genome sequence of the endocellular bacterial symbiont of aphids Buchnera sp. APS. Nature 2000, 407, 81–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. van Ham, R.C.; Kamerbeek, J.; Palacios, C.; Rausell, C.; Abascal, F.; Bastolla, U.; Fernandez, J.M.; Jimenez, L.; Postigo, M.; Silva, F.J.; et al. Reductive genome evolution in Buchnera aphidicola. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2003, 100, 581–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Michalik, A.; Szwedo, J.; Stroinski, A.; Swierczewski, D.; Szklarzewicz, T. Symbiotic cornucopia of the monophagous planthopper Ommatidiotus dissimilis (Fallen, 1806) (Hemiptera: Fulgoromorpha: Caliscelidae). Protoplasma 2018, 255, 1317–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Xue, J.; Zhou, X.; Zhang, C.X.; Yu, L.L.; Fan, H.W.; Wang, Z.; Xu, H.J.; Xi, Y.; Zhu, Z.R.; Zhou, W.W.; et al. Genomes of the rice pest brown planthopper and its endosymbionts reveal complex complementary contributions for host adaptation. Genome Biol. 2014, 15, 521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Sinno, M.; Bezier, A.; Vinale, F.; Giron, D.; Laudonia, S.; Garonna, A.P.; Pennacchio, F. Symbiosis disruption in the olive fruit fly, Bactrocera oleae (Rossi), as a potential tool for sustainable control. Pest Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 3199–3207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Nobre, T. Monophagous olive moth and its bacterial microbiota: Unveiling the holobiont towards pest management. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2021, 31, 107–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Estes, A.M.; Nestel, D.; Belcari, A.; Jessup, A.; Rempoulakis, P.; Economopoulos, A.P. A basis for the renewal of sterile insect technique for the olive fly, Bactrocera oleae (Rossi). J. Appl. Entomol. 2011, 1–2, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sacchetti, P.; Pastorelli, R.; Bigiotti, G.; Guidi, R.; Ruschioni, S.; Viti, C.; Belcari, A. Olive fruit fly rearing procedures affect the vertical transmission of the bacterial symbiont Candidatus Erwinia dacicola. BMC Biotechnol. 2019, 19, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Vijayakumar, M.M.; More, R.P.; Rangasamy, A.; Gandhi, G.R.; Muthugounder, M.; Thiruvengadam, V.; Samaddar, S.; Jalali, S.K.; Sa, T. Gut Bacterial Diversity of Insecticide-Susceptible and -Resistant Nymphs of the Brown Planthopper Nilaparvata lugens Stal (Hemiptera: Delphacidae) and Elucidation of Their Putative Functional Roles. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 28, 976–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 13 00189 g001
Figure 1. Intestinal bacteria diversity for 20 species of tephritidae. (A) Shannon index. (B) Simpson index. Monophagy (green), oligophagy (orange), and polyphagy (blue). BO: Bactrocera oleae; BM: Bactrocera minax; CP: Ceratitis podocarpi; ZC: Zeugodacus cucurbitae; ASE: Anastrepha serpentine; AST: Anastrepha striata; AL: Anastrepha ludens; AO: Anastrepha obliqua; AF: Anastrepha fraterculus; AG: Anastrepha grandis; ZT: Zeugodacus tau; BZ: Bactrocera zonata; BC: Bactrocera carambolae; BT: Bactrocera tryoni; CC, CCW, and CCL: Ceratitis capitata; CCO: Ceratitis cosyra; CQ: Ceratitis quilicii; CR: Ceratitis rosa; CF: Ceratitis flexuosa; BD: Bactrocera dorsalis.
Figure 1. Intestinal bacteria diversity for 20 species of tephritidae. (A) Shannon index. (B) Simpson index. Monophagy (green), oligophagy (orange), and polyphagy (blue). BO: Bactrocera oleae; BM: Bactrocera minax; CP: Ceratitis podocarpi; ZC: Zeugodacus cucurbitae; ASE: Anastrepha serpentine; AST: Anastrepha striata; AL: Anastrepha ludens; AO: Anastrepha obliqua; AF: Anastrepha fraterculus; AG: Anastrepha grandis; ZT: Zeugodacus tau; BZ: Bactrocera zonata; BC: Bactrocera carambolae; BT: Bactrocera tryoni; CC, CCW, and CCL: Ceratitis capitata; CCO: Ceratitis cosyra; CQ: Ceratitis quilicii; CR: Ceratitis rosa; CF: Ceratitis flexuosa; BD: Bactrocera dorsalis.
Microorganisms 13 00189 g001
Microorganisms 13 00189 g002
Figure 2. β diversity analysis of bacteria community. (A) NMDS analysis. (B) PCoA analysis. BO: Bactrocera oleae; BM: Bactrocera minax; ZC: Zeugodacus cucurbitae; BD: Bactrocera dorsalis; CC: Ceratitis capitata; BT: Bactrocera tryoni.
Figure 2. β diversity analysis of bacteria community. (A) NMDS analysis. (B) PCoA analysis. BO: Bactrocera oleae; BM: Bactrocera minax; ZC: Zeugodacus cucurbitae; BD: Bactrocera dorsalis; CC: Ceratitis capitata; BT: Bactrocera tryoni.
Microorganisms 13 00189 g002
Table 2. Information on samples of intestinal commensal bacteria of tephritid larvae from different studies.
Table 2. Information on samples of intestinal commensal bacteria of tephritid larvae from different studies.
NameWild/LaboratoryHost PlantGeography
1ALWildBitter orange (Citrus aurantium)Soconusco Region, Chiapas State, Mexico
1AOWildMango (Mangifera indica),Soconusco Region, Chiapas State, Mexico
1ASEWildMamey sapote (Pouteria sapota)Soconusco Region, Chiapas State, Mexico
1ASTWildGuava (Psidium guajava)Soconusco Region, Chiapas State, Mexico
2AFWildPeaches and guavasHorco Molle, Tucuman Province, Argentina; Concordia, Entre Rios Province, Argentina
3AOWildSpondias purpurea, Mangifera indica, and Averrhoa carambolaValle del Cauca, southwestern Colombia
4AGLaboratory//
4ALLaboratory//
4BOLaboratory//
5CCWildOrange fruits (Citrus sinensis)Reggio Calabria, Italy
6CCWWildMandarin orange (Citrus reticulada and Citrus unshiu)Valencia, Spain
6CCLLaboratory//
7BMWildCitrusYichang, Hubei, China
8BMWildCitrusYichang, Hubei, China
9BOWildOlivesGreece
10ZCWildCucumber (Cucumis sativus)Farming Systems Research Center for Hill and Plateau Region, Ranchi, India
11BD1Laboratory//
11BD2WildCarambola (Averrhoa carambola)Huizhou, Guangdong, China
11BD3WildCarambola (Averrhoa carambola)Nansha, Guangdong, China
12BDWildUnknownWuhan, Hubei, China
13BDWildCarambola (Averrhoa carambola)Guangzhou, Guangdong, China
14BDWildEriobotrya japonica, Mangifera indica, Annona muricata, and Psidium guajavaSouth Africa; Tanzania
14ZCWildCoccinia grandis, Momordica charantia, Citrullus lanatus, and Cucumis sativusReunion; Tanzania
14BOWildOlea europeaGreece; Italy
14BZWildTerminalia catappaReunion
14CCWildCitrus reticulata, Ficus carica; Malus pumila, Ficus carica; Pyrus communisGreece; Italy; South Africa
14CQWildEriobotrya japonica, Psidium catlleyanum, Psidium guajava, Eriobotrya japonica, and Harpephyllum caffrumReunion; South Africa
14CRWildCitrus sinensisMozambique
14CCOWildSclerocarya birrea and Annona muricataTanzania; South Africa
14CFWildAntiaris toxicariaKenya
14CPWildAfrocarpus falcatusSouth Africa
15BTWildPomegranates (Punica granatum), green apples (Malus pumila), and quinces (Cydonia oblonga)New South Wales and Victoria, Australia
16BT1WildHog plumNambour
16BT2WildSapodilla Whiteside
16BT3WildSapodilla Nambour
16BT4WildPomegranateCommealla
16BT5WildGreen appleEchuca
17ZTLaboratory//
18BZWildWood apple (Aegle marmelos)Research farm of ICAR Research Complexfor Eastern Region, Ranchi, India
19BCWildCarambola (Averrhoa carambola)Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ge, D.; Yin, C.; Jing, J.; Li, Z.; Liu, L. Relationship Between the Host Plant Range of Insects and Symbiont Bacteria. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13010189

AMA Style

Ge D, Yin C, Jing J, Li Z, Liu L. Relationship Between the Host Plant Range of Insects and Symbiont Bacteria. Microorganisms. 2025; 13(1):189. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13010189

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ge, Doudou, Chongwen Yin, Jiayu Jing, Zhihong Li, and Lijun Liu. 2025. "Relationship Between the Host Plant Range of Insects and Symbiont Bacteria" Microorganisms 13, no. 1: 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13010189

APA Style

Ge, D., Yin, C., Jing, J., Li, Z., & Liu, L. (2025). Relationship Between the Host Plant Range of Insects and Symbiont Bacteria. Microorganisms, 13(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13010189

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop