Identification and characterization of metagenomic fragments from tidal flat sediment

Predicting bacterial interaction outcomes from monoculture growth and supernatant assays

How to derive principles of community dynamics and stability is a central question in microbial ecology. Bottom-up experiments, in which a small number of bacterial species are mixed, have become popular to address it. However, experimental setups are typically limited because co-culture experiments are labor-intensive and species are difficult to distinguish. Here, we use a four-species bacterial community to show that information from monoculture growth and inhibitory effects induced by secreted compounds can be combined to predict the competitive rank order in the community. Specifically, integrative monoculture growth parameters allow building a preliminary competitive rank order, which is then adjusted using inhibitory effects from supernatant assays. While our procedure worked for two different media, we observed differences in species rank orders between media. We then parameterized computer simulations with our empirical data to show that higher order species interactions largely follow the dynamics predicted from pairwise interactions with one important exception. The impact of inhibitory compounds was reduced in higher order communities because their negative effects were spread across multiple target species. Altogether, we formulated three simple rules of how monoculture growth and supernatant assay data can be combined to establish a competitive species rank order in an experimental four-species community.

Some considerations for analyzing biodiversity using integrative metagenomics and gene networks

BACKGROUND

Improving knowledge of biodiversity will benefit conservation biology, enhance bioremediation studies, and could lead to new medical treatments. However there is no standard approach to estimate and to compare the diversity of different environments, or to study its past, and possibly, future evolution.

PRESENTATION OF THE HYPOTHESIS

We argue that there are two conditions for significant progress in the identification and quantification of biodiversity. First, integrative metagenomic studies - aiming at the simultaneous examination (or even better at the integration) of observations about the elements, functions and evolutionary processes captured by the massive sequencing of multiple markers - should be preferred over DNA barcoding projects and over metagenomic projects based on a single marker. Second, such metagenomic data should be studied with novel inclusive network-based approaches, designed to draw inferences both on the many units and on the many processes present in the environments.

TESTING THE HYPOTHESIS

We reached these conclusions through a comparison of the theoretical foundations of two molecular approaches seeking to assess biodiversity: metagenomics (mostly used on prokaryotes and protists) and DNA barcoding (mostly used on multicellular eukaryotes), and by pragmatic considerations of the issues caused by the 'species problem' in biodiversity studies.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE HYPOTHESIS

Evolutionary gene networks reduce the risk of producing biodiversity estimates with limited explanatory power, biased either by unequal rates of LGT, or difficult to interpret due to (practical) problems caused by type I and type II grey zones. Moreover, these networks would easily accommodate additional (meta)transcriptomic and (meta)proteomic data.