title: Ecological succession in long-term experimentally evolved biofilms produces synergistic communities.
abstract: Many biofilm populations are known for their exceptional biodiversity, but the relative contributions of the forces that could produce this diversity are poorly understood. This uncertainty grows in the old, well-established communities found on many natural surfaces and in long-term, chronic infections. If the prevailing interactions among species within biofilms are positive, productivity should increase with diversity, but if they tend towards competition or antagonism, productivity should decrease. Here, we describe the parallel evolution of synergistic communities derived from a clone of Burkholderia cenocepacia during ~1500 generations of biofilm selection. This long-term evolution was enabled by a new experimental method that selects for daily cycles of colonization, biofilm assembly and dispersal. Each of the six replicate biofilm populations underwent a common pattern of adaptive morphological diversification, in which three ecologically distinct morphotypes arose in the same order of succession and persisted. In two focal populations, mixed communities were more productive than any monoculture and each variant benefited from the mixture. These gains in output resulted from asymmetrical cross-feeding between ecotypes and the expansion and partitioning of biofilm space that constructed new niches. Therefore, even in the absence of starting genetic variation, prolonged selection for surface colonization generates a dynamic of ecological succession that enhances productivity.
authors.affiliation: Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Biomedical Sciences, Graduate Program in Microbiology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA.
authors.forename: Steffen R
authors.initials: SR
authors.lastname: Poltak
authors.forename: Vaughn S
authors.initials: VS
authors.lastname: Cooper
mesh_terms: D000222:Adaptation, Physiological; D044822:Biodiversity; D018441:Biofilms; D005075:Biological Evolution; D057508:Burkholderia cenocepacia / Q000502:physiology*; D060146:Ecotype; D014644:Genetic Variation
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Mar 22;446(7134):432-5
references.pmid: 17377581
references.citation: Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2001;39:225-58
references.pmid: 11701865
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 2009 Jun;191(11):3492-503
references.pmid: 19329647
references.citation: Curr Biol. 2006 Oct 24;16(20):2030-4
references.pmid: 17055982
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 30;103(22):8305-6
references.pmid: 16717189
references.citation: Methods Enzymol. 1999;310:91-109
references.pmid: 10547784
references.citation: Nature. 2002 Dec 5;420(6915):496-9
references.pmid: 12466840
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Mar;71(3):1193-201
references.pmid: 15746318
references.citation: Nature. 2000 Oct 12;407(6805):762-4
references.pmid: 11048725
references.citation: Gene. 1995 Dec 1;166(1):175-6
references.pmid: 8529885
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2006 Sep;9(9):1041-8
references.pmid: 16925653
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Nov 13;104(46):18123-8
references.pmid: 17991772
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 30;103(22):8487-92
references.pmid: 16687478
references.citation: Annu Rev Microbiol. 2002;56:187-209
references.pmid: 12142477
references.citation: Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;6(7):726-32
references.pmid: 15186351
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Apr;76(8):2387-96
references.pmid: 20154121
references.citation: Microb Ecol. 2005 Nov;50(4):589-601
references.pmid: 16341639
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Nov;70(11):6834-45
references.pmid: 15528551
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2009 Jan;33(1):206-24
references.pmid: 19067751
references.citation: Nature. 2003 Sep 4;425(6953):72-4
references.pmid: 12955142
references.citation: ISME J. 2009 May;3(5):632-4
references.pmid: 19225554
references.citation: Nature. 2001 Jul 5;412(6842):72-6
references.pmid: 11452308
references.citation: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2007 Dec;71(4):653-70
references.pmid: 18063722
references.citation: Environ Sci Technol. 2008 Nov 15;42(22):8360-6
references.pmid: 19068818
references.citation: Nature. 1998 Jul 2;394(6688):69-72
references.pmid: 9665128
references.citation: PLoS One. 2007 Jul 25;2(7):e634
references.pmid: 17653261
references.citation: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2003 Apr;22(4):249-53
references.pmid: 12687415
references.citation: Ecol Lett. 2009 Jan;12(1):34-44
references.pmid: 19019196
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Nov 23;101(47):16630-5
references.pmid: 15546998
references.citation: Nature. 1970 Aug 1;227(5257):520-1
references.pmid: 5428476
references.citation: Am Nat. 2007 Aug;170(2):207-20
references.pmid: 17874372
references.citation: Trends Microbiol. 2001 Feb;9(2):50-2
references.pmid: 11173226
references.citation: Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Oct;75(19):6047-54
references.pmid: 19648364
references.citation: PLoS One. 2008 Feb 27;3(2):e1685
references.pmid: 18301762
references.citation: Nature. 2007 Feb 1;445(7127):533-6
references.pmid: 17268468
references.citation: J Bacteriol. 2007 Feb;189(3):807-17
references.pmid: 17114252
references.citation: Lancet. 2002 Jun 8;359(9322):2002-3
references.pmid: 12076559