Ecological succession in long-term experimentally evolved biofilms produces synergistic communities.
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.
Poltak
Steffen R
SR
Department of Molecular, Cellular, and Biomedical Sciences, Graduate Program in Microbiology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA.
Cooper
Vaughn S
VS
D000222:Adaptation, Physiological; D044822:Biodiversity; D018441:Biofilms; D005075:Biological Evolution; D057508:Burkholderia cenocepacia / Q000502:physiology*; D060146:Ecotype; D014644:Genetic Variation
Nature. 2007 Mar 22;446(7134):432-5
17377581
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2001;39:225-58
11701865
J Bacteriol. 2009 Jun;191(11):3492-503
19329647
Curr Biol. 2006 Oct 24;16(20):2030-4
17055982
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 30;103(22):8305-6
16717189
Methods Enzymol. 1999;310:91-109
10547784
Nature. 2002 Dec 5;420(6915):496-9
12466840
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005 Mar;71(3):1193-201
15746318
Nature. 2000 Oct 12;407(6805):762-4
11048725
Gene. 1995 Dec 1;166(1):175-6
8529885
Ecol Lett. 2006 Sep;9(9):1041-8
16925653
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Nov 13;104(46):18123-8
17991772
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 May 30;103(22):8487-92
16687478
Annu Rev Microbiol. 2002;56:187-209
12142477
Environ Microbiol. 2004 Jul;6(7):726-32
15186351
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2010 Apr;76(8):2387-96
20154121
Microb Ecol. 2005 Nov;50(4):589-601
16341639
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Nov;70(11):6834-45
15528551
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2009 Jan;33(1):206-24
19067751
Nature. 2003 Sep 4;425(6953):72-4
12955142
ISME J. 2009 May;3(5):632-4
19225554
Nature. 2001 Jul 5;412(6842):72-6
11452308
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2007 Dec;71(4):653-70
18063722
Environ Sci Technol. 2008 Nov 15;42(22):8360-6
19068818
Nature. 1998 Jul 2;394(6688):69-72
9665128
PLoS One. 2007 Jul 25;2(7):e634
17653261
Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2003 Apr;22(4):249-53
12687415
Ecol Lett. 2009 Jan;12(1):34-44
19019196
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Nov 23;101(47):16630-5
15546998
Nature. 1970 Aug 1;227(5257):520-1
5428476
Am Nat. 2007 Aug;170(2):207-20
17874372
Trends Microbiol. 2001 Feb;9(2):50-2
11173226
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009 Oct;75(19):6047-54
19648364
PLoS One. 2008 Feb 27;3(2):e1685
18301762
Nature. 2007 Feb 1;445(7127):533-6
17268468
J Bacteriol. 2007 Feb;189(3):807-17
17114252
Lancet. 2002 Jun 8;359(9322):2002-3
12076559