Skip to content
1887

Microbial Genomics logo Microbial Genomics

Volume 11, Issue 4

Genomic insights into host cophylogeny Open Access

Abstract

The congruence between host and symbiont phylogenies reflects the evolutionary links among ecologically important interactions. As potential key symbionts, the members affiliated to the family have previously been investigated for the cophylogenetic relationship with their hosts using their 16S rRNA gene sequences. However, this approach neglects the genomic features of symbionts that may influence the long-term associations between members and their hosts. Here, we collected available high-quality genomes of from diverse hosts and investigated their genomic features, including genome size, phages, insertion elements and the composition of functional genes. We also tested the host cophylogeny and examined the correlation between the cophylogenetic squared residuals and the genomic features of members. Our results revealed a cophylogenetic pattern between members of the family and their various hosts. Moreover, we found that the investigated genomes of members were differentially eroded by phages and insertion elements. Additionally, members with smaller, more eroded genomes tended to exhibit lower cophylogenetic residuals with their hosts. Gene function analysis further revealed that members with closer associations with their hosts carried specific genes related to infection processes and host–symbiont interactions. This study suggests that the genomic features of members may influence long-term host intimate associations.

  • Received:
  • Accepted:
  • Published Online:
Keyword(s): comparative genomics , cophylogeny , cospeciation , Endozoicomonadaceae and host–bacteria interaction
Funding
This study was supported by the:
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (Award U23A2036)
    • Principle Award Recipient: JieLi
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (Award 42122045)
    • Principle Award Recipient: JieLi
© 2025 The Authors
  • This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001384
2025-04-03
2025-04-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/mgen/11/4/mgen001384.html?itemId=/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001384&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Wilkins LG, Leray M, O’Dea A, Yuen B, Peixoto RS et al. Host-associated microbiomes drive structure and function of marine ecosystems. PLoS Biol 2019; 17:e3000533 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Neave MJ, Apprill A, Ferrier-Pagès C, Voolstra CR. Diversity and function of prevalent symbiotic marine bacteria in the genus Endozoicomonas. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 2016; 100:8315–8324 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Hochart C, Paoli L, Ruscheweyh H-J, Salazar G, Boissin E et al. Ecology of Endozoicomonadaceae in three coral genera across the Pacific Ocean. Nat Commun 2023; 14:3037 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bartz J-O, Blom J, Busse H-J, Mvie JB, Hardt M et al. Parendozoicomonas haliclonae gen. nov. sp. nov. isolated from a marine sponge of the genus Haliclona and description of the family Endozoicomonadaceae fam. nov. comprising the genera Endozoicomonas, Parendozoicomonas, and Kistimonas. Syst Appl Microbiol 2018; 41:73–84 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Choi EJ, Kwon HC, Sohn YC, Yang HO. Kistimonas asteriae gen. nov., sp. nov., a gammaproteobacterium isolated from Asterias amurensis. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2010; 60:938–943 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Goldberg SR, Haltli BA, Correa H, Kerr RG. Description of Sansalvadorimonas verongulae gen. nov., sp. nov., a gammaproteobacterium isolated from the marine sponge Verongula gigantea. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2018; 68:2006–2014 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Kurahashi M, Yokota A. Endozoicomonas elysicola gen. nov., sp. nov., a gamma-proteobacterium isolated from the sea slug Elysia ornata. Syst Appl Microbiol 2007; 30:202–206 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  8. da Silva DMG, Pedrosa FR, Ângela Taipa M, Costa R, Keller-Costa T. Widespread occurrence of chitinase-encoding genes suggests the Endozoicomonadaceae family as a key player in chitin processing in the marine benthos. ISME Commun 2023; 3:109 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Shiu J-H, Tang S-L. The bacteria endozoicomonas: community, dynamics, diversity, genomes, and potential impacts on corals. In Symbiotic Microbiomes of Coral Reefs Sponges and Corals 2019 pp 55–67 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Qi W, Cascarano MC, Schlapbach R, Katharios P, Vaughan L et al. Ca. Endozoicomonas cretensis: a novel fish pathogen characterized by genome plasticity. Genome Biol 2018; 10:1363–1374 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  11. González Porras MÁ, Assié A, Tietjen M, Violette M, Kleiner M et al. An intranuclear bacterial parasite of deep-sea mussels expresses apoptosis inhibitors acquired from its host. bioRxiv 20112023 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Tandon K, Lu C-Y, Chiang P-W, Wada N, Yang S-H et al. Comparative genomics: dominant coral-bacterium Endozoicomonas acroporae metabolizes dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). ISME J 2020; 14:1290–1303 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Neave MJ, Michell CT, Apprill A, Voolstra CR. Endozoicomonas genomes reveal functional adaptation and plasticity in bacterial strains symbiotically associated with diverse marine hosts. Sci Rep 2017; 7:40579 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Moran NA, McCutcheon JP, Nakabachi A. Genomics and evolution of heritable bacterial symbionts. Annu Rev Genet 2008; 42:165–190 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  15. McCutcheon JP, Moran NA. Extreme genome reduction in symbiotic bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol 2012; 10:13–26 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Ding J-Y, Shiu J-H, Chen W-M, Chiang Y-R, Tang S-L. Genomic insight into the host-Endosymbiont relationship of Endozoicomonas montiporae CL-33(T) with its coral host. Front Microbiol 2016; 7:251 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chevallereau A, Pons BJ, van Houte S, Westra ER. Interactions between bacterial and phage communities in natural environments. Nat Rev Microbiol 2022; 20:49–62 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Navarro F, Muniesa M. Phages in the human body. Front Microbiol 2017; 8:260451 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Pogoreutz C, Oakley CA, Rädecker N, Cárdenas A, Perna G et al. Coral holobiont cues prime Endozoicomonas for a symbiotic lifestyle. ISME J 2022; 16:1883–1895 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Gupta A, Nair S. Dynamics of insect-microbiome interaction influence host and microbial symbiont. Front Microbiol 2020; 11:1357 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Brinker P, Fontaine MC, Beukeboom LW, Salles JF. Host, symbionts, and the microbiome: the missing tripartite interaction. Trends Microbiol 2019; 27:480–488 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Johnston EC, Cunning R, Burgess SC. Cophylogeny and specificity between cryptic coral species (Pocillopora spp.) at Mo’orea and their symbionts (Symbiodiniaceae). Mol Ecol 2022; 31:5368–5385 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Pollock FJ, McMinds R, Smith S, Bourne DG, Willis BL et al. Coral-associated bacteria demonstrate phylosymbiosis and cophylogeny. Nat Commun 2018; 9:4921 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  24. O’Brien PA, Andreakis N, Tan S, Miller DJ, Webster NS et al. Testing cophylogeny between coral reef invertebrates and their bacterial and archaeal symbionts. Mol Ecol 2021; 30:3768–3782 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Seemann T. Prokka: rapid prokaryotic genome annotation. Bioinform 2014; 30:2068–2069 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Parks DH, Imelfort M, Skennerton CT, Hugenholtz P, Tyson GW. CheckM: assessing the quality of microbial genomes recovered from isolates, single cells, and metagenomes. Genome Res 2015; 25:1043–1055 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Emms DM, Kelly S. OrthoFinder2: fast and accurate phylogenomic orthology analysis from gene sequences. BioRxiv 2018466201
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Conway JR, Lex A, Gehlenborg N. UpSetR: an R package for the visualization of intersecting sets and their properties. Bioinform 2017; 33:2938–2940 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Jain C, Rodriguez-R LM, Phillippy AM, Konstantinidis KT, Aluru S. High throughput ANI analysis of 90K prokaryotic genomes reveals clear species boundaries. Nat Commun 2018; 9:5114 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Cantalapiedra CP, Hernández-Plaza A, Letunic I, Bork P, Huerta-Cepas J. eggNOG-mapper v2: functional annotation, orthology assignments, and domain prediction at the metagenomic scale. Mol Biol Evol 2021; 38:5825–5829 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Yu G, Wang L-G, Han Y, He Q-Y. clusterProfiler: an R package for comparing biological themes among gene clusters. OMICS 2012; 16:284–287 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Arndt D, Grant JR, Marcu A, Sajed T, Pon A et al. PHASTER: a better, faster version of the PHAST phage search tool. Nucleic Acids Res 2016; 44:W16–W21 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Okonechnikov K, Golosova O, Fursov M, Team U. Unipro UGENE: a unified bioinformatics toolkit. Bioinform 2012; 28:1166–1167 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Siguier P, Perochon J, Lestrade L, Mahillon J, Chandler M. ISfinder: the reference centre for bacterial insertion sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2006; 34:D32–6 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Camargo AP, Roux S, Schulz F, Babinski M, Xu Y et al. You can move, but you can’t hide: identification of mobile genetic elements with geNomad. Bioinform 2005; 20232023 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Edgar RC. MUSCLE v5 enables improved estimates of phylogenetic tree confidence by ensemble bootstrapping. BioRxiv 2020; 2021:2021
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Talavera G, Castresana J. Improvement of phylogenies after removing divergent and ambiguously aligned blocks from protein sequence alignments. Syst Biol 2007; 56:564–577 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kalyaanamoorthy S, Minh BQ, Wong TK, von Haeseler A, Jermiin LS. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat Methods 2017; 14:587–589 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, van der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A et al. MrBayes 3.2: efficient bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol 2012; 61:539–542 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hutchinson MC, Cagua EF, Balbuena JA, Stouffer DB, Poisot T. paco: implementing procrustean approach to cophylogeny in R. Methods Ecol Evol 2017; 8:932–940 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Santichaivekin S, Yang Q, Liu J, Mawhorter R, Jiang J et al. eMPRess: a systematic cophylogeny reconciliation tool. Bioinform 2021; 37:2481–2482 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Racine JS. RStudio: A Platform-Independent IDE for R and Sweave JSTOR; 2012 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Geiger O, López-Lara IM, Sohlenkamp C. Phosphatidylcholine biosynthesis and function in bacteria. Biochim Biophys Acta, Mol Cell Biol Lipids 2013; 1831:503–513 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Chen J, Qiao D, Yuan T, Feng Y, Zhang P et al. Biotechnological production of ectoine: current status and prospects. Folia Microbiol 2024; 69:247–258 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Ide K, Nishikawa Y, Maruyama T, Tsukada Y, Kogawa M et al. Targeted single-cell genomics reveals novel host adaptation strategies of the symbiotic bacteria Endozoicomonas in Acropora tenuis coral. Microbiome 2022; 10:220 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Alex A, Antunes A. Comparative genomics reveals metabolic specificity of Endozoicomonas isolated from a marine sponge and the genomic repertoire for host-bacteria symbioses. Microorganisms 2019; 7:635 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Keller-Costa T, Kozma L, Silva SG, Toscan R, Gonçalves J et al. Metagenomics-resolved genomics provides novel insights into chitin turnover, metabolic specialization, and niche partitioning in the octocoral microbiome. Microbiome 2022; 10:151 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Galinski EA, Pfeiffer HP, Trüper HG. 1,4,5,6-tetrahydro-2-methyl-4-pyrimidinecarboxylic acid. a novel cyclic amino acid from halophilic phototrophic bacteria of the genus Ectothiorhodospira. Eur J Biochem 1985; 149:135–139 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhou K, Zhang T, Chen X-W, Xu Y, Zhang R et al. Viruses in marine invertebrate holobionts: complex interactions between phages and bacterial symbionts. Ann Rev Mar Sci 2024; 16:467–485 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Groussin M, Mazel F, Alm EJ. Co-evolution and co-speciation of host-gut bacteria systems. Cell Host Microbe 2020; 28:12–22 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  51. de Vienne D, Refrégier G, López-Villavicencio M, Tellier A, Hood M et al. Cospeciation vs host-shift speciation: methods for testing, evidence from natural associations and relation to coevolution. New Phytol 2013; 198:347–385 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Bennett PM. Genome plasticity: insertion sequence elements, transposons and integrons, and DNA rearrangement. In Genomics, Proteomics, and Clinical Bacteriology: Methods and Reviews 2004 pp 71–113 [View Article]
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Siguier P, Gourbeyre E, Chandler M. Bacterial insertion sequences: their genomic impact and diversity. FEMS Microbiol Rev 2014; 38:865–891 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Durrant MG, Li MM, Siranosian BA, Montgomery SB, Bhatt AS. A Bioinformatic Analysis of Integrative Mobile Genetic Elements Highlights Their Role in Bacterial Adaptation. Cell Host Microbe 2020; 27:140–153 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Janzen DH. When is it coevolution. Evolution 1980; 34:611–612 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Thompson JN. The Coevolutionary Process University of Chicago press; 1994
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Raina J-B, Fernandez V, Lambert B, Stocker R, Seymour JR. The role of microbial motility and chemotaxis in symbiosis. Nat Rev Microbiol 2019; 17:284–294 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Bélanger L, Dimmick KA, Fleming JS, Charles TC. Null mutations in Sinorhizobium meliloti exoS and chvI demonstrate the importance of this two-component regulatory system for symbiosis. Mol Microbiol 2009; 74:1223–1237 [View Article] [PubMed]
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001384
Loading
Genomic insights into host–Endozoicomonadaceae cophylogeny
M Gen 11, 001384 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.001384
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001384
/content/journal/mgen/10.1099/mgen.0.001384
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplements

Supplementary material 1

PDF

Supplementary material 2

EXCEL

Most cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error