Article | Published:

Spatiotemporal modulation of biodiversity in a synthetic chemical-mediated ecosystem

Nature Chemical Biology volume 5, pages 929935 (2009) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Biodiversity, or the relative abundance of species, measures the persistence of an ecosystem. To better understand its modulation, we analyzed the spatial and temporal dynamics of a synthetic, chemical-mediated ecosystem that consisted of two engineered Escherichia coli populations. Depending on the specific experimental conditions implemented, the dominant interaction between the two populations could be competition for nutrients or predation due to engineered communication. While the two types of interactions resulted in different spatial patterns, they demonstrated a common trend in terms of the modulation of biodiversity. Specifically, biodiversity decreased with increasing cellular motility if the segregation distance between the two populations was comparable to the length scale of the chemical-mediated interaction. Otherwise, biodiversity was insensitive to cellular motility. Our results suggested a simple criterion for predicting the modulation of biodiversity by habitat partitioning and cellular motility in chemical-mediated ecosystems.

  • Compound C9H18O5S

    Isopropyl ß-D-1-thiogalactopyranoside

  • Compound C10H15NO4

    3-Oxohexanoyl-homoserine lactone

  • Compound C16H27NO4

    3-Oxododecanoyl-homoserine lactone

  • Compound C18H36N4O11

    Chloramphenicol

  • Compound C11H12Cl2N2O5

    Kanamycin

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , & The microbial engines that drive Earth's biogeochemical cycles. Science 320, 1034–1039 (2008).

  2. 2.

    Microbial ecology of ocean biogeochemistry: a community perspective. Science 320, 1043–1045 (2008).

  3. 3.

    & The ecology and biotechnology of sulphate-reducing bacteria. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 6, 441–454 (2008).

  4. 4.

    , , & Gut microbiota: a potential new territory for drug targeting. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 7, 123–129 (2008).

  5. 5.

    , & An ecological and evolutionary perspective on human-microbe mutualism and disease. Nature 449, 811–818 (2007).

  6. 6.

    , & Engineering microbial consortia: a new frontier in synthetic biology. Trends Biotechnol. 26, 483–489 (2008).

  7. 7.

    The measurement of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 5, 285–307 (1974).

  8. 8.

    et al. Big questions, small worlds: microbial model systems in ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 189–197 (2004).

  9. 9.

    et al. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: current knowledge and future challenges. Science 294, 804–808 (2001).

  10. 10.

    , & Ecological and evolutionary forces shaping microbial diversity in the human intestine. Cell 124, 837–848 (2006).

  11. 11.

    Santa Rosalia revisited: why are there so many species of bacteria? Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 73, 25–33 (1998).

  12. 12.

    & (eds.) Biodiversity of Microbial Life: Foundation of Earth's Biosphere (Wiley-Liss, New York, 2001).

  13. 13.

    , , & A natural view of microbial biodiversity within hot spring cyanobacterial mat communities. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 62, 1353–1370 (1998).

  14. 14.

    , & An ecological perspective on bacterial biodiversity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271, 113–122 (2004).

  15. 15.

    The ecological consequences of changes in biodiversity: a search for general principles. Ecology 80, 1455–1474 (1999).

  16. 16.

    & The interaction between predation and competition. Nature 456, 235–238 (2008).

  17. 17.

    Predatory prokaryotes: an emerging research opportunity. J. Mol. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 4, 467–477 (2002).

  18. 18.

    Predatory behaviors in bacteria - diversity and transitions. Microbe 2, 67–73 (2007).

  19. 19.

    et al. Predatory prokaryotes: predation and primary consumption evolved in bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 83, 2138–2142 (1986).

  20. 20.

    , , & Comparison of techniques to determine the abundance of predatory bacteria attacking chromatiaceae. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 86, 205–211 (1992).

  21. 21.

    , , & Bdellovibrio: growth and development during the predatory cycle. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 9, 639–644 (2006).

  22. 22.

    , & Synthetic cooperation in engineered yeast populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 1877–1882 (2007).

  23. 23.

    & Lytic enzyme produced by Myxococcus xanthus. J. Bacteriol. 92, 1632–1637 (1966).

  24. 24.

    , , & Rippling is a predatory behavior in Myxococcus xanthus. J. Bacteriol. 188, 5888–5895 (2006).

  25. 25.

    , , , & Mutations affecting predation ability of the soil bacterium Myxococcus xanthus. Microbiology 151, 1865–1874 (2005).

  26. 26.

    & Communication in bacteria: an ecological and evolutionary perspective. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 4, 249–258 (2006).

  27. 27.

    et al. Microbial landscapes: new paths to biofilm research. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 5, 76–81 (2007).

  28. 28.

    , & Chemical cues, defence metabolites and the shaping of pelagic interspecific interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 198–204 (2007).

  29. 29.

    & Infochemical terminology: based on cost-benefit analysis rather than origin of compounds? Funct. Ecol. 2, 131–139 (1988).

  30. 30.

    et al. New trends in marine chemical ecology. Estuaries Coasts 29, 531–551 (2006).

  31. 31.

    & Quorum sensing: cell-to-cell communication in bacteria. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 21, 319–346 (2005).

  32. 32.

    & Allelochemicals: chemical interactions between species. Science 171, 757–770 (1971).

  33. 33.

    , , & Ecological consequences of chemically mediated prey perception. J. Chem. Ecol. 28, 1953–1970 (2002).

  34. 34.

    , & Inter-kingdom signaling: deciphering the language of acyl homoserine lactones. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 29, 935–947 (2005).

  35. 35.

    , , & Local dispersal promotes biodiversity in a real-life game of rock-paper-scissors. Nature 418, 171–174 (2002).

  36. 36.

    , & Mobility promotes and jeopardizes biodiversity in rock-paper-scissors games. Nature 448, 1046–1049 (2007).

  37. 37.

    et al. A synthetic Escherichia coli predator-prey ecosystem. Mol. Syst. Biol. 4, 187 (2008).

  38. 38.

    , & Synthetic ecosystems based on airborne inter- and intrakingdom communication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 10435–10440 (2007).

  39. 39.

    , & Isopropyl-β-D-thiogalactopyranoside influences the metabolism of Escherichia coli. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 36, 782–784 (1992).

  40. 40.

    Quantitative studies of bacterial chemotaxis and microbial population dynamics. Microb. Ecol. 22, 175–185 (1991).

  41. 41.

    , & Effect of bacterial chemotaxis on dynamics of microbial competition. Microb. Ecol. 16, 115–131 (1988).

  42. 42.

    et al. Spatio-temporal patterns generated by Salmonella typhimurium. Biophys. J. 68, 2181–2189 (1995).

  43. 43.

    & Traveling bands of chemotactic bacteria: a theoretical analysis. J. Theor. Biol. 30, 235–248 (1971).

  44. 44.

    Transients: the key to long-term ecological understanding? Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 39–45 (2004).

  45. 45.

    & Spatial Ecology (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1997).

  46. 46.

    Species Diversity in Space and Time (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995).

  47. 47.

    Microbial Ecology: Organisms, Habitats, Activities (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1988).

  48. 48.

    Spatial heterogeneity and the stability of predator-prey systems. Theor. Popul. Biol. 12, 37–48 (1977).

  49. 49.

    , , & Defined spatial structure stabilizes a synthetic multispecies bacterial community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 18188–18193 (2008).

  50. 50.

    , , & Engineered bidirectional communication mediates a consensus in a microbial biofilm consortium. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 17300–17304 (2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank F. Yuan for access to a Kodak fluorescence image station and software (Comsol Multiphysics); F. Arnold (California Institute of Technology) and C. Collins (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute) for sharing genetic constructs; D. Schaeffer for suggestions on modeling; C. Tan for commenting on the manuscript; and other You lab members for discussions. This study was supported by the US National Institutes of Health (5R01CA118486), a David and Lucile Packard Fellowship (L.Y.), a DuPont Young Professor Award (L.Y.), a US National Institute of General Medical Sciences Biotechnology Predoctoral Center for Biomolecular and Tissue Engineering Fellowship (to S.P.) and a Duke University Pratt Fellowship for undergraduate research (to M.G.). We thank the anonymous reviewers for critical and constructive suggestions.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Biomedical Engineering and Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.

    • Hao Song
    • , Stephen Payne
    • , Meagan Gray
    •  & Lingchong You

Authors

  1. Search for Hao Song in:

  2. Search for Stephen Payne in:

  3. Search for Meagan Gray in:

  4. Search for Lingchong You in:

Contributions

H.S. and L.Y. conceived the project; H.S., S.P. and M.G. performed the experiments; H.S. performed the mathematical modeling; H.S., S.P. and L.Y. analyzed the data; H.S., S.P. and L.Y. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lingchong You.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary Text and Figures

    Supplementary Methods and Supplementary Results

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nchembio.244

Further reading