Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Cophylogeny and convergence shape holobiont evolution in sponge–microbe symbioses

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 6, pages 750–762 (2022)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Symbiotic microbial communities of sponges serve critical functions that have shaped the evolution of reef ecosystems since their origins. Symbiont abundance varies tremendously among sponges, with many species classified as either low microbial abundance (LMA) or high microbial abundance (HMA), but the evolutionary dynamics of these symbiotic states remain unknown. This study examines the LMA/HMA dichotomy across an exhaustive sampling of Caribbean sponge biodiversity and predicts that the LMA symbiotic state is the ancestral state among sponges. Conversely, HMA symbioses, consisting of more specialized microorganisms, have evolved multiple times by recruiting similar assemblages, mostly since the rise of scleractinian-dominated reefs. Additionally, HMA symbioses show stronger signals of phylosymbiosis and cophylogeny, consistent with stronger co-evolutionary interaction in these complex holobionts. These results indicate that HMA holobionts are characterized by increased endemism, metabolic dependence and chemical defences. The selective forces driving these patterns may include the concurrent increase in dissolved organic matter in reef ecosystems or the diversification of spongivorous fishes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Caribbean sponge holobiont dataset is consistent across sites and sufficient to detect phylum-wide trends in the evolutionary dynamics of microbial symbioses.
Fig. 2: HMA and LMA microbial communities exist as discrete states.
Fig. 3: HMA sponge microbial communities are highly specialized.
Fig. 4: The dynamic evolutionary history of HMA and LMA sponges.
Fig. 5: Correlated evolution of chemical defences and HMA symbioses.
Fig. 6: Patterns of phylosymbiosis in sponges are driven by HMA holobionts.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The sponge barcoding data for 18S and COI markers are accessioned at GenBank under MZ416255–MZ416736 and MZ486496–MZ487633, respectively. The microbial 16S MiniSeq reads and metagenomic libraries are available through the NCBI Short Read Archive under BioProject PRJNA555077.

Code availability

The complete bioinformatic pipeline including scripts for figure reproduction is available through the GitHub repository at https://github.com/scriptomika/SpongeDOB.

References

  1. Hyman, L. H. The Invertebrates: Protozoa Through Ctenophora Vol. 1 (McGraw-Hill, 1940).

  2. Taylor, M. W., Radax, R., Steger, D. & Wagner, M. Sponge-associated microorganisms: evolution, ecology, and biotechnological potential. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 71, 295–347 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Giles, E. C. et al. Bacterial community profiles in low microbial abundance sponges. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 83, 232–241 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Gloeckner, V. et al. The HMA–LMA dichotomy revisited: an electron microscopical survey of 56 sponge species. Biol. Bull. 227, 78–88 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Moitinho-Silva, L. et al. Predicting the HMA–LMA status in marine sponges by machine learning. Front. Microbiol. 8, 752 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Cárdenas, C. A. et al. High similarity in the microbiota of cold-water sponges of the genus Mycale from two different geographical areas. PeerJ 6, e4935 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Webster, N. S. & Taylor, M. W. Marine sponges and their microbial symbionts: love and other relationships. Environ. Microbiol. 14, 335–346 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Freeman, C. J. et al. Microbial symbionts and ecological divergence of Caribbean sponges: a new perspective on an ancient association. ISME J. 14, 1571–1583 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Bell, J. J. et al. Climate change alterations to ecosystem dominance: how might sponge-dominated reefs function? Ecology 99, 1920–1931 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gardner, T. A., Côté, I. M., Gill, J. A., Grant, A. & Watkinson, A. R. Long-term region-wide declines in Caribbean corals. Science 301, 958–960 (2003).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lesser, M. P. Benthic–pelagic coupling on coral reefs: feeding and growth of Caribbean sponges. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 328, 277–288 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. de Goeij, J. M., Lesser, M. P. & Pawlik, J. R. in Climate Change, Ocean Acidification and Sponges (eds Carballo, J. L. & Bell, J. J.) 373–410 (Springer, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59008-0_8

  13. Pita, L., Rix, L., Slaby, B. M., Franke, A. & Hentschel, U. The sponge holobiont in a changing ocean: from microbes to ecosystems. Microbiome 6, 46 (2018).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Slaby, B. M., Hackl, T., Horn, H., Bayer, K. & Hentschel, U. Metagenomic binning of a marine sponge microbiome reveals unity in defense but metabolic specialization. ISME J. 11, 2465–2478 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Moitinho-Silva, L. et al. Revealing microbial functional activities in the Red Sea sponge Stylissa carteri by metatranscriptomics. Environ. Microbiol. 16, 3683–3698 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weisz, J. B., Lindquist, N. & Martens, C. S. Do associated microbial abundances impact marine demosponge pumping rates and tissue densities? Oecologia 155, 367–376 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Poppell, E. et al. Sponge heterotrophic capacity and bacterial community structure in high- and low-microbial abundance sponges. Mar. Ecol. 35, 414–424 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McFall-Ngai, M. J. et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 3229–3236 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Douglas, A. E. Symbiosis as a general principle in eukaryotic evolution. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 6, a016113 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Moran, N. A. & Sloan, D. B. The hologenome concept: helpful or hollow? PLoS Biol. 13, e1002311 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Brooks, A. W., Kohl, K. D., Brucker, R. M., van Opstal, E. J. & Bordenstein, S. R. Phylosymbiosis: relationships and functional effects of microbial communities across host evolutionary history. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000225–e2000229 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. O’Brien, P. A. et al. Diverse coral reef invertebrates exhibit patterns of phylosymbiosis. ISME J. 14, 2211–2222 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Houwenhuyse, S., Stoks, R., Mukherjee, S. & Decaestecker, E. Locally adapted gut microbiomes mediate host stress tolerance. ISME J. 15, 2401–2414 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Moeller, A. H. et al. Experimental evidence for adaptation to species-specific gut microbiota in house mice. mSphere 4, e00387-19 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. van Opstal, E. J. & Bordenstein, S. R. Phylosymbiosis impacts adaptive traits in Nasonia wasps. mBio https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00887-19 (2019).

  26. Lim, S. J. & Bordenstein, S. R. An introduction to phylosymbiosis. Proc. R. Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2019.2900 (2020).

  27. Pollock, F. J. et al. Coral-associated bacteria demonstrate phylosymbiosis and cophylogeny. Nat. Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-07275-x (2018).

  28. Douglas, A. E. & Werren, J. H. Holes in the hologenome: why host–microbe symbioses are not holobionts. mBio 7, e02099 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Hadfield, J. D., Krasnov, B. R., Poulin, R. & Nakagawa, S. A tale of two phylogenies: comparative analyses of ecological interactions. Am. Nat. 183, 174–187 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Hill, M. S. et al. Reconstruction of family-level phylogenetic relationships within Demospongiae (Porifera) using nuclear encoded housekeeping genes. PLoS ONE 8, e50437 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Redmond, N. E. et al. Phylogeny and systematics of Demospongiae in light of new small-subunit ribosomal DNA (18S) sequences. Int. Comp. Biol. 53, 388–415 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Worheide, G. et al. in Advances in Marine Biology: Advances in Sponge Science Vol. 61 (eds Becerro, M. A. et al.) 1–78 (Elsevier, 2012).

  33. Schuster, A. et al. Divergence times in demosponges (Porifera): first insights from new mitogenomes and the inclusion of fossils in a birth–death clock model. BMC Evol. Biol. 18, 114 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Stanley, G. D. & Fautin, D. G. Paleontology and evolution. Orig. Mod. Corals Sci. 291, 1913–1914 (2001).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Brinkmann, C. M., Marker, A. & Kurtböke, D. I. An overview on marine sponge-symbiotic bacteria as unexhausted sources for natural product discovery. Diversity 9, 40 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rust, M. et al. A multiproducer microbiome generates chemical diversity in the marine sponge Mycale hentscheli. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9508–9518 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Faulkner, D. J., Harper, M. K., Haygood, M. G., Salomon, C. E. & Schmidt, E. W. in Drugs from the Sea (ed. Fusetani, N.) 107–119 (Karger, 2000).

  38. Loh, T.-L. & Pawlik, J. R. Chemical defenses and resource trade-offs structure sponge communities on Caribbean coral reefs. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 4151–4156 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Pagel, M. Detecting correlated evolution on phylogenies—a general method for the comparative analysis of discrete characters. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 255, 37–45 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Easson, C. G. & Thacker, R. W. Phylogenetic signal in the community structure of host-specific microbiomes of tropical marine sponges. Front. Microbiol. 5, 532 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Thomas, T. et al. Diversity, structure and convergent evolution of the global sponge microbiome. Nat. Commun. 7, 11870 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Schöttner, S. et al. Relationships between host phylogeny, host type and bacterial community diversity in cold-water coral reef sponges. PLoS ONE 8, e55505 (2013).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Robinson, D. R. & Foulds, L. R. Comparison of phylogenetic trees. Math. Biosci. 53, 131–147 (1981).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Gloor, G. B., Macklaim, J. M., Pawlowsky-Glahn, V. & Egozcue, J. J. Microbiome datasets are compositional: and this is not optional. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2224 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Apprill, A. The role of symbioses in the adaptation and stress responses of marine organisms. Annu. Rev. Mar. Sci. 12, 291–314 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lesser, M. P., Slattery, M. & Mobley, C. Biodiversity and functional ecology of mesophotic coral reefs. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 49, 49–71 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Lipps, J. H. & Stanley, G. D. in Coral Reefs at the Crossroads (eds Hubbard, D. K. et al.) 175–196 (Springer, 2016); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-7567-0_8

  48. Macartney, K. J., Slattery, M. & Lesser, M. P. Trophic ecology of Caribbean sponges in the mesophotic zone. Limnol. Oceanogr. 66, 1113–1124 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. McMurray, S. E., Stubler, A. D., Erwin, P. M., Finelli, C. M. & Pawlik, J. R. A test of the sponge-loop hypothesis for emergent Caribbean reef sponges. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 588, 1–14 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Olinger, L. K., Strangman, W. K., McMurray, S. E. & Pawlik, J. R. Sponges with microbial symbionts transform dissolved organic matter and take up organohalides. Front. Mar. Sci. 8, 665789 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Haas, A. F. et al. Effects of coral reef benthic primary producers on dissolved organic carbon and microbial activity. PLoS ONE 6, e27973 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Sánchez-Baracaldo, P. Origin of marine planktonic cyanobacteria. Sci. Rep. 5, 17418 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Sanchez-Bracaldo, P., Ridgwell, A. & Raven, J. A. A neoproterozoic transition in the marine nitrogen cycle. Curr. Biol. 24, 652–657 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Falkowski, P. G. et al. The evolution of modern eukaryotic phytoplankton. Science 305, 354–360 (2004).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Wang, D. et al. Coupling of ocean redox and animal evolution during the Ediacaran–Cambrian transition. Nat. Commun. 9, 2575 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Bellwood, D. R., Goatley, C. H. R. & Bellwood, O. The evolution of fishes and corals on reefs: form, function and interdependence. Biol. Rev. 92, 878–901 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ehrlich, P. R. & Raven, P. H. Butterflies and plants: a study in coevolution. Evolution 18, 586–608 (1964).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Després, L., David, J.-P. & Gallet, C. The evolutionary ecology of insect resistance to plant chemicals. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22, 298–307 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Richardson, K. L., Gold-Bouchot, G. & Schlenk, D. The characterization of cytosolic glutathione transferase from four species of sea turtles: loggerhead (Caretta caretta), green (Chelonia mydas), olive ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), and hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata). Comp. Biochem. Physiol. C 150, 279–284 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bayer, K., Jahn, M. T., Slaby, B. M., Moitinho-Silva, L. & Hentschel, U. Marine sponges as Chloroflexi hot spots: genomic insights and high-resolution visualization of an abundant and diverse symbiotic clade. mSystems 3, e00150-18 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Sachs, J. L., Skophammer, R. G., Bansal, N. & Stajich, J. E. Evolutionary origins and diversification of proteobacterial mutualists. Proc. R Soc. B https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2146 (2014).

  62. Sachs, J. L., Skophammer, R. G. & Regus, J. U. Evolutionary transitions in bacterial symbiosis. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10800–10807 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Seutin, G., White, B. N. & Boag, P. T. Preservation of avian blood and tissue samples for DNA analyses. Can. J. Zool. https://doi.org/10.1139/z91-013 (2011).

  64. Sunagawa, S. et al. Generation and analysis of transcriptomic resources for a model system on the rise: the sea anemone Aiptasia pallida and its dinoflagellate endosymbiont. BMC Genomics 10, 258 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Song, L. & Florea, L. Rcorrector: efficient and accurate error correction for Illumina RNA-seq reads. GigaScience 4, 48 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Grabherr, M. G. et al. Full-length transcriptome assembly from RNA-seq data without a reference genome. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 644–652 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Chevreux, B., Wetter, T. & Suhai, S. Genome sequence assembly using trace signals and additional sequence information. Comput. Sci. Biol. 99, 45–56 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Li, W. & Godzik, A. CD-HIT: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics 22, 1658–1659 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Francis, W. R. et al. The genome of the contractile demosponge Tethya wilhelma and the evolution of metazoan neural signalling pathways. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/120998 (2017).

  70. Altschul, S. F. A protein alignment scoring system sensitive at all evolutionary distances. J. Mol. Evol. 36, 290–300 (1993).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Srivastava, M. et al. The Amphimedon queenslandica genome and the evolution of animal complexity. Nature 466, 720–726 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  72. Simion, P. et al. A large and consistent phylogenomic dataset supports sponges as the sister group to all other animals. Curr. Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2017.02.031 (2017).

  73. Katoh, K., Misawa, K., Kuma, K.-I. & Miyata, T. MAFFT: a novel method for rapid multiple sequence alignment based on fast Fourier transform. Nucleic Acids Res. 30, 3059–3066 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  74. Castresana, J. Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol. Biol. Evol. 17, 540–552 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Kalyaanamoorthy, S. et al. ModelFinder: fast model selection for accurate phylogenetic estimates. Nat. Methods 14, 587–589 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Stamatakis, A. RAxML-VI-HPC: maximum likelihood-based phylogenetic analyses with thousands of taxa and mixed models. Bioinformatics 22, 2688–2690 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Nguyen, L.-T., Schmidt, H. A., von Haeseler, A. & Minh, B. Q. IQ-TREE: a fast and effective stochastic algorithm for estimating maximum-likelihood phylogenies. Mol. Biol. Evol. 32, 268–274 (2015).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Dohrmann, M. & Wörheide, G. Dating early animal evolution using phylogenomic data. Sci. Rep. 7, 3599 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Smith, S. A. & O’Meara, B. C. treePL: divergence time estimation using penalized likelihood for large phylogenies. Bioinformatics 28, 2689–2690 (2012).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Parada, A. E., Needham, D. M. & Fuhrman, J. A. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 1403–1414 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  81. Apprill, A., McNally, S., Parsons, R. & Weber, L. Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806R gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquat. Microb. Ecol. 75, 129–137 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  83. Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, e61217 (2013).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  85. Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.5-5 (2019).

  86. Lahti, L. et al. Tools for Microbiome Analysis in R. Microbiome package version 1.17.2 https://github.com/microbiome/microbiome (2017).

  87. Harmon, L. J., Weir, J. T., Brock, C. D., Glor, R. E. & Challenger, W. GEIGER: investigating evolutionary radiations. Bioinformatics 24, 129–131 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Schliep, K. P. phangorn: phylogenetic analysis in R. Bioinformatics 27, 592–593 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Revell, L. J. phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol. Evol. 3, 217–223 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Kuhn, M. Building predictive models in R using the caret package. J. Stat. Softw. 28, 1–26 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Bolger, A. M., Lohse, M. & Usadel, B. Trimmomatic: a flexible trimmer for Illumina sequence data. Bioinformatics 30, 2114–2120 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Westbrook, A. et al. PALADIN: protein alignment for functional profiling whole metagenome shotgun data. Bioinformatics 33, 1473–1478 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Waddell, B. & Pawlik, J. R. Defenses of Caribbean sponges against invertebrate predators. I. Assays with hermit crabs. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 195, 125–132 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Paradis, E., Claude, J. & Strimmer, K. APE: analyses of phylogenetics and evolution in R language. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 20, 289–290 (2004).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  95. Hadfield, J. D. MCMC methods for multi-response generalized linear mixed models: the MCMCglmm R package. J. Stat. Softw. 33, 1–22 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D. & Schielzeth, H. The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. J. R. Soc. Interface 14, 20170213 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank E. Kintzing, K. Morrow, A. C. Abraham, A. Chaves-Fonnegra and B. Mueller for help with sample collection. The samples were collected under the following permits: Belize Marine Scientific Research Permit Number 000034-17, Virgin Islands Division of Fish and Wildlife Research/Export Permit DFW18078X, Curaçao Scientific Collection Permit 2012/48584 and a Cayman Islands Government Department of Environment Research Permit. Logistical support was provided by the CARMABI Foundation in Curaçao, the Smithsonian Caribbean Coral Reef Ecosystems Program’s Carrie Bow Cay Marine Field Station in Belize, the University of the Virgin Islands in St. Croix and the staff of InDepth Water Sports in Grand Cayman. We thank the Hubbard Center for Genome Studies and the Research Computing Center (University of New Hampshire) for access to the Premise high-performance cluster. This project was funded by National Science Foundation Dimensions of Biodiversity grants OCE-1638296/1638289 and Biological Oceanography Program grants OCE-1632348/1632333 to the University of New Hampshire and the University of Mississippi, respectively.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Molecular, Cellular and Biomedical Sciences, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA

    M. Sabrina Pankey, David C. Plachetzki, Keir J. Macartney & Michael P. Lesser

  2. Escuela Superior de Ciencias Marinas, Universidad Nacional del Comahue, San Antonio Oeste, Río Negro, Argentina

    Marianela Gastaldi

  3. Department of BioMolecular Sciences, Division of Pharmacognosy, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA

    Marc Slattery

  4. Department of BioMolecular Sciences, Division of Environmental Toxicology, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA

    Marc Slattery & Deborah J. Gochfeld

  5. National Center for Natural Products Research, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, USA

    Deborah J. Gochfeld

Authors
  1. M. Sabrina Pankey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David C. Plachetzki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Keir J. Macartney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marianela Gastaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marc Slattery
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Deborah J. Gochfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael P. Lesser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

M.S.P., K.J.M., D.J.G., M.S. and M.P.L. collected the specimens. M.S.P., K.J.M. and M.G. performed the molecular work. M.S.P. analysed the data. M.S.P., D.C.P. and M.P.L. wrote the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Sabrina Pankey.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Ecology & Evolution thanks Ute Hentschel, Ryan McMinds and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Specimen sampling summary.

Barplots summarizing numbers of specimens collected at each locale representing unique species, corroborated by sponge barcode data.

Extended Data Fig. 2 Phylogenetic identification of newly collected sponge samples.

Supermatrix phylogeny inferred from nucleotide housekeeping genes and GenBank reference taxa. Clades are labeled according to taxonomy (World Porifera Database), with non-monophyletic groups indicated.

Extended Data Fig. 3 Data occupancy for supermatrix phylogeny.

Circular tree (identical to Extended Data Fig. 2) with rings indicating which housekeeping markers were used. From interior to outer rings: 1) ATP synthase F1 beta (ATPB); 2) nuclear fructose-bisphosphate aldose (Ald1); 3) catalase (Cat); 4) mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI); 5) methionine adenosyltransferase (Mat1); 6) 6-phosphofructokinase (Pfk); 7) ribosomal subunit 18 S; and 8) triosephosphate isomerase (Tpi).

Extended Data Fig. 4 Fossil-calibrated species-level sponge phylogeny.

Geological time represented by colored boxes detailed in legend. Support values shown for bipartitions on species phylogeny, using IQ-TREE ultrafast bootstrapping method. Topological constraints are shown in red and represent bipartitions present in phylogeny inferred from the species tree based on transcriptomic data and received 100% bootstrap support (inset). Species for which bacterial densities have been previously empirically or computationally derived are annotated with blue (LMA) or orange (HMA) dots. Species for which palatability assays are available are indicated with an asterisk. Numbers represent the number of specimens recovered in this study for each species.

Extended Data Fig. 5 Chronogram of sponge species phylogeny based on fossil calibrations.

Distant outgroups have been omitted to improve visual resolution of timescales. Clades are labeled according to taxonomy (World Porifera Database), with non-monophyletic groups indicated.

Extended Data Fig. 6 HMA holobionts demonstrate greater metabolic syntrophism than LMA holobionts.

Proportional library read contributions of host (left) and microbial community (right) biochemical pathways, estimated from metagenomic datasets for replicates of three HMA and two LMA species (45 metagenomic datasets in total). HMA sponge host genomes have comparatively less functional capacity than LMA host genomes. Conversely, in most cases, HMA symbiont genomes have more functional capacity than LMA symbiont genomes (left). Rare pathways that are overrepresented by LMA symbiont genomes are shown in bold.

Extended Data Fig. 7 Strength of random effect terms in pGLMM models of microbial phyletic abundances.

Intra-class correlation coefficients for all model terms in pGLMM run for each microbial group. ICC values (y-axis) are plotted against a metric representing the degree to which a given microbial group is enriched in HMA or LMA sponges (ln (proportional abundance)). Model terms included in each pGLMM include A) Geography, B) interaction between host and symbiont phylogenies (co-diversification), as well as interactive effects of microbial phylogeny with host identity (C) and host phylogeny with microbial identity (D).

Extended Data Fig. 8 Cophylogeny characterizes the evolution of HMA sponges.

Diagnostic HMA and LMA microbial taxa are plotted by interclass correlation scores (ICC) for co-evolutionary interaction (y-axis) and enrichment in either HMA or LMA sponges (x-axis). Microbial taxa diagnostic of HMA sponges show significantly greater phylogenetic interaction with sponge phylogeny. (B) Multiple instances of cophylogeny between clades of Dehalococcoidia (an HMA-diagnostic class of Chloroflexi) and sponges of Order Agelasida. Heatmap shows abundance (relative to overall microbiome) of each Chloroflexi variant (columns) across sampled agelasid sponge species (rows). Corresponding sponge and microbial phylogenies shown at left and bottom, respectively. Microbial tree tips colored by Order of sponge host inhabited.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sabrina Pankey, M., Plachetzki, D.C., Macartney, K.J. et al. Cophylogeny and convergence shape holobiont evolution in sponge–microbe symbioses. Nat Ecol Evol 6, 750–762 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01712-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-022-01712-3

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing