Abstract
Over the last few years, an increasing number of studies have reported the existence of an association between the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and insects. The discovery of this relationship has called into question the hypothesis that S. cerevisiae is unable to survive in nature and that the presence of S. cerevisiae strains in natural specimens is the result of contamination from human-related environments. S. cerevisiae cells benefit from this association as they find in the insect intestine a shelter, but also a place where they can reproduce themselves through mating, the latter being an event otherwise rarely observed in natural environments. On the other hand, insects also take advantage in hosting S. cerevisiae as they rely on yeasts as nutriment to properly develop, to localize suitable food, and to enhance their immune system. Despite the relevance of this relationship on both yeast and insect ecology, we are still far from completely appreciating its extent and effects. It has been shown that other yeasts are able to colonize only one or a few insect species. Is it the same for S. cerevisiae cells or is this yeast able to associate with any insect? Similarly, is this association geographically or topographically limited in areas characterized by specific physical features? With this review, we recapitulate the nature of the S. cerevisiae-insect association, disclose its extent in terms of geographical distribution and species involved, and present YeastFinder, a cured online database providing a collection of information on this topic.
Saccharomyces cerevisiae in Natural Environments
Saccharomyces cerevisiae is widely used in the industry for winemaking, brewery, and bakery, as animal and human food supplement or probiotic (Palma et al., 2015), and for biofuel, flavorings, pharmaceuticals, and enzymes production (e.g., invertases, lactases) (Parapouli et al., 2020). The physiology and genetics of this yeast have been studied in depth, as well as molecular mechanisms shared with other eukaryotes (Resnick and Cox, 2000). Despite this broad range of applications, the natural diffusion and evolution of this yeast remained unexplored until recently. The ability to overgrow other microorganisms in fermentable substrates and the widespread use of S. cerevisiae in the industry of fermented products lead to the hypothesis that this yeast has been domesticated and is confined to human activities (Gallone et al., 2016). However, over the last few decades, this hypothesis was compromised by the isolation of strains from natural environments (e.g., soil, barks, and water) and by the observation of the existence of strains genetically different from those used in the industry (Liti, 2015). A new hypothesis was proposed: a neutral model in which S. cerevisiae is functionally adapted to a range of different environments (Goddard and Greig, 2015). Despite improving our understanding of the natural spread of the budding yeast, these new findings did not clarify (i) how the yeast can survive when nutrient sources are lacking, (ii) where it was before humans started using it to ferment food, and (iii) how can this not airborne microorganism move among different environmental sources. The identification of the association between the budding yeast and social wasps helped fill in several of the gaps in our knowledge on S. cerevisiae natural cycle. Previous studies have already shown some aspects of yeast-insect associations (e.g., Stefanini, 2018 and Blackwell, 2017). This review recapitulates the current knowledge exclusively on associations involving S. cerevisiae also addressing new aspects: the extent and geographical distribution.
Saccharomyces cerevisiae-Insects Association: the Yeast Side of the Coin
Social wasps and hornets are omnivorous insects that move around a broad foraging area and visit substrates that can be colonized by S. cerevisiae strains. Among the substrates visited by wasps, grape skin is the main source of environmental S. cerevisiae strains, even if this yeast represents only a minor component of the residing microbial communities. Polistes dominula (social wasps) and Vespa crabro (hornets) host in their intestines S. cerevisiae cells all year long, thus providing an environment in which yeasts can reside and survive in the seasonal period with less access to sugary sources (Stefanini et al., 2012). Insects can spread S. cerevisiae cells among environmental substrates and, also, share them within the colony, passing it among adults and to larvae (Stefanini et al., 2012). Thus, the capability of spreading yeast cells increases exponentially with the increase of the insect colony. This has pivotal importance for the diffusion of S. cerevisiae cells in the wild, especially considering that the increase in the demographic rate of the wasp colony occurs at the same time of grape ripening (Stefanini et al., 2012). Hence, the high frequency of S. cerevisiae cells isolated after the ripening period correlates these insects to the dispersion of yeasts in the vineyard (Stefanini et al., 2012). In addition to social wasps and hornets, other insects bear and spread S. cerevisiae cells, as proven in laboratory conditions for Drosophila spp. (Christiaens et al., 2014) and confirmed in the wild for bees. In fact, S. cerevisiae strains isolated from vineyard specimens are highly similar to strains isolated from bees caught in the same geographic region, suggesting that insects are responsible for the local dispersion of yeast cells (Goddard et al., 2010). Interestingly, the genetic and phenotypic diversity of S. cerevisiae does not affect the capability of different yeast strains to survive in the insect intestines (Dapporto et al., 2016; Ramazzotti et al., 2019) or to produce volatile metabolites attracting insects (Palanca et al., 2013). Hence, the whole genetic and phenotypic variability of S. cerevisiae can potentially attract and be vectored among natural specimens thanks to insects (Stefanini et al., 2012; Dapporto et al., 2016).
Saccharomyces cerevisiae mating is infrequent in nature, possibly because wild yeast cells are mainly diploid and hence need to face sporulation and germination to be able to mate with other strains, conditions that rarely occur in nature (Cubillos et al., 2009). Contrarily, yeast mating does occur within insect intestines (Stefanini et al., 2016; Figure 1). S. cerevisiae spores can survive in the intestinal tract of Drosophila melanogaster, and, by passing through the insect intestines, the sporal ascus is broken and hence the mating among yeast strains is facilitated (Reuter et al., 2007). The differences among chemical and physiological characteristics of different tracts of the insect intestine could offer a series of environmental changes (Engel and Moran, 2013) promoting yeast sporulation and germination, and hence mating, as shown by experiments carried out in the laboratory (Stefanini et al., 2016). Hence, the intestine not only promotes the yeast ascus break, but also diploid yeast cells sporulation and yeast spores germination, and thus allowing the mating among potentially any yeast strain and ploidy (Stefanini et al., 2016).
FIGURE 1
Saccharomyces cerevisiae-Insects Association: the Insect Side of the Coin
The S. cerevisiae-insect association has beneficial effects not only on the yeast, but also on its counterpart: insects (Figure 1).
The capability to detect food is fundamental for insect survival to obtain the nourishment and find an environment suitable for oviposition. S. cerevisiae attracts various insect species including D. melanogaster (Becher et al., 2012), Vespula germanica, and V. vulgaris (Babcock et al., 2017) to food, which is otherwise less appealing. The main features making this yeast capable of enticing insects are the presence of functional mitochondria (Schiabor et al., 2014) and the capability of producing volatile compounds, such as isoamyl acetate and ethyl acetate (Christiaens et al., 2014), which are produced at high levels by yeasts isolated from wasp intestines (Dapporto et al., 2016). Overall, these findings show that the presence of fermenting S. cerevisiae cells is a strong cue used by insects to detect sugary substrates. It is fair to consider that, besides S. cerevisiae, other microorganisms present on sugary substrates, such as Hanseniaspora spp. and Gluconobacter spp. (Bueno et al., 2019), and vectored by insects (Palanca et al., 2013; Quan and Eisen, 2018) could produce aromas attracting insects. Interestingly, species-specific attractions have been observed. While D. melanogaster is attracted by S. cerevisiae, D. simulans is indifferent to this yeast species (Gunther et al., 2019). At the same time, D. melanogaster and the subgenus Sophophora are preferentially attracted to baits seeded with Hanseniaspora uvarum than to S. cerevisiae and forest-dwelling Drosophila species (e.g., D. tripunctata and the guarani group) are more attracted by S. cerevisiae than by H. uvarum (Batista et al., 2017). The differential preferences of Drosophila spp. towards different yeast species may mirror what happens in the yeast–insect–morning glory ecosystem, where beetles and yeasts (mostly Metschnikowia spp. and Candida spp.) reciprocally influence the occupancy of associations-specific niches (Stefanini, 2018).
In the laboratory, insect rearing is based on the use of media providing the full range of nutrients to support larval development but also appealing to female adults and promoting egg deposition (Piper, 2017). To this aim, it is a common practice to use media including S. cerevisiae (Becher et al., 2012; Grangeteau et al., 2018). In fact, the yeast supports larval development mostly by providing nicotinic acid, vitamin B, pantothenic acid, inositol, choline, beta-alanine, and pimelic acid (Tatum, 1941). The presence of S. cerevisiae in the larval diet also defines the fitness and behavior of juvenile and adult insects (Grangeteau et al., 2018). Providing live S. cerevisiae cells to Drosophila larvae improves the copulation rate, increases the cuticular hydrocarbon content, extends the insect life, and makes adults preferring food supplemented with the yeast, compared to a diet based on yeast extracts or lacking the yeast (Grangeteau et al., 2018; Murgier et al., 2019). Transcriptional analyses carried out on D. melanogaster adults developed from germ-free larvae showed the over-expression of genes involved in several metabolic pathways, if the insect diet was supplemented with live S. cerevisiae compared to single or multiple bacterial species (Elya et al., 2016). Despite this effect being observed only in intestinal cells and not at the whole-body level, hence suggesting the impact of yeast on insects is only local, it has to be considered that over the developmental process genes expression is rapidly regulated by multiple factors. Thus, time-course transcriptional analyses would be required to appreciate at the molecular level the impact of S. cerevisiae on insect development. The impact of S. cerevisiae on development and related traits varies according to the yeast species. For instance, even if a substrate supplemented with the budding yeast improves the survival of adult mosquitoes (Culex pipiens) compared to substrates supplemented with other yeast species, it is not preferred for oviposition by gravid C. pipiens females (Díaz-Nieto et al., 2016).
As in bigger animals, even in insects the fate and impact of the encountered microorganisms are often determined by the host immune system. The insect immune system includes a cellular and a humoural component (Lemaitre and Hoffmann, 2007). Although several receptors on immune cells have been described as responsible for the recognition of microorganisms, their role in the response to S. cerevisiae and yeasts in general is still unclear (Lu and St Leger, 2016). Conversely, an entire pathway of the humoral response is responsible for the insect’s reaction to yeasts: the Toll signaling pathway (Roh et al., 2009). When triggered by yeast cell wall β-glucans and proteases, this pathway induces the expression of Drosomycin, an antimicrobial agent (Gottar et al., 2006). Insects can also fight potential yeast pathogens through the Duox response pathway, which induces the production of not-specific antimicrobial reactive oxygen species (Hoang et al., 2015). To note, the vast majority of information on the insect immune response to S. cerevisiae has been obtained by using the Drosophila spp. model that presents perturbations in the Toll pathway (Alarco et al., 2004), making this insect susceptible to the budding yeast (Lionakis, 2011). Alternatively, the use of Galleria mellonella, naturally susceptible to S. cerevisiae, yielded fundamental information that could not be gathered with fruit flies. For instance, G. mellonella provided the first insights on the capability of a pre-exposure to S. cerevisiae cells or glucans to protect the insect against a subsequent infection with a lethal dose of Candida albicans (Bergin et al., 2006). This immune-enhancing elicited by S. cerevisiae has been recently confirmed in the social wasps Polistes dominula, which become more resistant to Escherichia coli infections upon pre-immunization with the yeast (Meriggi et al., 2019).
Biogeography and Diffusion
Insects can colonize habitats with extremely different characteristics and are considered, as defined by E.O. Wilson, “the little things that run the world” (Wilson, 1987). The large number of insect species makes it impossible to comprehensively analyze their biodiversity. Of the estimated 6 million species, only 1 million are known (Larsen et al., 2017). For a matter of clarity, we will report here information on insects broadly grouped. We have, however, created a detailed on-line database that can be browsed by the reader (YeastFinder,1). S. cerevisiae has been identified, through isolation or metabarcoding, in the intestine or on the body of several insects all over the World (Figure 2). Notably, studies carried out so far lack consistency in the methods adopted for yeast isolation, and this may greatly impact the capability of identifying S. cerevisiae associated with insects. However, in this review we will neglect the heterogeneity of the adopted methods, leaving the exploration of this topic to dedicated future studies. Interestingly, S. cerevisiae has not been found in insects caught in South Africa (SAf), Ecuador, Thailand, Indonesia, Nigeria (the only study on termites), Iran, Japan (J), Malaysia, and Central America (CA: Panama, Costa Rica, and Guatemala). It is worth to consider that the investigations carried out in Ecuador and Malaysia (Freitas et al., 2013), Thailand (Saksinchai et al., 2015), Indonesia (Basukriadi et al., 2010), Nigeria (Adelabu et al., 2019), and Iran (Siavoshi et al., 2018) are related to individual studies, hence the lack of identification of S. cerevisiae could be ascribed to the procedure adopted for yeast isolation. On the other hand, multiple studies failed in identifying S. cerevisiae in association with beetles, honeybees and mosquitoes, butterflies, mites, and moths collected in J (Toki et al., 2012; Ninomiya et al., 2013), SAf (de Vega et al., 2012; Steyn et al., 2016), and CA (Lachance et al., 2001a, b, 2006, Suh and Blackwell, 2006; Suh et al., 2006, 2007; Rivera et al., 2009; Urbina et al., 2013; Ravenscraft et al., 2018). The lack of identification of S. cerevisiae in insects of these areas could indicate an unusual situation that is worth to be further investigated. All the insects investigated in New Zealand, Taiwan, and Seychelles Islands bore S. cerevisiae (Figure 2). However, the number of cases studied in these areas is low (n = 6), and hence this observation may be poorly representative of the real situation.
FIGURE 2
Multiple studies investigating various insects in other locations (shown in Figure 2) indicated an even geographical distribution of S. cerevisiae. The budding yeast has not been isolated from ants, lacewings, termites, mites, and mosquitoes (the group “others” in Figure 2), which were, however, poorly investigated (two species in different locations at most) (Carreiro et al., 1997; Lachance et al., 2003; Suh et al., 2005; Nguyen et al., 2006; Steyn et al., 2016; Siavoshi et al., 2018). Similarly, S. cerevisiae has not been found in butterflies (n = 11 species in different locations) and moths (n = 4) (Suh et al., 2006; Witzgall et al., 2012; Ravenscraft et al., 2018). Interestingly, only the 0.03% of beetles, which have been widely investigated (n = 236), bear S. cerevisiae (Kurtzman and Robnett, 1998; Lachance et al., 2001a, b, 2006; Six, 2003; Suh and Blackwell, 2004, Suh et al., 2005, 2006, 2007, 2013; Delalibera et al., 2005; Nguyen et al., 2006; Rosa et al., 2007; Rivera et al., 2009; de Vega et al., 2012; Hui et al., 2012; Toki et al., 2012; Freitas et al., 2013; Kaltenpoth and Steiger, 2013; Ninomiya et al., 2013; Urbina et al., 2013; Cline et al., 2014; Ren et al., 2014, 2015; Liu et al., 2016; Tanahashi and Hawes, 2016; Wang et al., 2016; Briones-Roblero et al., 2017; Chai et al., 2019). Similarly, bees only accidentally bear S. cerevisiae, with only 1 occurrence over 21 reported cases (Sandhu and Waraich, 1985; Lachance et al., 2003; Rosa et al., 2003; Daniel et al., 2013; Charron et al., 2014; Saksinchai et al., 2015). Conversely, S. cerevisiae has been found in a large portion of investigated flies, fruit flies, honey-bees, and wasps (29, 57, 20, and 71%, respectively) (Phaff and Knapp, 1956; Batra et al., 1973; Sandhu and Waraich, 1985; Morais et al., 1993, 1994; Rosa et al., 1994; Lachance et al., 1995, 2003, 2006; Suh et al., 2005; Nguyen et al., 2006, 2007; Basukriadi et al., 2010; Goddard et al., 2010; Chandler et al., 2012; de Vega et al., 2012; Hamby et al., 2012; Stefanini et al., 2012; Freitas et al., 2013; Buser et al., 2014; Charron et al., 2014; Lam and Howell, 2015; Saksinchai et al., 2015; Batista et al., 2017; Deutscher et al., 2017; Jimenez et al., 2017; Piper et al., 2017; Quan and Eisen, 2018; Siavoshi et al., 2018; dos Santos et al., 2019; Meriggi et al., 2019; Park et al., 2019). A few possible scenarios could explain the higher occurrence of S. cerevisiae in these groups of insects: (i) they are more prone to visit human-related environments, such as wineries and vineyards, that are likely to host higher amounts of S. cerevisiae cells, (ii) they are more attracted by substrates inhabited by the budding yeast compared to other insects, (iii) diet and physical-chemical intestine conditions facilitate the housing of S. cerevisiae.
Conclusion and Perspectives
According to the reports gathered for this review, it appears that every group of insects can bear S. cerevisiae, but only further and more detailed studies investigating a higher number of a broader range of insect species, as well as the standardization of isolation and identification methodologies, will consolidate this observation. Also, further studies on the geographical extent of this phenomenon would allow evaluating the existence of different physiological characteristics among insect species that favor or prevent the instauration of the association with the budding yeast. Aiming at this, it will be fundamental to also include groups neglected so far. For instance, planthoppers, mosquitoes, and spiders have not or have only poorly been investigated, albeit they could represent an unprecedented source of information as they visit and forage on a broad range of environmental sources. In addition, S. cerevisiae has been shown to have an impact on spiders’ behavior and health (Tietjen et al., 1987; Patt et al., 2012), and, especially considering that spiders are mostly carnivores, exploring this association would provide insightful information on the role of this yeast in prey hunting and interactions among species.
Overall, the reports published so far depict a tangled relationship between insect and yeast, in which various factors define the insect attraction to yeasts and the impact of this yeast on insect health. Understanding the factors responsible for the attraction of insects by yeasts, also by further exploring the differences among insect species has also important applications. A better understanding of the factors regulating this complex field will provide relevant information potentially useful to ideate approaches to use S. cerevisiae as a promoter of insect health or as a pest control. For instance, dissecting the capability of enhancing the host immune reaction against pathogenic microorganisms would be very useful in the fight against the worldwide decline of honeybees and pollinators (Wagner, 2020).
Only further studies will allow us to fully unravel the influence of S. cerevisiae on insects, and the potential applications of strains isolated from this natural source.
Statements
Author contributions
IS ideated the review. NM and IS gathered the data. DC, MD, NM, and IS wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Miss Marta Mocciaro for drawing the insect’s images. This work was supported by the University of Turin (Local Research Funds). NM, MD, and DC were supported by the University of Florence and by the Regione Toscana POR FSE 2014-2020, VESPATER project.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Footnotes
References
1
AdelabuB.KareemS. O.AdeogunA. I.WakilS. M. (2019). Optimization of cellulase enzyme from sorghum straw by yeasts isolated from plant feeding-termite Zonocerus variegatus.Food Appl. Biosci. J.781–101.
2
AlarcoA. M.MarcilA.ChenJ.SuterB.ThomasD.WhitewayM. (2004). Immune-deficient Drosophila melanogaster: a model for the innate immune response to human fungal pathogens.J. Immunol.1725622–5628. 10.4049/jimmunol.172.9.5622
3
BabcockT.GriesR.BordenJ.PlameroL.MattiacciA.MasciocchiM.et al (2017). Brewer’s yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae, enhances attraction of two invasive yellowjackets (Hymenoptera: Vespidae) to dried fruit and fruit powder.J. Insect Sci.17:91.
4
BasukriadiA.SjamsuridzalW.Beristama PutraB. (2010). Molecular identification and diversity of yeasts associated with Apis cerana foraging on flowers of Jatropha integerrima.Microbiol. Indones.444–48. 10.5454/mi.4.1.9
5
BatistaM. R.UnoF.ChavesR. D.TidonR.RosaC. A.KlaczkoL. B. (2017). Differential attraction of drosophilids to banana baits inoculated with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Hanseniaspora uvarum within a Neotropical forest remnant.PeerJ5:e3063. 10.7717/peerj.3063
6
BatraL. R.BatraS. W. T.BohartG. E. (1973). The mycoflora of domesticated and wild bees (Apoidea).Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl.4913–44. 10.1007/bf02057445
7
BecherP. G.FlickG.RozpêdowskaE.SchmidtA.HagmanA.LebretonS.et al (2012). Yeast, not fruit volatiles mediate Drosophila melanogaster attraction, oviposition and development.Funct. Ecol.26822–828. 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.02006.x
8
BerginD.MurphyL.KeenanJ.ClynesM.KavanaghK. (2006). Pre-exposure to yeast protects larvae of Galleria mellonella from a subsequent lethal infection by Candida albicans and is mediated by the increased expression of antimicrobial peptides.Microbes Infect.82105–2112. 10.1016/j.micinf.2006.03.005
9
BlackwellM. (2017). Made for each other: ascomycete yeasts and insects.Microbiol. Spectr.51–18. 10.1128/microbiolspec.FUNK-0081-2016
10
Briones-RobleroC. I.Rodríguez-DíazR.Santiago-CruzJ. A.ZúñigaG.Rivera-OrduñaF. N. (2017). Degradation capacities of bacteria and yeasts isolated from the gut of Dendroctonus rhizophagus (Curculionidae: Scolytinae).Folia Microbiol.621–9. 10.1007/s12223-016-0469-4
11
BuenoE.MartinK. R.RagusoR. A.McmullenJ. G.HeslerS. P.LoebG. M.et al (2019). Response of wild spotted wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii) to microbial volatiles.J. Chem. Ecol.10.1007/s10886-019-01139-4[Epub ahead of print].
12
BuserC. C.NewcombR. D.GaskettA. C.GoddardM. R. (2014). Niche construction initiates the evolution of mutualistic interactions.Ecol. Lett.171257–1264. 10.1111/ele.12331
13
CarreiroS. C.PagnoccaF. C.BuenoO. C.JúniorM. B.HeblingM. J. A.da SilvaO. A. (1997). Yeasts associated with nests of the leaf-cutting ant Atta sexdens rubropilosa Forel, 1908.Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek71243–248.
14
ChaiC. Y.HuangL. N.ChengH.LiuW. J.HuiF. L. (2019). Metschnikowia baotianmanensis f.a., sp. nov., a new yeast species isolated from the gut of the rhinoceros beetle Allomyrina dichotoma.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.693087–3092. 10.1099/ijsem.0.003593
15
ChandlerJ. A.EisenJ. A.KoppA. (2012). Yeast communities of diverse Drosophila species: comparison of two symbiont groups in the same hosts.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.787327–7336. 10.1128/aem.01741-12
16
CharronG.LeducqJ. B.BertinC.DubéA. K.LandryC. R. (2014). Exploring the northern limit of the distribution of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces paradoxus in North America.FEMS Yeast Res.14281–288. 10.1111/1567-1364.12100
17
ChristiaensJ. F.FrancoL. M.CoolsT. L.De MeesterL.MichielsJ.WenseleersT.et al (2014). The fungal aroma gene ATF1 promotes dispersal of yeast cells through insect vectors.Cell Rep.9425–432. 10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.009
18
ClineA. R.SkelleyP. E.KinneeS. A.Rooney-LathamS.WintertonS. L.BorkentC. J.et al (2014). Interactions between a sap beetle, sabal palm, scale insect, filamentous fungi and yeast, with discovery of potential antifungal compounds.PLoS One9:e89295. 10.1371/journal.pone.0089295
19
CubillosF. A.VasquezC.FaugeronS.GangaA.MartínezC. (2009). Self-fertilization is the main sexual reproduction mechanism in native wine yeast populations.FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.67162–170. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2008.00600.x
20
DanielH. M.RosaC. A.Sao Thiago-CalacP. S.AntoniniJ.BastosE. M. A. F.EvrardP.et al (2013). Starmerella neotropicalis f.a., sp. nov., a yeast species found in bees and pollen.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.633896–3903. 10.1099/ijs.0.055897-0
21
DapportoL.StefaniniI.RiveroD.PolsinelliM.CaprettiP.De MarchiP.et al (2016). Social wasp intestines host the local phenotypic variability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains.Yeast33277–287. 10.1002/yea.3173
22
de VegaC.GuzmanB.LachanceM. A.SteenhuisenS. L.JohnsonS. D.HerreraC. M. (2012). Metschnikowia proteae sp. nov., a nectarivorous insect-associated yeast species from Africa.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.622538–2545. 10.1099/ijs.0.040790-0
23
DelaliberaI.HandelsmanJ.RaffaK. F. (2005). Contrasts in cellulolytic activities of gut microorganisms between the wood borer, Saperda vestita (Coleoptera: Cerambycidae), and the bark beetles, Ips pini and Dendroctonus frontalis (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).Environ. Entomol.34541–552.
24
DeutscherA. T.ReynoldsO. L.ChapmanT. A. (2017). Yeast: an overlooked component of Bactrocera tryoni (Diptera: Tephritidae) larval gut microbiota.J. Econ. Entomol.110298–300. 10.1093/jee/tow262
25
Díaz-NietoL. M.D’AlessioC.PerottiM. A.BerónC. M. (2016). Culex pipiens development is greatly influenced by native bacteria and exogenous yeast.PLoS One11:e0153133. 10.1371/journal.pone.0153133
26
dos SantosT. T.de OliveiraD. P.Ramos CabetteH. S.de MoraisP. B. (2019). The digestive tract of Phylloicus (Trichoptera: Calamoceratidae) harbours different yeast taxa in Cerrado streams, Brazil.Symbiosis77147–160. 10.1007/s13199-018-0577-9
27
ElyaC.ZhangV.LudingtonW. B.EisenM. B. (2016). Stable host gene expression in the gut of adult Drosophila melanogaster with different bacterial mono-associations.PLoS One11:e0167357. 10.1371/journal.pone.0167357
28
EngelP.MoranN. A. (2013). The gut microbiota of insects–diversity in structure and function.FEMS Microbiol. Rev.37699–735. 10.1111/1574-6976.12025
29
FreitasL. F.BarrigaE. J. C.BarahonaP. P.LachanceM. A.RosaC. A. (2013). Kodamaea transpacifica fa, sp. nov., a yeast species isolated from ephemeral flowers and insects in the Galápagos Islands and Malaysia: further evidence for ancient human transpacific contacts.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.634324–4329. 10.1099/ijs.0.052282-0
30
GalloneB.SteenselsJ.PrahlT.SoriagaL.SaelsV.Herrera-MalaverB.et al (2016). Domestication and divergence of Saccharomyces cerevisiae beer yeasts.Cell1661397–1410.
31
GoddardM. R.AnfangN.TangR.GardnerR. C.JunC. (2010). A distinct population of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in New Zealand: evidence for local dispersal by insects and human-aided global dispersal in oak barrels.Environ. Microbiol.1263–73. 10.1111/j.1462-2920.2009.02035.x
32
GoddardM. R.GreigD. (2015). Saccharomyces cerevisiae: a nomadic yeast with no niche?FEMS Yeast Res.15:fov009.
33
GottarM.GobertV.MatskevichA. A.ReichhartJ. M.WangC.ButtT. M.et al (2006). Dual detection of fungal infections in Drosophila via recognition of glucans and sensing of virulence factors.Cell1271425–1437. 10.1016/j.cell.2006.10.046
34
GrangeteauC.YahouF.EveraertsC.DupontS.FarineJ. P.BEneyL.et al (2018). Yeast quality in juvenile diet affects Drosophila melanogaster adult life traits.Sci. Rep.8:13070. 10.1038/s41598-018-31561-9
35
GuntherC. S.KnightS. J.JonesR.GoddardM. R. (2019). Are Drosophila preferences for yeasts stable or contextual?Ecol. Evol.98075–8086. 10.1002/ece3.5366
36
HambyK. A.HernándezA.Boundy-MillsK.ZalomF. G. (2012). Associations of yeasts with spotted wing Drosophila (Drosophila suzukii; Diptera: Drosophilidae) in cherries and raspberries.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.784869–4873.
37
HoangD.KoppA.ChandlerJ. A. (2015). Interactions between Drosophila and its natural yeast symbionts – Is Saccharomyces cerevisiae a good model for studying the fly–yeast relationship?PeerJ3:e1116. 10.7717/peerj.1116
38
HuiF. L.NiuQ. H.KeT.LiuZ. (2012). Candida ficus sp. nov., a novel yeast species from the gut of Apriona germari larvae.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.622805–2809. 10.1099/ijs.0.044214-0
39
JimenezS. I.CarrollC.BabockT.DerstineN.HadwinA.MooreM.et al (2017). Yeasts harbored by vespine wasps in the Pacific Northwest.Environ. Entomol.46217–225. 10.1093/ee/nvw173
40
KaltenpothM.SteigerS. (2013). Unearthing carrion beetles’ microbiome: characterization of bacterial and fungal hindgut communities across the Silphidae.Mol. Ecol.231251–1267. 10.1111/mec.12469
41
KurtzmanC. P.RobnettC. J. (1998). Three new insect-associated species of the yeast genus Candida.Can. J. Microbiol.44965–973. 10.1139/cjm-44-10-965
42
LachanceM. A.AndersonT. M.StarmerW. T. (2006). A new subclade of haplontic Metschnikowia species associated with insects of morning glory flowers in Africa and description of Metschnikowia aberdeeniae sp. nov.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.561141–1145. 10.1099/ijs.0.64195-0
43
LachanceM. A.BowlesJ. M.Chavarria DiazM. M.JanzenD. H. (2001a). Candida cleridarum, Candida tilneyi and Candida powellii, three new yeast species isolated from insects associated with flowers.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.511201–1207. 10.1099/00207713-51-3-1201
44
LachanceM. A.BowlesJ. M.StarmerW. T. (2003). Metschnikowia santaceciliae, Candida hawaiiana, and Candida kipukae, three new yeast species associated with insects of tropical morning glory.FEMS Yeast Res.397–103. 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2003.tb00144.x
45
LachanceM. A.GilbertD. G.StarmerW. T. (1995). Yeast communities associated with Drosophila species and related flies in an eastern oak-pine forest: a comparison with western communities.J. Ind. Microbiol.14484–494. 10.1007/bf01573963
46
LachanceM. A.StarmerW. T.RosaC. A.BowlesJ. M.BarkerJ. S.JanzenD. H. (2001b). Biogeography of the yeasts of ephemeral flowers and their insects.FEMS Yeast Res.11–8. 10.1016/s1567-1356(00)00003-9
47
LamS. S.HowellK. S. (2015). Drosophila-associated yeast species in vineyard ecosystems.FEMS Microbiol. Lett.362:fnv170. 10.1093/femsle/fnv170
48
LarsenB. B.MillerE. C.RhodesM. K.WiensJ. J. (2017). Inordinate fondness multiplied and redistributed: the number of species on earth and the new pie of life.Q. Rev. Biol.92229–265. 10.1086/693564
49
LemaitreB.HoffmannJ. (2007). The host defense of Drosophila melanogaster.Annu. Rev. Immunol.25697–743.
50
LionakisM. S. (2011). Drosophila and Galleria insect model hosts: new tools for the study of fungal virulence, pharmacology and immunology.Virulence2521–527. 10.4161/viru.2.6.18520
51
LitiG. (2015). The fascinating and secret wild life of the budding yeast S. cerevisiae.eLife4:e05835. 10.7554/eLife.05835
52
LiuX. J.YiZ. H.RenY. C.LiY.HuiF. L. (2016). Five novel species in the Lodderomyces clade associated with insects.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.664881–4889. 10.1099/ijsem.0.001446
53
LuH. L.St LegerR. J. (2016). “Insect immunity to entomopathogenic fungi” in Genetics and Molecular Biology of Entomopathogenic Fungi, edsLovettB.LegerR. J. S.? (New York, NY: Elsevier), 251–285. 10.1016/bs.adgen.2015.11.002
54
MeriggiN.Di PaolaM.VitaliF.RiveroD.CappaF.TurillazziF.et al (2019). Saccharomyces cerevisiae induces immune enhancing and shapes gut microbiota in social wasps.Front. Microbiol.10:2320. 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02320
55
MoraisB. P.HaglerA. N.RosaC. A.Mendonca-HaglerL. C.KlaczkoL. B. (1993). Yeasts associated with Drosophila in tropical forests of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Can. J. Microbiol.381150–1155. 10.1139/m92-188
56
MoraisP. B.RosaC. A.HaglerA. N.Mendonca-HaglerL. C. (1994). Yeast communities of the cactus Pilosocereus arrabidae as resources for larval and adult stages of Drosophila serido.Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek66313–317. 10.1007/bf00882766
57
MurgierJ.EveraertsC.FarineJ.-P.FerveurJ.-F. (2019). Live yeast in juvenile diet induces species-specific effects on Drosophila adult behaviour and fitness.Sci Rep.9:8873. 10.1038/s41598-019-45140-z
58
NguyenN. H.SuhS. O.BlackwellM. (2007). Five novel Candida species in insect-associated yeast clades isolated from Neuroptera and other insects.Mycologia99842–858. 10.3852/mycologia.99.6.842
59
NguyenN. H.SuhS. O.ErbilC. K.BlackwellM. (2006). Metschnikowia noctiluminum sp. nov., Metschnikowia corniflorae sp. nov., and Candida chrysomelidarum sp. nov., isolated from green lacewings and beetles.Mycol. Res.110346–356. 10.1016/j.mycres.2005.11.010
60
NinomiyaS.MikataK.KajimuraH.KawasakiH. (2013). Two novel ascomycetous yeast species, Wickerhamomyces scolytoplatypi sp. nov. and Cyberlindnera xylebori sp. nov., isolated from ambrosia beetle galleries.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.632706–2711. 10.1099/ijs.0.050195-0
61
PalancaL.GaskettA. C.GüntherC. S.NewcombR. D.GoddardM. R. (2013). Quantifying variation in the ability of yeasts to attract Drosophila melanogaster.PLoS One8:e75332. 10.1371/journal.pone.0075332
62
PalmaM. L.Zamith-MirandaD.MartinsF. S.BozzaF. A.NimrichterL.Montero-LomeliM.et al (2015). Probiotic Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains as biotherapeutic tools: Is there room for improvement?Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.996563–6570. 10.1007/s00253-015-6776-x
63
ParapouliM.VasileiadisA.AfendraA.-S.HatziloukasE. (2020). Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its industrial applications.AIMS Microbiol.61–31. 10.3934/microbiol.2020001
64
ParkR.DzialoM. C.SpaepenS.NsabimanaD.GielensK.DevrieseH.et al (2019). Microbial communities of the house fly Musca domestica vary with geographical location and habitat.Microbiome7:147. 10.1186/s40168-019-0748-9
65
PattJ. M.PfannenstielR. S.MeikleW. J.AdamczykJ. J. (2012). Supplemental diets containing yeast, sucrose, and soy powder enhance the survivorship, growth, and development of prey-limited cursorial spiders.Biol. Control.63237–245. 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2011.02.004
66
PhaffH. J.KnappE. P. (1956). The taxonomy of yeast found in exudates of certain trees and other natural breeding sites of some species of Drosophila.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek22117–130. 10.1007/bf02538319
67
PiperA. M.FarnierK.LinderT.SpeightR.CunninghamJ. P. (2017). Two gut-associated yeasts in a Tephritid fruit fly have contrasting effects on adult attraction and larval survival.J. Chem. Ecol.43891–901. 10.1007/s10886-017-0877-1
68
PiperM. D. W. (2017). Using artificial diets to understand the nutritional physiology of Drosophila melanogaster.Curr. Opin. Insect Sci.23104–111. 10.1016/j.cois.2017.07.014
69
QuanA. S.EisenM. B. (2018). The ecology of the Drosophila-yeast mutualism in wineries.PLoS One13:e0196440. 10.1371/journal.pone.0196440
70
RamazzottiM.StefaniniI.Di PaolaM.De FilippoC.RizzettoL.BernáL.et al (2019). Population genomics reveals evolution and variation of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in the human and insects gut.Environ. Microbiol.2250–71. 10.1111/1462-2920.14422
71
RavenscraftA.BerryB.HammerT.PeayK.BoggsC. (2018). Structure and function of the bacterial and fungal gut microbiota of neotropical butterflies.Ecol. Monogr.89:e01346. 10.1002/ecm.1346
72
RenY. C.LiuS. T.LiY.HuiF. L. (2015). Pichia dushanensis sp. nov. and Hyphopichia paragotoi sp. nov., two sexual yeast species associated with insects and rotten wood.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.652875–2881. 10.1099/ijs.0.000349
73
RenY. C.WangY.ChenL.KeT.HuiF. L. (2014). Wickerhamiella allomyrinae fa, sp. nov., a yeast species isolated from the gut of the rhinoceros beetle Allomyrina dichotoma.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.643856–3861. 10.1099/ijs.0.068403-0
74
ResnickM. A.CoxB. S. (2000). Yeast as an honorary mammal.Mutat. Res.4511–11. 10.1016/s0027-5107(00)00036-1
75
ReuterM.BellG.GreigD. (2007). Increased outbreeding in yeast in response to dispersal by an insect vector.Curr. Biol.17R81–R83.
76
RiveraF. N.GonzalezE.GomezZ.LopezN.Hernandez-RodriguezC.BerkovA.et al (2009). Gut-associated yeast in bark beetles of the genus Dendroctonus Erichson (Coleoptera: Curculionidae: Scolytinae).Biol. J. Linn. Soc.98325–391.
77
RohK. B.KimC. H.LeeH.KwonH. M.ParkJ. W.RyuJ. H.et al (2009). Proteolytic cascade for the activation of the insect toll pathway induced by the fungal cell wall component.J. Biol. Chem.28419474–19481. 10.1074/jbc.m109.007419
78
RosaC. A.LachanceM. A.SilvaJ. O. C.TeixeiraA. C. P.MariniM. M.AntoniniY.et al (2003). Yeast communities associated with stingless bees.FEMS Yeast Res.4271–275. 10.1016/S1567-1356(03)00173-9
79
RosaC. A.LachanceM. A.TeixeiraL. C.PimentaR. S.MoraisP. B. (2007). Metschnikowia cerradonensis sp. nov., a yeast species isolated from ephemeral flowers and their nitidulid beetles in Brazil.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.57161–165. 10.1099/ijs.0.64624-0
80
RosaC. A.MoraisP. B.HaglerA. N.Mendonsa-HaglerL. C.MonteiroR. F. (1994). Yeast communities of the cactus Pilosocereus urruhidae and associated insects in the sandy coastal plains of southeastern Brazil.Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek6555–62. 10.1007/bf00878279
81
SaksinchaiS.SuzukiM.ChantawannakulP.OhkumaM.LumyongS. (2015). A novel ascosporogenous yeast species, Zygosaccharomyces siamensis, and the sugar tolerant yeasts associated with raw honey collected in Thailand.Fungal Divers.52123–139. 10.1007/s13225-011-0115-z
82
SandhuD. K.WaraichM. K. (1985). Yeasts associated with pollinating bees and flower nectar.Microb. Ecol.1151–58. 10.1007/bf02015108
83
SchiaborK. M.QuanA. S.EisenM. B. (2014). Saccharomyces cerevisiae mitochondria are required for optimal attractiveness to Drosophila melanogaster.PLoS One9:e113899. 10.1371/journal.pone.0113899
84
SiavoshiF.SahraeeM.EbrahimiH.SarrafnejadA.SanieeP. (2018). Natural fruits, flowers, honey, and honeybees harbor Helicobacter pylori-positive yeasts.Helicobacter23:e12471. 10.1111/hel.12471
85
SixD. L. (2003). A comparison of mycangial and phoretic fungi of individual mountain pine beetles.Can. J. For. Res.331331–1334. 10.1139/x03-047
86
StefaniniI. (2018). Yeast-insect associations: it takes guts.Yeast35315–330. 10.1002/yea.3309
87
StefaniniI.DapportoL.BernáL.PolsinelliM.TurillazziS.CavalieriD. (2016). Social wasps are a Saccharomyces mating nest.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.1132247–2251. 10.1073/pnas.1516453113
88
StefaniniI.DapportoL.LegrasJ. L.CalabrettaA.Di PaolaM.De FilippoC.et al (2012). Role of social wasps in Saccharomyces cerevisiae ecology and evolution.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10913398–13403. 10.1073/pnas.1208362109
89
SteynA.RoetsF.BothaA. (2016). Yeasts associated with Culex pipiens and Culex theileri mosquito larvae and the effect of selected yeast strains on the ontogeny of Culex pipiens.Microb. Ecol.71747–760. 10.1007/s00248-015-0709-1
90
SuhS. O.BlackwellM. (2004). Three new beetle-associated yeast species in the Pichia Guilliermondii clade.FEMS Yeast Res.5, 87–95. 10.1016/j.femsyr.2004.06.001
91
SuhS. O.BlackwellM. (2006). Three new asexual arthroconidial yeasts, Geotrichum carabidarum sp. nov., Geotrichum histeridarum sp. nov., and Geotrichum cucujoidarum sp. nov., isolated from the gut of insects.Mycol. Res.110220–228. 10.1016/j.mycres.2005.08.008
92
SuhS. O.HouseknechtJ. L.GujjariP.ZhouJ. J. (2013). Scheffersomyces parashehatae fa, sp. nov., Scheffersomyces xylosifermentans fa, sp. nov., Candida broadrunensis sp. nov. and Candida manassasensis sp. nov., novel yeasts associated with wood-ingesting insects, and their ecological and biofuel implications.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.634330–4339. 10.1099/ijs.0.053009-0
93
SuhS. O.NguyenN. H.BlackwellM. (2005). Nine new Candida species near C. membranifaciens isolated from insects.Mycol. Res.1091045–1056. 10.1017/S0953756205003254
94
SuhS. O.NguyenN. H.BlackwellM. (2006). A yeast clade near Candida kruisii uncovered: nine novel Candida species associated with basidioma-feeding beetles.Mycol. Res.1101379–1394. 10.1016/j.mycres.2006.09.009
95
SuhS. O.NguyenN. H.BlackwellM. (2007). Yeasts isolated from plant-associated beetles and other insects: seven novel Candida species near Candida albicans.FEMS Yeast Res.888–102. 10.1111/j.1567-1364.2007.00320.x
96
TanahashiM.HawesC. J. (2016). The presence of a mycangium in European Sinodendron cylindricum (Coleoptera: Lucanidae) and the associated yeast symbionts.J. Insect. Sci.16:76. 10.1093/jisesa/iew054
97
TatumE. L. (1941). Vitamin B requirements of Drosophila melanogaster.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.27193–197. 10.1073/pnas.27.4.193
98
TietjenE. J.AyyagariL. R.UetzG. W. (1987). Symbiosis between social spiders and yeast: the role in prey attraction.Psyche A J. Entomol.94151–158. 10.1155/1987/67258
99
TokiW.TanahashiM.TogashiK.FukatsuT. (2012). Fungal farming in a non-social beetle.PLoS One7:e41893. 10.1371/journal.pone.0041893
100
UrbinaH.SchusterJ.BlackwellM. (2013). The gut of Guatemalan passalid beetles: a habitat colonized by cellobiose-and xylose-fermenting yeasts.Fungal Ecol.6339–355. 10.1016/j.funeco.2013.06.005
101
WagnerD. L. (2020). Insect declines in the Anthropocene.Annu. Rev. Entomol.65457–480. 10.1146/annurev-ento-011019-025151
102
WangY.RenY. C.ZhangZ. T.KeT.HuiF. L. (2016). Spathaspora allomyrinae sp. nov., a D-xylose-fermenting yeast species isolated from a scarabeid beetle Allomyrina dichotoma.Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol.662008–2012. 10.1099/ijsem.0.000979
103
WilsonE. O. (1987). The little things that run the World (The importance and conservation of invertebrates).Conserv. Biol.1344–346. 10.1111/j.1523-1739.1987.tb00055.x
104
WitzgallP.ProffitM.RozpedowskaE.BecherP. G.AndreadisS.CoraciniM.et al (2012). “This is not an apple”–yeast mutualism in codling moth.J. Chem. Ecol.38949–957. 10.1007/s10886-012-0158-y
Summary
Keywords
Saccharomyces cerevisiae, insect, yeast-insect association, biogeography, Saccharomyces cerevisiae evolution, Saccharomyces cerevisiae yeast ecology
Citation
Meriggi N, Di Paola M, Cavalieri D and Stefanini I (2020) Saccharomyces cerevisiae – Insects Association: Impacts, Biogeography, and Extent. Front. Microbiol. 11:1629. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.01629
Received
03 May 2020
Accepted
22 June 2020
Published
14 July 2020
Volume
11 - 2020
Edited by
Nathalie Connil, Université de Rouen, France
Reviewed by
Emilia Garcia-Moruno, Council for Agricultural and Economics Research (CREA), Italy; Agustin Aranda, University of Valencia, Spain; Flaviano S. Martins, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Meriggi, Di Paola, Cavalieri and Stefanini.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Irene Stefanini, irene.stefanini@unito.it
This article was submitted to Systems Microbiology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Microbiology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.