Search

Abstract Background Animal-associated microbiomes can be influenced by both host and environmental factors. Comparing wild animals to those in zoos or aquariums can help disentangle the effects of host versus environmental factors, while also testing whether managed conditions foster a ‘natural’ host microbiome. Focusing on an endangered elasmobranch species—the whitespotted eagle ray Aetobatus narinari—we compared the skin, gill, and cloaca microbiomes of wild individuals to those at Georgia Aquarium. Whitespotted eagle ray microbiomes from Georgia Aquarium were also compared to those of cownose rays (Rhinoptera bonasus) in the same exhibit, allowing us to explore the effect of host identity on the ray microbiome. Results Long-term veterinary monitoring indicated that the rays in managed care did not have a history of disease and maintained health parameters consistent with those of wild individuals, with one exception. Aquarium whitespotted eagle rays were regularly treated to control parasite loads, but the effects on animal health were subclinical. Microbiome α- and β-diversity differed between wild versus aquarium whitespotted eagle rays at all body sites, with α-diversity significantly higher in wild individuals. β-diversity differences in wild versus aquarium whitespotted eagle rays were greater for skin and gill microbiomes compared to those of the cloaca. At each body site, we also detected microbial taxa shared between wild and aquarium eagle rays. Additionally, the cloaca, skin, and gill microbiomes of aquarium eagle rays differed from those of cownose rays in the same exhibit. Potentially pathogenic bacteria were at low abundance in all wild and aquarium rays. Conclusion For whitespotted eagle rays, managed care was associated with a microbiome differing significantly from that of wild individuals. These differences were not absolute, as the microbiome of aquarium rays shared members with that of wild counterparts and was distinct from that of a cohabitating ray species. Eagle rays under managed care appear healthy, suggesting that their microbiomes are not associated with compromised host health. However, the ray microbiome is dynamic, differing with both environmental factors and host identity. Monitoring of aquarium ray microbiomes over time may identify taxonomic patterns that co-vary with host health.

Abstract Background Sharks play essential roles in ocean food webs and human culture, but also face population declines worldwide due to human activity. The relationship between sharks and the microbes on and in the shark body is unclear, despite research on other animals showing the microbiome as intertwined with host physiology, immunity, and ecology. Research on shark-microbe interactions faces the significant challenge of sampling the largest and most elusive shark species. We leveraged a unique sampling infrastructure to compare the microbiomes of two apex predators, the white (Carcharodon carcharias) and tiger shark (Galeocerdo cuvier), to those of the filter-feeding whale shark (Rhincodon typus), allowing us to explore the effects of feeding mode on intestinal microbiome diversity and metabolic function, and environmental exposure on the diversity of microbes external to the body (on the skin, gill). Results The fecal microbiomes of white and whale sharks were highly similar in taxonomic and gene category composition despite differences in host feeding mode and diet. Fecal microbiomes from these species were also taxon-poor compared to those of many other vertebrates and were more similar to those of predatory teleost fishes and toothed whales than to those of filter-feeding baleen whales. In contrast, microbiomes of external body niches were taxon-rich and significantly influenced by diversity in the water column microbiome. Conclusions These results suggest complex roles for host identity, diet, and environmental exposure in structuring the shark microbiome and identify a small, but conserved, number of intestinal microbial taxa as potential contributors to shark physiology.

Abstract Elasmobranchs (sharks, skates and rays) are of broad ecological, economic, and societal value. These globally important fishes are experiencing sharp population declines as a result of human activity in the oceans. Research to understand elasmobranch ecology and conservation is critical and has now begun to explore the role of body-associated microbiomes in shaping elasmobranch health. Here, we review the burgeoning efforts to understand elasmobranch microbiomes, highlighting microbiome variation among gastrointestinal, oral, skin, and blood-associated niches. We identify major bacterial lineages in the microbiome, challenges to the field, key unanswered questions, and avenues for future work. We argue for prioritizing research to determine how microbiomes interact mechanistically with the unique physiology of elasmobranchs, potentially identifying roles in host immunity, disease, nutrition, and waste processing. Understanding elasmobranch–microbiome interactions is critical for predicting how sharks and rays respond to a changing ocean and for managing healthy populations in managed care.

Abstract Background Understanding the associations among corals, their photosynthetic zooxanthella symbionts (Symbiodinium), and coral-associated prokaryotic microbiomes is critical for predicting the fidelity and strength of coral symbioses in the face of growing environmental threats. Most coral-microbiome associations are beneficial, yet the mechanisms that determine the composition of the coral microbiome remain largely unknown. Here, we characterized microbiome diversity in the temperate, facultatively symbiotic coral Astrangia poculata at four seasonal time points near the northernmost limit of the species range. The facultative nature of this system allowed us to test seasonal influence and symbiotic state (Symbiodinium density in the coral) on microbiome community composition. Results Change in season had a strong effect on A. poculata microbiome composition. The seasonal shift was greatest upon the winter to spring transition, during which time A. poculata microbiome composition became more similar among host individuals. Within each of the four seasons, microbiome composition differed significantly from that of surrounding seawater but was surprisingly uniform between symbiotic and aposymbiotic corals, even in summer, when differences in Symbiodinium density between brown and white colonies are the highest, indicating that the observed seasonal shifts are not likely due to fluctuations in Symbiodinium density. Conclusions Our results suggest that symbiotic state may not be a primary driver of coral microbial community organization in A. poculata, which is a surprise given the long-held assumption that excess photosynthate is of importance to coral-associated microbes. Rather, other environmental or host factors, in this case, seasonal changes in host physiology associated with winter quiescence, may drive microbiome diversity. Additional studies of A. poculata and other facultatively symbiotic corals will provide important comparisons to studies of reef-building tropical corals and therefore help to identify basic principles of coral microbiome assembly, as well as functional relationships among holobiont members.