Different species of yeast alter lifespan and fecundity of Drosophila melanogaster

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

开放存取 开放存取
受限制的访问 ##reader.subscriptionAccessGranted##
受限制的访问 订阅存取

详细

Many studies have shown that associated microbiota influences the life history traits of Drosophila melanogaster. The increase in bacterial load reduces lifespan but may increase fecundity. Paradoxically, the influence of yeast microbiota, a key food source for fruit flies, on life history traits is much less studied. In this work, we assessed the influence of natural yeast microbiota, as well as individual yeast species, on lifespan, age-related dynamics of fecundity, and mortality in the control fly line and the fly line with depleted yeast microbiota. We used Starmerella bacillaris, Zygosaccharomyces bailii, and Saccharomyces cerevisiae as individual yeast species for testing. We have shown that the decrease in the amount of symbiotic yeast on the medium, on the surface of the body, or in the fly intestine leads to an increase in lifespan and a decrease in fecundity for flies reared on standard medium. It is consistent with the “disposable soma” hypothesis. At the same time, an increase in lifespan does not compensate for the decrease in fecundity; therefore, the decrease in the number of yeasts leads to a decrease in fly fitness. Inoculation of S. cerevisiae on the medium shifts the reproduction of the control flies to an earlier age, while two other yeast species increase fertility significantly. Inoculation of S. bacillaris and S. cerevisiae (not typical for the microbiota of tested fly lines) on the medium reduces lifespan more than yeast Z. bailii, which is typical for the microbiota of the control line. Yeast microbiota reduces the lifespan of the Drosophila males more than the females. The results indicate deep coevolutionary relationships between the components of the yeast microbiota and the host organism, requiring further studies within the hologenome theory of evolution.

全文:

受限制的访问

作者简介

E. Yakovleva

Lomonosov Moscow State University

编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: e.u.yakovleva@gmail.com

Faculty of Biology, Department of Biological Evolution

俄罗斯联邦, Leninskie gory, 1, Moscow, 119991

I. Maхimova

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: e.u.yakovleva@gmail.com

Soil Science Faculty, Department of Soil Biology

俄罗斯联邦, Leninskie gory, 1, Moscow, 119991

D. Merzlikin

Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: e.u.yakovleva@gmail.com

Faculty of Biology, Department of Biological Evolution

俄罗斯联邦, Leninskie gory, 1, Moscow, 119991

A. Kachalkin

Lomonosov Moscow State University; Skryabin Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Microorganisms, Pushchino Biological Research Center

Email: e.u.yakovleva@gmail.com

Lomonosov Moscow State University, Soil Science Faculty, Department of Soil Biology

俄罗斯联邦, Leninskie gory, 1, Moscow, 119991; Prospect Nauki, 5, Moscow Region, Pushchino, 142290

A. Markov

Borisyak Paleontological Institute RAS

Email: e.u.yakovleva@gmail.com
俄罗斯联邦, Profsoyuznaya, 123, Moscow, 117997

参考

  1. Дмитриева А.С., Ивницкий С.Б., Марков А.В., 2016. Адаптация Drosophila melanogaster к неблагоприятному кормовому субстрату сопровождается расширением трофической ниши // Журн. общ. биологии. Т. 77. № 4. С. 249–261.
  2. Ивницкий С.Б., Максимова И.А., Панченко П.Л., Дмитриева А.С., Качалкин А.В. и др., 2018. Роль микробиома в адаптации Drosophila melanogaster к кормовому субстрату с повышенной концентрацией NaCl // Журн. общ. биологии. Т. 79. № 5. С. 393–403.
  3. Калебина Т.С., Рекстина В.В., Горковский А.А., Королев А.Г., Ерещенко М.И. и др., 2021. Сочетанное воздействие белка с амилоидными свойствами Bgl2p и других компонентов клеточных стенок дрожжей Saccharomyces cerevisiae на состояние кожных покровов и поведение мышей // Иммунопатология, аллергология, инфектология. № 3. С. 86–97. https://www.doi.org/10.14427/jipai.2021.3.86
  4. Панченко П.Л., Корнилова М.Б., Перфильева К.С., Марков А.В., 2017. Симбиотическая микробиота вносит вклад в адаптацию Drosophila melanogaster к неблагоприятной кормовой среде // Изв. РАН. Сер. биол. № 4. С. 341–351.
  5. Рекстина В.В., Горковский А.А., Безсонов Е.Е., Калебина Т.С., 2016. Амилоидные белки поверхности микроорганизмов: структура, свойства и значение для медицины // Вестн. РГМУ. № 1. С. 4–13.
  6. Anagnostou C., Dorsch M., Rohlfs M., 2010. Influence of dietary yeasts on Drosophila melanogaster life-history traits // Ent. Exp. et Appl. V. 136. № 1. P. 1–11.
  7. Anbutsu H., Moriyama M., Nikoh N., Hosokawa T., Futahashi R., et al., 2017. Small genome symbiont underlies cuticle hardness in beetles // PNAS. V. 114. P. 8381–8391. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1712857114
  8. Arias-Rojas A., Iatsenko I., 2022. The role of microbiota in Drosophila melanogaster aging // Front. Aging. V. 3. Art. 909509. https://doi.org/10.3389/fragi.2022.909509
  9. Arroyo-López F.N., Durán-Quintana M.C., Ruiz-Barba J.L., Querol A., Garrido-Fernández A., 2006. Use of molecular methods for the identification of yeast associated with table olives // Food Microbiol. V. 23. № 8. P. 791–796.
  10. Barker J.S.F., East P.D., Phaff H.J., Miranda M., 1984. The ecology of the yeast flora in necrotic Opuntia cacti and of associated Drosophila in Australia // Microb. Ecol. № 10. P. 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02015562
  11. Begon M., 1982. Yeast and Drosophila. The Genetics and Biology of Drosophila. L.: Academic Press. P. 345–384.
  12. Blum J.E., Fischer C.N., Miles J., Handelsman J., 2013. Frequent replenishment sustains the beneficial microbiome of Drosophila melanogaster // mBio. V. 4. Art. e00860.
  13. Bordenstein S.R., Theis K.R., 2015. Host biology in light of the microbiome: Ten principles of holobionts and hologenomes // PLoS Biol. V. 13. № 8. Art. e1002226.
  14. Brummel T., Ching A., Seroude L., Simon A.F., Benzer S., 2004. Drosophila lifespan enhancement by exogenous bacteria // PNAS. V. 101. P. 12974–12979.
  15. Chandler J.A., Innocent L.V., Martinez D.J., Huang I.L., Yang J.L., et al., 2022. Microbiome-by-ethanol interactions impact Drosophila melanogaster fitness, physiology, and behavior // iScience. V. 25. № 4. Art. 104000.
  16. Chippindale A.K., Leroi A.M., Kim S.B., Rose M.R., 1993. Phenotypic plasticity and selection in Drosophila life-history evolution. I. Nutrition and the cost of reproduction // J. Evol. Biol. V. 6. P. 171–193.
  17. Claesson M.J., Cusack S., O’Sullivan O., Greene-Diniz R., Weerd H., de, et al., 2011. Composition, variability, and temporal stability of the intestinal microbiota of the elderly // PNAS. V. 108. P. 4586–4591.
  18. Clark R.I., Salazar A., Yamada R., Fitz-Gibbon S., Morselli M., et al., 2015. Distinct shifts in microbiota composition during Drosophila aging impair intestinal function and drive mortality // Cell Rep. V. 12. № 10. P. 1656–1667.
  19. Cooper D.M., 1960. Food preferences of larval and adult Drosophila // Evolution. V. 14. P. 41–55.
  20. Currie C.C., Poulsen M., Mendenhall J., Boomsma J., Billen J., 2006. Coevolved crypts and exocrine glands support mutualistic bacteria in fungus-growing ants // Science. V. 311. P. 81–83.
  21. Dmitrieva A.S., Ivnitsky S.B., Maksimova I.A., Panchenko P.L., Kachalkin A.V., Markov A.V., 2019. Symbiotic yeasts affect adaptation of Drosophila melanogaster to food substrate with high NaCl concentration // PLoS One. V. 14. № 11. Art. e0224811.
  22. Dmitrieva A.S., Maksimova I.A., Kachalkin A.V., Markov A.V., 2021. Age-related changes in the yeast component of the Drosophila melanogaster microbiome // Microbiology. V. 90. № 2. P. 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0026261721020028
  23. Dmitrieva A.S., Yakovleva E.Y., Maksimova I.A., Belov A.A., Markov A.V., 2023. Changes in the symbiotic yeast of Drosophila melanogaster during adaptation to substrates with an increased NaCl content // Biol. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. V. 13. № 1. P. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086423010036
  24. Douglas A.E., 2018a. The Drosophila model for microbiome research // Lab Animal. V. 47. № 6. P. 157–164.
  25. Douglas A.E., 2018b. Contradictory results in microbiome science exemplified by recent Drosophila research // mBio. V. 9. № 5. Art. e01758–18. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.01758-18
  26. Epstein S.S., 2013. The phenomenon of microbial uncultivability // Curr. Opin. Microbiol. V. 16. № 5. P. 636– 642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2013.08.003
  27. Erkosar B., Storelli G., Defaye A., Leulier F., 2013. Host-intestinal microbiota mutualism: ‘‘learning on the fly” // Cell Host Microbe. V. 13. P. 8–14.
  28. Fast D., Duggal A., Foley E., 2018a. Monoassociation with Lactobacillus plantarum disrupts intestinal homeostasis in adult Drosophila melanogaster // mBio. V. 9. № 4. Art. e01114-18.
  29. Fast D., Kostiuk B., Foley E., Pukatzki S., 2018b. Commensal pathogen competition impacts host viability // PNAS. V. 115. P. 7099–7104.
  30. Francis А., 2008. Business Mathematics and Statistics. 6th ed. L.: Cengage learning EMEA. 666 p.
  31. Goddard M.R., 2008. Quantifying the complexities of Saccharomyces cerevisiae’s ecosystem engineering via fermentation // Ecology. V. 89. P. 2077–2082. https://doi.org/10.1890/07-2060.1
  32. Gould A.L., Zhang V., Lamberti L., Jones E.W., Obadia B., et al., 2018. Microbiome interactions shape host fitness // PNAS. V. 115. № 51. P. E11951–E11960.
  33. Grandison R., Piper M., Partridge L., 2009. Amino-acid imbalance explains extension of lifespan by dietary restriction in Drosophila // Nature. V. 462. P. 1061–1064. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08619
  34. Guilhot R., Rombaut A., Xuéreb A., Howell K., Fellous S., 2021. Influence of bacteria on the maintenance of a yeast during Drosophila melanogaster metamorphosis // Anim. Microbiome. V. 68. № 3. P. 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42523-021-00133-0
  35. Harcombe W.R., Chacón J.M., Adamowicz E.M., Chubiz L.M., Marx C.J., 2018. Evolution of bidirectional costly mutualism from byproduct consumption // PNAS. V. 115. № 47. P. 12000–12004. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810949115
  36. Hedrick L.R., Burke G.C., 1951. Two new yeasts from Hawaiian fruit flies // Mycopathol. Mycol. Appl. V. 6. P. 92–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02279182
  37. Hoang D., Kopp A., Chandler J.A., 2015. Interactions between Drosophila and its natural yeast symbionts – Is Saccharomyces cerevisiae a good model for studying the fly-yeast relationship? // Peer J. V. 3. Art. e1116.
  38. Keebaugh E.S., Yamada R., Ja W.W., 2019. The nutritional environment influences the impact of microbes on Drosophila melanogaster life span // mBio. V. 10. № 4. Art. e00885. https://doi.org/10.1128/mbio.00885-19
  39. Keuls M., 1952. The use of the “Studentized range” in connection with an analysis of variance // Euphytica. V. 1. P. 112–122.
  40. Klepsatel P., Procházka E., Gáliková M., 2018. Crowding of Drosophila larvae affects lifespan and other life-history traits via reduced availability of dietary yeast // Exp. Gerontol. V. 110. P. 298–308.
  41. Kosakamoto H., Yamauchi T., Akuzawa-Tokita Y., Nishimura K., Soga T., et al., 2020. Local necrotic cells trigger systemic immune activation via gut microbiome dysbiosis in Drosophila // Cell Rep. V. 32. № 3. Art. 107938.
  42. Lee H.Y., Lee S.H., Min K.J., 2022. The increased abundance of commensal microbes decreases Drosophila melanogaster lifespan through an age-related intestinal barrier dysfunction // Insects. V. 13. № 2. Art. 219. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13020219
  43. Lee H.Y., Lee S.H., Lee J.H., Lee W.J., Min K.J., 2019. The role of commensal microbes in the lifespan of Drosophila melanogaster // Aging. V. 11. № 13. P. 4611– 4640. https://doi.org/10.18632/aging.102073
  44. Lee H.Y., Lee J.H., Kim S.H., Jo S.Y., Min K.J., 2023. Probiotic Limosilactobacillus reuteri (Lactobacillus reuteri) extends the lifespan of Drosophila melanogaster through insulin/IGF-1 signaling // Aging Dis. V. 14. № 4. Р. 1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.14336/AD.2023.0122
  45. Leftwich P.T., Hutchings M.I., Chapman T., 2018. Diet, gut microbes and host mate choice: Understanding the significance of microbiome effects on host mate choice requires a case by case evaluation // Bioessays. V. 40. № 12. Art. 1800053.
  46. Lewis M.T., Hamby K.A., 2019. Differential impacts of yeasts on feeding behavior and development in larval Drosophila suzukii (Diptera: Drosophilidae) // Sci. Rep. V. 9. Art. 13370. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-48863-1
  47. Li Y., Xu S., Wang L., Shi H., Wang H., et al., 2023. Gut microbial genetic variation modulates host lifespan, sleep, and motor performance // ISME J. V. 17. № 10. P. 1733– 1740. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-023-01478-x
  48. Liu G.-L., Chi Z., Wang G.-Y., Wang Z.-P., Li Y., Chi Z.-M., 2015. Yeast killer toxins, molecular mechanisms of their action and their applications // Crit. Rev. Biotechnol. V. 35. № 2. P. 222–234.
  49. Mair W., Piper M.D.W., Partridge L., 2005. Calories do not explain extension of life span by dietary restriction in Drosophila // PLOS Biol. V. 3. № 7. P. 1305–1311.
  50. Margulis L., Fester R., 1991. Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis. Cambridge: MIT Press. 454 p.
  51. Markov A.V., Ivnitsky S.B., Kornilova M.B., Naimark E.B., Shirokova N.G., Perfilieva K.S., 2016. Maternal effect obscures adaptation to adverse environments and hinders divergence in Drosophila melanogaster // Biol. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. V. 6. 429–435. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086416050054
  52. Markov А.V., Lazebny O.E., Goryacheva I.I., Antipin M.I., Kulikov A.M., 2009. Symbiotic bacteria affect mating choice in Drosophila melanogaster // Anim. Behav. V. 77. P. 1011–1017.
  53. Matthews M.K., Malcolm J., Chaston J.M., 2021. Microbiota influences fitness and timing of reproduction in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster // Microbiol. Spectr. V. 9. № 2. Art. e0003421. https://doi.org/10.1128/Spectrum.00034-21
  54. Matthews M.K., Wilcox H., Hughes R., Veloz M., Hammer A., et al., 2020. Genetic influences of the microbiota on the life span of Drosophila melanogaster // Appl. Environ. Microbiol. V. 86. № 10. Art. e00305-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00305-20
  55. Mattison J.A., Roth G.S., Beasley M.T., Tilmont E.M., Handy A.M., et al., 2012. Impact of caloric restriction on health and survival in rhesus monkeys from the NIA study // Nature. V. 489. № 7415. P. 318–321.
  56. Maynard C., Weinkove D., 2018. The Gut Microbiota and Ageing. Biochemistry and Cell Biology of Ageing: Part I. Biomedical Science. N.Y.: Springer. P. 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-2835-0_12
  57. McFall-Ngai M.J., 2002. Unseen forces: the influence of bacteria on animal development // Develop. Biol. V. 242. P. 1–14.
  58. Min K.J., Tatar M., 2006. Drosophila diet restriction in practice: Do flies consume fewer nutrients? // Mech. Ageing Dev. V. 127. № 1. P. 93–96.
  59. Morais P.B., Martins M.B., Klaczko L.B., Mendonca-Hagler L.C., Hagler A.N., 1995. Microbiology yeast succession in the Amazon fruit Parahancornia amapa as resource partitioning among Drosophila spp. // Appl. Environ. Microbiol. V. 61. № 12. P. 4251–4257.
  60. Mousseau T.A., Uller T., Wapstra E., Badyaev A.V., 2009. Evolution of maternal effects: past and present // Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. V. 364. P. 1035–1038.
  61. Murgier J., Everaerts C., Farine J.P., Ferveur J.F., 2019. Live yeast in juvenile diet induces species-specific effects on Drosophila adult behaviour and fitness // Sci. Rep. V. 9. Art. 8873. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45140-z
  62. Obadia B., Güvener Z.T., Zhang V., Ceja-Navarro J.A., Brodie E.L., et al., 2017. Probabilistic invasion underlies natural gut microbiome stability // Curr. Biol. V. 27. P. 1999–2006.
  63. Onuma T., Yamauchi T., Kosakamoto H., Kadoguchi H., Kuraishi T., et al., 2023. Recognition of commensal bacterial peptidoglycans defines Drosophila gut homeostasis and lifespan // PLoS Genet. V. 19. № 4. Art. e1010709.
  64. Pais I.S., Valente R.S., Sporniak M., Teixeira L., 2018. Drosophila melanogaster establishesa species-specific mutualistic interaction with stable gut-colonizing bacteria // PLoS Biol. V. 16. Art. e2005710.
  65. Partridge L., Alic N., Bjedov I., Piper M.D.W., 2011. Ageing in Drosophila: The role of the insulin/Igf and TOR signalling network // Exp. Gerontol. V. 46. P. 376–381.
  66. Piškur J., Rozpędowska E., Polakova S., Merico A., Compagno C., 2006. How did Saccharomyces evolve to become a good brewer? // Trends Genet. V. 22. № 4. P. 183–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2006.02.002
  67. Pokrzywa M., Pawełek K., Kucia W.E., Sarbak S., Chorell E., et al., 2017. Effects of small-molecule amyloid modulators on a Drosophila model of Parkinson’s disease // PLoS One. V. 12. № 9. Art. e0184117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184117
  68. Ren C., Webster P., Finkel S., Tower J., 2007. Increased internal and external bacterial load during Drosophila aging without lifespan trade-off // Cell Metab. V. 6. P. 144–152.
  69. Ridley E., Wong A., Westmiller S., Douglas A., 2012. Impact of the resident microbiota on the nutritional phenotype of Drosophila melanogaster // PLoS One. V. 7. Art. e36765.
  70. Rolig A.S., Parthasarathy R., Burns A.R., Bohannan B.J.M., Guillemin K., 2015. Individual members of the microbiota disproportionately modulate host innate immune responses // Cell Host Microbe. V. 18. P. 613–620.
  71. Rosenberg E., Koren O., Reshef L., Efrony R., Zilber-Rosenberg I., 2007. The role of microorganisms in coral health, disease and evolution // Nat. Rev. Microbiol. V. 5. № 5. P. 355–362.
  72. Rosenberg E., Sharon G., Zilber-Rosenberg I., 2009. The hologenome theory of evolution contains Lamarckian aspects within a Darwinian framework // Environ. Microbiol. V. 11. № 12. P. 2959–2962.
  73. Ryu J.H., Ha E.M., Lee W.J., 2010. Innate immunity and gut-microbe mutualism in Drosophila // Dev. Comp. Immunol. V. 34. № 4. P. 369–376.
  74. Sannino D.R., Dobson A.J., Edwards K., Angert E.R., Buchon N., 2018. The Drosophila melanogaster gut microbiota provisions thiamine to its host // mBio. V. 9. № 2. e00155-18.
  75. Schretter C.E., Vielmetter J., Bartos I., Marka Z., Marka S., et al., 2018. A gut microbial factor modulates locomotor behaviour in Drosophila // Nature. V. 563. P. 402–406.
  76. Sharon G., Segal D., Ringo J.M., Hefetz A., Zilber-Rosenberg I., Rosenberg E., 2010. Commensal bacteria play a role in mating preference of Drosophila melanogaster // PNAS. V. 107. P. 20051–20056.
  77. Shukla A.K., Johnson K., Giniger E., 2021. Common features of aging fail to occur in Drosophila raised without a bacterial microbiome // iScience. V. 24. № 7. P. 1–22.
  78. Simon J.C., Marchesi J.R., Mougel C., Selosse M.A., 2019. Host-microbiota interactions: From holobiont theory to analysis // Microbiome. V. 7. № 1. P. 1–5.
  79. Smith P., Willemsen D., Popkes M., Metge F., Gandiwa E., et al., 2017. Regulation of life span by the gut microbiota in the short-lived African turquoise killifish // eLife. V. 6. Art. e27014.
  80. Stamps J.A., Yang L.H., Morales V.M., Boundy-Mills K.L., 2012. Drosophila regulate yeast density and increase yeast community similarity in a natural substrate // PLoS One. V. 7. № 7. Art. e42238.
  81. Starmer W.T., 1981. A comparison of Drosophila habitats according to the physiological attributes of the associated yeast communities // Evolution. V. 35. № 1. P. 38–52.
  82. Starmer W.T., Barker J.S.F., Phaff H.J., Fogleman J.C., 1986. Adaptations of Drosophila and yeasts: their interactions with the volatile 2-propanol in the cactus–microorganism–Drosophila model system // Aust. J. Biol. Sci. V. 39. № 1. P. 69–78.
  83. Starmer W.T., Lachance M.A., Phaff H.J., Heed W.B., 1990. The biogeography of yeasts associated with decaying cactus tissue in North America, the Caribbean and northern Venezuela // Evol. Biol. V. 24. P. 253–296.
  84. Starmer W.T., Schmedicke R.A., Lachance M.A., 2003. The origin of the cactus-yeast community // FEMS Yeast Res. V. 3. № 4. P. 441–448.
  85. Storelli G., Defaye A., Erkosar B., Hols P., Royet J., Leulier F., 2011. Lactobacillus plantarum promotes Drosophila systemic growth by modulating hormonal signals through TOR-dependent nutrient sensing // Cell Metab. V. 14. P. 403–414.
  86. Taormina G., Mirisola M.G., 2014. Calorie restriction in mammals and simple model organisms // BioMed Res. Int. V. 2014. Art. 308690.
  87. Tatar M., Post S., Yu K., 2014. Nutrient control of Drosophila longevity // Trends Endocrinol. Metab. V. 25. № 10. P. 509–517.
  88. Thomson J.M., Gaucher E.A., Burgan M.F., De Kee D.W., Li T., et al., 2005. Resurrecting ancestral alcohol dehydrogenases from yeast // Nat. Genet. V. 37. P. 630– 635. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1553
  89. Trindade R.C., Resende M.A., Silva C.M., Rosa C.A., 2002. Yeasts associated with fresh and frozen pulps of Brazilian tropical fruits // Syst. Appl. Microbiol. V. 25. № 2. P. 294–300.
  90. Tukey J., 1949. Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance // Biometrics. V. 5. P. 99–114.
  91. Vandehoef C., Molaei M., Karpac J., 2020. Dietary adaptation of microbiota in Drosophila requires NF-κB-dependent control of the translational regulator 4E-BP // Cell Rep. V. 31. № 10. Art. 107736.
  92. Walters A.W., Matthews M.K., Hughes R.C., Malcolm J., Rudman S., et al., 2020. The microbiota influences the Drosophila melanogaster life history strategy // Mol. Ecol. V. 29. № 3. P. 639–953.
  93. Yakovleva E.U., Merzlikin D.S., Zavialov A.E., Maslov A.A., Mironova E.A., Markov A.V., 2023. Both genes and microbiome modulate the effect of selection for longevity in Drosophila melanogaster // Biol. Bull. Russ. Acad. Sci. V. 13. № 3. P. 258–274. https://doi.org/10.1134/S2079086423030106
  94. Yakovleva E.U., Naimark E.B., Markov A.V., 2016. Adaptation of Drosophila melanogaster to unfavorable growth medium affects lifespan and age-related fecundity // Biochemistry. V. 81. № 12. P. 1445–1460. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0006297916120063
  95. Yamada R., Deshpande S.A., Bruce K.D., Mak E.M., Ja W.W., 2015. Microbes promote amino acid harvest to rescue undernutrition in Drosophila // Cell. Rep. V. 10. P. 865–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2015.01.018
  96. Yamashita K., Oi A., Kosakamoto H., Yamauchi T., Kadoguchi H., et al., 2021. Activation of innate immunity during development induces unresolved dysbiotic inflammatory gut and shortens lifespan // Dis. Models Mech. V. 14. № 9. Art. dmm049103.
  97. Yamauchi T., Oi A., Kosakamoto H., Akuzawa-Tokita Y., Murakami T., et al., 2020. Gut bacterial species distinctively impact host purine metabolites during aging in Drosophila // iScience. V. 23. № 9. P. 1–28.
  98. Zhang F., Wang L., Jin J., Pang Y., Shi H., et al., 2023. Insights into the genetic influences of the microbiota on the life span of a host // Front. Microbiol. V. 14. Art. 1138979. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1138979
  99. Zheng J., Mutcherson R., Helfand S.L., 2005. Calorie restriction delays lipid oxidative damage in Drosophila melanogaster // Aging Cell. V. 4. № 4. P. 209–216.
  100. Zilber-Rosenberg I., Rosenberg E., 2008. Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: the hologenome theory of evolution // FEMS Microbiol. Rev. V. 32. № 5. P. 723–735.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载
2. Fig. 1. Design of an experiment to assess the effect of different yeast species on the lifespan and fertility of Drosophila from the Mn and Mbd lines.

下载 (433KB)
索引源数据
3. Fig. 2. An example of preliminary seeding of homogenate of flies from the Mn line (a) and the Mbd line (b) before testing.

下载 (334KB)
索引源数据
4. Fig. 3. Average lifespan (days) of flies of a) both sexes, b) males, c) females of the Mn and Mbd lines on feed N without additional inoculation or on feed N with additional inoculation of yeast S.b – S. bacillaris, S.c – S. cerevisiae, Z.b – Z. bailii. 95% confidence interval constructed by bootstrapping. Different letters indicate reliable differences at the 5% significance level.

下载 (276KB)
索引源数据
5. Fig. 4. Survival curves of experimental lines: a – Mbd males, b – Mn males, c – Mbd females, d – Mn females. The horizontal axis is the age of the cohort, days; the vertical axis is the proportion of surviving flies, %. The designations of the subcultures are similar to Fig. 3.

下载 (375KB)
索引源数据
6. Fig. 5. Age dynamics of female fertility from the Mbd and Mn lines on N feed or the same feed with additional sowing of one of the three types of yeast. The horizontal axis is the age of flies (days) from the moment of emergence from the pupa, and the vertical axis is the average number of eggs per female. The data are smoothed using the moving average method. The designations of the additional sowings are similar to Fig. 3.

下载 (177KB)
索引源数据
7. Fig. 6. Structure of yeast microbiota developed on three-day feed H without additional seeding (a) or on feed H with additional seeding of yeast S. bacillaris (b, c), S. cerevisiae (d, d), Z. bailii (e, g), inhabited by flies from the Mn line (a, c, d, g) and the Mbd line (b, d, e). The test variant, where flies from the Mbd line are tested on feed without additional seeding, is not shown, since microbiota was not detected in this test variant.

下载 (1MB)
索引源数据
8. Fig. 7. Relationship between average lifespan and average age of female laying eggs (AFE) and total fertility rate (TFR).

下载 (138KB)
索引源数据

版权所有 © Russian Academy of Sciences, 2024

Согласие на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика»

1. Я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных»), осуществляя использование сайта https://journals.rcsi.science/ (далее – «Сайт»), подтверждая свою полную дееспособность даю согласие на обработку персональных данных с использованием средств автоматизации Оператору - федеральному государственному бюджетному учреждению «Российский центр научной информации» (РЦНИ), далее – «Оператор», расположенному по адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А, со следующими условиями.

2. Категории обрабатываемых данных: файлы «cookies» (куки-файлы). Файлы «cookie» – это небольшой текстовый файл, который веб-сервер может хранить в браузере Пользователя. Данные файлы веб-сервер загружает на устройство Пользователя при посещении им Сайта. При каждом следующем посещении Пользователем Сайта «cookie» файлы отправляются на Сайт Оператора. Данные файлы позволяют Сайту распознавать устройство Пользователя. Содержимое такого файла может как относиться, так и не относиться к персональным данным, в зависимости от того, содержит ли такой файл персональные данные или содержит обезличенные технические данные.

3. Цель обработки персональных данных: анализ пользовательской активности с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика».

4. Категории субъектов персональных данных: все Пользователи Сайта, которые дали согласие на обработку файлов «cookie».

5. Способы обработки: сбор, запись, систематизация, накопление, хранение, уточнение (обновление, изменение), извлечение, использование, передача (доступ, предоставление), блокирование, удаление, уничтожение персональных данных.

6. Срок обработки и хранения: до получения от Субъекта персональных данных требования о прекращении обработки/отзыва согласия.

7. Способ отзыва: заявление об отзыве в письменном виде путём его направления на адрес электронной почты Оператора: info@rcsi.science или путем письменного обращения по юридическому адресу: 119991, г. Москва, Ленинский просп., д.32А

8. Субъект персональных данных вправе запретить своему оборудованию прием этих данных или ограничить прием этих данных. При отказе от получения таких данных или при ограничении приема данных некоторые функции Сайта могут работать некорректно. Субъект персональных данных обязуется сам настроить свое оборудование таким способом, чтобы оно обеспечивало адекватный его желаниям режим работы и уровень защиты данных файлов «cookie», Оператор не предоставляет технологических и правовых консультаций на темы подобного характера.

9. Порядок уничтожения персональных данных при достижении цели их обработки или при наступлении иных законных оснований определяется Оператором в соответствии с законодательством Российской Федерации.

10. Я согласен/согласна квалифицировать в качестве своей простой электронной подписи под настоящим Согласием и под Политикой обработки персональных данных выполнение мною следующего действия на сайте: https://journals.rcsi.science/ нажатие мною на интерфейсе с текстом: «Сайт использует сервис «Яндекс.Метрика» (который использует файлы «cookie») на элемент с текстом «Принять и продолжить».