Animals associate with communities of microorganisms, also known as their microbiome, that live in or on their bodies. Within these communities, microbes – such as yeast and bacteria – interact by producing chemical compounds called metabolites that can influence the activity of other members of the community. These metabolites can also affect the host, helping with nutrition or causing disease.

The behavior of an animal may help it to acquire its microbiome, although this has not been properly explored experimentally. For example, the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster acquires members of its microbiome from the microbes found on the fermented fruit that it eats. It is possible that the flies – and other animals – respond to microbial metabolites, which act as signals or cues that cause the animal to avoid or seek the microbial community.

The fruit fly microbiome is commonly studied in the laboratory because it has a much simpler composition than mammalian microbiomes. Previous studies have explored how the flies respond to odors produced by individual types of microbes, but none have explored how the behavior of the flies changes in response to the odors produced by a mixed microbial community.

Fischer et al. now show that fruit flies are preferentially attracted to microbiome members that are interacting with each other. The flies detected members of the microbiome by responding to chemicals that are only produced when community members grew together. For example, one member of the microbial community produces ethanol that is then converted to acetate by another community member. Neither ethanol nor acetate alone attracted flies as strongly.

Fischer et al. also discovered that both adult fruit flies and their larvae benefit from acquiring a mixture of different microbes at the same time. Adult flies benefit by avoiding harmful concentrations of either ethanol or acetic acid, and larvae benefit from developing in an environment that reduces how quickly disease-causing microbes can grow.

Overall, the results presented by Fischer et al. detail how flies select a beneficial, interactive microbiome from an external reservoir of microorganisms. Flies also have internal mechanisms, like their immune system, that help them to select their microbiome. Therefore a future challenge will be to integrate the behavioral and internal selection mechanisms into a single model of microbiome acquisition.

Multispecies microbial communities (microbiomes) influence animal biology in diverse ways (McFall-Ngai et al., 2013): microbiomes modulate disease (van Nood et al., 2013), metabolize nutrients (Zhu et al., 2011), synthesize vitamins (Degnan et al., 2014), and modify behavior (Bravo et al., 2011). A central goal in host-microbiome studies is to understand the molecular mechanisms underpinning these diverse microbiome functions.

Some aspects of microbial community function are the product of inter-species interactions (Rath and Dorrestein, 2012; Manor et al., 2014; Gerber, 2014; Gonzalez et al., 2012). For example, microorganisms modulate the metabolomes of neighboring species (Derewacz et al., 2015; Jarosz et al., 2014) and microbial metabolites (e.g., antibiotics) alter bacterial transcriptional responses (Goh et al., 2002). Despite current understanding of microbial inter-species interactions in vitro, some of which has been elucidated in exquisite detail, the consequences of microbial interspecies interactions within host-associated microbiomes are just beginning to be explored experimentally.

Insight into host-associated microbiome function has stemmed mostly from whole-microbiome [e.g., re-association of germ-free hosts with whole microbiomes (Ridaura et al., 2013) and modeling microbiome function based on gene annotation (Costello et al., 2009)] or single-microorganism [e.g., re-association of germ-free hosts with a single microorganism (Ivanov et al., 2009)] studies. However, these approaches tend to reveal only limited insight into inter-species microbial interactions, which can provide hosts with essential services. For example, termite symbionts carry genes necessary for metabolism of different parts of complex carbohydrates (Poulsen et al., 2014), yet their function has not been demonstrated in vivo; co-occurring human gut symbionts share polysaccharide breakdown products cooperatively (Rakoff-Nahoum et al., 2014, 2016), but the consequences of such interactions for the host are unknown; inter-species bacterial interactions protect Hydra from fungal infection (Fraune et al., 2015), but the mechanism of host protection is unclear. The need to understand the effects of inter-species microbiome interactions motivated our current work.

Attractive model systems in which to study the outcomes of inter-species microbial interactions for host biology would include a tractable host that harbors a simple multispecies microbiome. Here, we report the use of Drosophila melanogaster to study interactions in a simple microbiome and their consequences for host behavior.

The Drosophila microbiome consists largely of yeasts, acetic acid bacteria, and lactic acid bacteria (Chandler et al., 2011, 2012; Broderick and Lemaitre, 2012; Camargo and Phaff, 1957; Staubach et al., 2013). Drosophila ingests microbiome members from the environment (e.g., fermenting fruit, [Camargo and Phaff, 1957; Barata et al., 2012; Erkosar et al., 2013; Blum et al., 2013; Broderick et al., 2014]), a behavior posited as a mechanism for Drosophila to select, acquire, and maintain its microbiome (Broderick and Lemaitre, 2012; Blum et al., 2013). Drosophila behavior toward environmental microorganisms has focused on yeasts (Becher et al., 2012; Christiaens et al., 2014; Schiabor et al., 2014; Palanca et al., 2013; Venu et al., 2014). Yeasts attract Drosophila via ester production (Christiaens et al., 2014; Schiabor et al., 2014), induce Drosophila egg-laying behavior (Becher et al., 2012), and are vital for larval development (Becher et al., 2012). Lactic and acetic acid bacteria produce metabolites (e.g., acids) that may repel Drosophila at high acid concentrations, while also inducing egg-laying preference for sites containing acetic acid (Ai et al., 2010; Joseph et al., 2009). One motivation of our study was to analyze Drosophila behavior toward the yeast and bacteria that dominate the Drosophila microbiome.

Yeast and bacteria are largely studied within separate Drosophila sub-disciplines, despite their shared habitat (Broderick and Lemaitre, 2012). Yeasts serve as food, providing Drosophila vitamins, sterols, and amino acids (Broderick and Lemaitre, 2012). Lactic and acetic acid bacteria are gut microbiome members (Wong et al., 2011) promoting larval development (Shin et al., 2011; Storelli et al., 2011), increasing resistance to pathogens (Blum et al., 2013), inducing intestinal stem cell proliferation (Buchon et al., 2009), and reducing adult sugar and lipid levels (Newell and Douglas, 2014; Wong et al., 2014). Since microorganisms that are traditionally considered ‘food’ co-exist with those considered ‘microbiome’ in fruit fermentations and the two groups provide Drosophila with different resources, we hypothesized that Drosophila might detect a beneficial community via metabolites that are produced cooperatively by the desirable symbionts. Alternatively, Drosophila might detect a different metabolite as the signal for each symbiont.

Fruit undergoes a well-characterized ripening process in which cell-wall degrading enzymes and amylases convert the firm, starchy tissue into soft, sugar-rich fruit (El-Zoghbi, 1994; Abu-Goukh and Bashir, 2003; Mao and Kinsella, 1981). The high sugar content supports microbial colonization and fermentation by Drosophila-associated microorganisms, including yeasts, lactic acid bacteria, and acetic acid bacteria (Barata et al., 2012; Barbe et al., 2001). Drosophila avoids ‘green’ fruit and is attracted to ‘overripe’ fruit (Turner and Ray, 2009), yet it is unclear how Drosophila behavior is influenced by the dynamic multispecies fruit microbiome and its metabolic properties. To this end, we developed a model fruit fermentation system that afforded measurement of microbial populations, microbial metabolites, and Drosophila behavior.

Here we demonstrate the importance of emergent microbiome metabolism—quantitatively different or unique metabolites produced by the microbiome, but not by any of its members in isolation—on behavior, suggesting that Drosophila larvae and adults benefit by behaviorally selecting a multispecies, interactive microbiome.

To determine whether Drosophila responds to emergent microbial community metabolites, we used the T-maze olfactory assay to analyze Drosophila behavioral responses to several Drosophila microbiome members grown individually or in communities (Figure 1A, Supplementary file 2, Figure 1—figure supplement 1). When the strains were grown individually, Drosophila was strongly attracted to yeasts, moderately attracted to acetic acid bacteria, and neutral or slightly repelled by lactic acid bacteria (Figure 1B,C). Because strains within a microbial group attracted Drosophila similarly, a representative yeast, acetic acid bacterium, and lactic acid bacterium were used to test the effect of interactions between microbiome members on Drosophila behavior. Drosophila preferred microbial communities grown together to microorganisms grown individually and then mixed prior to analysis (defined throughout as a separate-culture mixture, Figure 1D). Focusing on a model Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Acetobacter malorum community, we found that when tested against apple juice medium (AJM), Drosophila attraction to the community was stronger than to the separate-culture mixture or individual members (Figure 1E). In sum, Drosophila detects, and prefers, microorganisms growing together to a mixture of the same strains combined after they had completed growth.

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 1—source data 1

Raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 1B,C.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.004

Download elife-18855-fig1-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 1—source data 2

Raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 1D.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.005

Download elife-18855-fig1-data2-v2.xlsx

Figure 1—source data 3

Raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 1E.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.006

Download elife-18855-fig1-data3-v2.xlsx

We next measured the attractiveness and other properties of the co-culture over time. When grown alone, the microorganisms had similar growth profiles (Figure 2A). However, when grown with A. malorum, S. cerevisiae populations first increased, then decreased between 60 and 72 hr, and were undetectable by 96 hr (Figure 2A). The decrease in S. cerevisiae viable counts mirrored a decrease in pH (Figure 2—figure supplement 1A). Drosophila did not prefer the co-culture relative to the separate-culture mixture at 34 hr; however, Drosophila was more attracted to the co-culture from 48–127 hr (Figure 2B). Moreover, the Drosophila attraction to the 96 hr co-culture was stronger than its preference for the 48, 54, or 60 hr co-cultures (Figure 2B). Drosophila preference for the co-culture correlated with lower pH and S. cerevisiae population density, despite Drosophila olfactory avoidance of acid (Ai et al., 2010) and reliance on yeast for nutrition (Anagnostou et al., 2010) (Figure 2C,D). Drosophila preference did not correlate with viable A. malorum populations (Figure 2—figure supplement 1B). Drosophila preference for the co-culture increased relative to sterile media during 34–96 hr of growth, which is consistent with the increase in Drosophila attraction being due to a property of the co-culture rather than to a decrease in attraction to the separate-culture mixture (Figure 2—figure supplement 1C). Moreover, Drosophila was more attracted to the 72 hr co-culture than individual cultures or the separate-culture mixture at any other growth stage (i.e. 24, 34, 72 hr; Figure 2—figure supplement 1D,E). In sum, several properties of the microbial community (e.g. S. cerevisiae density, pH) parallel Drosophila detection of, and preference for, the co-culture.

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 2—source data 1

Raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 2B & Figure 2—figure supplement 1C.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.010

Download elife-18855-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 2—source data 2

Raw Drosophila preference data, microbial population data, and pH data for Figure 2A,C,D & Figure 2—figure supplement 1A,B.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.011

Download elife-18855-fig2-data2-v2.xlsx

Mutants in broadly and narrowly tuned ionotropic and olfactory receptors [Irs and Ors, respectively, (Abuin et al., 2011; Hallem and Carlson, 2006)] were used to evaluate the role of Drosophila olfactory reception in discriminating the co-culture from the separate-culture mixture during and immediately following peak attraction (Figure 3—figure supplement 1). During the most attractive phase of the co-culture (e.g. 67–115 hr), homozygous mutants of Drosophila ORCO and Or42b showed a significant reduction in attraction to the co-culture, whereas no role was detected for Drosophila homozygous mutants in several Irs or Or35a (Figure 3A). As co-culture growth proceeded (e.g. 139–163 hr), attraction decreased and the role of Or42b and ORCO waned (Figure 3). An independent homozygous mutant of ORCO also showed reduced attraction to the co-culture, whereas the heterozygotes ORCO/+ and Or42/+ were attracted to the co-culture similarly to wild-type flies (Figure 3B).

Figure 3 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 3—source data 1

Raw Drosophila preference data and microbial population data for Figure 3A and Figure 3—figure supplement 1.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.015

Download elife-18855-fig3-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 3—source data 2

Raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 3B.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.016

Download elife-18855-fig3-data2-v2.xlsx

ORCO is a required co-receptor for all other Or gene products (Larsson et al., 2004) and Or42b, one of the most conserved olfactory receptors, detects esters and 1,1-diethoxyethane (Mathew et al., 2013; Asahina et al., 2009; Stökl et al., 2010). These results suggest that Or42b enables Drosophila to distinguish the co-culture from the separate-culture mixture. Moreover, a non-ORCO factor explains ~40% of Drosophila co-culture preference (Figure 3A,B). Previous work found that ORCO is fully responsible for the Drosophila attraction to apple cider vinegar (Semmelhack and Wang, 2009), suggesting that the behavioral circuit activated by inter-species interactions between S. cerevisiae and A. malorum is distinct from the circuit activated by apple cider vinegar.

We speculated that the emergent property of co-culture attractiveness might arise from a distinct metabolic profile of the co-culture. Using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS), we identified volatiles unique to or differentially produced in the co-culture compared to the separate-culture mixture. Five co-culture volatiles (ethanol, isobutanol, isoamyl alcohol, acetic acid, isoamyl acetate) were confirmed with standards (Table 1—source data 1 and 2) and quantified with standard curves (Table 1—source data 3 and 4). The alcohol concentrations were lower, and acetic acid and isoamyl acetate were unique in the co-culture relative to the other experimental groups (Table 1). The molecular profile was reminiscent of ethanol catabolism as the unique co-culture metabolic process. We therefore hypothesized that ethanol catabolism was the emergent metabolic process.

We next measured ethanol and acetic acid levels over time (24–156 hr) and compared the chemical dynamics to Drosophila preference. Consistent with a relationship between ethanol catabolism, acetic acid anabolism, and Drosophila attraction, the dynamics of Drosophila co-culture preference mirrored ethanol depression and acetic acid accumulation in the co-culture (Figure 4A). Furthermore, as ethanol catabolism and acetic acid anabolism proceeded (36–96 hr), Drosophila attraction toward the co-culture increased until 96 hr, at which point it decreased, consistent with lower turnover of ethanol at the end of ethanol catabolism (Figure 4A, black line).

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 4—source data 1

Raw spectral abundance data associated with metabolites graphed in Figure 4A.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.024

Download elife-18855-fig4-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 4—source data 2

Raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 4B.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.025

Download elife-18855-fig4-data2-v2.xlsx

Figure 4—source data 3

Raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 4C.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.026

Download elife-18855-fig4-data3-v2.xlsx

We hypothesized that Drosophila preferred the community during peak ethanol turnover (e.g. co-cultures at ~72 hr of growth) compared with the community during pre-ethanol catabolism (e.g. co-culture at ~36 hr of growth) or during late-stage ethanol catabolism, in which ethanol turnover is low (e.g. co-culture at ~144 hr of growth; Figure 4A). Consistent with our hypothesis, Drosophila preferred the co-culture in the middle stage of ethanol catabolism to earlier or later stages of ethanol catabolism (Figure 4B). To test directly whether ethanol catabolism underpinned Drosophila co-culture preference, we evaluated Drosophila preference for the co-culture harboring a mutant in adhA, which encodes pyrroloquinoline quinone-dependent alcohol dehydrogenase (PQQ-ADH-I), the enzyme that converts yeast-derived ethanol into acetaldehyde on path to acetic acid (Shin et al., 2011). Co-cultures using either A. malorum or A. pomorum wild-type (WT) along with S. cerevisiae were equally attractive to Drosophila (Figure 4—figure supplement 1). Drosophila preferred the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT versus a separate-culture mixture; however, Drosophila did not prefer the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA versus a separate-culture mixture (Figure 4C). Moreover, Drosophila preferred the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT to the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA (Figure 4C). In sum, ethanol catabolism is necessary for Drosophila to discriminate between the co-culture and the separate-culture mixture.

We next identified additional metabolites unique to the co-culture using solid-phase microextraction gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (SPME GC-MS). Acetic acid, six acetate esters, an acetaldehyde metabolic derivative (acetoin), a putative acetaldehyde metabolic derivative (2,4,5-trimethyl-1,3-dioxolane), and two unknown metabolites were more abundant in the co-culture relative to the separate-culture mixture or co-culture with A. pomorum adhA (Table 2, Table 2—source data 1–6). To determine the molecular basis for Drosophila co-culture preference, select metabolites were added to the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA. Esters and acetic acid, but not esters alone, were sufficient to fully restore the attractiveness of the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA to the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT levels (Figure 4C).

Although acetate and its metabolic derivatives were sufficient for Drosophila co-culture preference, acetaldehyde is a reactive intermediate during ethanol catabolism whose metabolic derivatives might be increased in microbial communities compared with individual microbial cultures. Consistent with this idea, acetoin was moderately increased in the co-culture compared with the separate-culture mixture (Table 2—source data 1); strikingly, acetoin was increased ~27 fold in the tri-culture (S. cerevisiae, A. malorum, and L. plantarum) compared to the co-culture (Figure 5A,B, Figure 5—figure supplement 1) and was attractive to Drosophila (Figure 5C). In sum, emergent metabolites from two- and three-membered communities, including acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives, attract Drosophila.

Figure 5 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 5—source data 1

Extracted ion current for m/z 88.05 in Figure 5A.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.037

Download elife-18855-fig5-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 5—source data 2

Peak areas associated with acetoin for Figure 5B.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.038

Download elife-18855-fig5-data2-v2.xlsx

Figure 5—source data 3

Raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 5C.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.039

Download elife-18855-fig5-data3-v2.xlsx

To further investigate the potential role of acetaldehyde and its metabolic derivatives in Drosophila behavior, we performed a dose response in which acetaldehyde was added to the separate-culture mixture (Figure 6—figure supplement 1A) to evaluate its ability to induce attractiveness to co-culture levels. Even at the lowest tested levels, acetaldehyde supplementation stimulated the separate-culture mixture to attractiveness levels equal to the co-culture (Figure 6—figure supplement 1A). Three acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives—acetoin, 1,1-diethoxyethane (an acetal), and 2,3-butanedione—were sufficient to induce the attractiveness of the separate-culture mixture to levels equivalent to the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT using concentrations of each metabolite at or below the physiological concentration of acetoin found in the tri-culture (Figure 6—figure supplement 1B).

A pure metabolite mixture comprised of key metabolic groups produced by microbial communities and identified in this study (esters, acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives, alcohols, acid) attracted Drosophila similarly to the co-culture (Figure 6A,B). Interestingly, the acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives alone were sufficient to attract Drosophila similarly to the co-culture (Figure 6C). Moreover, removal of the acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives group alone reduced Drosophila attraction (Figure 6D). In sum, acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives are potent Drosophila attractants.

Figure 6 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 6—source data 1

Concentrations of mixtures and raw Drosophila preference data for Figure 6.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.043

Download elife-18855-fig6-data1-v2.xlsx

Overall, our results suggest that both esters and acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives are keystone microbial community metabolites that attract Drosophila. We next created a simple 9-metabolite mixture in water (containing only one acid, four esters, and four acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives) and measured Drosophila preference toward this mixture in relation to the yeast-acetic acid bacteria co-culture, the yeast-acetic acid bacteria-lactic acid bacteria microbial community, or apple cider vinegar (ACV). The defined mixture used concentrations for each acetaldehyde metabolic derivative similar to the concentration of acetoin in the tri-culture and ester and acid concentrations that were in the range detected in the co-culture. The defined 9-metabolite mixture was more attractive than all other conditions (Figure 6—figure supplement 2). In sum, acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives and esters are potent Drosophila attractants whose detection may signal the presence of actively metabolizing, multispecies microbial communities.

We hypothesized that Drosophila preference for communities during peak ethanol turnover reflected fitness benefits derived from ingesting metabolites associated with different staged communities. To test this hypothesis, we measured adult Drosophila survival when given ethanol and acetic acid concentrations characteristic of microbial cultures at different stages of ethanol catabolism. Adult Drosophila survival was highest when given metabolites associated with middle-staged ethanol catabolism compared with pre- or end-stage ethanol catabolism (Figure 7—figure supplement 1A). In sum, Drosophila preference provides benefits associated with consumption of microbial community-generated metabolites.

Next, we explored the relationship between Drosophila attraction and egg-laying preference. Drosophila preferred to lay eggs in the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT to the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA (Figure 7A). Therefore, we predicted that Drosophila larvae would develop more quickly in the wild-type condition than the adhA condition. In contrast, we found that larvae develop more slowly when consuming the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT compared with the co-culture containing A. pomomrum adhA (Figure 7B). This result may be explained by the fact that A. pomorum WT kills the nutritious yeast cells, whereas the A. pomorum adhA mutant does not (Figure 7—figure supplement 1B). Given the role of yeast in Drosophila development (Becher et al., 2012) the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA, which supports yeast populations, may be more nutritive for developing Drosophila larvae than the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT.

Figure 7 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Figure 7—source data 1

Raw Drosophila egg-laying preference data for Figure 7A.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.049

Download elife-18855-fig7-data1-v2.xlsx

Figure 7—source data 2

Raw developmental data for Figure 7B,C,E,F.

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.18855.050

Download elife-18855-fig7-data2-v2.xlsx

Another potential selective pressure on the choice of egg-laying sites is the presence of pathogens and parasites. The presence of parasitoid wasps increases Drosophila egg deposition in high ethanol concentration sites, which are protective to larvae (Rollero et al., 2015). Drosophila also avoids laying eggs in habitats containing pathogenic molds by detecting geosmin (Stensmyr et al., 2012). Additionally, acetic acid, a unique metabolite in the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT, inhibits phytopathogenic fungi (Kang et al., 2003). To test whether the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT protects developing larvae from environmental fungi, we allowed Drosophila to lay eggs in co-culture containing S. cerevisiae and either A. pomorum WT or A. pomorum adhA and quantified the total number of eggs, pupae, and adults. We found that Drosophila laid significantly more eggs in the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT than the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA (Figure 7C). Following open-air exposure to environmental microbes, unidentified fungi grew on the co-cultures containing A. pomorum adhA, but did not grow on the co-cultures containing A. pomorum WT (Figure 7D). Furthermore, more pupae and adults survived in the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT compared to the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA (Figure 7E,F). In sum, Drosophila egg-laying preference in the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT may reflect an underlying benefit in fungal pathogen defense.

Here, we have demonstrated how emergent properties of a microbial community—volatile profile, population dynamics, and pH—influence Drosophila attraction, survival, and egg-laying behaviors. Our study is the first to identify the consequences of microbe-microbe metabolic exchange on animal behavior and discovers additional microbial interactions that attract Drosophila for further mechanistic study (Figure 1D).

Microbe-microbe metabolic exchange generates unique and quantitatively different volatiles from those resulting from individual microbial metabolism (Table 1 and 2, Figure 8). Acetobacter-generated acetate coupled to Saccharomyces-derived alcohols spawn diverse acetate esters (Table 1 and 2). We hypothesize that more complex and diverse communities, comprising alcohol-producing yeasts, acetate-producing Acetobacter, and lactate-producing Lactobacillus, will generate a wider array of attractive esters (Figure 8). The community of S. cerevisiae, A. malorum, and L. plantarum emitted higher levels of acetoin and attracted Drosophila more strongly than the co-culture of S. cerevisiae and A. malorum (Figure 1D, Figure 5). Acetoin and 2,3-butanedione are formed by an α-acetolactate intermediate in bacteria and directly from acetaldehyde in yeast (Chuang et al., 1968). We therefore hypothesize that communities of yeasts and bacteria may emit high levels of attractive acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives (Figure 8).

Figure 8

Download asset Open asset

Previous studies have found that yeasts alone can produce esters in high concentrations (Becher et al., 2012; Christiaens et al., 2014; Schiabor et al., 2014). In this study, we found that S. cerevisiae produced low quantities of esters when grown alone. One explanation for the low ester production is that in contrast to previous studies that have used more complex media, we used an apple juice medium that is much lower in nitrogen content. Nitrogen content positively correlates with the yeast ester production (Becher et al., 2012; Rollero et al., 2015). Our results suggest that environmental nitrogen availability might predict microbial ester production and Drosophila attraction. In high nitrogen environments, yeasts likely produce ester compounds and strongly attract Drosophila. However, in low nitrogen environments Acetobacter may be responsible for ester production and Drosophila attraction; Acetobacter may be capable of producing esters in low nitrogen conditions or may generate locally high nitrogen environments by assimilating nitrogen from yeast killed by its production of acetic acid. Future work should determine the relationship in wild fruit fermentations between nitrogen content and ester production by yeasts and bacteria.

Drosophila behavioral studies have mostly focused on yeasts. Yeasts attract Drosophila and are the preferred substrate for Drosophila to lay eggs (Becher et al., 2012). However, we find that Drosophila attraction toward the co-culture increases as yeast viability declines (Figure 2). One reason why Drosophila might be attracted to the co-culture as yeast populations decline is that yeasts provide essential nutrients. As such, the lysis of viable yeast by Acetobacter may benefit Drosophila through the liberation of nutrients. An alternative explanation is that in their interaction with Drosophila, Acetobacter may have benefited by evolving to produce esters that in other contexts (e.g. high nitrogen environments) are produced by yeasts. The contribution of Drosophila-associated bacteria to Drosophila behavior is not as well understood as yeasts (Venu et al., 2014). Our results suggest that non-yeast microorganisms, especially when grown in microbial communities, affect Drosophila behaviors. We reason that additional studies that couple chemical microbial ecology with Drosophila behavior will herald the discovery of additional microbe-influenced behaviors and microbial community-generated metabolites.

This study demonstrates the coordination of ethanol synthesis and catabolism by S. cerevisiae and Acetobacter, respectively, and the role of ethanol in Drosophila behavior and survival. Non-Saccharomyces Drosophila microbiome members also make ethanol (Ruyters et al., 2015) and diverse acetic acid bacteria catabolize ethanol, generalizing our findings to other microbial community combinations. Ethanol can have deleterious or beneficial fitness consequences for Drosophila depending on concentration (Ranganathan et al., 1987; Azanchi et al., 2013) and ecological context (Kacsoh et al., 2013). Our results are consistent with Drosophila using products of inter-species microbiome metabolism to detect a community that titrates ethanol concentration optimally for the host. Work that further dissects the consequences of acetic acid and ethanol concentrations on Drosophila biology and investigates other community-level metabolic profiles will be of interest to enrich the chemical and ecological portrait of the Drosophila microbiome.

Drosophila egg-laying preference for the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT may provide a fitness tradeoff for the host. On the one hand, we observed that juice agar plates inoculated with the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT had fewer viable yeast cells and larvae developed more slowly, likely due to the lower vital nutrients (e.g. protein, vitamins) than would be available in the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA. On the other hand, when exposed to environmental microbes, juice agar plates inoculated with the co-culture containing A. pomorum WT were not invaded by fungi, whereas the co-culture containing A. pomorum adhA was susceptible to fungal growth. This suggests that in more natural conditions the catabolism of ethanol into acetic acid, which delays larval development in the microbial community studied here (e.g. in a community with S. cerevisiae), ultimately has a protective effect. Whether this is due to a direct elimination of pathogens or instead indirectly limits fungal competition, as has been shown for dietary yeasts and Aspergillus sp. (Rohlfs and Kürschner, 2010) is unknown. Future work that more thoroughly dissects the Drosophila fitness tradeoffs that result from its association with different microbiomes is of interest.

Our work raises questions about the consequences of the observed behavior on microbiome assembly and stability in the Drosophila intestine. Drosophila possesses specific and regionalized gut immune responses to the microbiome (Lhocine et al., 2008; Ryu et al., 2008; Paredes et al., 2011; Costechareyre et al., 2016) implying a tolerant environment in which privileged microbiome members are maintained and reproduce in the Drosophila intestine. Other work suggests that Drosophila acquires its adult microbiome from exogenous sources, that adult microbiome abundance drops without continuous ingestion of exogenous microorganisms, and that the microbiome can be shaped by diet (Chandler et al., 2011; Blum et al., 2013; Broderick et al., 2014). As such, a combination of internal mechanisms, exogenous factors, and host behavior likely sculpt the microbiome; determining the relative contribution of each will be important moving forward. Complicating our understanding of the contribution of these factors is the opaque distinction between ‘microbiome’ and ‘food’, since both are ingested from the environment (Broderick, 2016). To dissect the formation and stability of the Drosophila microbiome, the fate of ingested microorganisms needs to be monitored and microbial intestinal replication needs to be surveyed as a function of Drosophila behavior, age, immune status, microbiome membership, and nutritional state [e.g. using synthetic diets without yeast; (Shin et al., 2011; Piper et al., 2014)].

In sum, our results support a model in which the Drosophila olfactory system is tuned to fruity (e.g., esters) and buttery (several acetaldehyde metabolic derivatives, such as 2,3-butanedione) smelling metabolites promoted by microbe-microbe interactions. We anticipate that accounting for microbial interactions in diverse host-microbe studies will lead to new insights into diverse aspects of microbial-animal symbioses.

1. 1. Fischer
   2. CN
   3. E Trautman
   4. JM Crawford
   5. EV Stabb
   6. NA Broderick
   7. J Handelsman

   (2016) Data from: Metabolite exchange within the microbiome produces compounds that influence Drosophila behavior

   Publicly available at Figshare (https://figshare.com).

   https://figshare.com/projects/Metabolite_exchange_within_the_microbiome_produces_compounds_that_influence_Drosophila_behavior/4735

1. 1. Abu-Goukh A-BA
   2. Bashir HA

   (2003) Changes in pectic enzymes and cellulase activity during guava fruit ripening

   Food Chemistry 83:213–218.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/S0308-8146(03)00067-0

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Abuin L
   2. Bargeton B
   3. Ulbrich MH
   4. Isacoff EY
   5. Kellenberger S
   6. Benton R

   (2011) Functional architecture of olfactory ionotropic glutamate receptors

   Neuron 69:44–60.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.042

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Ai M
   2. Min S
   3. Grosjean Y
   4. Leblanc C
   5. Bell R
   6. Benton R
   7. Suh GS
   8. Gsb S

   (2010) Acid sensing by the Drosophila olfactory system

   Nature 468:691–695.

   https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09537

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Anagnostou C
   2. Dorsch M
   3. Rohlfs M

   (2010) Influence of dietary yeasts on Drosophila melanogaster life-history traits

   Entomologia Experimentalis Et Applicata 136:1–11.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1570-7458.2010.00997.x

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Asahina K
   2. Louis M
   3. Piccinotti S
   4. Vosshall LB

   (2009) A circuit supporting concentration-invariant odor perception in Drosophila

   Journal of Biology 8:9–19.

   https://doi.org/10.1186/jbiol108

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Azanchi R
   2. Kaun KR
   3. Heberlein U

   (2013) Competing dopamine neurons drive oviposition choice for ethanol in Drosophila

   PNAS 110:21153–21158.

   https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320208110

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Barata A
   2. Malfeito-Ferreira M
   3. Loureiro V

   (2012) The microbial ecology of wine grape berries

   International Journal of Food Microbiology 153:243–259.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.11.025

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Barbe JC
   2. De Revel G
   3. Joyeux A
   4. Bertrand A
   5. Lonvaud-Funel A

   (2001) Role of botrytized grape micro-organisms in SO2 binding phenomena

   Journal of Applied Microbiology 90:34–42.

   https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01200.x

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Becher PG
   2. Flick G
   3. Rozpędowska E
   4. Schmidt A
   5. Hagman A
   6. Lebreton S
   7. Larsson MC
   8. Hansson BS
   9. Piškur J
   10. Witzgall P
   11. Bengtsson M

   (2012) Yeast, not fruit volatiles mediate Drosophila melanogaster attraction, oviposition and development

   Functional Ecology 26:822–828.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2012.02006.x

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Blum JE
    2. Fischer CN
    3. Miles J
    4. Handelsman J

    (2013) Frequent replenishment sustains the beneficial microbiome of Drosophila melanogaster

    mBio 4:e00860–13.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.00860-13

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Bravo JA
    2. Forsythe P
    3. Chew MV
    4. Escaravage E
    5. Savignac HM
    6. Dinan TG
    7. Bienenstock J
    8. Cryan JF

    (2011) Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve

    PNAS 108:16050–16055.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102999108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Broderick NA
    2. Buchon N
    3. Lemaitre B

    (2014) Microbiota-induced changes in drosophila melanogaster host gene expression and gut morphology

    mBio 5:e01117–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01117-14

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Broderick NA
    2. Lemaitre B

    (2012) Gut-associated microbes of Drosophila melanogaster

    Gut Microbes 3:307–321.

    https://doi.org/10.4161/gmic.19896

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Broderick NA

    (2016) Friend, foe or food? Recognition and the role of antimicrobial peptides in gut immunity and Drosophila –microbe interactions

    Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 371:20150295.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2015.0295

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Buchon N
    2. Broderick NA
    3. Chakrabarti S
    4. Lemaitre B

    (2009) Invasive and indigenous microbiota impact intestinal stem cell activity through multiple pathways in Drosophila

    Genes & Development 23:2333–2344.

    https://doi.org/10.1101/gad.1827009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Callejón RM
    2. González AG
    3. Troncoso AM
    4. Morales ML

    (2008) Optimization and validation of headspace sorptive extraction for the analysis of volatile compounds in wine vinegars

    Journal of Chromatography A 1204:93–103.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2008.07.064

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Camargo R
    2. Phaff HJ

    (1957) Yeasts occurring in drosophila flies and in fermenting tomato fruits in northern California

    Journal of Food Science 22:367–372.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1957.tb17024.x

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Chandler JA
    2. Eisen JA
    3. Kopp A

    (2012) Yeast communities of diverse Drosophila species: comparison of two symbiont groups in the same hosts

    Applied and Environmental Microbiology 78:7327–7336.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01741-12

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Chandler JA
    2. Lang JM
    3. Bhatnagar S
    4. Eisen JA
    5. Kopp A

    (2011) Bacterial communities of diverse Drosophila species: ecological context of a host-microbe model system

    PLoS Genetics 7:e1002272.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002272

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Christiaens JF
    2. Franco LM
    3. Cools TL
    4. De Meester L
    5. Michiels J
    6. Wenseleers T
    7. Hassan BA
    8. Yaksi E
    9. Verstrepen KJ

    (2014) The fungal aroma gene ATF1 promotes dispersal of yeast cells through insect vectors

    Cell Reports 9:425–432.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.celrep.2014.09.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Chuang LF
    2. Collins EB

    (1968)

    Biosynthesis of diacetyl in bacteria and yeast

    Journal of Bacteriology 95:2083–2089.

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Costechareyre D
    2. Capo F
    3. Fabre A
    4. Chaduli D
    5. Kellenberger C
    6. Roussel A
    7. Charroux B
    8. Royet J

    (2016) Tissue-Specific regulation of Drosophila NF-x03BA;B pathway activation by peptidoglycan recognition protein SC

    Journal of Innate Immunity 8:67–80.

    https://doi.org/10.1159/000437368

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Costello EK
    2. Lauber CL
    3. Hamady M
    4. Fierer N
    5. Gordon JI
    6. Knight R

    (2009) Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time

    Science 326:1694–1697.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177486

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Degnan PH
    2. Taga ME
    3. Goodman AL

    (2014) Vitamin B12 as a modulator of gut microbial ecology

    Cell Metabolism 20:769–778.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2014.10.002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Derewacz DK
    2. Covington BC
    3. McLean JA
    4. Bachmann BO

    (2015) Mapping microbial response metabolomes for induced natural product discovery

    ACS Chemical Biology 10:1998–2006.

    https://doi.org/10.1021/acschembio.5b00001

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. El-Zoghbi M

    (1994) Biochemical changes in some tropical fruits during ripening

    Food Chemistry 49:33–37.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-8146(94)90229-1

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Erkosar B
    2. Storelli G
    3. Defaye A
    4. Leulier F

    (2013) Host-intestinal microbiota mutualism: "learning on the fly"

    Cell Host & Microbe 13:8–14.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2012.12.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Fraune S
    2. Anton-Erxleben F
    3. Augustin R
    4. Franzenburg S
    5. Knop M
    6. Schröder K
    7. Willoweit-Ohl D
    8. Bosch TC

    (2015) Bacteria-bacteria interactions within the microbiota of the ancestral metazoan Hydra contribute to fungal resistance

    The ISME Journal 9:1543–1556.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2014.239

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Gerber GK

    (2014) The dynamic microbiome

    FEBS Letters 588:4131–4139.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2014.02.037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Goh EB
    2. Yim G
    3. Tsui W
    4. McClure J
    5. Surette MG
    6. Davies J

    (2002) Transcriptional modulation of bacterial gene expression by subinhibitory concentrations of antibiotics

    PNAS 99:17025–17030.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.252607699

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Gonzalez A
    2. King A
    3. Robeson MS
    4. Song S
    5. Shade A
    6. Metcalf JL
    7. Knight R

    (2012) Characterizing microbial communities through space and time

    Current Opinion in Biotechnology 23:431–436.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2011.11.017

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Hallem EA
    2. Carlson JR

    (2006) Coding of odors by a receptor repertoire

    Cell 125:143–160.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2006.01.050

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Ivanov II
    2. Atarashi K
    3. Manel N
    4. Brodie EL
    5. Shima T
    6. Karaoz U
    7. Wei D
    8. Goldfarb KC
    9. Santee CA
    10. Lynch SV
    11. Tanoue T
    12. Imaoka A
    13. Itoh K
    14. Takeda K
    15. Umesaki Y
    16. Honda K
    17. Littman DR

    (2009) Induction of intestinal Th17 cells by segmented filamentous bacteria

    Cell 139:485–498.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.09.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Jarosz DF
    2. Brown JC
    3. Walker GA
    4. Datta MS
    5. Ung WL
    6. Lancaster AK
    7. Rotem A
    8. Chang A
    9. Newby GA
    10. Weitz DA
    11. Bisson LF
    12. Lindquist S

    (2014) Cross-kingdom chemical communication drives a heritable, mutually beneficial prion-based transformation of metabolism

    Cell 158:1083–1093.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2014.07.025

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Joseph RM
    2. Devineni AV
    3. King IF
    4. Heberlein U

    (2009) Oviposition preference for and positional avoidance of acetic acid provide a model for competing behavioral drives in Drosophila

    PNAS 106:11352–11357.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0901419106

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Kacsoh BZ
    2. Lynch ZR
    3. Mortimer NT
    4. Schlenke TA

    (2013) Fruit flies medicate offspring after seeing parasites

    Science 339:947–950.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1229625

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Kang HC
    2. Park YH
    3. Go SJ
    4. S-j G

    (2003) Growth inhibition of a phytopathogenic fungus, Colletotrichum species by acetic acid

    Microbiological Research 158:321–326.

    https://doi.org/10.1078/0944-5013-00211

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Larsson MC
    2. Domingos AI
    3. Jones WD
    4. Chiappe ME
    5. Amrein H
    6. Vosshall LB

    (2004) Or83b encodes a broadly expressed odorant receptor essential for Drosophila olfaction

    Neuron 43:703–714.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2004.08.019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Lhocine N
    2. Ribeiro PS
    3. Buchon N
    4. Wepf A
    5. Wilson R
    6. Tenev T
    7. Lemaitre B
    8. Gstaiger M
    9. Meier P
    10. Leulier F

    (2008) PIMS modulates immune tolerance by negatively regulating Drosophila innate immune signaling

    Cell Host & Microbe 4:147–158.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2008.07.004

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Manor O
    2. Levy R
    3. Borenstein E

    (2014) Mapping the inner workings of the microbiome: genomic- and metagenomic-based study of metabolism and metabolic interactions in the human microbiome

    Cell Metabolism 20:742–752.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2014.07.021

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Mao WW
    2. Kinsella JE

    (1981) Amylase activity in banana fruit: Properties and changes in activity with ripening

    Journal of Food Science 46:1400–1403.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1981.tb04183.x

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Mathew D
    2. Martelli C
    3. Kelley-Swift E
    4. Brusalis C
    5. Gershow M
    6. Samuel AD
    7. Emonet T
    8. Carlson JR

    (2013) Functional diversity among sensory receptors in a Drosophila olfactory circuit

    PNAS 110:E2134–2143.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1306976110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. McFall-Ngai M
    2. Hadfield MG
    3. Bosch TC
    4. Carey HV
    5. Domazet-Lošo T
    6. Douglas AE
    7. Dubilier N
    8. Eberl G
    9. Fukami T
    10. Gilbert SF
    11. Hentschel U
    12. King N
    13. Kjelleberg S
    14. Knoll AH
    15. Kremer N
    16. Mazmanian SK
    17. Metcalf JL
    18. Nealson K
    19. Pierce NE
    20. Rawls JF
    21. Reid A
    22. Ruby EG
    23. Rumpho M
    24. Sanders JG
    25. Tautz D
    26. Wernegreen JJ

    (2013) Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences

    PNAS 110:3229–3236.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218525110

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Newell PD
    2. Douglas AE

    (2014) Interspecies interactions determine the impact of the gut microbiota on nutrient allocation in Drosophila melanogaster

    Applied and Environmental Microbiology 80:788–796.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02742-13

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Palanca L
    2. Gaskett AC
    3. Günther CS
    4. Newcomb RD
    5. Goddard MR

    (2013) Quantifying variation in the ability of yeasts to attract drosophila melanogaster

    PLoS One 8:e75332.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075332

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Paredes JC
    2. Welchman DP
    3. Poidevin M
    4. Lemaitre B

    (2011) Negative regulation by amidase PGRPs shapes the Drosophila antibacterial response and protects the fly from innocuous infection

    Immunity 35:770–779.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2011.09.018

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Piper MD
    2. Blanc E
    3. Leitão-Gonçalves R
    4. Yang M
    5. He X
    6. Linford NJ
    7. Hoddinott MP
    8. Hopfen C
    9. Soultoukis GA
    10. Niemeyer C
    11. Kerr F
    12. Pletcher SD
    13. Ribeiro C
    14. Partridge L

    (2014) A holidic medium for Drosophila melanogaster

    Nature Methods 11:100–105.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2731

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Poulsen M
    2. Hu H
    3. Li C
    4. Chen Z
    5. Xu L
    6. Otani S
    7. Nygaard S
    8. Nobre T
    9. Klaubauf S
    10. Schindler PM
    11. Hauser F
    12. Pan H
    13. Yang Z
    14. Sonnenberg AS
    15. de Beer ZW
    16. Zhang Y
    17. Wingfield MJ
    18. Grimmelikhuijzen CJ
    19. de Vries RP
    20. Korb J
    21. Aanen DK
    22. Wang J
    23. Boomsma JJ
    24. Zhang G
    25. Li C CZ

    (2014) Complementary symbiont contributions to plant decomposition in a fungus-farming termite

    PNAS 111:14500–14505.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1319718111

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Rakoff-Nahoum S
    2. Coyne MJ
    3. Comstock LE

    (2014) An ecological network of polysaccharide utilization among human intestinal symbionts

    Current Biology 24:40–49.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2013.10.077

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Rakoff-Nahoum S
    2. Foster KR
    3. Comstock LE

    (2016) The evolution of cooperation within the gut microbiota

    Nature 533:255–259.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature17626

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Ranganathan S
    2. Davis DG
    3. Hood RD

    (1987) Developmental toxicity of ethanol in Drosophila melanogaster

    Teratology 36:45–49.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/tera.1420360107

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Rath CM
    2. Dorrestein PC

    (2012) The bacterial chemical repertoire mediates metabolic exchange within gut microbiomes

    Current Opinion in Microbiology 15:147–154.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2011.12.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Ridaura VK
    2. Faith JJ
    3. Rey FE
    4. Cheng J
    5. Duncan AE
    6. Kau AL
    7. Griffin NW
    8. Lombard V
    9. Henrissat B
    10. Bain JR
    11. Muehlbauer MJ
    12. Ilkayeva O
    13. Semenkovich CF
    14. Funai K
    15. Hayashi DK
    16. Lyle BJ
    17. Martini MC
    18. Ursell LK
    19. Clemente JC
    20. Van Treuren W
    21. Walters WA
    22. Knight R
    23. Newgard CB
    24. Heath AC
    25. Gordon JI

    (2013) Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice

    Science 341:1241214.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1241214

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Rohlfs M
    2. Kürschner L

    (2009) Saprophagous insect larvae, Drosophila melanogaster , profit from increased species richness in beneficial microbes

    Journal of Applied Entomology 134:667–671.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0418.2009.01458.x

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Rollero S
    2. Bloem A
    3. Camarasa C
    4. Sanchez I
    5. Ortiz-Julien A
    6. Sablayrolles JM
    7. Dequin S
    8. Mouret JR

    (2015) Combined effects of nutrients and temperature on the production of fermentative aromas by saccharomyces cerevisiae during wine fermentation

    Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 99:2291–2304.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-014-6210-9

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Ruyters S
    2. Mukherjee V
    3. Verstrepen KJ
    4. Thevelein JM
    5. Willems KA
    6. Lievens B

    (2015) Assessing the potential of wild yeasts for bioethanol production

    Journal of Industrial Microbiology & Biotechnology 42:39–48.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10295-014-1544-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
57. 1. Ryu JH
    2. Kim SH
    3. Lee HY
    4. Bai JY
    5. Nam YD
    6. Bae JW
    7. Lee DG
    8. Shin SC
    9. Ha EM
    10. Lee WJ

    (2008) Innate immune homeostasis by the homeobox gene caudal and commensal-gut mutualism in Drosophila

    Science 319:777–782.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1149357

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Schiabor KM
    2. Quan AS
    3. Eisen MB

    (2014) Saccharomyces cerevisiae mitochondria are required for optimal attractiveness to Drosophila melanogaster

    PLoS One 9:e113899.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113899

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Semmelhack JL
    2. Wang JW

    (2009) Select Drosophila glomeruli mediate innate olfactory attraction and aversion

    Nature 459:218–223.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07983

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
60. 1. Shin SC
    2. Kim SH
    3. You H
    4. Kim B
    5. Kim AC
    6. Lee KA
    7. Yoon JH
    8. Ryu JH
    9. Lee WJ

    (2011) Drosophila microbiome modulates host developmental and metabolic homeostasis via insulin signaling

    Science 334:670–674.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212782

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Staubach F
    2. Baines JF
    3. Künzel S
    4. Bik EM
    5. Petrov DA

    (2013) Host species and environmental effects on bacterial communities associated with Drosophila in the laboratory and in the natural environment

    PLoS One 8:e70749.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0070749

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Stensmyr MC
    2. Dweck HK
    3. Farhan A
    4. Ibba I
    5. Strutz A
    6. Mukunda L
    7. Linz J
    8. Grabe V
    9. Steck K
    10. Lavista-Llanos S
    11. Wicher D
    12. Sachse S
    13. Knaden M
    14. Becher PG
    15. Seki Y
    16. Hansson BS

    (2012) A conserved dedicated olfactory circuit for detecting harmful microbes in Drosophila

    Cell 151:1345–1357.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.09.046

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
63. 1. Storelli G
    2. Defaye A
    3. Erkosar B
    4. Hols P
    5. Royet J
    6. Leulier F

    (2011) Lactobacillus plantarum promotes Drosophila systemic growth by modulating hormonal signals through TOR-dependent nutrient sensing

    Cell Metabolism 14:403–414.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2011.07.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
64. 1. Stökl J
    2. Strutz A
    3. Dafni A
    4. Svatos A
    5. Doubsky J
    6. Knaden M
    7. Sachse S
    8. Hansson BS
    9. Stensmyr MC

    (2010) A deceptive pollination system targeting drosophilids through olfactory mimicry of yeast

    Current Biology 20:1846–1852.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.09.033

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
65. 1. Turner SL
    2. Ray A

    (2009) Modification of CO2 avoidance behaviour in Drosophila by inhibitory odorants

    Nature 461:277–281.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08295

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
66. 1. van Nood E
    2. Vrieze A
    3. Nieuwdorp M
    4. Fuentes S
    5. Zoetendal EG
    6. de Vos WM
    7. Visser CE
    8. Kuijper EJ
    9. Bartelsman JF
    10. Tijssen JG
    11. Speelman P
    12. Dijkgraaf MG
    13. Keller JJ

    (2013) Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile

    New England Journal of Medicine 368:407–415.

    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1205037

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
67. 1. Venu I
    2. Durisko Z
    3. Xu J
    4. Dukas R

    (2014) Social attraction mediated by fruit flies' microbiome

    Journal of Experimental Biology 217:1346–1352.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.099648

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
68. 1. Wong AC
    2. Dobson AJ
    3. Douglas AE

    (2014) Gut microbiota dictates the metabolic response of Drosophila to diet

    Journal of Experimental Biology 217:1894–1901.

    https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.101725

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
69. 1. Wong CN
    2. Ng P
    3. Douglas AE

    (2011) Low-diversity bacterial community in the gut of the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster

    Environmental Microbiology 13:1889–1900.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2011.02511.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
70. 1. Xiao Z
    2. Dai S
    3. Niu Y
    4. Yu H
    5. Zhu J
    6. Tian H
    7. Gu Y

    (2011) Discrimination of Chinese vinegars based on headspace solid-phase microextraction-gas chromatography mass spectrometry of volatile compounds and multivariate analysis

    Journal of Food Science 76:C1125–C1135.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02356.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
71. 1. Zhu L
    2. Wu Q
    3. Dai J
    4. Zhang S
    5. Wei F

    (2011) Evidence of cellulose metabolism by the giant panda gut microbiome

    PNAS 108:17714–17719.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017956108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Caleb N Fischer

   Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States

   Present address

   Department of Chemistry, Vanderbilt University, Stevenson Center, Nashville, United States

   Contribution

   CNF, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-4223-8511

2. Eric P Trautman

   Department of Chemistry, Yale University, New Haven, United States

   Contribution

   EPT, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. Jason M Crawford

   Department of Chemistry, Yale University, New Haven, United States

   Contribution

   JMC, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7583-1242

4. Eric V Stabb

   Department of Microbiology, University of Georgia, Athens, United States

   Contribution

   EVS, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

5. Jo Handelsman

   Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States

   Contribution

   JH, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

6. Nichole A Broderick

   1. Department of Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology, Yale University, New Haven, United States
   2. Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, United States
   3. Institute for Systems Genomics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, United States

   Contribution

   NAB, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   nichole.broderick@uconn.edu

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6830-9456

• 6,421

  views

• 1,240

  downloads

• 143

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.