Next Article in Journal
SfDicer2 RNA Interference Inhibits Molting and Wing Expansion in Sogatella furcifera
Previous Article in Journal
Natural and Synthetic Pyrethrins Act as Feeding Deterrents against the Black Blowfly, Phormia regina (Meigen)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Inhibition of Zoonotic Pathogens Naturally Found in Pig Manure by Black Soldier Fly Larvae and Their Intestine Bacteria
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/insects13080680
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Bacteriota and Antibiotic Resistance in Spiders

by
Miroslava Kačániová
1,2,*,
Margarita Terentjeva
3,
Przemysław Łukasz Kowalczewski
4,
Mária Babošová
5,
Jana Ivanič Porhajašová
5,
Wafaa M. Hikal
6,7 and
Mariia Fedoriak
8
1
Institute of Horticulture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 94976 Nitra, Slovakia
2
Department of Bioenergy, Food Technology and Microbiology, Institute of Food Technology and Nutrition, University of Rzeszow, 4 Zelwerowicza St., 35-601 Rzeszow, Poland
3
Institute of Food and Environmental Hygiene, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Latvia University of Life Sciences and Technologies, LV-3004 Jelgava, Latvia
4
Department of Food Technology of Plant Origin, Poznań University of Life Sciences, 31 Wojska Polskiego St., 60-624 Poznań, Poland
5
Institute of Plant and Environmental Sciences, Faculty of Agrobiology and Food Resources, Slovak University of Agriculture, Tr. A. Hlinku 2, 94976 Nitra, Slovakia
6
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, University of Tabuk, P.O. Box 741, Tabuk 71491, Saudi Arabia
7
Environmental Parasitology Laboratory, Water Pollution Research Department, Environment and Climate Change Institute, National Research Centre (NRC), 33 El–Behouth St., Dokki, Giza 12622, Egypt
8
Department of Ecology and Biomonitoring, Institute of Biology, Chemistry and Bioresources, Yuriy Fedkovych Chernivtsi National University, 2 Kotsyubynskyi Street, 58012 Chernivtsi, Ukraine
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2022, 13(8), 680; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13080680
Submission received: 4 July 2022 / Revised: 4 July 2022 / Accepted: 25 July 2022 / Published: 27 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Immunity and Host-Microbe Interactions in Insects)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The microbiomes of insects are known for having a great impact on their physiological properties for survival, such as nutrition, behavior, and health. In nature, spiders are one of the main insect predators, and their microbiomes have remained unclear yet. It is important to explore the microbiomes of spiders with the positive effect in the wild to gain an insight into the host–bacterial relationship. The insects have been the primary focus of microbiome studies from all arthropods. Although the research focused on the microbiome of spiders is still scarce, there is a possibility that spiders host diverse assemblages of bacteria, and some of them alter their physiology and behavior. According to our findings, there is a need for holistic microbiome studies across many organisms, which would increase our knowledge of the diversity and evolution of symbiotic relationships. Antimicrobial resistance is one of the most serious global public health threats in this century. Therefore, the knowledge and some information about insects and their ability to act as reservoirs of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms should be determined in order to ensure that they are not transferred to humans. It is important to monitor the microbiome of spiders found in human houses and the transmission of resistant microorganisms, which can be dangerous in relation to human health.

Abstract

Arthropods are reported to serve as vectors of transmission of pathogenic microorganisms to humans, animals, and the environment. The aims of our study were (i) to identify the external bacteriota of spiders inhabiting a chicken farm and slaughterhouse and (ii) to detect antimicrobial resistance of the isolates. In total, 102 spiders of 14 species were collected from a chicken farm, slaughterhouse, and buildings located in west Slovakia in 2017. Samples were diluted in peptone buffered water, and Tryptone Soya Agar (TSA), Triple Sugar Agar (TSI), Blood Agar (BA), and Anaerobic Agar (AA) were used for inoculation. A total of 28 genera and 56 microbial species were isolated from the samples. The most abundant species were Bacillus pumilus (28 isolates) and B. thuringensis (28 isolates). The least isolated species were Rhodotorula mucilaginosa (one isolate), Kocuria rhizophila (two isolates), Paenibacillus polymyxa (two isolates), and Staphylococcus equorum (two isolates). There were differences in microbial composition between the samples originating from the slaughterhouse, chicken farm, and buildings. The majority of the bacterial isolates resistant to antibiotics were isolated from the chicken farm. The isolation of potentially pathogenic bacteria such as Salmonella, Escherichia, and Salmonella spp., which possess multiple drug resistance, is of public health concern.

1. Introduction

Plants and animals are inhabited by specific microbial communities, which form specific ecosystems strongly associated with their hosts. Those communities function as diverse ecosystems where the interactions between the microbiota and their hosts are of importance [1,2,3,4]. These phenomena have been referred to as hologenomic adaptations, and microorganisms have been developing new properties as a result of the symbiosis between the microorganisms and the hosts [5,6,7].
The symbiotic bacteria were found to be gut-associated and were identified in the intestinal lumen or crypts where they participate in digestion by providing their host with nutrients. The ectosymbiotic bacteria may be present in mycangia or attached to the body surface and were found to fulfill the immunity functions. The gut microbiomes of insects were known to have a great impact on their physiological properties for survival, such as nutrition, behavior, and health. In nature, spiders are one of the main predators of insects, and yet their gut microbiomes remain unclear. It is important to explore the gut microbiomes of spiders in the wild to gain an insight into the host–bacterial relationship [8,9,10,11,12,13].
Spiders (Araneae) are the most common terrestrial predators and natural enemies of insects, with some of them being of agricultural importance as a part of biological pest control [14,15]. Previous studies have mostly focused on the symbionts and their impact on the spiders’ reproduction, while other studies evaluated the effects of social spider microbiota on their evolution [16]. Therefore, limited information on the bacteria inhabiting the external surface of the spider is available.
Microbiota of spiders has been associated with relatively low genetic diversity, and Chlamydiales, Borrelia, and Mycoplasma were the most abundant symbionts of social spiders [16]. High incidence of symbiotic Wolbachia, Rickettsia, Cardinium, and Spiroplasma in spiders were described previously [17,18,19]. Phylum Proteobacteria was dominant in the gut microbiota of three spider species, with Burkholderia being among the most abundant. Tenericutes, Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, Acidobacteria, and Bacteroidetes were found to inhabit the gut without particular reference to the feeding habits of spiders [20].
While the presence of symbiotic microorganisms in insects may significantly differ between species, environmental microorganisms may be occasionally isolated from spiders with subsequent contamination of body cavities. The presence of Staphylococcus spp. in body swaps and Staphylococcus aureus in excreta samples was identified in microbiota studies of Rabidosa rabida [21]. The presence of opportunistic pathogens such as Morganella, Providencia, Proteus, or Acinetobacter in insects indicates that spiders also may serve as a potential vector of different pathogens important for animal, human, and environmental health [22,23,24]. There are limited studies on the prevalence of potentially pathogenic microorganisms on studies, whilst spiders are among the frequent habitants of different premises. The role of insects in the transfer of different pathogens has been documented [25]. Therefore, studies on the exobacteriome are needed to explore the possible importance of spiders on the transmission of different microorganisms are needed.
Antimicrobial resistance is the main public health threat with human, animal, and environmental health affected. Antimicrobials and their residues may spread into the environment after application in humans or animals with contamination of different terrestrial and aquatic habitats [26]. Antibiotic resistance genes were found in the collembolan microbiome that has been linked to the presence of arthropod [27]. The ecology and chemistry of soil have been changing significantly as a response to the land use changes that possess an impact on the insects and their associated microbiome [28]. Since the microbiome of the arthropod may affect the nutrient cycle within the ecosystem by possibly being the carriers of antimicrobial resistance genes, there is a need to study the microbiota of the arthropod and its antimicrobial resistance.
The aim of this study was to study external bacteriota of spiders from the slaughterhouse, chicken farm, and buildings and to detect the antimicrobial resistance of isolated microorganisms.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample Preparation

A total of 102 spiders of 14 species were sampled in the present research from the slaughterhouse, buildings, and chicken farms in 2017 (Table 1).
The spiders were visually identified by microscopy. All spiders were all identified as nonendangered and nonprotected species (Table 1). The collected spiders were frozen at −20 °C for 1 min. A sample of external surfaces of each spider was obtained by transferring the spider into a sterile 2 mL micro centrifuge tube, and 1 mL of sterile 0.87% (w/v) NaCl was added. Then, a 100 µL of the sample was plated onto agars for detection of different bacterial groups.
Tripton Soya agar (TSA), Tripton Sugar Iron agar (TSI), Anaerobic agar (AA), and Blood agar (BA) supplemented with 7% of horse blood (Sigma-Aldrich®, St. Louis, MO, USA) were used for detection of the total microbial count, Enterobacteriales, anaerobic and fastidious microorganisms, respectively. Inoculated TSA was incubated at 30 °C for 24–48 h, TSI agar at 37 °C for 18–24 h and AA at 30 °C for 24–48 h and BA at 37 °C for 24–48 h. AA was incubated anaerobically while all other agars aerobically. After the assessment of microbial growth, eight bacterial colonies with different macroscopic characteristics were selected from each agar for species confirmation. Isolates were subcultured on TSA at 37 °C for 24 h and used for MALDI-TOF identification.

2.2. Identification of Microbiota

Identification of microbiota was performed with MALDI-TOF MS Biotyper (Bruker Daltoncs, Bremen, Germany). Samples were prepared for investigation according to MALDI TOF MS Biotyper manufacturer’s protocol. The bacterial suspension was prepared into 300 μL of distilled water and 900 µL and centrifuged for 2 min at 14,000 rpm. After the supernatant was discarded, centrifugation was repeated by adding 10 µL of 70% formic acid and 10 μL of acetonitrile were added to the pellet, which was centrifuged for 2 min at 14,000 rpm. Then, 1 μL of the supernatant was used for investigation, and the suspension was covered with a matrix, α-Cyano-4-hydroxycinnamic acid, in a volume of 1 μL. Identification was performed with Microflex LT (Bruker Daltonics, Bremen, Germany) instrument and Flex Control 3.4 software, and Biotyper Realtime Classification 3.1 with BC-specific software. Confidence scores of ≥2.0 and ≥1.7 were applied for identification at species and genus level, respectively.

2.3. Antimicrobial Resistance Testing

Antimicrobial susceptibility tests were detected by the disc diffusion method. Each isolated microbial species from each spider was tested for antibiotic resistance according to the EUCAST (2022). Antimicrobial resistance against imipenem (IPM), meropenem (MEM), ciprofloxacin (CIP), vancomycin (VA), linezolid (LZD), tobramycin (TOB), tigecycline (TGC), amikacin (AK), norfloxacin (NOR), tetracycline (TE), and rifampicin (RD) (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) was examined. The antimicrobial resistance testing results were evaluated in accordance with the EUCAST [29].
For detection of antimicrobial resistance, bacterial isolates were cultured in Muller Hinton broth (Sigma-Aldrich®, St. Louis, MO, USA) for at 37 °C 24 h and yeast in Sabouraud broth (Sigma-Aldrich®, St. Louis, MO, USA) at 25 °C for 24 h. After incubation, the microbial suspensions in sterile distilled water of concentration 105 cells/mL (A620 nm = 0.388, equivalent to a McFarland standard) were used for testing. Three replicates were tested for each isolated strain.

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Data analysis was conducted using R. For microbial counts, the mean and standard deviation (SD) were calculated, and t-test was used for calculation of significance of differences between the microbial counts in different spider species. p-values for evaluation of the significance of the results were p ≤ 0.05, p ≤ 0.01, and p ≤ 0.001.

3. Results

3.1. Qualitative Analysis of Isolated Microbiota from Spiders

The microbial counts identified in spiders are shown in Table 2. On Tryptone Soya agar (TSA), microbial counts ranged from 1.18 in S. bipunctata to 2.64 log cfu/g in S. castanea. On Triple Sugar Iron (TSI) agar, microbial counts were from 1.11 in T. domestica to 3.26 log cfu/g in P. lunata. On Blood agar (BA), microbial counts were from 1.18 in S. thoracica to 2.95 log cfu/g in M. ferruginea. On Anaerobic agar (AA), microbial counts ranged from 1.11 in S. bipunctata to 2.84 log cfu/g in M. ferruginea.

3.2. Isolated Microbial Genera and Microbial Species from Spider Specimens

Isolated genera and species are shown in Table 3. In total, 28 genera and 56 microbial species from spider specimens were isolated. The most abundant species were Bacillus pumilus (28 isolates) and B. thuringensis (28 isolates). The least isolated species were Rhodotorula mucilaginosa (one isolate), Kocuria rhizophila (two isolates), Paenibacillus polymyxa (two isolates), and Staphylococcus equorum (two isolates).
The composition of arthropod microbiota is shown in Figure 1. In total, 7 genera and 18 microbial species were isolated. The most abundant microbial genera were Bacillus (47.6%) and Staphylococcus (30.4%). For Bacillus spp., the most isolated species were B. cereus (12%) and B. licheniformis (11%), while for Staphylococcus spp. were St. epidermidis (7%) and St. hominis (7%).
The composition of the microbiota of arthropods isolated from the chicken farm is shown in Figure 2, with a total of 20 genera and 38 microbial species isolated. The most isolated genera were Staphylococcus (18.5%) and Bacillus (14.5%). The most isolated species were Actinomyces oris (6%), Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae (5%).
The microbial composition of arthropods microbiota in buildings is shown in Figure 3. In total, 7 genera and 13 microbial species were isolated. The most isolated genera were Bacillus (51.13%) and the most abundant species were B. mycoides (14%), B. alitudins, B. pumilus, and E. cloacae (11%).

3.3. Antibiotic Resistance of Isolated Microbial Species of Spiders

The antimicrobial resistance of isolated microorganisms from slaughterhouse is shown in Table 4. In total, 127 species isolated from the slaughterhouse were resistant to different antibiotics. Sensitivity to antibiotic resistance was found in 333 isolates.
Antibiotic resistance/sensitivity of microbiota isolated from the chicken farm is shown in Table 5. In total, 108 species isolated from the chicken farm were resistant to different antibiotics. Sensitivity to antibiotic resistance was found in 620 isolates.
Antibiotic resistance/sensitivity of microbiota isolated from buildings is shown in Table 6. In total, 114 species isolated from buildings were resistant to different antibiotics. Sensitivity to antibiotic resistance was found in 494 isolates.

4. Discussion

The microbiome of the individual animal is unique and reflects the life history and modulates behavior, the composition of the microbiota is essential in maintaining health and welfare [30,31,32]. Microbiota of arthropods was reported to be of importance in the dissemination of the pathogens of animals and human health importance and antimicrobial resistance genes. Reports on the isolation of the pathogens transferred by arthropods inhabiting premises for livestock and poultry production and the transfer of potentially virulent antimicrobial-resistant enterococci in pig operations confirm the importance of insects for maintenance of the pathogens and antimicrobial resistance genes within the agricultural environment [33]. This highlights the need for studies associated with arthropods microbiota and the heavily contaminated environment of the poultry farms, which is associated with a high stocking density of birds.
In the present study, the microbial counts were different for spider species and types of habitats. The microbial counts in our study were lower than in the study by Voloshyn et al. [34], who reported microbial counts of 3.18 log CFU/mL for Escherichia coli isolated from the surface of Lithobius sp. to 5.65 log CFU/mL for Pseudomonas aeruginosa isolated from the surface of Fannia sp.; also, the staphylococci were found to inhabiting the arthropods in high counts (3.91–5.61 log CFU/mL). Among the pathogenic bacteria, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumonia were isolated. Escherichia coli was the most common microorganism on the external surface of arthropods.
Keiser et al. [9] studied the dominant microbiota of social spiders in spider cuticula and found similar microbial composition between the spiders, webs, and preys that may indicate that spiders themselves may enhance microbial transmission. This may explain the similarities between the composition of bacteriota that were identified in the present study.
As for humans and animals, arthropods harbor large microbial communities, which may exceed the numbers of organism’s cells of their hosts [35,36]. Moreover, the microbiota of certain arthropods was found to be very diverse, with multiple microbial families represented [37]. Different microorganisms were shown to be inhabiting the digestive tract and/or salivary glands of arthropods; subsequently, this microbiota primary may interact with vector-borne pathogens and affect their lifecycle. A study by Zhang et al. [38] revealed the presence of four microbial phyla, including Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, Fungi, and Proteobacteria, which were identified in all spider species. Proteobacteria was the most abundant phylum, while a total of 28 families and 58 species were identified [38]. Differences in the composition of microbiota between the spiders regarding their ecology and behavior were non-significant, and the microbiome of solitary spiders was characterized by low diversity [38,39,40]. The current research on the microbiota of spiders provides knowledge on the microbial composition of arachnoids.
B. cereus, B. licheniformis, St. epidermidis, and St. hominis were the most abundant microbial species originating from the slaughterhouse, while A. oris, E. coli, and K. pneumoniae were the most abundant species found in chicken farm samples. B. mycoides, B. alitudins, B. pumilus, and E. cloacae were associated with spiders obtained from the buildings. The ecological niche is found to pose significant impact on the microbiota of spiders. Spiders are colonized with diverse microbiota, including pathogens from the surrounding environment and feed, especially on carrion insects. The immune system of arthropods protects them against infections with pathogenic microorganisms [41,42,43]. Once their tissues are damaged, the microbiota may overcome external barrier and enter the deeper layer of tissues [44]. Thus, the spiders may acquire the pathogens from the surrounding environment and distribute them as a mechanical vector [45,46]. The composition of microbial communities differs between sites of the arachnoides. Bacillus spp. were not recovered from spider walks in contrast to body cavities such as the abdomen, while only Kluyvera and Staphylococcus spp. were isolated from spider walks. Diverse microbial communities on the chelicerae were reported to be the most and include Pseudomonas, Rothia, Streptococcus, and Staphylococcus spp. [47]. Staphylococcus spp. were recovered from S. nobilis, A. similis, and E. atrica with staphylococci species were recovered from S. nobilis. Among isolated species, some may pose public and environmental health implications. S. epidermidis is reported to cause severe conditions in susceptible individuals with clinical manifestations including bacteremia and septicemia, urinary tract infections, and endocarditis. Contamination of medicinal equipment may result in nosocomial sepsis. Additionally, other Staphylococcus species were identified as opportunistic human pathogens, which may be severe in immunocompromised hosts. Despite being a part of normal skin microbiota may cause an infection if the immune system functions are altered or there is a disbalance in the composition of normal microbiota that may lead to enhanced colonization [48,49,50].
Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Pseudomonas, and Staphylococcus spp. were identified in spiders in our study, and Bacillus thuringiensis was present in all samples. B. thuringiensis is a soil-dwelling microorganism, which is highly pathogenic for insects, and cases of human infection were reported. Among well-established pathogens of public health importance, K. pneumniae, E. coli, and Sallmonella spp. were found. The presence of Salmonella, Bacillus, Staphylococcus, and Escherichia species was reported in Amaurobius similis, Eratigena atrica, and Steatoda nobilis, which is in agreement with our results [51]. Those findings are important since not only show the evidence of possible transmission of pathogens to environment, humans, and animals, but also pose antimicrobial resistance threats. Resistance in Salmonella spp. to ciprofloxacin is alarming since it is used in humans for treatment of salmonellosis; therefore, the antimicrobial resistance in spiders is of concern.
Yeasts of Candida, Debaryomyces, and Rhodotorula were a part of spider’s microbiome in the present study. Recent research found cuticular antimicrobials as the first-line defense against infection and fungal growth and those antimicrobials were described in subsocial crab spiders [52], suggesting that cuticular immune-related properties could be at play [53,54,55,56].
The antimicrobial resistance of spider surface microbiome was identified in spiders sampled from all locations. The highest prevalence of resistant bacteria was found in the slaughterhouse (38%), followed by samples from buildings (23%) and chicken farm (7%). Spiders of Latrodectus esperus were recognized to transfer highly pathogenic and multidrug resistance bacteria, which may cause necrotic arachnidism, while first-line antibiotic treatment has been shown to be ineffective for the treatment of this infection [46]. Additionally, bites of S. nobilis may require antimicrobial treatment, especially for the medical staff affected [47]. In previous studies of Steatoda nobilis microbiota, p. putida was associated with resistance to three broad range antibiotics (amoxicillin, erythromycin, and cefoxitin), while S. capitis was multidrug-resistant and revealed antimicrobial resistance against a different class of antibiotics (gentamicin, tetracycline, and nalidixic acid) but S. edaphicus to gentamicin, chloramphenicol, and nalidixic acid. Resistance to tetracycline and chloramphenicol was reported in S. capitis and S. edaphicus, respectively. In terms of the identified resistances, resistance to nalidixic acid, erythromycin, cefoxitin, gentamicin, amoxycillin, colistin, tetracycline, and chloramphenicol was identified while all S. nobilis isolates were susceptible to ciprofloxacin [47].
Results of our study suggest that spiders of different locations may harbor similar microbial communities between different habitats. However, the spiders may transfer microorganisms between prey, predator, and the wider environment. Transgenerational transmission of symbiotic microorganisms is important for arthropods which may experience large-scale mortality events [57].

5. Conclusions

Spiders are among the most diverse and abundant predators in agroecosystems. External surfaces of spiders are inhabited by diverse microbiota, with Proteobacteria being the predominant phylum and Bacillus and Staphylococcus being the most abundant bacteria genera. Our study demonstrates that 14 spider species carried opportunistic pathogenic bacteria on their body surfaces that may result in the vector-borne transmission of different pathogens, including zoonoses. Multiresistance and resistance to antimicrobials important for human medicine were recognized in spider isolates that can provide evidence of their possible involvement in the dissemination of antimicrobial resistance. The present study could be a contribution to research on microbial compositions and antimicrobial resistance of their isolates with potential public and environmental health implications.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.K., M.T., M.B., J.I.P., W.M.H. and M.F.; Investigation, M.K., M.T. and M.F.; Methodology, M.K., M.T. and M.F.; Supervision, M.K., M.T., M.B., J.I.P., W.M.H. and M.F.; Writing—original draft, M.K., M.T., M.B., J.I.P., P.Ł.K. and M.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by KEGA, grant number 010SPU-4/2021.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

This publication was supported by the Operational program Integrated Infrastructure within the project: Sustainable smart farming systems taking into account the future challenges 313011W112, co-financed by the European Regional Development Fund.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Koide, R. Functional complementarity in the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. New Phytol. 2000, 147, 233–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Selosse, M.-A.; Baudoin, E.; Vandenkoornhuyse, P. Symbiotic microorganisms, a key for ecological success and protection of plants. C. R. Biol. 2004, 327, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Peirano, A. In vivo measurements of the seasonal photosynthetic fluorescence of the Mediterranean coral Cladocora caespitosa (L.). Sci. Mar. 2007, 71, 629–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Tripp, E.A.; Zhang, N.; Schneider, H.; Huang, Y.; Mueller, G.M.; Hu, Z.; Häggblom, M.; Bhattacharya, D. Reshaping Darwin’s Tree: Impact of the Symbiome. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2017, 32, 552–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Bredon, M.; Herran, B.; Bertaux, J.; Grève, P.; Moumen, B.; Bouchon, D. Isopod holobionts as promising models for lignocellulose degradation. Biotechnol. Biofuels 2020, 13, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Suárez, J. The stability of traits conception of the hologenome: An evolutionary account of holobiont individuality. Hist. Philos. Life Sci. 2020, 42, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Suárez, J.; Triviño, V. What Is a Hologenomic Adaptation? Emergent Individuality and Inter-Identity in Multispecies Systems. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Bili, M.; Cortesero, A.M.; Mougel, C.; Gauthier, J.P.; Ermel, G.; Simon, J.C.; Outreman, Y.; Terrat, S.; Mahéo, F.; Poinsot, D. Bacterial Community Diversity Harboured by Interacting Species. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  9. Monteiro, C.C.; Villegas, L.E.M.; Campolina, T.B.; Pires, A.C.M.A.; Miranda, J.C.; Pimenta, P.F.P.; Secundino, N.F.C. Bacterial diversity of the American sand fly Lutzomyia intermedia using high-throughput metagenomic sequencing. Parasit. Vectors 2016, 9, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Trout Fryxell, R.T.; DeBruyn, J.M. The Microbiome of Ehrlichia-Infected and Uninfected Lone Star Ticks (Amblyomma americanum). PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0146651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Gotoh, T.; Noda, H.; Ito, S. Cardinium symbionts cause cytoplasmic incompatibility in spider mites. Heredity 2007, 98, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Brownlie, J.C.; Cass, B.N.; Riegler, M.; Witsenburg, J.J.; Iturbe-Ormaetxe, I.; McGraw, E.A.; O’Neill, S.L. Evidence for Metabolic Provisioning by a Common Invertebrate Endosymbiont, Wolbachia pipientis, during Periods of Nutritional Stress. PLoS Pathog. 2009, 5, e1000368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Himler, A.G.; Adachi-Hagimori, T.; Bergen, J.E.; Kozuch, A.; Kelly, S.E.; Tabashnik, B.E.; Chiel, E.; Duckworth, V.E.; Dennehy, T.J.; Zchori-Fein, E.; et al. Rapid Spread of a Bacterial Symbiont in an Invasive Whitefly Is Driven by Fitness Benefits and Female Bias. Science 2011, 332, 254–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Hajdamowicz, I.; Rozwałka, R.; Stańska, M.; Rutkowski, T.; Sienkiewicz, P. Xerophilic Alopecosa sulzeri (Pavesi, 1873) (Araneae: Lycosidae)—A new wolf spider species in Poland. Zootaxa 2020, 4899, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rozwałka, R.; Rutkowski, T.; Sienkiewicz, P.; Renn, K. Occurrence of Talavera aperta (Miller, 1971) (Araneae: Salticidae) in Poland. Biol. Lett. 2015, 52, 3–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Busck, M.M.; Settepani, V.; Bechsgaard, J.; Lund, M.B.; Bilde, T.; Schramm, A. Microbiomes and Specific Symbionts of Social Spiders: Compositional Patterns in Host Species, Populations, and Nests. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Goodacre, S.L.; Martin, O.Y.; Thomas, C.F.G.; Hewitt, G.M. Wolbachia and other endosymbiont infections in spiders. Mol. Ecol. 2006, 15, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Duron, O.; Hurst, G.D.D.; Hornett, E.A.; Josling, J.A.; Engelstädter, J. High incidence of the maternally inherited bacterium Cardinium in spiders. Mol. Ecol. 2008, 17, 1427–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Martin, O.Y.; Goodacre, S.L. Widespread infections by the bacterial endosymbiont Cardinium in Arachnids. J. Arachnol. 2009, 37, 106–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Hu, G.; Zhang, L.; Yun, Y.; Peng, Y. Taking insight into the gut microbiota of three spider species: No characteristic symbiont was found corresponding to the special feeding style of spiders. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 9, 8146–8156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Rivera, P.; Stork, R.; Hug, A. A First Look at the Microbial Community of Rabidosa rabida, a Wolf Spider in Searcy, Arkansas. J. Ark. Acad. Sci. 2017, 71, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Foster, T.  Staphylococcus. In Medical Microbiology; Baron, S., Ed.; University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston: Galveston, TX, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  23. Shi, Y.; Lou, K.; Li, C. Growth and photosynthetic efficiency promotion of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) by endophytic bacteria. Photosynth. Res. 2010, 105, 5–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Muturi, E.J.; Ramirez, J.L.; Rooney, A.P.; Kim, C.-H. Comparative analysis of gut microbiota of mosquito communities in central Illinois. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 2017, 11, e0005377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Hald, B.; Skovgård, H.; Pedersen, K.; Bunkenborg, H. Influxed Insects as Vectors for Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli in Danish Broiler Houses. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 1428–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martínez, J.L. Effect of antibiotics on bacterial populations: A multi-hierarchical selection process. F1000Research 2017, 6, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Zhu, D.; Chen, Q.-L.; Li, H.; Yang, X.-R.; Christie, P.; Ke, X.; Zhu, Y.-G. Land Use Influences Antibiotic Resistance in the Microbiome of Soil Collembolans Orchesellides sinensis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 14088–14098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kaňa, J.; Tahovská, K.; Kopáček, J. Response of soil chemistry to forest dieback after bark beetle infestation. Biogeochemistry 2013, 113, 369–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. EUCAST The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing. Available online: http://www.eucast.org/fileadmin/src/media/PDFs/EUCAST_files/Breakpoint_tables/v_9.0_Breakpoint_Tables.pdf (accessed on 3 March 2022).
  30. Zilber-Rosenberg, I.; Rosenberg, E. Role of microorganisms in the evolution of animals and plants: The hologenome theory of evolution. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2008, 32, 723–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ezenwa, V.O.; Gerardo, N.M.; Inouye, D.W.; Medina, M.; Xavier, J.B. Animal Behavior and the Microbiome. Science 2012, 338, 198–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. McFall-Ngai, M.; Hadfield, M.G.; Bosch, T.C.G.; Carey, H.V.; Domazet-Lošo, T.; Douglas, A.E.; Dubilier, N.; Eberl, G.; Fukami, T.; Gilbert, S.F.; et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 3229–3236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Ahmad, A.; Ghosh, A.; Schal, C.; Zurek, L. Insects in confined swine operations carry a large antibiotic resistant and potentially virulent enterococcal community. BMC Microbiol. 2011, 11, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Voloshyn, V.; Tymchuk, K.; Symochko, L.; Kačániová, M.; Fedoriak, M. Spiders and other Arthropods of Chernivtsi Poultry Farm (Ukraine) and The Preliminary Data About Bacteria Inhabiting Their External Surfaces. Int. J. Ecosyst. Ecol. Sci. 2017, 7, 587–596. [Google Scholar]
  35. Dillon, R.J.; Dillon, V.M. The gut bacteria of insects: Nonpathogenic interactions. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2004, 49, 71–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Engel, P.; Moran, N.A. The gut microbiota of insects–diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2013, 37, 699–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Azambuja, P.; Garcia, E.S.; Ratcliffe, N.A. Gut microbiota and parasite transmission by insect vectors. Trends Parasitol. 2005, 21, 568–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, L.; Yun, Y.; Hu, G.; Peng, Y. Insights into the bacterial symbiont diversity in spiders. Ecol. Evol. 2018, 8, 4899–4906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sheffer, M.M.; Uhl, G.; Prost, S.; Lueders, T.; Urich, T.; Bengtsson, M.M. Tissue- and Population-Level Microbiome Analysis of the Wasp Spider Argiope bruennichi Identified a Novel Dominant Bacterial Symbiont. Microorganisms 2019, 8, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. White, J.A.; Styer, A.; Rosenwald, L.C.; Curry, M.M.; Welch, K.D.; Athey, K.J.; Chapman, E.G. Endosymbiotic Bacteria Are Prevalent and Diverse in Agricultural Spiders. Microb. Ecol. 2020, 79, 472–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kavanagh, K.; Reeves, E.P. Insect and Mammalian Innate Immune Responses Are Much Alike. Microbe 2007, 2, 596–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Savitzky, A.H.; Mori, A.; Hutchinson, D.A.; Saporito, R.A.; Burghardt, G.M.; Lillywhite, H.B.; Meinwald, J. Sequestered defensive toxins in tetrapod vertebrates: Principles, patterns, and prospects for future studies. Chemoecology 2012, 22, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Baxter, R.H.G.; Contet, A.; Krueger, K. Arthropod Innate Immune Systems and Vector-Borne Diseases. Biochemistry 2017, 56, 907–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Peel, M.M.; Alfredson, D.A.; Gerrard, J.G.; Davis, J.M.; Robson, J.M.; McDougall, R.J.; Scullie, B.L.; Akhurst, R.J. Isolation, Identification, and Molecular Characterization of Strains of Photorhabdus luminescens from Infected Humans in Australia. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1999, 37, 3647–3653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Monteiro, C.L.B.; Rubel, R.; Cogo, L.L.; Mangili, O.C.; Gremski, W.; Veiga, S.S. Isolation and identification of Clostridium perfringens in the venom and fangs of Loxosceles intermedia (brown spider): Enhancement of the dermonecrotic lesion in loxoscelism. Toxicon 2002, 40, 409–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ahrens, B. Bacterial Etiology of Necrotic Arachnidism in Black Widow Spider Bites. J. Clin. Toxicol. 2011, 1, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Dunbar, J.P.; Khan, N.A.; Abberton, C.L.; Brosnan, P.; Murphy, J.; Afoullouss, S.; O’Flaherty, V.; Dugon, M.M.; Boyd, A. Synanthropic spiders, including the global invasive noble false widow Steatoda nobilis, are reservoirs for medically important and antibiotic resistant bacteria. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 20916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Giordano, N.; Corallo, C.; Miracco, C.; Papakostas, P.; Montella, A.; Figura, N.; Nuti, R. Erythema nodosum associated with Staphylococcus xylosus septicemia. J. Microbiol. Immunol. Infect. 2016, 49, 134–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Premkrishnan, B.N.V.; Junqueira, A.C.M.; Uchida, A.; Purbojati, R.W.; Houghton, J.N.I.; Chénard, C.; Wong, A.; Kolundžija, S.; Clare, M.E.; Kushwaha, K.K.; et al. Complete Genome Sequence of Staphylococcus haemolyticus Type Strain SGAir0252. Genome Announc. 2018, 6, e00229-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Pain, M.; Hjerde, E.; Klingenberg, C.; Cavanagh, J.P. Comparative Genomic Analysis of Staphylococcus haemolyticus Reveals Key to Hospital Adaptation and Pathogenicity. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dunbar, J.P.; Sulpice, R.; Dugon, M.M. The kiss of (cell) death: Can venom-induced immune response contribute to dermal necrosis following arthropod envenomations? Clin. Toxicol. 2019, 57, 677–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. González-Tokman, D.; Ruch, J.; Pulpitel, T.; Ponton, F. Cuticular Antifungals in Spiders: Density- and Condition Dependence. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e91785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Rosengaus, R.B.; Maxmen, A.B.; Coates, L.E.; Traniello, J.F.A. Disease resistance: A benefit of sociality in the dampwood termite Zootermopsis angusticollis (Isoptera: Termopsidae). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 1998, 44, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rosengaus, R.B.; Jordan, C.; Lefebvre, M.L.; Traniello, J.F.A. Pathogen Alarm Behavior in a Termite: A New Form of Communication in Social Insects. Naturwissenschaften 1999, 86, 544–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Traniello, J.F.A.; Rosengaus, R.B.; Savoie, K. The development of immunity in a social insect: Evidence for the group facilitation of disease resistance. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 6838–6842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Pie, M.R.; Rosengaus, R.B.; Calleri, D.V.; Traniello, J.F.A. Density and disease resistance in group-living insects: Do eusocial species exhibit density-dependent prophylaxis? Ethol. Ecol. Evol. 2005, 17, 41–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Engel, P.; Kwong, W.K.; McFrederick, Q.; Anderson, K.E.; Barribeau, S.M.; Chandler, J.A.; Cornman, R.S.; Dainat, J.; de Miranda, J.R.; Doublet, V.; et al. The Bee Microbiome: Impact on Bee Health and Model for Evolution and Ecology of Host-Microbe Interactions. MBio 2016, 7, e02164-15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Insects 13 00680 g001 550
Figure 1. Krona chart. Percentual proportion of microbiota of arthropods originated from the slaughterhouse.
Figure 1. Krona chart. Percentual proportion of microbiota of arthropods originated from the slaughterhouse.
Insects 13 00680 g001
Insects 13 00680 g002 550
Figure 2. Krona chart. Percentual proportion of microbiota of arthropods originated from the chicken farm.
Figure 2. Krona chart. Percentual proportion of microbiota of arthropods originated from the chicken farm.
Insects 13 00680 g002
Insects 13 00680 g003 550
Figure 3. Krona chart. Percentual proportion of microbiota of arthropods isolated from buildings.
Figure 3. Krona chart. Percentual proportion of microbiota of arthropods isolated from buildings.
Insects 13 00680 g003
Table
Table 1. Identified spiders and their locations.
Table 1. Identified spiders and their locations.
Location Spider SpeciesGender
Nitra City, 48°18′ N 18°05′ E, Slaughterhouse 1. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932) Insects 13 00680 i001
2. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932) Insects 13 00680 i002
3. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932) Insects 13 00680 i002
4. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932) Insects 13 00680 i001
5. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932) Insects 13 00680 i001
6. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802) Insects 13 00680 i001
7. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802) Insects 13 00680 i001
8. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932)juv.
Nové Zámky region, Jatov village, 48°10′ N 18°00′ E, house9. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i001
10. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i001
11. Scytodes thoracica (Latreille, 1802) Insects 13 00680 i001
Nitra City, 48°18′ N 18°05′ E, apartment building12. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
13. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
14. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i002
15. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
16. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
17. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
18. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
19. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
20. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
Nové Zámky region, Jatov village, 48°10′ N 18°00′ E, house21. Malthonica ferruginea (Panzer, 1804)
Nitra City, Street, 48°18′ N 18°05′ E, Student dormitory22. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802)
23. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802)
Nitra City, 48°18′ N 18°05′ E, SPU, building24. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
25. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
26. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
27. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
28. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
29. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
30. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802) Insects 13 00680 i001
31. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802)juv.
Nitra City, 48°18′ N 18°05′ E, apartment building32. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
33. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
34. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
35. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i002
36. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802)juv.
37. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802)juv.
Nové Zámky region, Jatov village, 48°10′ N 18°00′ E, house38. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802)juv.
39. Trochosa robusta (Simon, 1876) Insects 13 00680 i001
Nitra City, 48°18′ N 18°05′ E, Botanical Garden SPU40. Pardosa hortensis (Thorell, 1872) Insects 13 00680 i002
41. Pardosa hortensis (Thorell, 1872) Insects 13 00680 i002
42. Pardosa hortensis (Thorell, 1872) Insects 13 00680 i001
43. Pardosa hortensis (Thorell, 1872) Insects 13 00680 i001
Veľký Lapáš Bodok, 48°17′24′′ S 18°11′09′′ V, chicken farm44. Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C. L. Koch, 1841) Insects 13 00680 i001
45. Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C. L. Koch, 1841) Insects 13 00680 i001
46. Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C. L. Koch, 1841)juv.
47. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
48. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
49. Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C. L. Koch, 1841)juv.
50. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i002
51. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
52. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
53. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
54. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
55. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
56. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
57. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i002
58. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i001
59. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
60. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
61. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932) Insects 13 00680 i001
62. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932)juv.
63. Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757)juv.
64. Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757)juv.
65. Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757)juv.
66. Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757)juv.
67. Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757)juv.
68. Parasteatoda lunata (Clerck, 1757) Insects 13 00680 i001
69. Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C. L. Koch, 1841) Insects 13 00680 i001
70. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802) Insects 13 00680 i001
71. Steatoda castanea (Clerck, 1757) Insects 13 00680 i001
72. Salticus scenicus (Clerck, 1757) Insects 13 00680 i001
73. Nuctenea umbratica (Clerck, 1757) Insects 13 00680 i001
74. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802) Insects 13 00680 i001
75. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i002
76. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
77. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
78. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)sub. Insects 13 00680 i001
79. Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757) Insects 13 00680 i001
80. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i002
81. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i001
82. Steatoda triangulosa (Walckenaer, 1802)juv.
83. Parasteatoda tepidariorum (C. L. Koch, 1841) Insects 13 00680 i001
84. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i002
85. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
86. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
87. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i002
88. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i001
89. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
90. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758) Insects 13 00680 i001
91. Steatoda bipunctata (Linnaeus, 1758)juv.
92. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i001
93. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
94. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
95. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
96. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
97. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
98. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775)juv.
99. Pholcus phalangioides (Fuesslin, 1775) Insects 13 00680 i002
100. Pholcus alticeps (Spassky, 1932) Insects 13 00680 i001
101. Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757)juv.
102. Tegenaria domestica (Clerck, 1757) Insects 13 00680 i001
Insects 13 00680 i002—male; Insects 13 00680 i001—female; juv.—juvenile.
Table
Table 2. Microbial counts of spiders on individual agar (mean ± sd, in log cfu/g).
Table 2. Microbial counts of spiders on individual agar (mean ± sd, in log cfu/g).
Spider/AgarTSATSIBAAA
Malthonica ferruginea2.37 ± 0.03 a2.81 ± 0.03 b2.95 ± 0.02 c2.84 ± 0.05 d
Nuctenea umbratica1.48 ± 0.03 a1.26 ± 0.06 b1.55 ± 0.10 c1.50 ± 0.05 d
Parasteatoda lunata3.39 ± 0.12 a3.26 ± 0.06 b2.84 ± 0.06 c2.45 ± 0.08 d
Parasteatoda tepidariorum1.38 ± 0.19 a1.43 ± 0.10 b1.34 ± 0.12 c1.44 ± 0.08 d
Pardosa hortensis1.83 ± 0.05 a1.57 ± 0.09 b1.80 ± 0.09 c1.53 ± 0.07 d
Pholcus alticeps1.34 ± 0.09 a1.28 ± 0.04 b2.58 ± 0.06 c1.49 ± 0.04 d
Pholcus phalangioides1.22 ± 0.06 a1.28 ± 0.05 b1.19 ± 0.02 c1.27 ± 0.09 d
Salticus scenicus2.30 ± 0.05 a2.31 ± 0.16 b2.34 ± 0.08 c2.27 ± 0.09 d
Scytodes thoracica1.29 ± 0.06 a1.28 ± 0.03 b1.18 ± 0.03 c1.45 ± 0.08 d
Steatoda bipunctata1.18 ± 0.07 a1.19 ± 0.05 b1.22 ± 0.06 c1.11 ± 0.06 d
Steatoda castanea2.64 ± 0.21 a2.30 ± 0.06 b2.72 ± 0.06 c2.28 ± 0.16 d
Steatoda triangulosa1.43 ± 0.06 a1.30 ± 0.06 b1.79 ± 0.07 c1.43 ± 0.08 d
Tegenaria domestica1.19 ± 0.05 a1.11 ± 0.06 b1.27 ± 0.08 c1.29 ± 0.12 d
Trochosa robusta2.46 ± 0.11 a2.20 ± 0.03 b2.46 ± 0.09 c2.21 ± 0.14 d
TSA—Tryptone Soya Agar; TSI—Triple Sugar Agar; BA—blood agar; AA—Anaerobic Agar; a Differences between the microbial counts on TSA agar between different spider species were significant (p < 0.01). b Differences between the microbial counts on TSI agar between different spider species were significant (p < 0.01). c Differences between the microbial counts on BA agar between different spider species were significant (p < 0.01). d Differences between the microbial counts on AA agar between different spider species were significant (p < 0.01).
Table
Table 3. Microbial genera and microbial species of arthropods.
Table 3. Microbial genera and microbial species of arthropods.
PhylumTaxa/Spider SpecimensSlaughterhouseChicken FarmBuildings
ProteobacteriaAcinetobacter
Acinetobacter johnsonii-11-
ActinobacteriaActinomyces
Actinomyces oris-13-
FirmicutesAerococcus
Aerococcus viridans6--
FirmicutesBacillus
Bacillus alitudins--15
Bacillus cereus156-
Bacillus licheniformis14--
Bacillus megatherium-10-
Bacillus mycoides--18
Bacillus pumilus8515
Bacillus safensis9510
Bacillus thuringiensis12610
FungiCandida
Candida famata-3-
ProteobacteriaCapriavidus
Capriavidus metallidurans-4-
ProteobacteriaCitrobacter
Citrobacter koseri-4-
ActinobacteriaCorynebacterium
Corynebacterium simulans-5-
Corynebacterium singulare-6-
Corynebacterium xerosis-6-
ActinobacteriaCutibacterium
Cutibacterium avidum-4-
FungiDebaryomyces
Debaryomyces hansenii-3-
ProteobacteriaEnterobacter
Enterobacter cloacae--15
FirmicutesEnterococcus
Enterococcus durans-6-
Enterococcus faecalis--10
Enterococcus faecium-4-
ProteobacteriaEscherichia
Escherichia coli1112-
ProteobacteriaKlebsiella
Klebsiella pneumoniae-11-
ActinobacteriaKocuria
Kocuria rhizophila-2-
FirmicutesLactococcus
Lactococcus lactis4--
FirmicutesLysinibacillus
Lysinibacillus boronitolerans--10
Lysinibacillus fusiformis-5-
Lysinibacillus sphaericus-6-
ProteobacteriaMoraxella
Moraxella osloensis-7-
FirmicutesPaenibacillus
Paenibacillus lautus3--
Paenibacillus polymyxa2--
ActinobacteriaPropionibacterium
Propionibacterium avidum-4-
ProteobacteriaProteus
Proteus mirabilis--6
ProteobacteriaPseudomonas
Pseudomonas aeroginosa--4
Pseudomonas stutzeri-8-
FungiRhodotorula
Rhodotorula mucilaginosa1--
ProteobacteriaRoseomonas
Roseomonas muscosa-6-
ProteobacteriaSalmonella
Salmonella spp.-9-
ProteobacteriaSphingomonas
Sphingomonas parapaucimobilis-6-
Sphingomonas vabuuciae-4-
FirmicutesStaphylococcus
Staphylococcus aureus-56
Staphylococcus capitis24-
Staphylococcus epidermidis82-
Staphylococcus equorum-2-
Staphylococcus haemolyticus6--
Staphylococcus hominis86-
Staphylococcus oralis-7-
Staphylococcus pasteuri-5-
Staphylococcus pettenkoferi6--
Staphylococcus saprophyticus--8
Staphylococcus schleiferi-5-
Staphylococcus warneri4--
Staphylococcus xylosus35-
FirmicutesStreptococcus
Streptococcus agalactiae--6
Total isolates122222133
Table
Table 4. Antibiotic resistance in spider’s microbiota from the slaughterhouse.
Table 4. Antibiotic resistance in spider’s microbiota from the slaughterhouse.
Isolated SpeciesAntibiotic (R/S)
IPMMEMCIPVALZD
Aerococcus viridansNDNDNDNDND
Bacillus cereus2/132/133/125/100/15
Bacillus licheniformis4//105/910/44/103/14
Bacillus pumilus0/81/72/60/81/7
Bacillus safensis0/91/81/81/83/6
Bacillus thuringiensis2/103/92/101/110/12
IPMMEMCIPTOBC
Escherichia coli10/11/105/66/53/8
Lactococcus lactisNDNDNDNDND
Paenibacillus lautusNDNDNDNDND
Paenibacillus polymyxaNDNDNDNDND
Rhodotorula mucilaginosaNDNDNDNDND
CIPNORAKTOBTGC
Staphylococcus capitis0/20/20/20/21/1
Staphylococcus epidermidis2/61/72/63/54/4
Staphylococcus haemolyticus5/12/43/30/61/5
Staphylococcus hominis0/81/72/61/73/5
Staphylococcus pettenkoferi0/62/41/52/41/5
Staphylococcus warneri1/32/20/43/10/4
Staphylococcus xylosus2/11/20/30/30/3
Total28/7822/8431/7526/8020/86
R—resistant; S—sensitive; ND—not determined; IPM—imipenem; MEM—meropenem; CIP—ciprofloxacin; VA—vancomycin; LZD—linezolid; TOB—tobramycin; TGC—tigecycline; AK—amikacin; NOR—norfloxacin; TE—tetracycline.
Table
Table 5. Antibiotic resistance in spider’s microbiota from the chicken farm.
Table 5. Antibiotic resistance in spider’s microbiota from the chicken farm.
Isolated SpeciesAntibiotic (R/S)
IPMMEMCIPVALZD
Acinetobacter johnsoniiNDNDNDNDND
Actinomyces orisNDNDNDNDND
Bacillus cereus1/52/40/63/31/5
Priestia megatherium0/101/90/101/92/8
Bacillus pumilus0/50/50/50/51/4
Bacillus safensis0/51/40/51/41/4
Bacillus thuringiensis0/61/50/61/51/5
Candida famataNDNDNDNDND
Capriavidus metalliduransNDNDNDNDND
IPMMEMCIPTOBC
Citrobacter koseri0/41/30/41/32/2
Escherichia coli2/103/92/105/72/10
Klebsiella pneumoniae1/102/92/90/111/10
Salmonella spp.0/91/81/81/80/9
CIPVATELZDRD
Corynebacterium simulans0/51/40/50//51/4
Corynebacterium singulare1/50/62/40/61/5
Corynebacterium xerosis0/61/50/60/60/6
MEMVA
Cutibacterium avidum0/40/4---
Debaryomyces hanseniiNDNDNDNDND
IMPCIPVATGCLZD
Enterococcus durans2/43/32/46/01/5
Enterococcus faecium1/32/23/11/32/2
Kocuria rhizophilaNDNDNDNDND
Lysinibacillus fusiformisNDNDNDNDND
Lysinibacillus sphaericusNDNDNDNDND
Moraxella osloensisNDNDNDNDND
IMPMEMCIPTOBAK
Pseudomonas stutzeri1/72/60/80/80/8
Propionibacterium avidumNDNDNDNDND
Roseomonas muscosaNDNDNDNDND
Sphingomonas parapaucimobilisNDNDNDNDND
Sphingomonas vabuuciaeNDNDNDNDND
CIPNORAKTOBTGC
Staphylococcus aureus1/40/50/52/31/4
Staphylococcus capitis1/31/30/40/41/3
Staphylococcus epidermidis0/20/20/20/20/2
Staphylococcus equorum0/20/20/20/20/2
Staphylococcus hominis1/51/52/40/60/6
Staphylococcus oralis2/50/71/62/51/6
Staphylococcus pasteuri1/40/50/51/41/4
Staphylococcus schleiferi0/50/51/41/41/4
Staphylococcus xylosus0/50/50/52/33/2
Total15/13323/12516/12829/11525/119
R—resistant; S—sensitive; ND—not determined; IPM—imipenem; MEM—meropenem; CIP—ciprofloxacin; VA—vancomycin; LZD—linezolid; TOB—tobramycin; TGC—tigecycline; AK—amikacin; NOR—norfloxacin; TE—tetracycline; RD—rifampicin.
Table
Table 6. Antibiotic resistance in spider’s microbiota from the buildings.
Table 6. Antibiotic resistance in spider’s microbiota from the buildings.
Isolated SpeciesAntibiotic (R/S)
IPMMEMCIPVALZD
Bacillus alitudins5/102/130/155/106/9
Bacillus mycoides2/162/166/120/183/15
Bacillus pumilus2/83/74/60/101/9
Bacillus safensis2/82/80/105/56/4
Bacillus thuringiensis2/83/75/50/104/6
IPMMEMCIPTOBC
Enterobacter cloacae0/150/150//150/150/15
Proteus mirabilis0/60/60/60/60/6
IMPCIPVATGCLZD
Enterococcus faecalis1/92/85/50/101/9
Lysinibacillus boronitoleransNDNDNDNDND
IMPMEMCIPTOBAK
Pseudomonas aeroginosa0/41/30/40/40/4
CIPNORAKTOBTGC
Staphylococcus aureus0/61/52/40/60/6
Staphylococcus saprophyticus1/71/70/80/82/6
VATGCLZDCTE
Streptococcus agalactiae5/11/52/40/61/5
Total20/9818/10024/9410/10824/94
R—resistant; S—sensitive; ND—not determined; IPM—imipenem; MEM—meropenem; CIP—ciprofloxacin; VA—vancomycin; LZD—linezolid; TOB—tobramycin; TGC—tigecycline; AK—amikacin; NOR—norfloxacin; TE—tetracycline.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kačániová, M.; Terentjeva, M.; Kowalczewski, P.Ł.; Babošová, M.; Porhajašová, J.I.; Hikal, W.M.; Fedoriak, M. Bacteriota and Antibiotic Resistance in Spiders. Insects 2022, 13, 680. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13080680

AMA Style

Kačániová M, Terentjeva M, Kowalczewski PŁ, Babošová M, Porhajašová JI, Hikal WM, Fedoriak M. Bacteriota and Antibiotic Resistance in Spiders. Insects. 2022; 13(8):680. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13080680

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kačániová, Miroslava, Margarita Terentjeva, Przemysław Łukasz Kowalczewski, Mária Babošová, Jana Ivanič Porhajašová, Wafaa M. Hikal, and Mariia Fedoriak. 2022. "Bacteriota and Antibiotic Resistance in Spiders" Insects 13, no. 8: 680. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects13080680

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop