Association between Wolbachia and Spiroplasma within Drosophila neotestacea: an emerging symbiotic mutualism?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecific mutualism can evolve when specific lineages of different species tend to be associated with each other from one generation to the next. Different maternally transmitted endosymbionts occurring within the same cytoplasmic lineage fulfil this requirement. Drosophila neotestacea is infected with maternally transmitted Wolbachia and Spiroplasma, which are cotransmitted at high frequency in natural populations. Molecular phylogenetic evidence indicates that both endosymbionts have been present in D. neotestacea for considerable evolutionary periods. Thus, conditions are suitable for the evolution of mutualism between them. In support of this possibility, there is a significant positive association between Wolbachia and Spiroplasma infection in many samples of D. neotestacea from natural populations. Theoretically, such a positive association can result from either mutualism between these endosymbionts or recent spread. Collections from present-day populations suggest that recent spread and mutualism have both operated to generate the positive association between Wolbachia and Spiroplasma. If selection acts on the combination of these two endosymbionts, they may be in the early stages of evolution of a more complex, cooperative association.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".