Stability and phylogenetic correlation in gut microbiota: lessons from ants and apes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Correlation between gut microbiota and host phylogeny could reflect codiversification over shared evolutionary history or a selective environment that is more similar in related hosts. These alternatives imply substantial differences in the relationship between host and symbiont, but can they be distinguished based on patterns in the community data themselves? We explored patterns of phylogenetic correlation in the distribution of gut bacteria among species of turtle ants (genus Cephalotes), which host a dense gut microbial community. We used 16S rRNA pyrosequencing from 25 Cephalotes species to show that their gut community is remarkably stable, from the colony to the genus level. Despite this overall similarity, the existing differences among species' microbiota significantly correlated with host phylogeny. We introduced a novel analytical technique to test whether these phylogenetic correlations are derived from recent bacterial evolution, as would be expected in the case of codiversification, or from broader shifts more likely to reflect environmental filters imposed by factors such as diet or habitat. We also tested this technique on a published data set of ape microbiota, confirming earlier results while revealing previously undescribed patterns of phylogenetic correlation. Our results indicated a high degree of partner fidelity in the Cephalotes microbiota, suggesting that vertical transmission of the entire community could play an important role in the evolution and maintenance of the association. As additional comparative microbiota data become available, the techniques presented here can be used to explore trends in the evolution of host-associated microbial communities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".