Comparative evaluation of the genomes of common bacterial members of the <i>Drosophila</i> intestinal community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drosophila melanogaster is an excellent model to explore the molecular exchanges that occur between an animal intestine and their microbial passengers. For example, groundbreaking studies in flies uncovered a sophisticated web of host responses to intestinal bacteria. The outcomes of these responses define critical events in the host, such as the establishment of immune responses, access to nutrients, and the rate of larval development. Despite our steady march towards illuminating the host machinery that responds to bacterial presence in the gut, we know remarkably little about the microbial products that influence bacterial association with a fly host. To address this deficiency, we sequenced and characterized the genomes of three common Drosophila -associated microbes: Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus brevis and Acetobacter pasteurianus . In each case, we compared the genomes of Drosophila -associated strains to the genomes of strains isolated from alternative sources. This approach allowed us to identify molecular functions common to Drosophila -associated microbes, and, in the case of A. pasteurianus , to identify genes that are essential for association with the host. Of note, many of the gene products unique to fly-associated strains have established roles in the stabilization of host-microbe interactions. We believe that these data provide a valuable starting point for a more thorough examination of the microbial perspective on host-microbe relationships.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".