MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2516350284 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1603910113

Repeated replacement of an intrabacterial symbiont in the tripartite nested mealybug symbiosis

2016· article· en· W2516350284 on OpenAlexaff
Filip Husník, John P. McCutcheon

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersUS-UK Fulbright CommissionEuropean Molecular Biology LaboratoryUniversity of UtahNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationJihočeská Univerzita v Českých BudějovicíchUniversity of MontanaMontana Institute on EcosystemsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMealybugSymbiosisBiologyZoologyGeneticsBacteriaHemiptera

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stable endosymbiosis of a bacterium into a host cell promotes cellular and genomic complexity. The mealybug Planococcus citri has two bacterial endosymbionts with an unusual nested arrangement: the γ-proteobacterium Moranella endobia lives in the cytoplasm of the β-proteobacterium Tremblaya princeps These two bacteria, along with genes horizontally transferred from other bacteria to the P. citri genome, encode gene sets that form an interdependent metabolic patchwork. Here, we test the stability of this three-way symbiosis by sequencing host and symbiont genomes for five diverse mealybug species and find marked fluidity over evolutionary time. Although Tremblaya is the result of a single infection in the ancestor of mealybugs, the γ-proteobacterial symbionts result from multiple replacements of inferred different ages from related but distinct bacterial lineages. Our data show that symbiont replacement can happen even in the most intricate symbiotic arrangements and that preexisting horizontally transferred genes can remain stable on genomes in the face of extensive symbiont turnover.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations267
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicInsect symbiosis and bacterial influencesFrench-language works237,207