Ecophylogenetics Reveals the Evolutionary Associations between Mammals and their Gut Microbiota
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A tantalizing hypothesis posits that mammals coevolved with their gut microbiota. Unfortunately, the limited resolution of microbial taxonomy hinders the exploration of this hypothesis and specifically challenges the discovery of gut microbes that are linked to mammalian evolution. To address this, we developed a novel approach that groups microbes into new, more meaningful taxonomic units based on their common ancestry and ecological redundancy. Treating mammalian lineages as different ecosystems, we quantified the distribution of these microbial taxa across mammals. Our analysis discovered monophyletic clades of gut bacteria that are unexpectedly prevalent, or conserved, across all mammals, as well as conserved clades that are exclusive to particular mammalian lineages. These clades often manifest phylogenetic patterns indicating that they are subject to selection. Lineage - specific changes in clade conservation, including a human-accelerated loss of conserved clades, suggest that mammalian evolution associates with a change in the selective regimes that act on gut microbiota. Collectively, these results point to the existence of microbes that possess traits that facilitate their dispersion or survival in the mammalian gut, possibly because they are subject to host selection. Ultimately, our analysis clarifies the relationship between the diversification of the gut microbiome and mammalian evolutionary history.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".