MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2762983695 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1702511114

Interhost dispersal alters microbiome assembly and can overwhelm host innate immunity in an experimental zebrafish model

2017· article· en· W2762983695 on OpenAlexaff
Adam R. Burns, Elizabeth T. Miller, Meghna Agarwal, Annah S. Rolig, Kathryn Milligan‐Myhre, Steve Seredick, Karen Guillemin, Brendan J. M. Bohannan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsBiological dispersalMicrobiomeBiologyHost (biology)MetacommunityEcologyVertebrateEvolutionary biologyGeneticsPopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

knockout zebrafish and observed that interhost dispersal had a large effect on the diversity and composition of intestinal microbiomes. Interhost dispersal was strong enough to overwhelm the effects of host factors, largely eliminating differences between wild-type and immune-deficient hosts, regardless of whether dispersal occurred within or between genotypes, suggesting dispersal can independently alter the ecology of microbiomes. Our observations are consistent with a predictive model that assumes metacommunity dynamics and are likely mediated by dispersal-related microbial traits. These results illustrate the importance of microbial dispersal to animal microbiomes and motivate its integration into the study of host-microbe systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations191
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207