Cooperation and coexpression: How coexpression networks shift in response to multiple mutualists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mechanistic understanding of community ecology requires tackling the nonadditive effects of multispecies interactions, a challenge that necessitates integration of ecological and molecular complexity-namely moving beyond pairwise ecological interaction studies and the "gene at a time" approach to mechanism. Here, we investigate the consequences of multispecies mutualisms for the structure and function of genomewide differential coexpression networks for the first time, using the tractable and ecologically important interaction between legume Medicago truncatula, rhizobia and mycorrhizal fungi. First, we found that genes whose expression is affected nonadditively by multiple mutualists are more highly connected in gene networks than expected by chance and had 94% greater network centrality than genes showing additive effects, suggesting that nonadditive genes may be key players in the widespread transcriptomic responses to multispecies symbioses. Second, multispecies mutualisms substantially changed coexpression network structure of 18 modules of host plant genes and 22 modules of the fungal symbionts' genes, indicating that third-party mutualists can cause significant rewiring of plant and fungal molecular networks. Third, we found that 60% of the coexpressed gene sets that explained variation in plant performance had coexpression structures that were altered by interactive effects of rhizobia and fungi. Finally, an "across-symbiosis" approach identified sets of plant and mycorrhizal genes whose coexpression structure was unique to the multiple mutualist context and suggested coupled responses across the plant-mycorrhizal interaction to rhizobial mutualists. Taken together, these results show multispecies mutualisms have substantial effects on the molecular interactions in host plants, microbes and across symbiotic boundaries.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".