Bacterial cohesion predicts spatial distribution in the larval zebrafish intestine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Are there general biophysical relationships governing the spatial organization of the gut microbiome? Despite growing realization that spatial structure is important for population stability, inter-bacterial competition, and host functions, it is unclear in any animal gut whether such structure is subject to predictive, unifying rules, or if it results from contextual, species-specific behaviors. To explore this, we used light sheet fluorescence microscopy to conduct a high-resolution comparative study of bacterial distribution patterns throughout the entire intestinal volume of live, larval zebrafish. Fluorescently tagged strains of seven bacterial symbionts, representing six different species native to zebrafish, were each separately mono-associated with animals that had been raised initially germ-free. The strains showed large differences in both cohesion—the degree to which they auto-aggregate—and spatial distribution. We uncovered a striking correlation between each strain’s mean position and its cohesion, whether quantified as the fraction of cells existing as planktonic individuals, the average aggregate size, or the total number of aggregates. Moreover, these correlations held within species as well; aggregates of different sizes localized as predicted from the pan-species observations. Together, our findings indicate that bacteria within the zebrafish intestine are subject to generic processes that organize populations by their cohesive properties. The likely drivers of this relationship, peristaltic fluid flow, tubular anatomy, and bacterial growth and aggregation kinetics, are common throughout animals. We therefore suggest that the framework introduced here, of biophysical links between bacterial cohesion and spatial organization, should be useful for directing explorations in other host-microbe systems, formulating detailed models that can quantitatively map onto experimental data, and developing new tools that manipulate cohesion to engineer microbiome function.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".