Is Host Filtering the Main Driver of Phylosymbiosis across the Tree of Life?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phylosymbiosis is a pattern defined as the tendency of closely related species to host microbiota whose compositions resemble each other more than host species drawn at random from the same tree. Understanding the mechanisms behind phylosymbiosis is important because it can shed light on rules governing the assembly of host-associated microbiotas and, potentially, their coevolutionary dynamics with hosts. For example, is phylosymbiosis a result of coevolution, or can it be generated by simple ecological filtering processes? Beyond qualitative theoretical models, quantitative theoretical expectations can provide new insights. For example, deviations from a simple baseline of ecological filtering may be used to test more-complex hypotheses (e.g., coevolution). Here, we use simulations to provide evidence that simple host-related ecological filtering can readily generate phylosymbiosis, and we contrast these predictions with real-world data. We find that while phylosymbiosis is widespread in nature, phylosymbiosis patterns are compatible with a simple ecological model in the majority of taxa. Internal compartments of hosts, such as the animal gut, often display stronger phylosymbiosis than expected from a purely ecological filtering process, suggesting that other mechanisms are also involved.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it