Interactions within the microbiome alter microbial interactions with host chemical defences and affect disease in a marine holobiont
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our understanding of diseases has been transformed by the realisation that people are holobionts, comprised of a host and its associated microbiome(s). Disease can also have devastating effects on populations of marine organisms, including dominant habitat formers such as seaweed holobionts. However, we know very little about how interactions between microorganisms within microbiomes - of humans or marine organisms - affect host health and there is no underpinning theoretical framework for exploring this. We applied ecological models of succession to bacterial communities to understand how interactions within a seaweed microbiome affect the host. We observed succession of surface microbiomes on the red seaweed Delisea pulchra in situ, following a disturbance, with communities 'recovering' to resemble undisturbed states after only 12 days. Further, if this recovery was perturbed, a bleaching disease previously described for this seaweed developed. Early successional strains of bacteria protected the host from colonisation by a pathogenic, later successional strain. Host chemical defences also prevented disease, such that within-microbiome interactions were most important when the host's chemical defences were inhibited. This is the first experimental evidence that interactions within microbiomes have important implications for host health and disease in a dominant marine habitat-forming organism.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".