Comparative analyses of saprotrophy in <i>Salisapilia sapeloensis</i> and diverse plant pathogenic oomycetes reveal lifestyle-specific gene expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oomycetes include many well-studied, devastating plant pathogens. Across oomycete diversity, plant-infecting lineages are interspersed by non-pathogenic ones. Unfortunately, our understanding of the evolution of lifestyle switches is hampered by a scarcity of data on the molecular biology of saprotrophic oomycetes, ecologically important primary colonizers of dead tissue that can serve as informative reference points for understanding the evolution of pathogens. Here, we established Salisapilia sapeloensis growing on axenic litter as a tractable system for the study of saprotrophic oomycetes. We generated multiple transcriptomes from S. sapeloensis and compared them to (a) 22 oomycete genomes and (b) the transcriptomes of eight pathogenic oomycetes grown under 13 conditions (three pathogenic lifestyles, six hosts/substrates, and four tissues). From these analyses we obtained a global perspective on the gene expression signatures of oomycete lifestyles. Our data reveal that oomycete saprotrophs and pathogens use generally similar molecular mechanisms for colonization, but exhibit distinct expression patterns. We identify S. sapeloensis' specific array and expression of carbohydrate-active enzymes and regulatory differences in pathogenicity-associated factors, including the virulence factor EpiC2B. Further, S. sapeloensis was found to express only a small repertoire of effector genes. In conclusion, our analyses reveal lifestyle-specific gene regulatory signatures and suggest that, in addition to variation in gene content, shifts in gene regulatory networks might underpin the evolution of oomycete lifestyles.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".