Host determinants of among-species variation in microbiome composition in drosophilid flies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The taxonomic composition of microbial communities in animals varies among animal species, but the contribution of interspecific differences in filtering of the microbial pool by the animal host to this variation is uncertain. Here, we demonstrate significant interspecific variation in microbial community composition among laboratory-reared Drosophila species that was not related to host phylogeny. Complementary reciprocal transfer experiments yielded different microbial communities for a single microbiota administered to homologous and heterologous hosts (i.e., the same and different Drosophila species from which the microbiota was derived), indicative of among-host species differences in traits that shape microbiota composition. The difference in microbiota composition between homologous and heterologous hosts was not greater for distantly related than for closely related host species pairs. Furthermore, Drosophila survival to adulthood was significantly reduced in heterologous associations relative to homologous associations and microbiologically sterile flies, suggesting that microbial taxa that are advantageous for their homologous host species can be deleterious for other host species. We conclude that drosophilid flies display robust among-host species variation in host controls over microbiota composition that has diversified in response to selection pressures which are not tracked by host phylogeny.
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 | 0.001 | 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".