Evolution of Termite Symbiosis Informed by Transcriptome-Based Phylogenies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Termitidae comprises ∼80% of all termite species [1] that play dominant decomposer roles in tropical ecosystems [2, 3]. Two major events during termite evolution were the loss of cellulolytic gut protozoans in the ancestor of Termitidae and the subsequent gain in the termitid subfamily Macrotermitinae of fungal symbionts cultivated externally in "combs" constructed within the nest [4, 5]. How these symbiotic transitions occurred remains unresolved. Phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial data previously suggested that Macrotermitinae is the earliest branching termitid lineage, followed soon after by Sphaerotermitinae [6], which cultivates bacterial symbionts on combs inside its nests [7]. This has led to the hypothesis that comb building was an important evolutionary step in the loss of gut protozoa in ancestral termitids [8]. We sequenced genomes and transcriptomes of 55 termite species and reconstructed phylogenetic trees from up to 4,065 orthologous genes of 68 species. We found strong support for a novel sister-group relationship between the bacterial comb-building Sphaerotermitinae and fungus comb-building Macrotermitinae. This key finding indicates that comb building is a derived trait within Termitidae and that the creation of a comb-like "external rumen" involving bacteria or fungi may not have driven the loss of protozoa from ancestral termitids, as previously hypothesized. Instead, associations with gut prokaryotic symbionts, combined with dietary shifts from wood to other plant-based substrates, may have played a more important role in this symbiotic transition. Our phylogenetic tree provides a platform for future studies of comparative termite evolution and the evolution of symbiosis in this taxon.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".