Effects of captivity, diet, and relocation on the gut bacterial communities of white‐footed mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microbes can have important impacts on their host's survival. Captive breeding programs for endangered species include periods of captivity that can ultimately have an impact on reintroduction success. No study to date has investigated the impacts of captive diet on the gut microbiota during the relocation process of generalist species. This study simulated a captive breeding program with white‐footed mice (Peromyscus leucopus) to describe the variability in gut microbial community structure and composition during captivity and relocation in their natural habitat, and compared it to wild individuals. Mice born in captivity were fed two different diets, a control with dry standardized pellets and a treatment with nonprocessed components that reflect a version of their wild diet that could be provided in captivity. The mice from the two groups were then relocated to their natural habitat. Relocated mice that had the treatment diet had more phylotypes in common with the wild‐host microbiota than mice under the control diet or mice kept in captivity. These results have broad implications for our understanding of microbial community dynamics and the effects of captivity on reintroduced animals, including the potential impact on the survival of endangered species. This study demonstrates that ex situ conservation actions should consider a more holistic perspective of an animal's biology including its microbes.
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".