MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3033751467 · doi:10.1128/aem.00789-20

Fish Skin and Gut Microbiomes Show Contrasting Signatures of Host Species and Habitat

2020· article· en· W3033751467 on OpenAlexafffund
François‐Étienne Sylvain, Aleicia Holland, Sidki Bouslama, Émie Audet‐Gilbert, Camille Lavoie, Adalberto Luís Val, Nicolas Derôme

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied and Environmental Microbiology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsBiologyMicrobiomeHost (biology)Fish <Actinopterygii>HabitatEcologyZoologyFisheryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether host-associated microbiomes are mostly shaped by species-specific or environmental factors is still unresolved. In particular, it is unknown to what extent microbial communities from two different host tissues from the same host respond to these factors. Our study is one of the first to focus on the microbiome of teleost fish to shed a light on this topic as we investigate how the phylogenetic structure of microbial communities from two distinct fish tissues are shaped by species- and habitat-specific factors. Our study showed that in contrast to the teleost gut microbiome, skin mucus communities are highly environment dependent. This result has various implications: (i) the skin mucus microbiome should be used, rather than the gut, to investigate bacterial biomarkers of ecosystem perturbance in the wild, and (ii) the gut microbiome is better suited for studies of the drivers of phylosymbiosis, or the coevolution of fish and their symbionts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.171 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations140
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied and Environmental MicrobiologySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207