Symbiotic bacteria attenuate <i>Drosophila</i> oviposition repellence to alkaline through acidification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metazoans harbor a wealth of symbionts that are ever-changing the environment by taking up resources and/or excreting metabolites. One such common environmental modification is a change in pH. Conventional wisdom holds that symbionts facilitate the survival and production of their hosts in the wild, but this notion lacks empirical evidence. Here, we report that symbiotic bacteria in the genus Enterococcus attenuate the oviposition avoidance of alkaline environments in Drosophila. We studied the effects of alkalinity on oviposition preference for the first time, and found that flies are robustly disinclined to oviposit on alkali-containing substrates. This innate repulsion to alkaline environments is explained, in part, by the fact that alkalinity compromises the health and lifespan of both offspring and parent Drosophila. Enterococcus dramatically diminished or even completely reversed the ovipositional avoidance of alkalinity in Drosophila. Mechanistically, Enterococcus generate abundant lactate during fermentation, which neutralizes the residual alkali in an egg-laying substrate. In conclusion, Enterococcus protects Drosophila from alkali stress by acidifying the ovipositional substrate, and ultimately improves the fitness of the Drosophila population. Our results demonstrate that symbionts are profound factors in the Drosophila ovipositional decision, and extend our understanding of the intimate interactions between Drosophila 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 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".