Symbiotic and Nonsymbiotic Members of the Genus <i>Ensifer</i> (syn. <i>Sinorhizobium</i> ) Are Separated into Two Clades Based on Comparative Genomics and High-Throughput Phenotyping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rhizobium-legume symbioses serve as paradigmatic examples for the study of mutualism evolution. The genus Ensifer (syn. Sinorhizobium) contains diverse plant-associated bacteria, a subset of which can fix nitrogen in symbiosis with legumes. To gain insights into the evolution of symbiotic nitrogen fixation (SNF), and interkingdom mutualisms more generally, we performed extensive phenotypic, genomic, and phylogenetic analyses of the genus Ensifer. The data suggest that SNF likely emerged several times within the genus Ensifer through independent horizontal gene transfer events. Yet, the majority (105 of 106) of the Ensifer strains with the nodABC and nifHDK nodulation and nitrogen fixation genes were found within a single, monophyletic clade. Comparative genomics highlighted several differences between the "symbiotic" and "nonsymbiotic" clades, including divergences in their pangenome content. Additionally, strains of the symbiotic clade carried 325 fewer genes, on average, and appeared to have fewer rRNA operons than strains of the nonsymbiotic clade. Initial characterization of a subset of ten Ensifer strains identified several putative phenotypic differences between the clades. Tested strains of the nonsymbiotic clade could catabolize 25% more carbon sources, on average, than strains of the symbiotic clade, and they were better able to grow in LB medium and tolerate alkaline conditions. On the other hand, the tested strains of the symbiotic clade were better able to tolerate heat stress and acidic conditions. We suggest that these data support the division of the genus Ensifer into two main subgroups, as well as the hypothesis that pre-existing genetic features are required to facilitate the evolution of SNF in bacteria.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".