Diversity and characterization of bacterial communities of five co‐occurring species at a hydrothermal vent on the Tonga Arc
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Host–symbiont relationships in hydrothermal vent ecosystems, supported by chemoautotrophic bacteria as primary producers, have been extensively studied. However, the process by which densely populated co‐occurring invertebrate hosts form symbiotic relationships with bacterial symbionts remains unclear. Here, we analyzed gill‐associated symbiotic bacteria (gill symbionts) of five co‐occurring hosts, three mollusks (“ Bathymodiolus ” manusensis , B . brevior , and Alviniconcha strummeri ) and two crustaceans ( Rimicaris variabilis and Austinograea alayseae ), collected together at a single vent site in the Tonga Arc. We observed both different compositions of gill symbionts and the presence of unshared operational taxonomic units (OTUs). In addition, the total number of OTUs was greater for crustacean hosts than for mollusks. The phylogenetic relationship trees of gill symbionts suggest that γ‐proteobacterial gill symbionts have coevolved with their hosts toward reinforcement of host specificity, while campylobacterial Sulfurovum species found across various hosts and habitats are opportunistic associates. Our results confirm that gill symbiont communities differ among co‐occurring vent invertebrates and indicate that hosts are closely related with their gill symbiont communities. Considering the given resources available at a single site, differentiation of gill symbionts seems to be a useful strategy for obtaining nutrition and energy while avoiding competition among both hosts and gill 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".