Gene expression management in a stony coral, Acropora tenuis, depends upon identities of algal symbionts and developmental stages
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coral recruits of a reef-building coral, genus Acropora, acquire dinoflagellate symbionts, Durusdinium and Symbiodinium, which are necessary for survival. However, among coral transcriptomic responses that occur at the commencement of symbiosis, it is unknown which occur regardless of the taxonomic identity of the alga, which are specific to each algal genus, and which represent changes in larval developmental stage. We performed two comparative transcriptomic analyses using A. tenuis to examine responses to inoculation with Durusdinium or Symbiodinium species and inoculation with a symbiotic species, D. trenchii in different coral developmental stages (planula larvae and primary polyps). While obvious gene expression changes were observed in planula larvae inoculated with Symbiodinium, few gene expression changes were elicited in planula larvae exposed to Durusdinium, whereas primary polyps showed dynamic transcriptomic changes in response to Durusdinium. We identified transcriptomic responses of A. tenuis that were common to both D. trenchii and S. microadriaticum during early life stages, such as upregulation of solute carrier (SLC) transporters and downregulation of amino acid metabolic enzymes, allowing us to determine whether algae are symbiotic or parasitic. Such changes were not observed in planula larvae inoculated with Durusdinium, suggesting that Durusdinium may not be a symbiont of planula larvae, as it is for primary polyps. Interestingly, some upregulated SLC transporters are tandemly duplicated in the A. tenuis genome, and expression of those transporters depends upon the algal symbiont and coral developmental stage, suggesting a possible genomic adaptation of coral hosts driven by gene duplication to accommodate diverse symbiotic associations.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".