MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319162148 · doi:10.1101/2023.02.02.524463

Evidence for a core set of microbial lichen symbionts from a global survey of metagenomes

2023· preprint· en· W4319162148 on OpenAlexaff
Gulnara Tagirdzhanova, Paul Saary, Ellen S. Cameron, Arkadiy I. Garber, David Díaz-Escandón, Spencer Goyette, Veera Tuovinen, Alfredo Passo, Helmut Mayrhofer, Håkon Holien, Tor Tønsberg, Lisa Y. Stein, ROBERT FINN, Toby Spribille

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLichen and fungal ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLichenSymbiosisBiologyFungusAnoxygenic photosynthesisEcologyEvolutionary biologyBotanyBacteriaPhototrophPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lichens are the archetypal symbiosis and the one for which the term was coined. Although application of shotgun sequencing techniques has shown that many lichen symbioses can harbour more symbionts than the canonically recognized fungus and photobiont, no global census of lichen organismal composition has been undertaken. Here, we analyze the genome content of 437 lichen metagenomes from six continents, and show that four bacterial lineages occur in the majority of lichen symbioses, at a frequency on par with algal photobionts. A single bacterial genus, Lichenihabitans , occurs in nearly one-third of all lichens sampled. Genome annotations from the most common lichen bacterial symbionts suggest they are aerobic anoxygenic photoheterotrophs and produce essential vitamins, but do not fix nitrogen. We also detected secondary basidiomycete symbionts in about two-thirds of analyzed metagenomes. Our survey suggests a core set of four to seven microbial symbionts are involved in forming and maintaining lichen symbioses.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.141 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicLichen and fungal ecologyFrench-language works237,207