Structural differences in the gut microbiome of bats using terrestrial vs. aquatic feeding resources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bat gut microbiomes are adapted to the specific diets of their hosts. Despite diet variation has been associated with differences in bat microbiome diversity, the influence of diet on microbial community assembly have not been fully elucidated. In the present study, we used available data on bat gut microbiome to characterize the microbial community assembly of five selected bat species (i.e., Miniopterus schreibersii, Myotis capaccinii, Myotis myotis, Myotis pilosus, and Myotis vivesi), using network analysis. These bat species with contrasting habitat and food preferences (i.e., My. capaccinii and My. pilosus can be piscivorous and/or insectivorous; Mi. schreibersii and My. myotis are exclusively insectivorous; while My. vivesi is a marine predator) offer an invaluable opportunity to test the impact of diet on bat gut microbiome assembly. The results showed that My. myotis showed the most complex network, with the highest number of nodes, while My. vivesi has the least complex structured microbiome, with lowest number of nodes in its network. No common nodes were observed in the networks of the five bat species, with My. myotis possessing the highest number of unique nodes. Only three bat species, My. myotis, My. pilosus and My. vivesi, presented a core microbiome and the distribution of local centrality measures of nodes was different in the five networks. Taxa removal followed by measurement of network connectivity revealed that My. myotis had the most robust network, while the network of My. vivesi presented the lowest tolerance to taxa removal. Prediction of metabolic pathways using PICRUSt2 revealed that Mi. schreibersii had significantly higher functional pathway's richness compared to the other bat species. Most of predicted pathways (82%, total 435) were shared between all bat species, while My. capaccinii, My. myotis and My. vivesi, but no Mi. schreibersii or My. pilosus, showed specific pathways. We concluded that despite similar feeding habits, microbial community assembly can differ between bat species. Other factors beyond diet may play a major role in bat microbial community assembly, with host ecology, sociality and overlap in roosts likely providing additional predictors governing gut microbiome of insectivorous bats.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".