Host-microbiome mutualisms emerge from community interactions among microbes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microbiomes often benefit plants, conferring resistance to pathogens, improving stress tolerance, or promoting plant growth. As potential plant mutualists, however, microbiomes are not a single organism but a community of species with complex interactions among microbial taxa and between microbes and their shared host. The nature of ecological interactions among microbes in the microbiome can have important consequences for the net effects of microbiomes on hosts. Here, we compared the effects of individual microbial strains and 10-strain synthetic communities on microbial productivity and host growth using the common duckweed Lemna minor and a synthetic, simplified version of its native microbiome. Except for Pseudomonas protegens , which was a mutualist when tested alone, all of the single strains we tested were commensals on hosts, benefiting from plant presence but not increasing host growth relative to uninoculated controls. However, 10-strain synthetic microbial communities increased both microbial productivity and duckweed growth more than the average single-strain inoculation and uninoculated controls, meaning that host-microbiome mutualisms can emerge from community interactions among microbes on hosts. The effects of community inoculation were sub-additive, suggesting at least some competition among microbes in the duckweed microbiome. We also investigated the relationship between L. minor fitness and that of its microbes, providing some of the first empirical estimates of broad fitness alignment between plants and members of their microbiomes; hosts grew faster with more productive microbes or microbiomes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".