Bacterial community dynamics as a result of growth-yield trade-off and multispecies metabolic interactions toward understanding the gut biofilm niche
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bacterial communities are ubiquitous, found in natural ecosystems, such as soil, and within living organisms, like the human microbiome. The dynamics of these communities in diverse environments depend on factors such as spatial features of the microbial niche, biochemical kinetics, and interactions among bacteria. Moreover, in many systems, bacterial communities are influenced by multiple physical mechanisms, such as mass transport and detachment forces. One example is gut mucosal communities, where dense, closely packed communities develop under the concurrent influence of nutrient transport from the lumen and fluid-mediated detachment of bacteria. In this study, we model a mucosal niche through a coupled agent-based and finite-volume modeling approach. This methodology enables us to model bacterial interactions affected by nutrient release from various sources while adjusting individual bacterial kinetics. We explored how the dispersion and abundance of bacteria are influenced by biochemical kinetics in different types of metabolic interactions, with a particular focus on the trade-off between growth rate and yield. Our findings demonstrate that in competitive scenarios, higher growth rates result in a larger share of the niche space. In contrast, growth yield plays a critical role in neutralism, commensalism, and mutualism interactions. When bacteria are introduced sequentially, they cause distinct spatiotemporal effects, such as deeper niche colonization in commensalism and mutualism scenarios driven by species intermixing effects, which are enhanced by high growth yields. Moreover, sub-ecosystem interactions dictate the dynamics of three-species communities, sometimes yielding unexpected outcomes. Competitive, fast-growing bacteria demonstrate robust colonization abilities, yet they face challenges in displacing established mutualistic systems. Bacteria that develop a cooperative relationship with existing species typically obtain niche residence, regardless of their growth rates, although higher growth yields significantly enhance their abundance. Our results underscore the importance of bacterial niche dynamics in shaping community properties and succession, highlighting a new approach to manipulating microbial systems.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".