Predicting bacterial-mediated entomopathogenicity through comparative genomics and statistical modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Bacterial genomes encode for vast functional diversity and have both beneficial and detrimental effects on insect hosts. However, connecting bacterial genotype to a host-associated phenotype can be experimentally time-consuming, particularly if insecticidal mechanisms are highly host-specific. To streamline the identification of virulence genes on a new host, we tested if merging existing mechanistic knowledge with in vivo tests on a small number of bacterial isolates could predict bacterial genes associated with entomopathogenesis. We used a model consisting of Drosophila melanogaster interactions with pathogenic and commensal genome-sequenced strains of Pseudomonas bacteria. We compiled a database of previously described insecticidal and biocontrol genes within the Pseudomonas genus and used comparative genomics to probe the distribution of these genes across Pseudomonas strains. We found natural variation in the presence of known insecticidal genes across the genus. We tested the insect-killing capacity of 13 Pseudomonas spp. strains against D. melanogaster and found natural variation in insecticidal activity. To identify bacterial genes associated with fly mortality, we employed two statistical models to correlate bacterial virulence with the presence of previously described insecticidal activity. To validate our predictions, we used a P. aeruginosa PAO1 transposon mutant library and identified 8 operons that are necessary for killing D. melanogaster . We show that by combining existing literature with phenotyping a small number of strains, we can identify genes necessary for insecticidal activity in a previously untested insect model. More broadly these findings illustrate a discovery pipeline for bacterial virulence mechanisms, accelerating the discovery of insect pest biocontrol mechanisms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".