Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21966276›Full record

ArticlePLoS genetics2011

Bacterial communities of diverse Drosophila species: ecological context of a host-microbe model system.

James Angus Chandler, Jenna Morgan Lang, Srijak Bhatnagar, Jonathan A Eisen, Artyom Kopp

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 414 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
414citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

414 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Meta-analysis of Diets Used inG3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2020
    Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Gut microbiome of the grape berry moth,Microbial genomics · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Insects · 2026
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

354 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

James Angus ChandlerCenter for Population Biology, Department of Evolution and Ecology, University of California Davis, Davis, California, USA. jschandler@ucdavis.edu
Jenna Morgan Lang
Srijak Bhatnagar
Jonathan A Eisen
Artyom Kopp

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Drosophila melanogaster is emerging as an important model of non-pathogenic host-microbe interactions. The genetic and experimental tractability of Drosophila has led to significant gains in our understanding of animal-microbial symbiosis. However, the full implications of these results cannot be appreciated without the knowledge of the microbial communities associated with natural Drosophila populations. In particular, it is not clear whether laboratory cultures can serve as an accurate model of host-microbe interactions that occur in the wild, or those that have occurred over evolutionary time. To fill this gap, we characterized natural bacterial communities associated with 14 species of Drosophila and related genera collected from distant geographic locations. To represent the ecological diversity of Drosophilids, examined species included fruit-, flower-, mushroom-, and cactus-feeders. In parallel, wild host populations were compared to laboratory strains, and controlled experiments were performed to assess the importance of host species and diet in shaping bacterial microbiome composition. We find that Drosophilid flies have taxonomically restricted bacterial communities, with 85% of the natural bacterial microbiome composed of only four bacterial families. The dominant bacterial taxa are widespread and found in many different host species despite the taxonomic, ecological, and geographic diversity of their hosts. Both natural surveys and laboratory experiments indicate that host diet plays a major role in shaping the Drosophila bacterial microbiome. Despite this, the internal bacterial microbiome represents only a highly reduced subset of the external bacterial communities, suggesting that the host exercises some level of control over the bacteria that inhabit its digestive tract. Finally, we show that laboratory strains provide only a limited model of natural host-microbe interactions. Bacterial taxa used in experimental studies are rare or absent in wild Drosophila populations, while the most abundant associates of natural Drosophila populations are rare in the lab.

Indexed as

BiodiversitySymbiosisAnimalsBacteriaBiological EvolutionDietDrosophilaMetagenomeModels, BiologicalPopulationRNA, Ribosomal, 16SRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID21966276
PMCPMC3178584

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.