Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23967097›Full record

ArticlePloS one2013

Host species and environmental effects on bacterial communities associated with Drosophila in the laboratory and in the natural environment.

Fabian Staubach, John F Baines, Sven Künzel, Elisabeth M Bik, Dmitri A Petrov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 143 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
143citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

143 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Environment and diet shape the geography-specificApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

83 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.

Fabian StaubachDepartment of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. fabians@stanford.edu
John F Baines
Sven Künzel
Elisabeth M Bik
Dmitri A Petrov

Funding

Genomics of rapid adaptation on seasonal timescales in D. melanogasterR01GM100366 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SCHMIDT, PAUL · 2012 to 2019
$3.3M
Sequencing yeast lines to measure rates of neutral and deleterious mutationsR01GM097415 · NIGMS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI PETROV, DMITRI, SIEGAL, MARK L · 2011 to 2014
$2.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM097415NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM097415NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM100366NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM100366
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The fruit fly Drosophila is a classic model organism to study adaptation as well as the relationship between genetic variation and phenotypes. Although associated bacterial communities might be important for many aspects of Drosophila biology, knowledge about their diversity, composition, and factors shaping them is limited. We used 454-based sequencing of a variable region of the bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene to characterize the bacterial communities associated with wild and laboratory Drosophila isolates. In order to specifically investigate effects of food source and host species on bacterial communities, we analyzed samples from wild Drosophila melanogaster and D. simulans collected from a variety of natural substrates, as well as from adults and larvae of nine laboratory-reared Drosophila species. We find no evidence for host species effects in lab-reared flies; instead, lab of origin and stochastic effects, which could influence studies of Drosophila phenotypes, are pronounced. In contrast, the natural Drosophila-associated microbiota appears to be predominantly shaped by food substrate with an additional but smaller effect of host species identity. We identify a core member of this natural microbiota that belongs to the genus Gluconobacter and is common to all wild-caught flies in this study, but absent from the laboratory. This makes it a strong candidate for being part of what could be a natural D. melanogaster and D. simulans core microbiome. Furthermore, we were able to identify candidate pathogens in natural fly isolates.

Indexed as

Environmental MicrobiologyMicrobiotaAnimalsBacteriaBiodiversityDrosophilaHost-Pathogen InteractionsMaleMetagenomePhenotypeRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSpecies SpecificityRNA, BacterialRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

PMID23967097
PMCPMC3742674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.