Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25666536›Full record

ArticleMicrobial ecology2015

The Microbiome of Field-Caught and Laboratory-Adapted Australian Tephritid Fruit Fly Species with Different Host Plant Use and Specialisation.

J L Morrow, M Frommer, D C A Shearman, M Riegler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Microbial ecology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing papers in PubMed
–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

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 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

4 authors.

J L MorrowHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, Penrith, NSW, 2751, Australia, j.morrow@uws.edu.au.
M Frommer
D C A Shearman
M Riegler

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tephritid fruit fly species display a diversity of host plant specialisation on a scale from monophagy to polyphagy. Furthermore, while some species prefer ripening fruit, a few are restricted to damaged or rotting fruit. Such a diversity of host plant use may be reflected in the microbial symbiont diversity of tephritids and their grade of dependency on their microbiomes. Here, we investigated the microbiome of six tephritid species from three genera, including species that are polyphagous pests (Bactrocera tryoni, Bactrocera neohumeralis, Bactrocera jarvisi, Ceratitis capitata) and a monophagous specialist (Bactrocera cacuminata). These were compared with the microbiome of a non-pestiferous but polyphagous tephritid species that is restricted to damaged or rotting fruit (Dirioxa pornia). The bacterial community associated with whole fruit flies was analysed by 16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA) amplicon pyrosequencing to detect potential drivers of taxonomic composition. Overall, the dominant bacterial families were Enterobacteriaceae and Acetobacteraceae (both Proteobacteria), and Streptococcaceae and Enterococcaceae (both Firmicutes). Comparisons across species and genera found different microbial composition in the three tephritid genera, but limited consistent differentiation between Bactrocera species. Within Bactrocera species, differentiation of microbial composition seemed to be influenced by the environment, possibly including their diets; beyond this, tephritid species identity or ecology also had an effect. The microbiome of D. pornia was most distinct from the other five species, which may be due to its ecologically different niche of rotting or damaged fruit, as opposed to ripening fruit favoured by the other species. Our study is the first amplicon pyrosequencing study to compare the microbiomes of tephritid species and thus delivers important information about the turnover of microbial diversity within and between fruit fly species and their potential application in pest management strategies.

Indexed as

AnimalsAustraliaBacteriaRNA, Ribosomal, 16STephritidaeRNA, Ribosomal, 16S

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.