Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26336636›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2015

Interactions between Drosophila and its natural yeast symbionts-Is Saccharomyces cerevisiae a good model for studying the fly-yeast relationship?

Don Hoang, Artyom Kopp, James Angus Chandler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. The Gut Microbiota ofMicroorganisms · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Discovery and identification of a novel yeast species,International journal of systematic and evolutionary microbiology · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. How gut microbiome interactions affect nutritional traits ofThe Journal of experimental biology · 2020
    Article
  20. Frontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Review
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

3 authors.

Don HoangDepartment of Evolution and Ecology and Center for Population Biology, University of California , Davis, CA , USA ; Current affiliation: Program in Genomics of Differentiation, NIH/NICHD , Bethesda, MD , USA.
Artyom KoppDepartment of Evolution and Ecology and Center for Population Biology, University of California , Davis, CA , USA.
James Angus ChandlerDepartment of Evolution and Ecology and Center for Population Biology, University of California , Davis, CA , USA ; Current affiliation: Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology, University of California , Berkeley, CA , USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Yeasts play an important role in the biology of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. In addition to being a valuable source of nutrition, yeasts affect D. melanogaster behavior and interact with the host immune system. Most experiments investigating the role of yeasts in D. melanogaster biology use the baker's yeast, Saccharomyces cerevisiae. However, S. cerevisiae is rarely found with natural populations of D. melanogaster or other Drosophila species. Moreover, the strain of S. cerevisiae used most often in D. melanogaster experiments is a commercially and industrially important strain that, to the best of our knowledge, was not isolated from flies. Since disrupting natural host-microbe interactions can have profound effects on host biology, the results from D. melanogaster-S. cerevisiae laboratory experiments may not be fully representative of host-microbe interactions in nature. In this study, we explore the D. melanogaster-yeast relationship using five different strains of yeast that were isolated from wild Drosophila populations. Ingested live yeasts have variable persistence in the D. melanogaster gastrointestinal tract. For example, Hanseniaspora occidentalis persists relative to S. cerevisiae, while Brettanomyces naardenensis is removed. Despite these differences in persistence relative to S. cerevisiae, we find that all yeasts decrease in total abundance over time. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are an important component of the D. melanogaster anti-microbial response and can inhibit S. cerevisiae growth in the intestine. To determine if sensitivity to ROS explains the differences in yeast persistence, we measured yeast growth in the presence and absence of hydrogen peroxide. We find that B. naardenesis is completely inhibited by hydrogen peroxide, while H. occidentalis is not, which is consistent with yeast sensitivity to ROS affecting persistence within the D. melanogaster gastrointestinal tract. We also compared the feeding preference of D. melanogaster when given the choice between a naturally associated yeast and S. cerevisiae. We do not find a correlation between preferred yeasts and those that persist in the intestine. Notably, in no instances is S. cerevisiae preferred over the naturally associated strains. Overall, our results show that D. melanogaster-yeast interactions are more complex than might be revealed in experiments that use only S. cerevisiae. We propose that future research utilize other yeasts, and especially those that are naturally associated with Drosophila, to more fully understand the role of yeasts in Drosophila biology. Since the genetic basis of host-microbe interactions is shared across taxa and since many of these genes are initially discovered in D. melanogaster, a more realistic fly-yeast model system will benefit our understanding of host-microbe interactions throughout the animal kingdom.

Indexed as

Baker’s yeastDrosophila melanogasterHost-microbe interactionsMicrobiomeMicrobiotaSaccharomyces cerevisiaeSymbiosisYeast

Identifiers

PMID26336636
PMCPMC4556146

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.