Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28667798›Full record

ArticleMolecular ecology2017

A genomic investigation of ecological differentiation between free-living and Drosophila-associated bacteria.

Nathan J Winans, Alec Walter, Bessem Chouaia, John M Chaston, Angela E Douglas, Peter D Newell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular ecology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

38 citing papers in PubMed.

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

6 authors.

Nathan J WinansDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Alec WalterDepartment of Biological Sciences, State University of New York at Oswego, Oswego, NY, USA.
Bessem ChouaiaDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
John M ChastonDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Angela E DouglasDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Peter D NewellDepartment of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0959-5907

Funding

The protein nutrition of the symbiotic system between /Drosophila/and its gut micR01GM095372 · NIGMS · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI SEARLE, ANGELA E · 2011 to 2019
$2.8M
Investigation of microbial factors required for integrated functions of the DrosoF32GM099374 · NIGMS · CORNELL UNIVERSITY · PI NEWELL, PETER D · 2011 to 2013
$155k
NIGMS NIH HHS F32 GM099374NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM095372
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various bacterial taxa have been identified both in association with animals and in the external environment, but the extent to which related bacteria from the two habitat types are ecologically and evolutionarily distinct is largely unknown. This study investigated the scale and pattern of genetic differentiation between bacteria of the family Acetobacteraceae isolated from the guts of Drosophila fruit flies, plant material and industrial fermentations. Genome-scale analysis of the phylogenetic relationships and predicted functions was conducted on 44 Acetobacteraceae isolates, including newly sequenced genomes from 18 isolates from wild and laboratory Drosophila. Isolates from the external environment and Drosophila could not be assigned to distinct phylogenetic groups, nor are their genomes enriched for any different sets of genes or category of predicted gene functions. In contrast, analysis of bacteria from laboratory Drosophila showed they were genetically distinct in their universal capacity to degrade uric acid (a major nitrogenous waste product of Drosophila) and absence of flagellar motility, while these traits vary among wild Drosophila isolates. Analysis of the competitive fitness of Acetobacter discordant for these traits revealed a significant fitness deficit for bacteria that cannot degrade uric acid in culture with Drosophila. We propose that, for wild populations, frequent cycling of Acetobacter between Drosophila and the external environment prevents genetic differentiation by maintaining selection for traits adaptive in both the gut and external habitats. However, laboratory isolates bear the signs of adaptation to persistent association with the Drosophila host under tightly defined environmental conditions.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationGenome, BacterialAcetobacteraceaeAdaptation, BiologicalAnimalsDrosophilaEcologyPhylogenyAcetobacterDrosophilagut microbiotasymbiosisuric acid

Identifiers

PMID28667798
PMCPMC5570652

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.