Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28682460›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2018

Strategies for managing rival bacterial communities: Lessons from burying beetles.

Ana Duarte, Martin Welch, Chris Swannack, Josef Wagner, Rebecca M Kilner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. AntifungalMicroorganisms · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Defences against brood parasites from a social immunity perspective.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019
    Review
  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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Ana DuarteDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1215-0458
Martin WelchDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Chris SwannackDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Josef WagnerPathogen Genetics Programme, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Hinxton, UK.
Rebecca M KilnerDepartment of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
University of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Exeter · GBWellcome Sanger Institute · GB

Funding

European Research Council 310785
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The role of bacteria in animal development, ecology and evolution is increasingly well understood, yet little is known of how animal behaviour affects bacterial communities. Animals that benefit from defending a key resource from microbial competitors are likely to evolve behaviours to control or manipulate the animal's associated external microbiota. We describe four possible mechanisms by which animals could gain a competitive edge by disrupting a rival bacterial community: "weeding," "seeding," "replanting" and "preserving." By combining detailed behavioural observations with molecular and bioinformatic analyses, we then test which of these mechanisms best explains how burying beetles, Nicrophorus vespilloides, manipulate the bacterial communities on their carcass breeding resource. Burying beetles are a suitable species to study how animals manage external microbiota because reproduction revolves around a small vertebrate carcass. Parents shave a carcass and apply antimicrobial exudates on its surface, shaping it into an edible nest for their offspring. We compared bacterial communities in mice carcasses that were either fresh, prepared by beetles or unprepared but buried underground for the same length of time. We also analysed bacterial communities in the burying beetle's gut, during and after breeding, to understand whether beetles could be "seeding" the carcass with particular microbes. We show that burying beetles do not "preserve" the carcass by reducing bacterial load, as is commonly supposed. Instead, our results suggest they "seed" the carcass with bacterial groups which are part of the Nicrophorus core microbiome. They may also "replant" other bacteria from the carcass gut onto the surface of their carrion nest. Both these processes may lead to the observed increase in bacterial load on the carcass surface in the presence of beetles. Beetles may also "weed" the bacterial community by eliminating some groups of bacteria on the carcass, perhaps through the production of antimicrobials themselves. Whether these alterations to the bacterial community are adaptive from the beetle's perspective, or are simply a by-product of the way in which the beetles prepare the carcass for reproduction, remains to be determined in future work. In general, our work suggests that animals might use more sophisticated techniques for attacking and disrupting rival microbial communities than is currently appreciated.

Indexed as

Bacterial Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsBacteriaBehavior, AnimalBiodiversityBody RemainsColeopteraMiceanimal behaviourantimicrobialsmicrobiomesocial immunity

Identifiers

PMID28682460
PMCPMC5836980
OpenAlexW2733497539

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.