Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33499998›Full record

ArticleAnimal microbiome2020

Parasite-host ecology: the limited impacts of an intimate enemy on host microbiomes.

Cody S Clements, Andrew S Burns, Frank J Stewart, Mark E Hay

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animal microbiome, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Cody S ClementsAquatic Chemical Ecology Center, and Center for Microbial Dynamics and Infection, School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, 950 Atlantic Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0230, USA. cclements9@gatech.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0637-1625
Andrew S BurnsAquatic Chemical Ecology Center, and Center for Microbial Dynamics and Infection, School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, 950 Atlantic Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0230, USA.
Frank J StewartAquatic Chemical Ecology Center, and Center for Microbial Dynamics and Infection, School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, 950 Atlantic Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0230, USA.
Mark E HayAquatic Chemical Ecology Center, and Center for Microbial Dynamics and Infection, School of Biological Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, 950 Atlantic Drive, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0230, USA.
Georgia Institute of Technology · US

Funding

The USP Center for Drug Discovery and ConservationU19TW007401 · FIC · GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI HAY, MARK E · 2014 to 2018
$5.3M
FIC NIH HHS U19 TW007401NIH HHS 2 U19 TW007401-10
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImpacts of biotic stressors, such as consumers, on coral microbiomes have gained attention as corals decline worldwide. Corallivore feeding can alter coral microbiomes in ways that contribute to dysbiosis, but feeding strategies are diverse - complicating generalizations about the nature of consumer impacts on coral microbiomes.

resultsIn field experiments, feeding by Coralliophila violacea, a parasitic snail that suppresses coral growth, altered the microbiome of its host, Porites cylindrica, but these impacts were spatially constrained. Alterations in microbial community composition and variability were largely restricted to snail feeding scars; basal or distal areas ~ 1.5 cm or 6-8 cm away, respectively, were largely unaltered. Feeding scars were enriched in taxa common to stressed corals (e.g. Flavobacteriaceae, Rhodobacteraceae) and depauperate in putative beneficial symbionts (e.g. Endozoicomonadaceae) compared to locations that lacked feeding.

conclusionsPrevious studies that assessed consumer impacts on coral microbiomes suggested that feeding disrupts microbial communities, potentially leading to dysbiosis, but those studies involved mobile corallivores that move across and among numerous individual hosts. Sedentary parasites like C. violacea that spend long intervals with individual hosts and are dependent on hosts for food and shelter may minimize damage to host microbiomes to assure continued host health and thus exploitation. More mobile consumers that forage across numerous hosts should not experience these constraints. Thus, stability or disruption of microbiomes on attacked corals may vary based on the foraging strategy of coral consumers.

Indexed as

CoralliophilaCorallivoreCoral reefsGastropodMicrobial interactionsParasite-host interactionsParasitism

Identifiers

PMID33499998
PMCPMC7807496
OpenAlexW3098567991

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.