ArticleScientific reports2023
Gut microbes predominantly act as living beneficial partners rather than raw nutrients.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Seasonal dynamics and core stability of the bacterial microbiome of a Drosophila suzukii wild population.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Structure, function, and quantitative biology of the Drosophila gut microbiome.Current opinion in microbiology · 2025Review
- Legionella Confer Survival Benefits to Paramecium Hosts by Inhibiting Phagocytosis.Microbes and environments · 2025Article
- Probiotics under Selective Pressure: Novel Insights and Biosafety Challenge.Archives of Razi Institute · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animals and their gut microbes mutually benefit their health. Nutrition plays a central role in this, directly influencing both host and microbial fitness and the nature of their interactions. This makes nutritional symbioses a complex and dynamic tri-system of diet-microbiota-host. Despite recent discoveries on this field, full control over the interplay among these partners is challenging and hinders the resolution of fundamental questions, such as how to parse the gut microbes' effect as raw nutrition or as symbiotic partners? To tackle this, we made use of the well-characterized Drosophila melanogaster/Lactiplantibacillus plantarum experimental model of nutritional symbiosis to generate a quantitative framework of gut microbes' effect on the host. By coupling experimental assays and Random Forest analysis, we show that the beneficial effect of L. plantarum strains primarily results from the active relationship as symbionts rather than raw nutrients, regardless of the bacterial strain. Metabolomic analysis of both active and inactive bacterial cells further demonstrated the crucial role of the production of beneficial bacterial metabolites, such as N-acetylated-amino-acids, as result of active bacterial growth and function. Altogether, our results provide a ranking and quantification of the main bacterial features contributing to sustain animal growth. We demonstrate that bacterial activity is the predominant and necessary variable involved in bacteria-mediated benefit, followed by strain-specific properties and the nutritional potential of the bacterial cells. This contributes to elucidate the role of beneficial bacteria and probiotics, creating a broad quantitative framework for host-gut microbiome that can be expanded to other model systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.