Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38666134›Full record

ArticleSymbiosis (Philadelphia, Pa.)2024

The impacts of host association and perturbation on symbiont fitness.

Kim L Hoang, Roberto Salguero-Gómez, Victoria L Pike, Kayla C King

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Symbiosis (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2024. 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
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Kim L HoangDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Roberto Salguero-GómezDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Victoria L PikeDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Kayla C KingDepartment of Biology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
University of Oxford · GBEmory University · USUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Symbiosis can benefit hosts in numerous ways, but less is known about whether interactions with hosts benefit symbionts-the smaller species in the relationship. To determine the fitness impact of host association on symbionts in likely mutualisms, we conducted a meta-analysis across 91 unique host-symbiont pairings under a range of spatial and temporal contexts. Specifically, we assess the consequences to symbiont fitness when in and out of symbiosis, as well as when the symbiosis is under suboptimal or varying environments and biological conditions (e.g., host age). We find that some intracellular symbionts associated with protists tend to have greater fitness when the symbiosis is under stressful conditions. Symbionts of plants and animals did not exhibit this trend, suggesting that symbionts of multicellular hosts are more robust to perturbations. Symbiont fitness also generally increased with host age. Lastly, we show that symbionts able to proliferate in- and outside host cells exhibit greater fitness than those found exclusively inside or outside cells. The ability to grow in multiple locations may thus help symbionts thrive. We discuss these fitness patterns in light of host-driven factors, whereby hosts exert influence over symbionts to suit their own needs. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13199-024-00984-6.

Indexed as

BenefitsEnvironmental stressExploitationHost-symbiont interactionsMicrobial regulationSymbiosis

Identifiers

PMID38666134
PMCPMC11039428
OpenAlexW4393497330

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.