ArticleNature communications2025
Recent genetic drift in the co-diversified gut bacterial symbionts of laboratory mice.
Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Animal gut microbes and microbiomes in the 21st century and beyond.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Review
- How do anthropogenic changes affect wildlife microbiomes?PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Isolation by distance promotes gut microbial strain divergence in wild mouse populations.Nature ecology & evolution · 2026Article
- Selection and transmission of the gut microbiome alone can shift mammalian behavior.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Evolution of gut microbiota across honeybee species revealed by comparative metagenomics.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Isolation by distance promotes strain diversification in the wild mouse gut microbiota.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Sulfoquinovose is exclusively metabolized by the gut microbiota and degraded differently in mice and humans.Microbiome · 2025Article
- Recent genetic drift in the co-diversified gut bacterial symbionts of laboratory mice.Nature communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Laboratory mice (Mus musculus domesticus) harbor gut bacterial strains that are distinct from those of wild mice but whose evolutionary histories are unclear. Here, we show that laboratory mice have retained gut bacterial lineages that diversified in parallel (co-diversified) with rodent species for > 25 million years, but that laboratory-mouse gut microbiota (LGM) strains of these ancestral symbionts have experienced accelerated accumulation of genetic load during the past ~ 120 years of captivity. Compared to closely related wild-mouse gut microbiota (WGM) strains, co-diversified LGM strains displayed significantly faster genome-wide rates of nonsynonymous substitutions, indicating elevated genetic drift-a difference that was absent in non-co-diversified symbiont clades. Competition experiments in germ-free mice further indicated that LGM strains within co-diversified clades displayed significantly reduced fitness in vivo compared to WGM relatives to an extent not observed within non-co-diversified clades. Thus, stochastic processes (e.g., bottlenecks), not natural selection in the laboratory, have been the predominant evolutionary forces underlying divergence of co-diversified symbiont strains between laboratory and wild house mice. Our results show that gut bacterial lineages conserved in diverse rodent species have acquired novel mutational burdens in laboratory mice, providing an evolutionary rationale for restoring laboratory mice with wild gut bacterial strain diversity.
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.