Back

Genomic and ecological factors shaping specialism and generalism across an entire subphylum

Opulente, D. A.; LaBella, A. L.; Harrison, M.-C.; Wolters, J. F.; Liu, C.; Li, Y.; Kominek, J.; Steenwyk, J. L.; Stoneman, H. R.; VanDenAvond, J.; Miller, C. R.; Langdon, Q. K.; Silva, M.; Goncalves, C.; Ubbelohde, E. J.; Li, Y.; Buh, K. V.; Jarzyna, M.; Haase, M. A. B.; Rosa, C. A.; Cadez, N.; Libkind, D.; DeVirgilio, J. H.; Hulfachor, A. B.; Kurtzman, C. P.; Sampaio, J. P.; Goncalves, P.; Zhou, X.; Shen, X.-X.; Groenewald, M.; Rokas, A.; Hittinger, C. T.

2023-09-08 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2023.06.19.545611 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Organisms exhibit extensive variation in ecological niche breadth, from very narrow (specialists) to very broad (generalists). Paradigms proposed to explain this variation either invoke trade-offs between performance efficiency and breadth or underlying intrinsic or extrinsic factors. We assembled genomic (1,154 yeast strains from 1,049 species), metabolic (quantitative measures of growth of 843 species in 24 conditions), and ecological (environmental ontology of 1,088 species) data from nearly all known species of the ancient fungal subphylum Saccharomycotina to examine niche breadth evolution. We found large interspecific differences in carbon breadth stem from intrinsic differences in genes encoding specific metabolic pathways but no evidence of trade-offs and a limited role of extrinsic ecological factors. These comprehensive data argue that intrinsic factors driving microbial niche breadth variation. One-Sentence SummaryA nearly complete genomic catalog of the yeast subphylum illuminates the evolution of their diverse ecologies and metabolisms.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
mBio
● 833 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
18.6%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 2%
15.2%
Similar papers in this journal
3
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.9%
Similar papers in this journal
4
mSystems
● 394 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.8%
Similar papers in this journal
5
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.5%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
PLOS Biology
● 486 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
5.2%
7
Current Biology
○ 665 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.3%
8
PLOS Genetics
● 862 papers in training set
Top 3%
4.3%
9
Molecular Biology and Evolution
◐ 542 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.4%
10
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
● 339 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
11
mSphere
● 302 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
12
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 37%
2.8%
13
BMC Biology
○ 265 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 18%
1.0%
15
PLOS Pathogens
● 820 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.0%
16
Science
● 477 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.8%
17
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
◐ 252 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
Frontiers in Fungal Biology
○ 10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
19
New Phytologist
○ 346 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
20
Nucleic Acids Research
◐ 1281 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
21
BMC Ecology and Evolution
○ 51 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
Molecular Ecology
○ 336 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%
23
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 40%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.