Back

Sign and strength of pairwise interactions in natural isolates depend on environment type.

McAvoy, T. A.; Hesse, E.; Buckling, A.; Lear, L.

2026-03-31 microbiology
10.64898/2026.03.31.715556 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Bacterial interactions-whether positive or negative - are crucial for the functioning of microbial communities. Though bacterial interactions are mainly expected to be negative, the sign and strength of interactions are predicted to be context dependent, with interactions typically being more positive in more stressful and nutrient-poor conditions. However, systematic studies investigating how the environment affects interactions between multiple taxa are lacking. Here, we determine if interactions between a panel of natural soil isolates change in response to the environment in which they are grown, with two different artificial media used (one simple and one complex) and a more ecologically relevant soil wash. To maximise natural variation in interactions, we collected multiple isolates from multiple sites: co-occurring (sympatric) isolates were predicted to show more negative interactions than allopatric isolates because of greater overlap in resource use. Pairwise interactions were in general negative, but more negative when grown in a complex lab-derived medium (Tryptic Soy Broth). Mutually beneficial interactions were most common in a simple resource medium (M9 minimal media) and exploitative interactions were most frequent in a soil broth. These patterns were independent of whether species originated from the same or a different site. The study supports the prediction that nutrient rich environments promote more negative interactions, and that measuring interactions of soil isolates in standard lab media is likely to misrepresent interactions occurring in natural environments.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
FEMS Microbiology Ecology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
17.2%
2
Environmental Microbiology Reports
27 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.2%
3
Environmental Microbiology
119 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
8.2%
4
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
7.0%
5
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
6.2%
6
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
4.8%
50% of probability mass above
7
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
8
Soil Biology and Biochemistry
29 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.0%
9
ISME Communications
103 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.0%
10
Microbiology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.7%
11
Microbial Ecology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
12
Journal of Applied Microbiology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.6%
13
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.3%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.0%
15
FEMS Microbes
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
16
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.7%
17
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 63%
1.5%
18
The ISME Journal
194 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
MicrobiologyOpen
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.2%
20
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
21
Journal of Microbiological Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
22
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Microorganisms
101 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.7%
25
Microbial Biotechnology
29 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.7%
26
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
Ecology and Evolution
232 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%
28
Microbiome
139 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%