CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 52Gut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyInsect symbiosis and bacterial influences

Social and environmental transmission spread different sets of gut microbes in wild mice

Open access
Raulo, Aura, Bürkner, Paul-Christian, Finerty, Genevieve E., Dale, Jarrah, Hanski, Eveliina, English, Holly M., Lamberth, Curt, Firth, Josh A. +2 more·2024·Nature Ecology & Evolution
DOI 10.1038/s41559-024-02381-0PMC PMC11090834

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Gut microbes shape many aspects of organismal biology, yet how these key bacteria transmit among hosts in natural populations remains poorly understood. Recent work in mammals has emphasized either transmission through social contacts or indirect transmission through environmental contact, but the relative importance of different routes has not been directly assessed. Here we used a novel radio-frequency identification-based tracking system to collect long-term high-resolution data on social relationships, space use and microhabitat in a wild population of mice ( Apodemus sylvaticus ), while regularly characterizing their gut microbiota with 16S ribosomal RNA profiling. Through probabilistic modelling of the resulting data, we identify positive and statistically distinct signals of social and environmental transmission, captured by social networks and overlap in home ranges, respectively. Strikingly, microorganisms with distinct biological attributes drove these different transmission signals. While the social network effect on microbiota was driven by anaerobic bacteria, the effect of shared space was most influenced by aerotolerant spore-forming bacteria. These findings support the prediction that social contact is important for the transfer of microorganisms with low oxygen tolerance, while those that can tolerate oxygen or form spores may be able to transmit indirectly through the environment. Overall, these results suggest social and environmental transmission routes can spread biologically distinct members of the mammalian gut microbiota.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41559-024-02381-0

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Similar problems, and a need for phylogenetic methods, arise when using data from other omic methods, such as transcriptomics, metagenomics or metabolomics.

    “Similar problems, and a need for phylogenetic methods, arise when using data from other omic methods, such as transcriptomics, metagenomics or metabolomics61–64.”

    From A phylogenetic approach to comparative genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [63]

    Methods (Statistical analyses; page not provided) says the authors accounted for phylogenetic non-independence among bacterial genera, supporting the need for a phylogenetic approach in this microbiota analysis. Methods (Microbiota profiling; page not provided) describes 16S rRNA sequencing, not transcriptomics, metagenomics or metabolomics; the paper does not establish the claimed need across those methods. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 86

  1. [1]Gloria Dominguez-Bello M Godoy-Vitorino F Knight R Blaser MJ Dominguez-Bello MG Role of the microbiome in human development Gut 2019 68 1108 1114 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317503 30670574 PMC6580755 · DOI
  2. [2]Bates JM Distinct signals from the microbiota promote different aspects of zebrafish gut differentiation Dev. Biol. 2006 297 374 386 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.05.006 16781702 · DOI
  3. [3]Goldszmid RS Trinchieri G The price of immunity Nat. Immunol. 2012 13 932 938 10.1038/ni.2422 22990891 · DOI
  4. [4]Foster JA Rinaman L Cryan JF Stress and the gut–brain axis: regulation by the microbiome Neurobiol. Stress 2017 7 124 136 10.1016/j.ynstr.2017.03.001 29276734 PMC5736941 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]Round JL Mazmanian SK The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2009 9 313 323 10.1038/nri2515 19343057 PMC4095778 · DOI · Paper page
  6. [6]Davidson GL Raulo A Knowles SCL Identifying microbiome-mediated behaviour in wild vertebrates Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020 35 972 980 10.1016/j.tree.2020.06.014 32736804 · DOI
  7. [7]Wu WL Microbiota regulate social behaviour via stress response neurons in the brain Nature 2021 595 409 414 10.1038/s41586-021-03669-y 34194038 PMC8346519 · DOI
  8. [8]Montiel-Castro AJ González-Cervantes RM Bravo-Ruiseco G Pacheco-López G The microbiota–gut–brain axis: neurobehavioral correlates, health and sociality Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2013 7 70 10.3389/fnint.2013.00070 24109440 PMC3791857 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [9]Alberdi A Aizpurua O Bohmann K Zepeda-Mendoza ML Gilbert MTP Do vertebrate gut metagenomes confer rapid ecological adaptation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 2016 31 689 699 10.1016/j.tree.2016.06.008 27453351 · DOI
  10. [10]Foster KR Schluter J Coyte KZ Rakoff-Nahoum S The evolution of the host microbiome as an ecosystem on a leash Nature 2017 548 43 51 10.1038/nature23292 28770836 PMC5749636 · DOI
  11. [11]Theis KR Getting the hologenome concept right: an eco-evolutionary framework for hosts and their microbiomes mSystems 2016 1 e00028-16 10.1128/mSystems.00028-16 27822520 PMC5069740 · DOI
  12. [12]Gilbert SF Developmental symbiosis facilitates the multiple origins of herbivory Evol. Dev. 2020 22 154 164 10.1111/ede.12291 31332951 · DOI
  13. [13]Coyte KZ Schluter J Foster KR The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability Science 2015 350 663 666 10.1126/science.aad2602 26542567 · DOI
  14. [14]Karkman A Lehtimäki J Ruokolainen L The ecology of human microbiota: dynamics and diversity in health and disease Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2017 1399 78 92 10.1111/nyas.13326 28319653 · DOI
  15. [15]Costello EK Stagaman K Dethlefsen L Bohannan BJM Relman DA The application of ecological theory toward an understanding of the human microbiome Science 2012 336 1255 1262 10.1126/science.1224203 22674335 PMC4208626 · DOI · Paper page
  16. [16]Miller ET Svanbäck R Bohannan BJM Microbiomes as metacommunities: understanding host-associated microbes through metacommunity ecology Trends Ecol. Evol. 2018 33 926 935 10.1016/j.tree.2018.09.002 30266244 · DOI
  17. [17]Robinson CD Bohannan BJ Britton RA Scales of persistence: transmission and the microbiome Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2019 50 42 49 10.1016/j.mib.2019.09.009 31629296 PMC6899178 · DOI
  18. [18]Browne HP Shao Y Lawley TD Mother–infant transmission of human microbiota Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2022 69 102173 10.1016/j.mib.2022.102173 35785616 · DOI
  19. [19]Sarkar A Microbial transmission in animal social networks and the social microbiome Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2020 4 1020 1035 10.1038/s41559-020-1220-8 32572221 · DOI
  20. [20]Pullman, J. et al. Detailed social network interactions and gut microbiome strain-sharing within isolated Honduras villages. Preprint at bioRxiv10.1101/2023.04.06.535875 (2023).
  21. [21]Valles-Colomer M The person-to-person transmission landscape of the gut and oral microbiomes Nature 2023 614 125 135 10.1038/s41586-022-05620-1 36653448 PMC9892008 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [22]Brito IL Transmission of human-associated microbiota along family and social networks Nat. Microbiol. 2019 4 964 971 10.1038/s41564-019-0409-6 30911128 PMC7450247 · DOI
  23. [23]Song SJ Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs eLife 2013 2 e00458 10.7554/eLife.00458 23599893 PMC3628085 · DOI
  24. [25]Dill-McFarland KA Close social relationships correlate with human gut microbiota composition Sci. Rep. 2019 9 703 10.1038/s41598-018-37298-9 30679677 PMC6345772 · DOI
  25. [26]Raulo A Social behaviour and gut microbiota in red-bellied lemurs (Eulemur rubriventer): in search of the role of immunity in the evolution of sociality J. Anim. Ecol. 2018 87 388 399 10.1111/1365-2656.12781 29205327 · DOI
  26. [27]Perofsky AC Lewis RJ Abondano LA Di Fiore A Meyers LA Hierarchical social networks shape gut microbial composition in wild Verreaux’s sifaka Proc. Biol. Sci. 2017 284 20172274 29212730 PMC5740288
  27. [28]Tung J Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons eLife 2015 4 e05224 10.7554/eLife.05224 25774601 PMC4379495 · DOI
  28. [29]Bennett G Host age, social group, and habitat type influence the gut microbiota of wild ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) Am. J. Primatol. 2016 78 883 892 10.1002/ajp.22555 27177345 · DOI
  29. [30]Antwis RE Lea JMD Unwin B Shultz S Gut microbiome composition is associated with spatial structuring and social interactions in semi-feral Welsh mountain ponies Microbiome 2018 6 207 10.1186/s40168-018-0593-2 30466491 PMC6251106 · DOI
  30. [31]Leclaire S Nielsen JF Drea CM Bacterial communities in meerkat anal scent secretions vary with host sex, age, and group membership Behav. Ecol. 2014 25 996 1004 10.1093/beheco/aru074 · DOI
  31. [32]Moeller AH Social behavior shapes the chimpanzee pan-microbiome Sci. Adv. 2016 2 e1500997 e1500997 10.1126/sciadv.1500997 26824072 PMC4730854 · DOI
  32. [33]Gogarten JF Factors influencing bacterial microbiome composition in a wild non-human primate community in Taï National Park, Côte d’Ivoire ISME J. 2018 12 2559 2574 10.1038/s41396-018-0166-1 29955140 PMC6154966 · DOI
  33. [34]Wikberg EC Christie D Sicotte P Ting N Interactions between social groups of colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) explain similarities in their gut microbiomes Anim. Behav. 2020 163 17 31 10.1016/j.anbehav.2020.02.011 · DOI
  34. [35]Raulo A Social networks strongly predict the gut microbiota of wild mice ISME J. 2021 15 2601 2613 10.1038/s41396-021-00949-3 33731838 PMC8397773 · DOI
  35. [36]Lehtimäki J Patterns in the skin microbiota differ in children and teenagers between rural and urban environments Sci. Rep. 2017 7 45651 10.1038/srep45651 28361981 PMC5374497 · DOI · Paper page
  36. [37]Ruokolainen L Contrasting microbiotas between Finnish and Estonian infants: exposure to Acinetobacter may contribute to the allergy gap Allergy 2020 75 2342 2351 10.1111/all.14250 32108360 · DOI
  37. [38]Ruokolainen L Significant disparities in allergy prevalence and microbiota between the young people in Finnish and Russian Karelia Clin. Exp. Allergy 2017 47 665 674 10.1111/cea.12895 28165640 · DOI
  38. [39]Roslund MI Long-term biodiversity intervention shapes health-associated commensal microbiota among urban day-care children Environ. Int. 2021 157 106811 10.1016/j.envint.2021.106811 34403882 · DOI
  39. [40]Ottman N Soil exposure modifies the gut microbiota and supports immune tolerance in a mouse model J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2019 143 1198 1206.e12 10.1016/j.jaci.2018.06.024 30097187 · DOI
  40. [41]Zhou D Exposure to soil, house dust and decaying plants increases gut microbial diversity and decreases serum immunoglobulin E levels in BALB/c mice Environ. Microbiol. 2016 18 1326 1337 10.1111/1462-2920.12895 25958920 · DOI
  41. [42]Sharma A Longitudinal homogenization of the microbiome between both occupants and the built environment in a cohort of United States Air Force cadets Microbiome 2019 1 70 10.1186/s40168-019-0686-6 PMC6498636 31046835 · DOI
  42. [43]Pausan, M. R., Blohs, M., Mahnert, A. & Moissl-Eichinger, C. The indoor environment—a potent source for intact human-associated anaerobes. Preprint at bioRxiv10.1101/2020.12.02.406132 (2020). PMC9160270 35650275
  43. [44]Liddicoat C Naturally-diverse airborne environmental microbial exposures modulate the gut microbiome and may provide anxiolytic benefits in mice Sci. Total Environ. 2020 701 134684 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134684 31704402 · DOI · Paper page
  44. [45]Lax S Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment Science 2014 345 1048 1052 10.1126/science.1254529 25170151 PMC4337996 · DOI
  45. [46]Miller ET Bohannan BJM Life between patches: incorporating microbiome biology alters the predictions of metacommunity models Front. Ecol. Evol. 2019 7 276 10.3389/fevo.2019.00276 · DOI
  46. [47]Grieneisen LE Genes, geology and germs: gut microbiota across a primate hybrid zone are explained by site soil properties, not host species Proc. R. Soc. B 2019 286 20190431 10.1098/rspb.2019.0431 31014219 PMC6501927 · DOI
  47. [49]Blum WEH Zechmeister-Boltenstern S Keiblinger KM Does soil contribute to the human gut microbiome? Microorganisms 2019 7 287 10.3390/microorganisms7090287 31450753 PMC6780873 · DOI
  48. [50]Kearney SM Endospores and other lysis-resistant bacteria comprise a widely shared core community within the human microbiota ISME J. 2018 12 2403 2416 10.1038/s41396-018-0192-z 29899513 PMC6157131 · DOI · Paper page
  49. [51]Browne HP Neville BA Forster SC Lawley TD Transmission of the gut microbiota: spreading of health Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2017 15 531 543 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.50 28603278 PMC5837012 · DOI
  50. [52]Albery GF Kirkpatrick L Firth JA Bansal S Unifying spatial and social network analysis in disease ecology J. Anim. Ecol. 2021 90 45 61 10.1111/1365-2656.13356 32984944 · DOI
  51. [53]Maurice CF Marked seasonal variation in the wild mouse gut microbiota ISME J. 2015 9 2423 2434 10.1038/ismej.2015.53 26023870 PMC4611506 · DOI
  52. [54]Marsh KJ Synchronous seasonality in the gut microbiota of wild mouse populations Front. Microbiol 2022 13 809735 10.3389/fmicb.2022.809735 35547129 PMC9083407 · DOI
  53. [55]Sah P Méndez JD Bansal S A multi-species repository of social networks Sci. Data 2019 6 44 10.1038/s41597-019-0056-z 31036810 PMC6488576 · DOI
  54. [56]Winner K Statistical inference for home range overlap Methods Ecol. Evol. 2018 9 1679 1691 10.1111/2041-210X.13027 · DOI
  55. [57]Trujillo, M. E. et al. Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria (Wiley, 2015).
  56. [58]Ruokolainen L Fyhrquist N Haahtela T The rich and the poor: environmental biodiversity protecting from allergy Curr. Opin. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2016 16 421 426 10.1097/ACI.0000000000000304 27490122 · DOI
  57. [59]Montgomery WI Population structure and dynamics of sympatric Apodemus species (Rodentia: Muridae) J. Zool. 2009 192 351 377 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1980.tb04238.x · DOI
  58. [60]Zgrabczyñska E Zgrabczyñska AE Social relations in family-groups of wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus under laboratory and enclosure conditions Acta Theriol. 2002 47 151 162 10.1007/BF03192455 · DOI
  59. [61]Gurnell J Seasonal changes in numbers and male behavioural interaction in a population of wood mice, Apodemus sylvaticus J. Anim. Ecol. 1978 47 741 755 10.2307/3668 · DOI
  60. [62]Wolton RJ The ranging and nesting behaviour of wood mice, Apodemus sylvaticus (Rodentia: Muridae), as revealed by radio-tracking J. Zool. 1985 206 203 222 10.1111/j.1469-7998.1985.tb05645.x · DOI
  61. [63]Moeller AH Suzuki TA Phifer-Rixey M Nachman MW Transmission modes of the mammalian gut microbiota Science 2018 362 453 457 10.1126/science.aat7164 30361372 · DOI
  62. [64]Wanelik KM Raulo A Troitsky T Husby A Knowles SC Maternal transmission gives way to social transmission during gut microbiota assembly in wild mice. Anim. Microbiome 2023 5 29 10.1186/s42523-023-00247-7 37259168 PMC10230743 · DOI
  63. [65]Mazel F Guisan A Parfrey LW Transmission mode and dispersal traits correlate with host specificity in mammalian gut microbes Mol. Ecol. 2023 33 e16862 10.1111/mec.16862 36786039 · DOI
  64. [66]Leftwich PT Transmission efficiency drives host–microbe associations Proc. R. Soc. B 2020 287 20200820 10.1098/rspb.2020.0820 32873208 PMC7542779 · DOI
  65. [67]Brown SP Cornforth DM Mideo N Evolution of virulence in opportunistic pathogens: generalism, plasticity, and control Trends Microbiol. 2012 20 336 342 10.1016/j.tim.2012.04.005 22564248 PMC3491314 · DOI
  66. [68]Kohl KD Dearing MD The woodrat gut microbiota as an experimental system for understanding microbial metabolism of dietary toxins Front. Microbiol. 2016 7 1165 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01165 27516760 PMC4963388 · DOI
  67. [69]Koch H Schmid-Hempel P Socially transmitted gut microbiota protect bumble bees against an intestinal parasite Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2011 108 19288 19292 10.1073/pnas.1110474108 22084077 PMC3228419 · DOI
  68. [70]Weimann A From genomes to phenotypes: traitar, the microbial trait analyzer mSystems 2016 1 e00101 16 10.1128/mSystems.00101-16 28066816 PMC5192078 · DOI
  69. [71]Poole AM Logan DT Sjöberg BM The evolution of the ribonucleotide reductases: much ado about oxygen J. Mol. Evol. 2002 55 180 196 10.1007/s00239-002-2315-3 12107594 · DOI
  70. [72]Finlay B The hygiene hypothesis, the COVID pandemic, and consequences for the human microbiome Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 2021 118 e2010217118 10.1073/pnas.2010217118 33472859 PMC8017729 · DOI
  71. [73]Ruokolainen L Green areas around homes reduce atopic sensitization in children Allergy 2015 70 195 202 10.1111/all.12545 25388016 PMC4303942 · DOI · Paper page
  72. [74]Ehlers S Kaufmann SHE Infection, inflammation, and chronic diseases: consequences of a modern lifestyle Trends Immunol. 2010 31 184 190 10.1016/j.it.2010.02.003 20399709 · DOI
  73. [75]Graham-Rowe D Lifestyle: when allergies go west Nature 2011 479 S2 S4 10.1038/479S2a · DOI
  74. [76]Sonnenburg ED Diet-induced extinctions in the gut microbiota compound over generations Nature 2016 529 212 215 10.1038/nature16504 26762459 PMC4850918 · DOI · Paper page
  75. [77]Wibowo MC Reconstruction of ancient microbial genomes from the human gut Nature 2021 594 234 239 10.1038/s41586-021-03532-0 33981035 PMC8189908 · DOI
  76. [78]Wolton RJ The activity of free-ranging wood mice Apodemus sylvaticus J. Anim. Ecol. 1983 52 781 794 10.2307/4453 · DOI
  77. [81]Collier M Albery GF McDonald GC Bansal S Pathogen transmission modes determine contact network structure, altering other pathogen characteristics Proc. R. Soc. B 2022 289 20221389 10.1098/rspb.2022.1389 36515115 PMC9748778 · DOI
  78. [82]Firth JA Sheldon BC Social carry-over effects underpin trans-seasonally linked structure in a wild bird population Ecol. Lett. 2016 19 1324 1332 10.1111/ele.12669 27623746 PMC5082527 · DOI
  79. [83]Powell RA Mitchell MS What is a home range? J. Mammal. 2012 93 948 958 10.1644/11-MAMM-S-177.1 · DOI
  80. [84]Fleming CH Rigorous home range estimation with movement data: a new autocorrelated kernel density estimator Ecology 2015 96 1182 1188 10.1890/14-2010.1 26236833 · DOI
  81. [86]Legendre, P. & Legendre, L. Numerical Ecology (Elsevier, 2012).
  82. [87]Walters W Improved bacterial 16S rRNA gene (V4 and V4-5) and fungal internal transcribed spacer marker gene primers for microbial community surveys. mSystems 2016 1 e00009 e00015 10.1128/mSystems.00009-15 27822518 PMC5069754 · DOI
  83. [88]Quast C The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 41 D590 D596 10.1093/nar/gks1219 23193283 PMC3531112 · DOI · Paper page
  84. [90]Whitehead H James R Generalized affiliation indices extract affiliations from social network data Methods Ecol. Evol. 2015 6 836 844 10.1111/2041-210X.12383 · DOI
  85. [96]Gabry J Simpson D Vehtari A Betancourt M Gelman A Visualization in Bayesian workflow J. R. Stat. Soc. A 2019 182 389 402 10.1111/rssa.12378 · DOI · Paper page
  86. [97]Raulo A Wild rodent tracking and gut microbiome data, Holly Hill, Wytham Woods, UK, 2018–2019 NERC EDS Environ. Inf. Data Cent. 2023 10.5285/043513e5-406c-4477-89aa-c96059acb232 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Raulo, A., Bürkner, P.-C., Finerty, G. E., Dale, J., Hanski, E., English, H. M., Lamberth, C., Firth, J. A., Coulson, T., & Knowles, S. C. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Turku (FI)
  • TU Dortmund University (DE)
  • University of Konstanz (DE)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
Corresponding author
Raulo, Aura
ORCID
Venue
Nature Ecology & Evolution
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-05-01
Volume
8
Issue
5
Pages
972-985
ISSN
2397-334X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41559-024-02381-0
PMC
PMC11090834
OpenAlex
W4396558958
Cited by
52
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 8
FWCI
6.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Ecology & Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion)
  • UTUPub (University of Turku) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Oxford University Research Archive (ORA) (University of Oxford) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • University of Oxford (GAF1617_CB_ MPLS_1053243)
  • NERC Environmental Bioinformatics Centre (NE.L011867/1)
  • National Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC/R001103/1)
  • EC | Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (n° 851550)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Insect symbiosis and bacterial influences
Keywords
gut microbiota, microbial transmission, social transmission, environmental transmission, Apodemus sylvaticus, wild mice, social networks, home range overlap, microhabitat, anaerobic bacteria, spore-forming bacteria, oxygen tolerance, space use
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Animals, Bacteria, Female, Male, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Social Behavior, Murinae, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review