Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 766

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 85 of the 85 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bacterial Communities of Diverse Drosophila Species: Ecological Context of a Host–Microbe Model System

Open access
Chandler, James Angus, Morgan Lang, Jenna, Bhatnagar, Srijak, Eisen, Jonathan A., Kopp, Artyom·2011·PLoS Genetics

Abstract

Drosophila melanogaster is emerging as an important model of non-pathogenic host-microbe interactions. The genetic and experimental tractability of Drosophila has led to significant gains in our understanding of animal-microbial symbiosis. However, the full implications of these results cannot be appreciated without the knowledge of the microbial communities associated with natural Drosophila populations. In particular, it is not clear whether laboratory cultures can serve as an accurate model of host-microbe interactions that occur in the wild, or those that have occurred over evolutionary time. To fill this gap, we characterized natural bacterial communities associated with 14 species of Drosophila and related genera collected from distant geographic locations. To represent the ecological diversity of Drosophilids, examined species included fruit-, flower-, mushroom-, and cactus-feeders. In parallel, wild host populations were compared to laboratory strains, and controlled experiments were performed to assess the importance of host species and diet in shaping bacterial microbiome composition. We find that Drosophilid flies have taxonomically restricted bacterial communities, with 85% of the natural bacterial microbiome composed of only four bacterial families. The dominant bacterial taxa are widespread and found in many different host species despite the taxonomic, ecological, and geographic diversity of their hosts. Both natural surveys and laboratory experiments indicate that host diet plays a major role in shaping the Drosophila bacterial microbiome. Despite this, the internal bacterial microbiome represents only a highly reduced subset of the external bacterial communities, suggesting that the host exercises some level of control over the bacteria that inhabit its digestive tract. Finally, we show that laboratory strains provide only a limited model of natural host-microbe interactions. Bacterial taxa used in experimental studies are rare or absent in wild Drosophila populations, while the most abundant associates of natural Drosophila populations are rare in the lab.

Overview

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 · 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002272

Cites

85 of 85 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 85 references

Cited by

See all 766

Metadata

Authors
Chandler, J. A., Morgan Lang, J., Bhatnagar, S., Eisen, J. A., & Kopp, A.
Venue
PLoS Genetics
Published
2011-09-22
Volume
7
Issue
9
Pages
e1002272
ISSN
  • 1553-7390 (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7404
OpenAlex
W2047123551
Cited by
766
References
85
FWCI
33.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Bacterial Communities of Diverse Drosophila Species: Ecological Context of a Host–Microbe Model System. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002272
The paper
Chandler, J. A., Morgan Lang, J., Bhatnagar, S., Eisen, J. A., & Kopp, A. (2011). Bacterial Communities of Diverse Drosophila Species: Ecological Context of a Host–Microbe Model System. PLoS Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1002272

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.