ライフサイエンスコーパス: mutualism

1 ntogeny and a concomitant transition towards mutualism.

2 eficial mutualist could maintain mycorrhizal mutualism.

3 eaters will spread and erode the benefits of mutualism.

4 n of indirect effects differs among types of mutualism.

5 mpetitiveness and help maintain host-microbe mutualism.

6 the stability and environmental patterns in mutualism.

7 is preferential allocation may stabilize the mutualism.

8 absence of these peptides can break down the mutualism.

9 aecalis through promotion of host-microbiota mutualism.

10 ervations also confirm the precision of this mutualism.

11 eby stabilizes this Cretaceous-age defensive mutualism.

12 t climate requirements disrupt the ant-plant mutualism.

13 in the control of intestinal host-microbial mutualism.

14 ing with the origin of this plant-pollinator mutualism.

15 ry, increases the strength of a carbon-based mutualism.

16 ution of morality in terms of partner-choice mutualism.

17 amental knowledge of nematode parasitism and mutualism.

18 s of traits are possible for maintaining the mutualism.

19 mechanism for the mountain pine beetle-fungi mutualism.

20 moral action, there is more to morality than mutualism.

21 seemed of a relatively vague nature akin to mutualism.

22 tionary biology is explaining the success of mutualism.

23 atory responses that maintain host-microbial mutualism.

24 hy that is critical to this plant-pollinator mutualism.

25 t immune maturation exemplifies host-microbe mutualism.

26 in less beetle damage on plants hosting the mutualism.

27 and the evolutionary breakdown of bacterial mutualism.

28 uncooperative wasps in the fig tree-fig wasp mutualism.

29 gut and the potential of the development of mutualism.

30 e necessity of costly punishment to maintain mutualism.

31 s a result of disrupting the fruit-frugivore mutualism.

32 ischeri, which form a highly specific binary mutualism.

33 can be generally applied to any nutritional mutualism.

34 is expected to transition from antagonism to mutualism.

35 in the alga that allow it to engage in this mutualism.

36 sively through the mediation of a protection mutualism.

37 ens while the latter mediates host-commensal mutualism.

38 elucidate the ecology and evolution of plant mutualisms.

39 ization versus generalization in pollination mutualisms.

40 mbionts for intergenerational persistence of mutualisms.

41 ons to evaluate the stability of nutritional mutualisms.

42 he literature on several of the best-studied mutualisms.

43 mpatric speciation and the evolution of true mutualisms.

44 ecosystem processes such as plant-pollinator mutualisms.

45 nderstanding of the ecology and evolution of mutualisms.

46 ding coextinctions through the disruption of mutualisms.

47 ess, which could alter carbon-mediated plant mutualisms.

48 ave been demonstrated empirically in several mutualisms.

49 the relevance of sanction precision to other mutualisms.

50 plant protection, rhizobial, and mycorrhizal mutualisms.

51 le in regulation of cnidarian-dinoflagellate mutualisms.

52 ess of uncooperative symbionts can stabilise mutualism against collapse, but also present a paradox -

53 Mutualisms also may aid animal invasions, but how such s

54 roach has not been applied to other types of mutualisms, although it could be informative.

55 specialized partners may be more stable than mutualisms among generalists, and theoretical models pre

56 e of antagonistic coevolutionary pressure in mutualism and a biological dilemma for models of coopera

57 es are redefining the way we study microbial mutualism and are making intimate microbial associations

58 anations for cooperation, such as by-product mutualism and biological markets motivated by the likeli

59 rappreciated constraints on the evolution of mutualism and explain why punishment is far from ubiquit

60 have convergently evolved obligate plant-ant mutualism and four closely related species of non-mutual

61 To explore the antagonism between mutualism and genetic drift, we grew cross-feeding strai

62 t do not require either kin or kind, such as mutualism and manipulation.

63 of pathogenesis and symbiosis and/or between mutualism and parasitism.

64 but toxins in this reward could disrupt the mutualism and reduce plant fitness [4].

65 that challenges can imperil nascent obligate mutualisms and demonstrate the evolutionary responses th

66 Microbial antibiotics can mediate mutualisms and interorganism communications.

67 ause of shifts in global climate may disrupt mutualisms and threaten partner species.

68 d epithelial cells, maintain host-microbiota mutualism, and communicate with immune cells of the unde

69 ticus and host immune cells that may promote mutualism, and the microbe-derived molecule(s) involved.

70 eatum and A. actinomycetemcomitans exhibited mutualism, and, although F. nucleatum was unable to grow

71 n constraints, defense syndromes, tolerance, mutualisms, and facilitation.

72 tionships with ants at opposite sides of the mutualism-antagonism continuum.

73 Thus, molecules that are beneficial during mutualism are diverted to the synthesis of toxins during

74 Nutritional mutualisms are ancient, widespread, and profoundly influ

75 om the tropics, where plant-animal dispersal mutualisms are both disproportionately common and at ris

76 Although mutualisms are common in all ecological communities and

77 ished data on legume-rhizobia and yucca-moth mutualisms are consistent with PFF and not with HS.

78 Mutualisms are cooperative interactions between members

79 If mutualisms are costly to plants, then they must be impor

80 Mutualisms are key components of biodiversity and ecosys

81 These mutualisms are often reciprocally obligate, potentially

82 Multi-partite mutualisms are predicted to be unstable due to strong di

83 Mutualisms are ubiquitous in nature and equally commonpl

84 Ecological partnerships, or mutualisms, are globally widespread, sustaining agricult

85 in our knowledge of gut microbiota (GM)-host mutualism arising from a lifestyle that describes over 9

86 rovide a more general account and to explain mutualism as a special case.

87 ms can shift from parasitism/commensalism to mutualism as crayfish age.

88 These results identify a novel conflict in mutualisms as well as several public goods dilemmas, but

89 nisms involved in virulence can also support mutualism, as shown here for Arcobacter and Breviatea.

90 s directly or indirectly linked to defensive mutualism attributable to alkaloids of fungal-origin.

91 capacity for partner choice into a model of mutualism based on the exchange of goods and/or services

92 tic web in scenarios in which the two-strain mutualism becomes non functional.

93 due to purifying selection [4-6], yet under mutualism (benefits outweigh costs), selection favors th

94 a key mechanism in the stabilisation of the mutualism between a host and its microbiota.

95 current evidence does not support a cleaning mutualism between burying beetles and P. carabi mites, b

96 al biofilm communities form in vivo and that mutualism between commensal veillonellae and late coloni

97 In the mutualism between fig trees and their pollinating wasps

98 eport the precision of host sanctions in the mutualism between fig trees and their pollinating wasps.

99 Despite the lack of obvious mutualism between HEN and HINT domains, HEN domains are

100 etle requires the patchy distribution of the mutualism between its prey, the green coffee scale, and

101 The obligate mutualism between leafcutter ants and their Attamyces fu

102 A new study reveals that an apparent mutualism between lycaenid caterpillars and their attend

103 p-specific scents, and with the evolution of mutualism between meerkats and their glandular microbiot

104 ether positive interactions in the form of a mutualism between mussels and dominant cordgrass in salt

105 We hypothesized that mutualism between native ants and mealybugs would favor

106 buscular mycorrhizal symbiosis, an ancestral mutualism between soil fungi and most land plants.

107 investigate potential TMIIs resulting from a mutualism between specialized cleaner fish and the 'clie

108 lution of an experimentally imposed obligate mutualism between sulfate-reducing and methanogenic micr

109 Here, we explore this prediction in the mutualism between the fungus Rhizopus microsporus (Rm, M

110 old that might provide new insights into the mutualism between the HEN and HINT domains.

111 contributes to the dynamic stability of the mutualism between the squid Euprymna scolopes and its sp

112 We show that an obligate mutualism between the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae and

113 diversity to those described in pollination mutualisms between flowering plants and insects, that th

114 nt and maintenance over evolutionary time of mutualisms between fungi and bacteria, we studied a symb

115 Nutrient exchange mutualisms between phototrophs and heterotrophs, such as

116 Mutualisms between species are ecologically ubiquitous b

117 Mutualisms between species are interactions in which rec

118 Mutualisms between species play an important role in eco

119 ymbionts, to study the ecological context of mutualism breakdown and the response of a key symbiosis-

120 A corollary is that mutualism breakdown should increase morphological rates

121 w between the partners is a hallmark of this mutualism, but the mechanisms governing this flow and it

122 zal fungi and biotrophic pathogens, promotes mutualism by blocking JA action through the interaction

123 mayri and therefore indirectly benefits the mutualism by increasing the reproductive success of both

124 mmune mechanism that promotes host-bacterial mutualism by regulating the spatial relationships betwee

125 d show that RELMbeta promotes host-bacterial mutualism by regulating the spatial segregation between

126 Nutrient loading may destabilise these mutualisms by altering the costs and benefits each partn

127 The mutualism can be established quickly among noncoevolved

128 n the interacting traits of plant-pollinator mutualism can lead to local adaptive differentiation.

129 For the first time, we found that mutualism can occur between unequally defended prey that

130 results suggest that at least some forms of mutualism can persist and even diversify when the intera

131 , we show that even horizontally transmitted mutualisms can be stabilized via PFF.

132 These results demonstrate that mutualisms can be strong relative to negative direct int

133 Plant-microbe mutualisms can improve plant defense, but the impact of

134 l resources, invaders that disrupt plant-RFS mutualisms can significantly depress native plant fitnes

135 ause carbon regulates the costs of all plant mutualisms, carbon dynamics are a common platform for in

136 ulation of newly discovered fungal-bacterial mutualisms challenges the paradigm that fungi and bacter

137 r symbiotic relationships encompass obligate mutualism, commensalism, parasitism, and pathogenicity.

138 these context types was not consistent among mutualism, competition and predation studies.

139 exhibit an obligatory mutualism, facultative mutualism, competition, parasitism, competitive exclusio

140 Nonetheless, the hypothesis that defense mutualisms consistently enhance plant diversification ac

141 me increasingly important along a parasitism/mutualism continuum because; (i) negative outcomes favou

142 sity for this to occur across the parasitism-mutualism continuum is unknown.

143 ], across an environment-mediated parasitism-mutualism continuum.

144 motorboats affect an interspecific cleaning mutualism critical for coral reef fish health, abundance

145 In protection mutualisms, defensive symbionts protect their hosts from

146 These interactions range from parasitism to mutualism, depending partly on resource supplies that ar

147 cross contexts (and predation least likely), mutualism did not strongly differ from competition.

148 ls underestimate the prevalence of cascading mutualism disruption after defaunation.

149 ems challenged by allelopathic invaders: RFS mutualism disruption drives carbon stress, subsequent de

150 Here, we investigate the consequences of RFS mutualism disruption on native plant fitness in a glassh

151 growth, cross-feeding levels and ultimately mutualism dynamics.

152 tial allocation can promote the evolution of mutualism even when the cost to the symbiont is very lar

153 Mutualisms evolve through the matching of functional tra

154 ve importance of positive interactions (e.g. mutualism, facilitation) for determining net indirect ef

155 is pair of strains can exhibit an obligatory mutualism, facultative mutualism, competition, parasitis

156 A coevolutionary model of mutualism finds that HS are unlikely to evolve de novo,

157 ed in more stable, efficient, and productive mutualisms for most replicated pairings.

158 r mycorrhizal (AM) symbiosis is a widespread mutualism formed between vascular plants and fungi of th

159 A well-known mutualism has been found to be exploited from a surprisi

160 Our understanding of mammalian-microbial mutualism has expanded by combing microbial sequencing w

161 in crop yield, possibly explaining why their mutualism has remained limited in scale and productivity

162 However, this mutualism has remained stable over long periods of evolu

163 Mathematical modelling of nutritional mutualisms has great potential to facilitate the search

164 ion for investigation of gut microbiota-host mutualism, highlighting key players that could identify

165 In many host-microbe mutualisms, hosts use beneficial metabolites supplied by

166 f known intermediate stages in most of these mutualisms, however, makes it difficult to understand wh

167 However, it is much less clear how mutualisms impact the genome, as both increased and redu

168 mbining the two mechanisms, a high degree of mutualism in both guilds and coexistence of more mutuali

169 predicts that changes in the dynamics of the mutualism in deteriorating environments can provide adva

170 a smaller-cell variant (M form) to initiate mutualism in host nematode intestines.

171 choice can benefit a guild by selecting for mutualism in its partners, but is most effective in sele

172 predictions, fits several known examples of mutualism in the aquatic world, and sheds light on how i

173 Here, we study a microbial cross-feeding mutualism in which each yeast strain supplies an essenti

174 ly, our results underscore the importance of mutualisms in both generating and maintaining biodiversi

175 The persistence of mutualisms in host-microbial - or holobiont - systems is

176 rs, selects against high demands (and so for mutualism) in the guild with control.

177 These results indicate that mutualisms, in supporting stress-resistant patches, can

178 Many heritable mutualisms, in which beneficial symbionts are transmitte

179 uture directions for research on conflict in mutualisms, including novel research avenues opened by a

180 trient cross-feeding can stabilize microbial mutualisms, including those important for carbon cycling

181 how a stable and longstanding animal-microbe mutualism increased its intergenomic network without gai

182 can conditionally stabilize or destabilize a mutualism, indicating the potential importance of growth

183 Our results highlight the need to integrate mutualisms into trophic cascade theory, which is based p

184 we examine how access to food-for-protection mutualisms involving the red imported fire ant (Solenops

185 f the most common and important plant-animal mutualisms, involving an enormous diversity of fruiting

186 This conditional mutualism is analogous to chronic sickle cell anemia enh

187 provide advance warning that collapse of the mutualism is imminent.

188 These findings support the hypothesis that mutualism is likely in P-limited systems and commensalis

189 Mutualism is of fundamental importance in ecosystems.

190 maintains diversity, but weak or asymmetric mutualism is overwhelmed by genetic drift even when mutu

191 This capacity for mutualism is phylogenetically broad, extending to other

192 sm is overwhelmed by genetic drift even when mutualism is still beneficial, slowing growth and reduci

193 The mutualism is unbalanced in that the establishment of one

194 effects of warming on specific plant-insect mutualisms is difficult to obtain from complex pollinati

195 e that natural selection favours cheating in mutualisms is sparse.

196 The primary dilemma in evolutionarily stable mutualisms is that natural selection for cheating could

197 mediation of biotic interactions, including mutualisms, is unknown.

198 In plant-animal mutualisms it is widely accepted that the total effect o

199 indicate that, despite the stability of the mutualism, L. rostrata experiences stress in coculture w

200 parasitism, competitive exclusion, or failed mutualism leading to extinction of the population.

201 Second, mutualism losses occurred where symbionts are scarce, in

202 Higher levels of mutualism make a system vulnerable to destabilisation on

203 ighly context-dependent nature of protection mutualisms makes it difficult to identify and quantify t

204 The unbalanced mutualism may be important where additional species alte

205 riod of coevolution, suggesting that similar mutualisms may arise during antibiotic treatment and in

206 hat have been traditionally considered to be mutualisms may in fact be parasitic in nature.

207 results provide a general framework for how mutualisms may transition between qualitatively differen

208 sts that positive interactions (for example, mutualisms) may counterbalance competition, facilitating

209 Contra the authors, we propose that mutualism might account for a sensitivity to convention

210 Mutualisms might be stabilised by mechanisms that direct

211 For interspecific cooperation (mutualism), most approaches to this paradox focus on cos

212 s the size of demixed regions and how strong mutualism must be to survive a spatial expansion.

213 ies tend to exhibit increased co-occurrence, mutualism, niche expansion, and hybridization - and rare

214 How then can the mutualism of the human microbiota be explained?

215 tep toward understanding host-microbe immune mutualism of the skin and its implications for health an

216 hogenic effects of host-commensal microbiota mutualism on the immune response and illustrate some exa

217 unknown whether their evolutionary basis is mutualism or exploitation [5-9].

218 However, removing mutualism or herbivory had a much larger effect in the e

219 iverse types of microbes, whether to promote mutualism or host defence.

220 n probably represent cases of intra-specific mutualism or manipulation.

221 cosystems, be it via competition, predation, mutualism or symbiosis processes.

222 n species interaction outcomes (competition, mutualism, or predation) for 247 published articles.

223 m that can limit cheating and thus stabilise mutualisms over evolutionary timescales.

224 The mutualism-parasitism continuum framework can be used to

225 roposed to prevent cheating in host-symbiont mutualisms, partner fidelity feedback (PFF) and host san

226 and theoretical models predict that in many mutualisms, partners exert reciprocal stabilizing select

227 bing the factors underlying the evolution of mutualism, pathogenicity, and infectious disease.

228 ses, we show a near ubiquitous decoupling in mutualism performance across terrestrial and marine envi

229 Nutrient-driven changes in mutualism performance may alter community organisation a

230 A central question is whether mutualisms persist because hosts have evolved costly pun

231 integrated with data to address questions of mutualism persistence at four biological scales: cell, i

232 bility and structured interactions influence mutualism persistence, are still lacking.

233 In contrast, the mutualism persists for the later blooming plant regardle

234 Syntrophy and mutualism play a central role in carbon and nutrient cyc

235 Mutualisms play a key role in most ecosystems, yet the m

236 Mutualisms play key roles in the functioning of ecosyste

237 type, both biotic traits known to facilitate mutualisms, played an additional role in driving diversi

238 to both partners in five different types of mutualisms: pollination, seed dispersal, plant protectio

239 rains can form an effective cross-protection mutualism, protecting each other in the presence of two

240 Mutualism provides a compelling account of the fairness

241 r replicated analysis indicates that defense mutualisms put lineages on a path toward increased diver

242 But how does mundane mutualism relate to transcendent notions of morality cri

243 arasites), and their role in the dynamics of mutualisms remains largely unexplored.

244 e origins, evolution, and breakdown of these mutualisms represent important evolutionary transitions.

245 olic interdependence drives the emergence of mutualism, robust interspecific mixing, and increased co

246 lly beneficial interactions between species (mutualisms) shaped the evolution of eukaryotes and remai

247 ic interactions, raising questions about how mutualism shapes the realised niche.

248 ollinators are generally considered cases of mutualism since both agents gain benefits.

249 ation to population processes that determine mutualism stability and, as such, represents a significa

250 e emphasized narrowly specialized pollinator mutualisms such as figs and fig wasps and yuccas and yuc

251 iscuss the applicability of this scenario to mutualisms such as those between plants and mycorrhizal

252 ies-rich networks formed by multiple-partner mutualisms, such as pollination or seed dispersal by ani

253 mall and modular networks formed by intimate mutualisms, such as those between host plants and their

254 Strong mutualism suppresses genetic demixing during spatial exp

255 I comment that mutualism takes us only so far, and I apply the theory o

256 terotrophic bacterium SAR11 form a coevolved mutualism that maximizes their collective metabolic rate

257 Mutualisms that become evolutionarily stable give rise t

258 Mutualisms that involve symbioses among specialized part

259 hunting-induced extinctions of plant-animal mutualisms that maintain long-term forest dynamics.

260 the multidimensional costs of virulence and mutualism, the fine-scale spatial structure within plant

261 In this mutualism, the fungi provide nutrition to the beetle, wh

262 Our analyses support three predictions from mutualism theory.

263 ted to the category "symbiosis, encompassing mutualism through parasitism."

264 onary continuum of interactions ranging from mutualism to antagonism.

265 ut the crucial adaptations that allowed this mutualism to become the prime herbivorous component of n

266 s expected to cause phenotypes to shift from mutualism to commensalism and even parasitism.

267 el whereby IL-22RA1 enhances host-microbiota mutualism to limit detrimental overcolonization by oppor

268 simple models of competition, predation, and mutualism to organize and synthesize the ways coevolutio

269 with these microbial species can range from mutualism to parasitism and are not always completely un

270 nclude that this relationship may shift from mutualism to parasitism as environmental conditions chan

271 The capacity of coral-dinoflagellate mutualisms to adapt to a changing climate relies in part

272 ay frequently drive reversions of generalist mutualisms to autonomy.

273 s that extend from obligate plant-pollinator mutualisms to commensalist herbivory.

274 sphorus) mediated the responses of different mutualisms to enrichment.

275 few studies have explored the potential for mutualisms to initiate TMIIs.

276 s own transmission, needed for antagonism-to-mutualism transition in heritable symbioses.

277 the effects of nutrient limitation within a mutualism using theoretical and experimental approaches

278 quently, the decoupling of nutrient exchange mutualisms via alterations of the world's nitrogen and p

279 differ among species interactions, and while mutualism was most likely to change sign across contexts

280 Focusing on between-species cooperation (mutualism), we hypothesize that the temporal sequence in

281 ient regime, before collapse of the obligate mutualism, we find that the ratio rapidly reaches its eq

282 potentially destabilize the legume-rhizobium mutualism, we lack a comprehensive review of host-symbio

283 Protection mutualisms were historically considered rare ecological

284 ue that partner choice leads to fairness and mutualism, which then form the basis for morality.

285 We suggest that theorizing about mutualisms will benefit from considering extant empirica

286 d subsequent stable maintenance of bacterial mutualism with hosts, the capture of beneficial symbiont

287 The ant's mutualism with membracids was the sole strong interactio

288 tomopathogenic nematodes that have evolved a mutualism with Photorhabdus luminescens bacteria to func

289 ing (attine) ants are thought to form such a mutualism with Pseudonocardia bacteria to derive antibio

290 tance of herbivory dependent on a co-evolved mutualism with specialized bacteria.

291 Commensal microbiota establish mutualism with the host and form an important part of th

292 nto an antibacterial mechanism that promotes mutualism with the resident microbiota.

293 ioral, morphological, and physiological) and mutualisms with carnivorous plants, and the ecological a

294 e physiological and genomic underpinnings of mutualisms with ecological and evolutionary processes.

295 ies, ants have multiple top-down effects via mutualisms with honeydew-producing herbivores and harass

296 ing that native plants develop opportunistic mutualisms with prokaryotes that solve context-dependent

297 c associations (ranging from pathogenesis to mutualism) with their hosts include fungi, oomycetes and

298 Cheating is a focal concept in the study of mutualism, with the majority of researchers considering

299 lts demonstrate the importance of evaluating mutualism within a community context and suggest that li

300 o strains form a successful cross-protection mutualism without a period of coevolution, suggesting th