Philippa Kaur

Futuyma, D. J. & Agrawal, A. A. Macroevolution and the biological diversity of plants and herbivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 18054–18061 (2009).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Frago, E., Dicke, M. & Godfray, H. C. J. Insect symbionts as hidden players in insect–plant interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 27, 705–711 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gurung, K., Wertheim, B. & Salles, J. F. The microbiome of pest insects: It is not just bacteria. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 167, 156–170 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Douglas, A. E. Multiorganismal insects: Diversity and function of resident microorganisms. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 60, 17–34 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Engel, P. & Moran, N. A. The gut microbiota of insects—diversity in structure and function. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 37, 699–735 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Giron, D. et al. Chapter seven—influence of microbial symbionts on plant-insect interactions. In Advances in Botanical Research Vol. 81 (eds Sauvion, N. et al.) 225–257 (Academic Press, 2017).
Google Scholar 
Chen, B. et al. Biodiversity and activity of the gut microbiota across the life history of the insect herbivore Spodoptera littoralis. Sci. Rep. 6, 29505 (2016).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vacher, C. et al. The phyllosphere: Microbial jungle at the plant–climate interface. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 47, 1–24 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffin, E. A. & Carson, W. P. Tree endophytes: cryptic drivers of tropical forest diversity. In Endophytes of Forest Trees: Biology and Applications (eds Pirttilä, A. M. & Frank, A. C.) 63–103 (Springer International Publishing, 2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89833-9_4.Chapter 

Google Scholar 
Peñuelas, J., Rico, L., Ogaya, R., Jump, A. S. & Terradas, J. Summer season and long-term drought increase the richness of bacteria and fungi in the foliar phyllosphere of Quercus ilex in a mixed Mediterranean forest. Plant Biol. 14, 565–575 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Laforest-Lapointe, I., Paquette, A., Messier, C. & Kembel, S. W. Leaf bacterial diversity mediates plant diversity and ecosystem function relationships. Nature 546, 145–147 (2017).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kembel, S. W. et al. Relationships between phyllosphere bacterial communities and plant functional traits in a neotropical forest. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 111, 13715–13720 (2014).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kembel, S. W. & Mueller, R. C. Plant traits and taxonomy drive host associations in tropical phyllosphere fungal communities. Botany 92, 303–311 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Faeth, S. H. & Hammon, K. E. Fungal endophytes in oak trees: Long-term patterns of abundance and associations with leafminers. Ecology 78, 810–819 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Broderick, N. A., Raffa, K. F., Goodman, R. M. & Handelsman, J. Census of the bacterial community of the gypsy moth larval midgut by using culturing and culture-independent methods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 70, 293–300 (2004).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pinto-Tomás, A. A. et al. Comparison of midgut bacterial diversity in tropical caterpillars (Lepidoptera: Saturniidae) fed on different diets. Environ. Entomol. 40, 1111–1122 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ravenscraft, A., Berry, M., Hammer, T., Peay, K. & Boggs, C. Structure and function of the bacterial and fungal gut microbiota of Neotropical butterflies. Ecol. Monogr. 89, e01346 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammer, T. J., Sanders, J. G. & Fierer, N. Not all animals need a microbiome. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 366, 117 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Mason, C. J. et al. Diet influences proliferation and stability of gut bacterial populations in herbivorous lepidopteran larvae. PLoS ONE 15, e0229848 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Montagna, M. et al. Evidence of a bacterial core in the stored products pest Plodia interpunctella: The influence of different diets. Environ. Microbiol. 18, 4961–4973 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Phalnikar, K., Kunte, K. & Agashe, D. Disrupting butterfly caterpillar microbiomes does not impact their survival and development. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 286, 20192438 (2019).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Somerville, J., Zhou, L. & Raymond, B. Aseptic rearing and infection with gut bacteria improve the fitness of transgenic diamondback moth, Plutella xylostella. Insects 10, 89 (2019).PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
González-Serrano, F. et al. The gut microbiota composition of the moth brithys crini reflects insect metamorphosis. Microb. Ecol. 79, 960–970 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Goharrostami, M. & JalaliSendi, J. Investigation on endosymbionts of Mediterranean flour moth gut and studying their role in physiology and biology. J. Stored Prod. Res. 75, 10–17 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Vilanova, C., Baixeras, J., Latorre, A. & Porcar, M. The generalist inside the specialist: Gut bacterial communities of two insect species feeding on toxic plants are dominated by Enterococcus sp. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1005 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Minard, G., Tikhonov, G., Ovaskainen, O. & Saastamoinen, M. The microbiome of the Melitaea cinxia butterfly shows marked variation but is only little explained by the traits of the butterfly or its host plant. Environ. Microbiol. 21, 4253–4269 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Shapira, M. Gut microbiotas and host evolution: Scaling up symbiosis. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 539–549 (2016).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chen, B. et al. Gut bacterial and fungal communities of the domesticated silkworm (Bombyx mori) and wild mulberry-feeding relatives. ISME J. 12, 2252–2262 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mason, C. J. & Raffa, K. F. Acquisition and structuring of midgut bacterial communities in gypsy moth (Lepidoptera: Erebidae) larvae. Environ. Entomol. 43, 595–604 (2014).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Paniagua Voirol, L. R., Frago, E., Kaltenpoth, M., Hilker, M. & Fatouros, N. E. Bacterial symbionts in Lepidoptera: Their diversity, transmission, and impact on the host. Front. Microbiol. 9, 556 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Laforest-Lapointe, I., Messier, C. & Kembel, S. W. Host species identity, site and time drive temperate tree phyllosphere bacterial community structure. Microbiome 4, 27 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Meyer, K. M. & Leveau, J. H. J. Microbiology of the phyllosphere: A playground for testing ecological concepts. Oecologia 168, 621–629 (2012).ADS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gomes, T., Pereira, J. A., Benhadi, J., Lino-Neto, T. & Baptista, P. Endophytic and epiphytic phyllosphere fungal communities are shaped by different environmental factors in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Microb. Ecol. 76, 668–679 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rastogi, G. et al. Leaf microbiota in an agroecosystem: Spatiotemporal variation in bacterial community composition on field-grown lettuce. ISME J. 6, 1812–1822 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Whitaker, M. R. L., Salzman, S., Sanders, J., Kaltenpoth, M. & Pierce, N. E. Microbial communities of lycaenid butterflies do not correlate with larval diet. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1920 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zheng, Y. et al. Midgut microbiota diversity of potato tuber moth associated with potato tissue consumed. BMC Microbiol. 20, 58 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffin, E. A., Harrison, J. G., McCormick, M. K., Burghardt, K. T. & Parker, J. D. Tree diversity reduces fungal endophyte richness and diversity in a large-scale temperate forest experiment. Diversity 11, 234 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kim, M. et al. Distinctive phyllosphere bacterial communities in tropical trees. Microb. Ecol. 63, 674–681 (2012).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hammer, T. J., Janzen, D. H., Hallwachs, W., Jaffe, S. P. & Fierer, N. Caterpillars lack a resident gut microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 114, 9641–9646 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Višňovská, D. et al. Caterpillar gut and host plant phylloplane mycobiomes differ: A new perspective on fungal involvement in insect guts. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 96, fiaa116 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Voříšková, J. & Baldrian, P. Fungal community on decomposing leaf litter undergoes rapid successional changes. ISME J. 7, 477–486 (2013).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Pochon, X., Zaiko, A., Fletcher, L. M., Laroche, O. & Wood, S. A. Wanted dead or alive? Using metabarcoding of environmental DNA and RNA to distinguish living assemblages for biosecurity applications. PLoS ONE 12, e0187636 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Schlechter, R. O., Miebach, M. & Remus-Emsermann, M. N. P. Driving factors of epiphytic bacterial communities: A review. J. Adv. Res. 19, 57–65 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Seabloom, E. W. et al. Effects of nutrient supply, herbivory, and host community on fungal endophyte diversity. Ecology 100, e02758 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Berlec, A. Novel techniques and findings in the study of plant microbiota: Search for plant probiotics. Plant Sci. 193–194, 96–102 (2012).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Unterseher, M., Reiher, A., Finstermeier, K., Otto, P. & Morawetz, W. Species richness and distribution patterns of leaf-inhabiting endophytic fungi in a temperate forest canopy. Mycol. Prog. 6, 201–212 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, G. S., Reynolds, D. R. & Bethancourt, A. The patchiness of epifoliar fungi in tropical forests: Host range, host abundance, and environment. Ecology 88, 575–581 (2007).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stone, B. W. G. & Jackson, C. R. Canopy position is a stronger determinant of bacterial community composition and diversity than environmental disturbance in the phyllosphere. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 95, fiz032 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Copeland, J. K., Yuan, L., Layeghifard, M., Wang, P. W. & Guttman, D. S. Seasonal community succession of the phyllosphere microbiome. Mol. Plant. Microbe Interact. 28, 274–285 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stone, B. W. G. & Jackson, C. R. Seasonal patterns contribute more towards phyllosphere bacterial community structure than short-term perturbations. Microb. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00248-020-01564-z (2020).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Truchado, P., Gil, M. I., Reboleiro, P., Rodelas, B. & Allende, A. Impact of solar radiation exposure on phyllosphere bacterial community of red-pigmented baby leaf lettuce. Food Microbiol. 66, 77–85 (2017).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wang, X. et al. Variability of gut microbiota across the life cycle of Grapholita molesta (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Front. Microbiol. 11, 1366 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Toju, H. & Fukatsu, T. Diversity and infection prevalence of endosymbionts in natural populations of the chestnut weevil: Relevance of local climate and host plants. Mol. Ecol. 20, 853–868 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yun, J.-H. et al. Insect gut bacterial diversity determined by environmental habitat, diet, developmental stage, and phylogeny of host. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 80, 5254–5264 (2014).ADS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Sánchez, N. E., Pereyra, P. C. & Luna, M. G. Spatial patterns of parasitism of the solitary parasitoid Pseudapanteles dignus (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) on Tuta absoluta (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae). Environ. Entomol. 38, 365–374 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Santos, A. M. C. & Quicke, D. L. J. Large-scale diversity patterns of parasitoid insects. Entomol. Sci. 14, 371–382 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mereghetti, V., Chouaia, B. & Montagna, M. New insights into the microbiota of moth pests. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 18, 2450 (2017).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Floater, G. J. Estimating movement of the processionary caterpillar Ochrogaster zunifer Herrich-Schäffer (Lepidoptera: Thaumetopoeidae) between discrete resource patches. Aust. J. Entomol. 35, 279–283 (1996).Article 

Google Scholar 
Turčáni, M. & Patočka, J. Does intraguild predation of Cosmia trapezina L. (Lep.: Noctuidae) influence the abundance of other Lepidoptera forest pests?. J. For. Sci. 57, 472–482 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hikisz, J. & Soszynska-Maj, A. What moths fly in winter? The assemblage of moths active in a temperate deciduous forest during the cold season in Central Poland. J. Entomol. Res. Soc. 17, 59–71 (2015).
Google Scholar 
Bell, J. R., Bohan, D. A., Shaw, E. M. & Weyman, G. S. Ballooning dispersal using silk: World fauna, phylogenies, genetics and models. Bull. Entomol. Res. 95, 69–114 (2005).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Griffin, E. A. & Carson, W. P. The ecology and natural history of foliar bacteria with a focus on tropical forests and agroecosystems. Bot. Rev. 81, 105–149 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Qian, X. et al. Mainland and island populations of Mussaenda kwangtungensis differ in their phyllosphere fungal community composition and network structure. Sci. Rep. 10, 952 (2020).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Herren, C. M. & McMahon, K. D. Keystone taxa predict compositional change in microbial communities. Environ. Microbiol. 20, 2207–2217 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Humphrey, P. T. & Whiteman, N. K. Insect herbivory reshapes a native leaf microbiome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 221–229 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Müller, T., Müller, M., Behrendt, U. & Stadler, B. Diversity of culturable phyllosphere bacteria on beech and oak: The effects of lepidopterous larvae. Microbiol. Res. 158, 291–297 (2003).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hrcek, J., Miller, S. E., Quicke, D. L. J. & Smith, M. A. Molecular detection of trophic links in a complex insect host-parasitoid food web. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 11, 786–794 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bateman, C., Šigut, M., Skelton, J., Smith, K. E. & Hulcr, J. Fungal associates of the Xylosandrus compactus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) are spatially segregated on the insect body. Environ. Entomol. 45, 883–890 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Toju, H., Tanabe, A. S., Yamamoto, S. & Sato, H. High-coverage ITS primers for the DNA-based identification of ascomycetes and basidiomycetes in environmental samples. PLoS ONE 7, e40863 (2012).ADS 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chelius, M. K. & Triplett, E. W. The diversity of archaea and bacteria in association with the roots of Zea mays L. Microb. Ecol. 41, 252–263 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Redford, A. J., Bowers, R. M., Knight, R., Linhart, Y. & Fierer, N. The ecology of the phyllosphere: Geographic and phylogenetic variability in the distribution of bacteria on tree leaves. Environ. Microbiol. 12, 2885–2893 (2010).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bolyen, E. et al. QIIME 2: Reproducible, Interactive, Scalable, and Extensible Microbiome Data Science https://peerj.com/preprints/27295 (2018) https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.27295v2.Rivers, A. R., Weber, K. C., Gardner, T. G., Liu, S. & Armstrong, S. D. ITSxpress: Software to rapidly trim internally transcribed spacer sequences with quality scores for marker gene analysis. F1000Research 7, 1418 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bokulich, N. A. et al. Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with QIIME 2’s q2-feature-classifier plugin. Microbiome 6, 90 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Quast, C. et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: Improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, D590–D596 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nilsson, R. H. et al. The UNITE database for molecular identification of fungi: Handling dark taxa and parallel taxonomic classifications. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D259–D264 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
UNITE Community. UNITE QIIME Release for Fungi 2. (2019).Davis, N. M., Proctor, D. M., Holmes, S. P., Relman, D. A. & Callahan, B. J. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome 6, 226 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2020).Ter Braak, C. J. F. ter & Smilauer, P. Canoco reference manual and user’s guide: software for ordination, version 5.0. (2012).Ondov, B. D., Bergman, N. H. & Phillippy, A. M. Interactive metagenomic visualization in a Web browser. BMC Bioinform. 12, 385 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Chrostek, E., Pelz-Stelinski, K., Hurst, G. D. D. & Hughes, G. L. Horizontal transmission of intracellular insect symbionts via plants. Front. Microbiol. 8, 2237 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Fox, J. & Weisberg, S. An R Companion to Applied Regression (SAGE Publications, 2018).
Google Scholar 
Oksanen, J. et al. vegan: Community Ecology Package. (2020).Anderson, M. J. Distance-based tests for homogeneity of multivariate dispersions. Biometrics 62, 245–253 (2006).MathSciNet 
PubMed 
MATH 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Renkonen, O. Statistisch-ökologische Untersuchungen über die terrestrische Käferwelt der finnischen Bruchmoore. Ann. Zool. Soc. Zool.-Bot. Fenn. Vanamo 6, 1–231 (1938).
Google Scholar 
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roberts, D. W. labdsv: Ordination and Multivariate Analysis for Ecology (2019).Cáceres, M. D. & Legendre, P. Associations between species and groups of sites: Indices and statistical inference. Ecology 90, 3566–3574 (2009).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dufrêne, M. & Legendre, P. Species assemblages and indicator species: The need for a flexible asymmetrical approach. Ecol. Monogr. 67, 345–366 (1997).
Google Scholar 
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodol. 57, 289–300 (1995).MathSciNet 
MATH 

Google Scholar  More

Davis, M. B. & Shaw, R. G. Range shifts and adaptive responses to Quaternary climate change. Science 292, 673–679 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Parmesan, C. Ecological and evolutionary responses to recent climate change. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 37, 637–669 (2006).Article 

Google Scholar 
Hewitt, G. The genetic legacy of the Quaternary ice ages. Nature 405, 907–913 (2000).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Williams, J. E. & Blois, J. L. Range shifts in response to past and future climate change: can climate velocities and species’ dispersal capabilities explain variation in mammalian range shifts? J. Biogeogr. 45, 2175–2189 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Parmesan, C. & Yohe, G. A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems. Nature 421, 37–42 (2003).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Thomas, C. D. Climate, climate change and range boundaries. Divers. Distrib. 16, 488–495 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bradshaw, A. D. & McNeilly, T. Evolutionary response to global climatic change. Ann. Bot. 67, 5–14 (1991).Article 

Google Scholar 
Harter, D. E. V. et al. Impacts of global climate change on the floras of oceanic islands—projections, implications and current knowledge. Perspect. Plant Ecol. Evol. Syst. 17, 160–183 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Veron, S., Haevermans, T., Govaerts, R., Mouchet, M. & Pellens, R. Distribution and relative age of endemism across islands worldwide. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–12 (2019).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Román-Palacios, C. & Wiens, J. J. Recent responses to climate change reveal the drivers of species extinction and survival. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 4211–4217 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Jump, A. S. & Peñuelas, J. Running to stand still: adaptation and the response of plants to rapid climate change. Ecol. Lett. 8, 1010–1020 (2005).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Freeman, B. G., Scholer, M. N., Ruiz-Gutierrez, V. & Fitzpatrick, J. W. Climate change causes upslope shifts and mountaintop extirpations in a tropical bird community. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11982–11987 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gilbert, K. J. & Whitlock, M. C. The genetics of adaptation to discrete heterogeneous environments: frequent mutation or large-effect alleles can allow range expansion. J. Evol. Biol. 30, 591–602 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Christmas, M. J., Breed, M. F. & Lowe, A. J. Constraints to and conservation implications for climate change adaptation in plants. Conserv. Genet. 17, 305–320 (2015).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Barrett, R. D. H. & Schluter, D. Adaptation from standing genetic variation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 23, 38–44 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lai, Y. T. et al. Standing genetic variation as the predominant source for adaptation of a songbird. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 2152–2157 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoban, S. et al. Finding the genomic basis of local adaptation: Pitfalls, practical solutions, and future directions. Am. Nat. 188, 379–397 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hoffmann, A. A. & Sgrò, C. M. Climate change and evolutionary adaptation. Nature 470, 479–485 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Catullo, R. A., Llewelyn, J., Phillips, B. L. & Moritz, C. C. The potential for rapid evolution under anthropogenic climate change. Curr. Biol. 29, R996–R1007 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Botkin, D. B. et al. Forecasting the effects of global warming on biodiversity. BioScience 57, 227–236 (2007).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wiens, J. A., Stralberg, D., Jongsomjit, D., Howell, C. A. & Snyder, M. A. Niches, models, and climate change: assessing the assumptions and uncertainties. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19729–19736 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Smith, A. B., Godsoe, W., Rodríguez-Sánchez, F., Wang, H. H. & Warren, D. Niche estimation above and below the species level. Trends Ecol. Evol. 34, 260–273 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Waldvogel, A.-M. et al. Evolutionary genomics can improve prediction of species’ responses to climate change. Evol. Lett. 4, 4–18 (2020).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Razgour, O. et al. An integrated framework to identify wildlife populations under threat from climate change. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 18, 18–31 (2018).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Razgour, O. et al. Considering adaptive genetic variation in climate change vulnerability assessment reduces species range loss projections. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 10418–10423 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aguirre-Liguori, J. A., Ramírez-Barahona, S., Tiffin, P. & Eguiarte, L. E. Climate change is predicted to disrupt patterns of local adaptation in wild and cultivated maize. Proc. R. Soc. B 286, 20190486 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Evans, T. G., Diamond, S. E. & Kelly, M. W. Mechanistic species distribution modelling as a link between physiology and conservation. Conserv. Physiol. 3, cov056 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hall, S. J. G. Haemoglobin polymorphism in the bank vole, Clethrionomys glareolus, in Britain. J. Zool. 187, 153–160 (1979).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kotlík, P. et al. Adaptive phylogeography: functional divergence between haemoglobins derived from different glacial refugia in the bank vole. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20140021 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Searle, J. B. et al. The Celtic fringe of Britain: Insights from small mammal phylogeography. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 4287–4294 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Escalante, M. A., Horníková, M., Marková, S. & Kotlík, P. Niche differentiation in a postglacial colonizer, the bank vole Clethrionomys glareolus. Ecol. Evol. 11, 8054–8070 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Reischl, E., Dafre, A. L., Franco, J. L. & Wilhelm Filho, D. Distribution, adaptation and physiological meaning of thiols from vertebrate hemoglobins. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. Part C. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 146, 22–53 (2007).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Storz, J. F. & Wheat, C. W. Integrating evolutionary and functional approaches to infer adaptation at specific loci. Evolution 64, 2489–2509 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rossi, R. et al. Different metabolizing ability of thiol reactants in human and rat blood. Biochemical and pharmacological implications. J. Biol. Chem. 276, 7004–7010 (2001).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vitturi, D. A. et al. Antioxidant functions for the hemoglobin β93 cysteine residue in erythrocytes and in the vascular compartment in vivo. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 55, 119–129 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Petersen, A. G. et al. Hemoglobin polymerization via disulfide bond formation in the hypoxia-tolerant turtle Trachemys scripta: Implications for antioxidant defense and O2 transport. Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 314, R84–R93 (2018).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Paital, B. et al. Longevity of animals under reactive oxygen species stress and disease susceptibility due to global warming. World J. Biol. Chem. 7, 110–127 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Jacobs, P. J., Oosthuizen, M. K., Mitchell, C., Blount, J. D. & Bennett, N. C. Heat and dehydration induced oxidative damage and antioxidant defenses following incubator heat stress and a simulated heat wave in wild caught four-striped field mice Rhabdomys dilectus. PLoS One 15, e0242279 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kotlík, P., Marková, S., Horníková, M., Escalante, M. A. & Searle, J. B. The bank vole (Clethrionomys glareolus) as a model system for adaptive phylogeography in the European theater. Front. Ecol. Evol. 10, 866605 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Strážnická, M., Marková, S., Searle, J. B. & Kotlík, P. Playing hide-and-seek in beta-globin genes: Gene conversion transferring a beneficial mutation between differentially expressed gene guplicates. Genes 9, 492 (2018).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Stocker, T. Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Araújo, M. B., Pearson, R. G., Thuiller, W. & Erhard, M. Validation of species-climate impact models under climate change. Glob. Chang. Biol. 11, 1504–1513 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Peterson, A. T., Papeş, M. & Soberón, J. Rethinking receiver operating characteristic analysis applications in ecological niche modeling. Ecol. Modell. 213, 63–72 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. Environmental niche equivalency versus conservatism: quantitative approaches to niche evolution. Evolution 62, 2868–2883 (2008).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warren, D. L. et al. ENMTools 1.0: an R package for comparative ecological biogeography. Ecography 44, 504–511 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Mayes, J. & Wheeler, D. Regional weather and climates of the British Isles—part 1: introduction. Weather 68, 3–8 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Kotlík, P., Marková, S., Konczal, M., Babik, W. & Searle, J. B. Genomics of end-Pleistocene population replacement in a small mammal. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20172624 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Capblancq, T., Fitzpatrick, M. C., Bay, R. A., Exposito-Alonso, M. & Keller, S. R. Genomic prediction of (mal)adaptation across current and future climatic landscapes. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 51, 245–269 (2020).Article 

Google Scholar 
Benito Garzón, M., Robson, T. M. & Hampe, A. ΔTraitSDMs: species distribution models that account for local adaptation and phenotypic plasticity. N. Phytol. 222, 1757–1765 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wisz, M. S. et al. Effects of sample size on the performance of species distribution models. Divers. Distrib. 14, 763–773 (2008).Article 

Google Scholar 
Phillips, S. J., Dudík, M. & Schapire, R. E. A maximum entropy approach to species distribution modeling. in Twenty-first International Conference on Machine Learning – ICML ’04 9, 83 (ACM Press, 2004).Hijmans, R. J., Cameron, S. E., Parra, J. L., Jones, P. G. & Jarvis, A. Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int. J. Climatol. 25, 1965–1978 (2005).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, Y., Low, B. W. & Yeo, D. C. J. Novel methods to select environmental variables in MaxEnt: A case study using invasive crayfish. Ecol. Modell. 341, 5–13 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Warren, D. L. & Seifert, S. N. Ecological niche modeling in Maxent: the importance of model complexity and the performance of model selection criteria. Ecol. Appl. 21, 335–342 (2011).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warren, D. L., Glor, R. E. & Turelli, M. ENMTools: a toolbox for comparative studies of environmental niche models. Ecography 33, 607–611 (2010).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gent, P. R. et al. The community climate system model version 4. J. Clim. 24, 4973–4991 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Dufresne, J. L. et al. Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5. Clim. Dyn. 40, 2123–2165 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Watanabe, S. et al. MIROC-ESM 2010: model description and basic results of CMIP5-20c3m experiments. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 845–872 (2011).Article 

Google Scholar 
Giorgetta, M. A. et al. Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI-ESM simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 5, 572–597 (2013).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schoener, T. W. The anolis lizards of Bimini: resource partitioning in a complex fauna. Ecology 49, 704–726 (1968).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Our model results indicate that in species with a strict social dominance hierarchy where social rank is determined by nepotism, a beneficial mutation occurring in a low-ranking female is not very likely to get established. This outcome emerged despite the immense advantage of the modeled mutation, which doubled its carrier’s survival probability. Moreover, the reproductive skew in our model (see Supplementary Fig. 1) was less radical than the skew reported for the spotted hyena females21, which means that in the model, low-ranking females had a relatively higher reproductive success potential than in reality. In other words, our model may be underestimating the severity of the negative selection a low rank induces.It is reasonable to assume that a low-ranking mutant female in a female dominant society would produce very few surviving offspring due to her low rank and ensuing lack of access to resources. Thus, this female would have only a slight chance to transmit the mutation to the next generation. If this female does reproduce successfully and produces a female which also inherits the mutation, chances of this daughter to pass on the mutation are also slim, as her rank would be even lower than that of her mother. However, if the young produced is a male and has inherited the mutation, chances of transmitting the mutation may increase depending on the male’s reproduction odds. As demonstrated by the four scenarios, the reduction in mutation establishment with decreasing mutant female’s rank became more and more prominent with increasing restrictions on male reproduction. In all four scenarios, the mutation establishment rate median was zero for the lowest ranking mutants, and in all cases but Scenario I, it was 41. Although female dominance hierarchy exists in a few of these species (e.g., Peruvian squirrel monkey41, ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta)39,42, Verreaux’s sifaka (Propithecus verreauxi))13,25, we did not find any studies indicating female reproductive skew in any of them. Holekamp and Engh25, who reviewed the more classical female dominant species, also reported no evidence for female reproductive skew.This seemingly lack of female reproductive skew among most female dominant species is quite surprising in light of the rather common correlation between social rank and female reproductive success in male dominant species. To mention a few, considerable female reproductive skew is found in baboons (Papio spp), macaques (macaca spp.), feral horses (Equus caballus) and plains zebras (Equus burchelli)8,15,19.Holekamp and Smale28 state that “reproductive skew among female spotted hyenas appears to be greater than that documented among females of male-dominated species characterized by plural breeding”. They suggest that the key determinant of reproductive success among females in this species is rank-related priority of access to food resources. This high priority is reinforced by female dominance over males and is particularly important as this species resides in an environment in which prey availability is seasonal and scarce at times21. Our study suggests that this extreme difference in reproductive success, which, unlike in male-dominated species, is determined by nepotism rather than by physical characters, may induce a handicap on the entire population preventing the establishment of beneficial mutations. This may also hinder adaptation to a changing environment. However, our study results indicate that male equal access to females may, at least partially, counter the inhibition effect on a beneficial mutation establishment. More research is necessary in order to investigate female reproductive skew in species with a social structure similar to that of the spotted hyena, which is characterized by female dominance over males, plural breeding, and a strict female linear social hierarchy determined by nepotism.One intriguing possibility for testing this model’s validity would be an empirical study, provided that the value of some adaptive trait can be measured. In the case of the spotted hyena such a trait may refer to hunting success or physical capabilities. It is well established that adult female spotted hyenas are larger and more aggressive than adult males21, but little attention has been allocated to the study of individual physical differences among females of different ranks. Smith et al.43 studied within clan aggression in the context of the fission-fusion behavior characterizing the spotted hyena clans. Their results indicate more frequent aggression and resulting fissions occurring during times of food shortage. Rank was found to be the major correlate of an aggressive incident result. If it is possible to identify low-ranking females with some beneficial trait (independent of rank), it would be interesting to follow such females’ inclusive reproductive success along time, and even more so, the reproductive success of their sons.Another possible path around the conflict this model suggests would be through the selection of male admission into new clans. Male admission into clans is often constrained by severe aggression of resident immigrant males which may prevent or delay male admission21,26. Such behavior may in fact promote mutant male chances, at least in the case of a mutation that improves physical capabilities.One last, though not very likely possible detour around this difficulty is the occurrence of dominance rank exchanges. Such rank improvements are not very common among female dominated societies, except for in the case of aging females who may clear the way for their daughters44. However, Straus and Holekamp44 found that individuals who repeatedly form coalitions with their top allies are likely to improve their position, and, according to Strauss and Holekamp44, “facilitate revolutionary social change”. It should be kept in mind that not only are such incidents rather rare, but they are unlikely to turn a very low-ranking female into a high-ranking one, especially not when group size is large.More empirical and theoretical research should shed more light on this intriguing question of possible maladaptive evolution. Our model, in line with a few other models such as that of Holman31, suggests that evolution may not always lead to the best solution. As in every process, a local optimum may get evolution trapped and prevent further advance to better optima. More

Alexander, R. D., Marshall, D. C. & Cooley, J. R. in The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (eds. Choe, J. C. & Crespi, B. J.) 4–31 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).Clements, A. N. The Biology of Mosquitoes. Volume 2: Sensory, Reception and Behaviour (CABI Publishing, 1999).Downes, J. A. The swarming and mating flight of Diptera. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 14, 271–298 (1969).Article 

Google Scholar 
Gibson, N. H. E. On the mating swarms of certain Chironomidae (Diptera). Trans. R. Entomol. Soc. Lond. 95, 263–294 (1945).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sivinski, J. M. & Petersson, E. in The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (eds. Choe, J. A. & Crespi, J. B.) 294–309 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).Shelly, T. E. & Whittier, T. S. in The Evolution of Mating Systems in Insects and Arachnids (eds. Choe, J. A. & Crespi, J. B.) 273–293 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997).Savolainen, E. Swarming in Ephemeroptera: the mechanism of swarming and the effects of illumination and weather. Ann. Zool. Fennici 15, 17–52 (1978).
Google Scholar 
Howell, P. I. & Knols, B. G. J. J. Male mating biology. Malar. J. 8, S8 (2009).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Charlwood, J. D. & Jones, M. D. R. Mating in the mosquito, Anopheles gambiae s.l. II. Swarming behaviour. Physiol. Entomol. 5, 315–320 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Marchand, R. P. Field observations on swarming and mating in Anopheles gambiae mosquitoes in Tanzania. Neth. J. Zool. 34, 367–387 (1984).Article 

Google Scholar 
Charlwood, J. D. et al. The swarming and mating behaviour of Anopheles gambiae s.s. (Diptera: Culicidae) from São Tomé Island. J. Vector Ecol. 27, 178–183 (2002).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Diabaté, A. et al. Natural swarming behaviour of the molecular M form of Anopheles gambiae. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg. 97, 713–716 (2003).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Diabaté, A. et al. Spatial swarm segregation and reproductive isolation between the molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 276, 4215–4222 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Sawadogo, P. S. et al. Swarming behaviour in natural populations of Anopheles gambiae and An. coluzzii: review of 4 years survey in rural areas of sympatry, Burkina Faso (West Africa). Acta Trop. 130, 24–34 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
della Torre, A. et al. Molecular evidence of incipient speciation within Anopheles gambiae s.s. in West Africa. Insect Mol. Biol. 10, 9–18 (2001).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
della Torre, A., Tu, Z. & Petrarca, V. On the distribution and genetic differentiation of Anopheles gambiae s.s. molecular forms. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 35, 755–769 (2005).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tripet, F. et al. DNA analysis of transferred sperm reveals significant levels of gene flow between molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae. Mol. Ecol. 10, 1725–1732 (2001).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Diabaté, A. et al. Mixed swarms of the molecular M and S forms of Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) in sympatric area from Burkina Faso. J. Med. Entomol. 43, 480–483 (2006).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Costantini, C. et al. Living at the edge: biogeographic patterns of habitat segregation conform to speciation by niche expansion in Anopheles gambiae. BMC Ecol. 9, 16 (2009).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Sawadogo, P. S. et al. Differences in timing of mating swarms in sympatric populations of Anopheles coluzzii and Anopheles gambiae s.s. (formerly An. gambiae M and S molecular forms) in Burkina Faso, West Africa. Parasit. Vectors 6, 275 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Persiani, A., Dideco, M. A. & Petrangeli, G. Osservzioni di laboratorio su polimorfismi da inversione originati da incroci tra popolazioni diverse di Anopheles gambiae s.s. Ann. Dell’Istituto Super. Di Sanita 22, 221–224 (1986).CAS 

Google Scholar 
Diabaté, A. et al. Larval development of the molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) in different habitats: a transplantation experiment. J. Med. Entomol. 42, 548–553 (2005).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Diabaté, A., Dabiré, K. R., Millogo, N. & Lehmann, T. Evaluating the effect of postmating isolation between molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae). J. Med. Entomol. 44, 60–64 (2007).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Hahn, M. W., White, B. J., Muir, C. D. & Besansky, N. J. No evidence for biased co-transmission of speciation Islands in Anopheles gambiae. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 367, 374–384 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Pombi, M. et al. Dissecting functional components of reproductive isolation among closely related sympatric species of the Anopheles gambiae complex. Evol. Appl. 00, 1–19 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Lehmann, T. & Diabaté, A. The molecular forms of Anopheles gambiae: a phenotypic perspective. Infect. Genet. Evol. 8, 737–746 (2008).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Clements, A. N. The Biology of Mosquitoes: Development, Nutrition and Reproduction (Chapman & Hall, 1992).Gibson, G., Warren, B. & Russell, I. J. Humming in tune: sex and species recognition by mosquitoes on the wing. J. Assoc. Res. Otolaryngol. 11, 527–540 (2010).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pennetier, C., Warren, B., Dabiré, K. R., Russell, I. J. & Gibson, G. ‘Singing on the wing’ as a mechanism for species recognition in the malarial mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Curr. Biol. 20, 131–136 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Feugère, L., Gibson, G., Manoukis, N. C. & Roux, O. Mosquito sound communication: are male swarms loud enough to attract females? J. R. Soc. Interface 18, 20210121 (2021).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Poda, S. B. et al. Sex aggregation and species segregation cues in swarming mosquitoes: role of ground visual markers. Parasit. Vectors 12, 589 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wang, G. et al. Clock genes and environmental cues coordinate Anopheles pheromone synthesis, swarming, and mating. Science 371, 411–415 (2021).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dao, A. et al. Assessment of alternative mating strategies in Anopheles gambiae: does mating occur indoors? J. Med. Entomol. 45, 643–652 (2008).PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Gomulski, L. Aspects of Mosquito Mating Behaviour. PhD thesis, Univ. London (1988).Kelly, D. W. & Dye, C. Pheromones, kairomones and the aggregation dynamics of the sandfly Lutzomyia longipalpis. Anim. Behav. 53, 721–731 (1997).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bray, D. P., Alves, G. B., Dorval, M. E., Brazil, R. P. & Hamilton, J. G. C. Synthetic sex pheromone attracts the leishmaniasis vector Lutzomyia longipalpis to experimental chicken sheds treated with insecticide. Parasit. Vectors 3, 16 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Diabaté, A. et al. Spatial distribution and male mating success of Anopheles gambiae swarms. BMC Evol. Biol. 11, 184 (2011).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Levi-Zada, A. et al. Diel periodicity of pheromone release by females of Planococcus citri and Planococcus ficus and the temporal flight activity of their conspecific males. Naturwissenschaften 101, 671–678 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Bjostad, L. B., Gaston, L. K. & Shorey, H. H. Temporal pattern of sex pheromone release by female Trichoplusia ni. J. Insect Physiol. 26, 493–498 (1980).Article 

Google Scholar 
Merlin, C. et al. An antennal circadian clock and circadian rhythms in peripheral pheromone reception in the moth Spodoptera littoralis. J. Biol. Rhythms 22, 502–514 (2007).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Rund, S. S. C. et al. Daily rhythms in antennal protein and olfactory sensitivity in the malaria mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Sci. Rep. 3, 2494 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Robledo, N. & Arzuffi, R. Influence of host fruit and conspecifics on the release of the sex pheromone by Toxotrypana curvicauda males (Diptera: Tephritidae). Environ. Entomol. 41, 387–391 (2012).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Andersson, J. et al. Male sex pheromone release and female mate choice in a butterfly. J. Exp. Biol. 210, 964–970 (2007).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mozūraitis, R. et al. Male swarming aggregation pheromones increase female attraction and mating success among multiple African malaria vector mosquito species. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1395–1401 (2020).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Poda, S. B. et al. No evidence for long-range male sex pheromones in two malaria mosquitoes. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.05.187542 (2021).Verhulst, N. O. et al. Differential attraction of malaria mosquitoes to volatile blends produced by human skin bacteria. PLoS ONE 5, e15829 (2010).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Pandey, S. K. & Kim, K. Human body-odor components and their determination. Trends Anal. Chem. 30, 784–796 (2011).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Dormont, L., Bessiere, J. M., McKey, D. & Cohuet, A. New methods for field collection of human skin volatiles and perspectives for their application in the chemical ecology of human-pathogen-vector interactions. J. Exp. Biol. 216, 2783–2788 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Dormont, L., Bessière, J. M. & Cohuet, A. Human skin volatiles: a review. J. Chem. Ecol. 39, 569–578 (2013).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tchouassi, D. P. et al. Common host-derived chemicals increase catches of disease-transmitting mosquitoes and can improve early warning systems for rift valley fever virus. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 7, e2007 (2013).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
McBride, C. S. et al. Evolution of mosquito preference for humans linked to an odorant receptor. Nature 515, 222–227 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Poli, D. et al. Determination of aldehydes in exhaled breath of patients with lung cancer by means of on-fiber-derivatisation SPME-GC/MS. J. Chromatogr. B. 878, 2643–2651 (2010).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Filipiak, W. et al. Comparative analyses of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from patients, tumors and transformed cell lines for the validation of lung cancer-derived breath markers. J. Breath. Res. 8, 027111 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Calenic, B. & Amann, A. Detection of volatile malodorous compounds in breath: current analytical techniques and implications in human disease. Bioanalysis 6, 357–376 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Cainap, C., Pop, L. A., Balacescu, O. & Cainap, S. S. Early diagnosis and screening in lung cancer. Am. J. Cancer Res. 10, 1993–2009 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Dekel, A., Yakir, E. & Bohbot, J. D. The sulcatone receptor of the strict nectar-feeding mosquito Toxorhynchites amboinensis. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 111, 103174 (2019).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Nyasembe, V. O. et al. Development and assessment of plant-based synthetic odor baits for surveillance and control of malaria vectors. PLoS Negl. Trop. Dis. 9, e89818 (2014).
Google Scholar 
Wondwosen, B. et al. Sweet attraction: sugarcane pollen-associated volatiles attract gravid Anopheles arabiensis. Malar. J. 17, 90 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Wondwosen, B. et al. Rice volatiles lure gravid malaria mosquitoes, Anopheles arabiensis. Sci. Rep. 6, 37930 (2016).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Suh, E., Choe, D., Saveer, A. M. & Zwiebel, L. J. Suboptimal larval habitats modulate oviposition of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles coluzzii. PLoS ONE 11, e0149800 (2016).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Kostiainen, R. Volatile organic compounds in the indoor air of normal and sick houses. Atmos. Environ. 29, 693–702 (1995).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kruza, M., Lewis, A. C., Morrison, C. G. & Carslaw, N. Impact of surface ozone interactions on indoor air chemistry: a modeling study. Indoor Air 27, 1001–1011 (2017).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Tripet, F., Dolo, G., Traoré, S. & Lanzaro, G. C. The ‘wingbeat hypothesis’ of reproductive isolation between members of the Anopheles gambiae complex (Diptera: Culicidae) does not fly. J. Med. Entomol. 41, 375–384 (2004).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Facchinelli, L. et al. Stimulating Anopheles gambiae swarms in the laboratory: application for behavioural and fitness studies. Malar. J. 14, 271 (2015).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Niang, A. et al. Semi-field and indoor setups to study malaria mosquito swarming behavior. Parasit. Vectors 12, 446 (2019).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Gibson, G. Swarming behaviour of the mosquito Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus: a quantitative analysis. Physiol. Entomol. 10, 283–296 (1985).Article 

Google Scholar 
Bimbilé Somda, N. S. et al. Ecology of reproduction of Anopheles arabiensis in an urban area of Bobo-Dioulasso, Burkina Faso (West Africa): monthly swarming and mating frequency and their relation to environmental factors. PLoS ONE 13, e0205966 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Maïga, H., Dabiré, R. K., Lehmann, T., Tripet, F. & Diabaté, A. Variation in energy reserves and role of body size in the mating system of Anopheles gambiae. J. Vector Ecol. 37, 289–297 (2012).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Maïga, H. et al. Role of nutritional reserves and body size in Anopheles gambiae males mating success. Acta Trop. 132S, S102–S107 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Schiestl, F. P. The evolution of floral scent and insect chemical communication. Ecol. Lett. 13, 643–656 (2010).Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Goodrich, K. R., Zjhra, M. L., Ley, C. A. & Raguso, R. A. When flowers smell fermented: the chemistry and ontogeny of yeasty floral scent in Pawpaw (Asimina triloba: Annonaceae). Int. J. Plant Sci. 167, 33–46 (2006).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Iatrou, K. & Biessmann, H. Sex-biased expression of odorant receptors in antennae and palps of the African malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 38, 268–274 (2008).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Pitts, R. J., Rinker, D. C., Jones, P. L., Rokas, A. & Zwiebel, L. J. Transcriptome profiling of chemosensory appendages in the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae reveals tissue- and sex-specific signatures of odor coding. BMC Genomics 12, 271 (2011).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lu, T. et al. Odor coding in the maxillary palp of the malaria vector mosquito Anopheles gambiae. Curr. Biol. 17, 1533–1544 (2007).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Guidobaldi, F., May-Concha, I. J. & Guerenstein, P. G. Morphology and physiology of the olfactory system of blood-feeding insects. J. Physiol. Paris 108, 96–111 (2014).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Mosqueira, B. et al. Pilot study on the combination of an organophosphate-based insecticide paint and pyrethroid-treated long lasting nets against pyrethroid resistant malaria vectors in Burkina Faso. Acta Trop. 148, 162–169 (2015).CAS 
Article 
PubMed 

Google Scholar 
Poda, S. B. et al. Targeted application of an organophosphate-based paint applied on windows and doors against Anopheles coluzzii resistant to pyrethroids under real life conditions in Vallée du Kou, Burkina Faso (West Africa). Malar. J. 17, 136 (2018).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Diabaté, A. et al. The spread of the Leu-Phe kdr mutation through Anopheles gambiae complex in Burkina Faso: genetic introgression and de novo phenomena. Trop. Med. Int. Heal. 9, 1267–1273 (2004).Article 

Google Scholar 
Santolamazza, F. et al. Insertion polymorphisms of SINE200 retrotransposons within speciation islands of Anopheles gambiae molecular forms. Malar. J. 7, 163 (2008).Article 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Lefèvre, T. et al. Evolutionary lability of odour-mediated host preference by the malaria vector Anopheles gambiae. Trop. Med. Int. Heal. 14, 228–236 (2009).Article 

Google Scholar 
Lefèvre, T. et al. Beer consumption increases human attractiveness to malaria mosquitoes. PLoS ONE 5, e9546 (2010).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Vantaux, A. et al. Host-seeking behaviors of mosquitoes experimentally infected with sympatric field isolates of the human malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum: no evidence for host manipulation. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3, 86 (2015).Article 

Google Scholar 
Nguyen, P. L. et al. No evidence for manipulation of Anopheles gambiae, An. coluzzii and An. arabiensis host preference by Plasmodium falciparum. Sci. Rep. 7, 9415 (2017).Article 
CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 

Google Scholar 
Tienpont, B., David, F., Bicchi, C. & Sandra, P. High capacity headspace sorptive extraction. J. Microcolumn Sep. 12, 577–584 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Bicchi, C., Cordero, C., Iori, C., Rubiolo, P. & Sandra, P. Headspace Sorptive Extraction (HSSE) in the headspace analysis of aromatic and medicinal plants. J. High. Resolut. Chromatogr. 23, 539–546 (2000).CAS 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Souto-Vilarós, D. et al. Pollination along an elevational gradient mediated both by floral scent and pollinator compatibility in the fig and fig-wasp mutualism. J. Ecol. 106, 2256–2273 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Zellner, Bd’Acampora et al. Linear retention indices in gas chromatographic analysis: a review. Flavour Fragr. J. 23, 297–314 (2008).Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Charpentier, M. J. E., Barthes, N., Proffit, M., Bessière, J. M. & Grison, C. Critical thinking in the chemical ecology of mammalian communication: roadmap for future studies. Funct. Ecol. 26, 769–774 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar  More

Human evolutionary research has historically conceptualised social support as a purely dyadic phenomenon (e.g., see Refs. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16). That is, given some trait pertaining to two persons i and j — e.g., their genetic relatedness, history of helping each other, physical proximity, or difference in wealth — does i help j? Both elegant and tractable, this dyad-centric view of social support evokes classic theoretical models of cooperation as a “Prisoner’s Dilemma” within a void consisting only of ego (i) and alter (j)17. Yet it also belies the fact that aid relationships (i.e., who helps who) constitute complex networks of supportive social bonds that emanate throughout entire human communities.Members of such networks may, in principle, unilaterally help whomever they wish. And their decisions to help — or to not help — specific others comprise a dynamic, supra-dyadic relational context that shapes one’s plausible set of aid targets at the micro level18,19,20,21,22. Put simply, in social support networks, aid is targeted and interdependent across dyads such that the patterning of cooperation among multiple alters jointly affects whom any one network member helps. This sociocentric (i.e., whole network) view of social support is distinct from the perspective taken by evolutionary graph theorists who study the emergence of cooperation on network structure and other spatial substrates (e.g., square grids) that may be fixed or dynamic (e.g., see Refs. 23,24,25). And it is distinct from the perspective taken by analysts of egocentric (i.e., personal) networks who study how the arrangement of intimate relationships exclusively between one’s closest contacts (e.g., the extent to which one’s friends are also friends) eases access to help (e.g., see Martí, Bolíbar, and Lozares26).Differences between the dyad-centric and the sociocentric perspectives on social support are not merely cosmetic. Indeed, the dyad-centric stance of human evolutionary research has led to a situation wherein the relational context of helping behaviour is underexplored. And this has, in turn, impaired understanding of the relative importance of fundamental evolutionary mechanisms to the structuring of cooperative relationships in human communities.Specifically, human evolutionary research on helping behaviour generally takes the theories of kin selection and reciprocal altruism as lodestars. In so doing, sociometric data from subsistence societies across the globe have been used to investigate whether consanguinity (i.e., genetic kinship) and reciprocity govern aid unconditionally and in relation to multiple social and demographic factors. These include affinity (i.e., marriage-based kinship), physical proximity, relative need, homophily (e.g., based on age and gender), social closeness, friendship, religiosity, reputation, conflict, status, and anthropometric measurements such as size, height, and strength. And, on balance, evidence1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,13,14,16,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 suggests that helping family and responding in kind when helped are the primary mechanisms by which humans informally distribute resources vital to day-to-day survival (e.g., advice, information, food, money, durables, and physical assistance).However, despite laudable exceptions2,7,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34 and perhaps due to the influence of methodological trends in the wider behavioural ecology literature on relationships between animals (see Refs. 35,36,37), human evolutionary studies of real helping behaviour have typically relied on non-network methods — namely, monadic regression, dyadic regression, and permutation tests (e.g., see Refs. 1,2,3,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,16,27). Respectively, these techniques treat the supra-dyadic structure of social support networks as ignorable, reducible to dyads, or a nuisance to be corrected for38. Yet, sociocentric research by sociologists39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49 firmly establishes that humans create and maintain relationships in accordance with factors intrinsic to the supra-dyadic arrangement of network structure itself (e.g., processes of degree-reinforcement and group formation involving at least three persons). And this sociological research makes clear that network-structure-related dynamics can operate simultaneously and independently of non-network factors (e.g., age and kinship).Ultimately, reliance on methods that disregard complex interdependences between aid obscures the extent to which helping family and responding in kind when helped outrank the dynamics of the cooperative system within which decisions to assist specific individuals take place. This uncertainty represents a substantial gap in our scientific understanding of altruism. Accordingly, here I tackle a major point of interest in evolutionary anthropology and human behavioural ecology50 specifically through the lens of the sociology of social networks18,21,51, asking:RQ: How important is helping family and responding in kind when helped relative to supra-dyadic, network-structure-related constraints on the provision of aid?The Current StudyTo answer my research question, I use Koster’s27 recently-released cross-sectional data on genetic relatedness and the habitual provision of tangible aid (e.g., firewood, food, valuable items, and/or physical assistance). Re-analysed here due to their exceptional detail and measurement quality in addition to their broad relevance to the scientific community (see Methods), these data were collected in 2013 and concern a complete population. Specifically, they cover all 108 adult (18+) residents (11,556 ordered dyads) of the 32 households of Arang Dak — a remote village of 279 indigenous Mayangna and Miskito swidden (i.e., “slash-and-burn”) horticulturalists. Arang Dak sits on the Lakus River in Nicaragua’s Bosawás Biosphere Reserve, a neotropical forest in the Department of Jinotega.In total, the tangible aid network that I analyse — i.e., x(t2013)— consists of 1,485 asymmetric aid relationships between the adult residents of Arang Dak. Of the 1,485 aid relationships, 1,422 are verified by the source and the recipient of help. That is, xij(t2013) = 1 if villager i reported in 2013 that they give tangible aid to villager j at least once per month and villager j reported in 2013 that they receive tangible aid from villager i at least once per month. Still, note that Koster’s27 data document self-reported resource flows as opposed to observed transfers. Named sources and targets of aid are based on the village roster — not freely recalled from memory. See Methods for a summary of the data and details on the measurement of the network and kinship.Modelling StrategyTo analyse tangible aid in relation to supra-dyadic network structure (Fig. 1), I use generative network models following Redhead and von Rueden32 and von Rueden et al.33, amongst other human evolutionary scientists2,7,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34. Specially, I rely on Stochastic Actor-Oriented Models (SAOMs) which are used for observational (i.e., non-causal) analyses of the temporal evolution of networks.Put simply, SAOMs are akin to multinomial logistic regression. More formally, SAOMs are simulations of individual network members’ choices between outgoing relationships with different rewards and costs. These simulations are calibrated or “tuned” to the observed network data. That is, conditional on x (i.e., the observed states of a dynamic network), SAOMs simulate network evolution between successive observations or “snapshots” of the network at (M) discrete time points — i.e., (xleft({t}_{m}right)to xleft({t}_{m+1}right)) — as a continuous-time, Markovian process of repeated, asynchronous, and sequential tie changes. The Markovian process is defined on the space of all possible directed graphs for a set of N = {1, …, n} network members40,42,44,52,53,54,55.SAOMs decompose change between successive network observations into its smallest possible unit. Specifically, “change” means creating one outgoing tie if it does not exist, dropping one outgoing tie if it does, or doing nothing (i.e., maintaining the status quo network). More formally, during a SAOM simulation, focal actors i (ego) myopically modify just one of their outgoing relationships with some alter j in the set of network members N (i.e., j ∈ N, j ≠ i). The change made by i is the change that maximises a utility or “evaluation” function. In this respect, the evaluation function captures the “attractiveness”44 of tie changes — where “attraction” means “…something like ‘sending a tie to [an actor j] with a higher probability if all other circumstances are equal.’” (Snijders and Lomi56, p. 5).The evaluation function itself is a weighted sum of parameter estimates (widehat{beta }) and their associated covariates k (i.e., SAOM “effects”44) plus a Gumbel-distributed variable used to capture random influences55. The simulated tie changes or “ministeps”44 made by i shift the network between adjacent (unobserved) states. These states differ, at most, by the presence/absence of a single tie40,42. And the probabilities of the ministeps — a large number of which are required to bring one observation of the network to the next (i.e., (xleft({t}_{m}right)to xleft({t}_{m+1}right))) — are given by a multinomial logit which uses the evaluation function as the linear predictor.Each covariate k used to specify the evaluation function summarises some structural (i.e., purely network-related) feature or non-structural feature of i’s immediate (i.e., local) network — e.g., the sum of the in-degrees of i’s alters, the number of reciprocated dyads that i is embedded in, or i’s number of outgoing ties weighted by genetic relatedness. These features correspond to theoretical mechanisms of interest (e.g., preferential attachment, reciprocal altruism, or kin selection) and generally take the form of unstandardised sums.SAOM parameter estimates (widehat{beta }) (log odds ratios) summarise the association between the covariates and the simulated tie changes or “ministeps”. Specifically, should a focal actor i have the opportunity to make a ministep in departure from some current (i.e., status-quo) network state x in transit to a new network state x±ij — i.e., the adjacent network defined by i’s addition/subtraction of the tie xij to/from x — ({widehat{beta }}_{k}) is the log odds of choosing between two different versions of x±ij in relation to some covariate k. For example, ({widehat{beta }}_{{rm{Reciprocity}}}=1.7) would indicate that the log odds of i creating and maintaining the supportive relation xij is, conditional on the other covariates k, larger by 1.7 when xij reciprocates a tie (i.e., xji) compared to when xij does not reciprocate a tie (i.e., reciprocated ties are more “attractive”). In contrast, ({widehat{beta }}_{{rm{Reciprocity}}}=-1.7) would indicate that the log odds of xij is, conditional on the other effects, smaller by −1.7 when xij reciprocates a tie compared to when xij does not reciprocate a tie (i.e., reciprocated ties are less “attractive”).Given the longitudinal nature of the model, the gain in the evaluation function for a ministep is determined by the difference Δ in the value of the statistic s for a covariate k — i.e., Δk,ij(x, x±ij) = sk,i(x±ij) − sk,i(x) — incurred through the addition/subtraction of xij to/from x (see Block et al.42 and Ripley et al.44 on “change statistics”). Accordingly, ({widehat{beta }}_{{rm{Reciprocity}}}=1.7), for example, is the value that xij positively contributes to the evaluation function when xij increases the network statistic sk,i(x) underlying the Reciprocity effect by the value of one (i.e., ΔReciprocity,ij (x, x±ij) = sReciprocity,i(x±ij) − sReciprocity,i (x) = 1 − 0 = 1).The probabilities of network members being selected for a ministep is governed by a separate “rate” function. And the baseline rate parameter λ is a kind of intercept for the amount of network change between successive observations of the analysed network. Larger baseline rates indicate that, on average, more simulated tie changes were made to bring one observation of the network to the next (i.e., (xleft({t}_{m}right)to xleft({t}_{m+1}right))).However, as the data from Nicaragua are from a single point in time (i.e., 2013), I use the cross-sectional or stationary Stochastic Actor-Oriented Model (cf. von Rueden et al.33). Accordingly, Arang Dak’s tangible aid network is assumed to be in “short-term dynamic equilibrium.” As Snijders and Steglich40 (p. 265) discuss in detail, “this ‘short-term equilibrium’ specification of the SAOM is achieved by requiring that the observed network is both the centre and the starting value of a longitudinal network evolution process in which the number of change opportunities per actor [i.e., λ] is fixed to some high (but not too high) value.”Practically speaking, this means that the cross-sectionally observed network is used as the beginning and the target state for a SAOM simulation — i.e., (xleft({t}_{2013}right)to xleft({t}_{2013}right)) — during which actors are allowed to make, on average, very many changes (i.e., λ) to their portfolio of outgoing ties. These simulated tie changes produce a distribution of synthetic networks with properties that are, on average, similar to those of the cross-sectionally observed network in a converged SAOM — where the target properties correspond to the researcher-chosen SAOM effects k. Put simply, “[cross-sectional] SAOMs assume that the network structure, although changing, is in a stochastically stable state.” (Krause, Huisman, and Snijders57, p. 36–37). Thus, the estimated parameters (widehat{beta }) continue to summarise the rules by which ministeps unfold. However, the asynchronous, sequential, simulated tie changes, in a sense, “cancel out” and thus hold the network in “short-term dynamic equilibrium”40,42. Formally, the cross-sectional SAOM is defined as a stationary distribution of a Markov Chain with transition probabilities given by the multinomial logit used to model change between adjacent network states40,42.The rate parameter λ is fixed at 36 for my analysis. The value of 36 is the maximum observed out-degree in the source-recipient-verified tangible aid network x(t2013). Accordingly, under λ = 36, all members of the tangible aid network have, on average, at least one opportunity to modify their entire portfolio of outgoing ties during the simulations. Nevertheless, to ensure the robustness of my results, I also fit a second set of models for which λ was fixed to 108 (i.e., thrice the maximum out-degree).Model SpecificationTo assess the importance of kinship and reciprocity to hypothetical decisions to help others (i.e., ministeps), I use four archetypal specifications of the SAOM’s evaluation function. These model specifications feature nested sets of covariates (i.e., the SAOM “effects”44). And, using language found in prior evolutionary studies3,5, I refer to these archetypal specifications as the “Conventional Model” (Model 1) of aid, the “Extended Model” (Model 2) of aid, the “Networked Aid Model (Limited)” (Model 3), and the “Networked Aid Model (Comprehensive)” (Model 4).The first specification (i.e., Model 1) comes from Hackman et al.3 and Kasper and Borgerhoff Mulder5 who respectively label it the “Human Behavioural Ecology” and “Conventional” model. This specification is comprised of just four dyadic covariates — one each for consanguinity (i.e., Wright’s coefficient of genetic relatedness), affinity (i.e., Wright’s coefficient of genetic relatedness between i’s spouse s and his/her blood relative j), the receipt of aid, and geographic distance. The first three covariates are used to test long-standing predictions of helping in order to reap indirect and direct fitness benefits in line with the theories of kin selection and reciprocal altruism (see Refs. 1,5,27,58,59 for primers). And the fourth covariate is used to adjust for tolerated scrounging — i.e., what Jaeggi and Gurven4 (p. 2) define as aid resulting from one’s inability to monopolise resources due to costs imposed by the resource-poor — where a covariate for distance operationalises pressure to help imposed by those who are spatially close4.The second specification (i.e., Model 2) reflects Kasper and Borgerhoff Mulder’s5 and Thomas et al.’s9 extensions to the conventional model (see also Page et al.16). Specifically, and following important work by Allen-Arave, Gurven, and Hill1, Hooper et al.14, and Nolin7, it is distinguished by nuanced tests of kin selection and reciprocal altruism via interactions between: (i) consanguinity and the receipt of aid; (ii) consanguinity and relative need; and (iii) consanguinity and geographic distance. Furthermore, Kasper and Borgerhoff Mulder’s5 and Thomas et al.’s9 extended model includes covariates for the non-network-related attributes of individuals (e.g., gender, wealth, and physical size), thus adjusting for homophily, trait-based popularity, trait-based activity, and local context (e.g., results from a gift-giving game9 or, in the present case, infidelity and discrimination based on skin-tone27).The third specification (i.e., Model 4) is my revision of the second. It is geared to make the relational context of aid explicit. This is done using nine covariates that account for the breadth of sociologists’ contemporary understanding of supra-dyadic interdependence between positive-valence (i.e., not based on disliking or aggression), asymmetric social relationships39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49. In keeping with the nature of the SAOM, each of these covariates summarises some structural feature of a villager’s immediate (i.e., local) network (e.g., the number of transitive triads that she is embedded in). Accordingly, each structural covariate is used to capture a form of self-organisation — i.e., network formation driven by an individual’s selection of alters in response to network structure itself (Lusher et al.49, p. 10–11 and 23–27).Specifically, the covariates added in the third specification reflect predictions derived from three fundamental sociological theories of the emergence of non-romantic relationships. The first is structural balance theory which posits that individuals create and maintain ties that move groups of three people from an intransitive to a transitive state (i.e., transitive closure), the latter of which is understood to be more psychologically harmonious or “balanced” (see Refs. 39,43,47,48,60,61,62 for primers). The second is Simmelian tie theory which posits that, once formed, individuals will maintain relationships embedded in maximally-cohesive groups of three people such that 3-cliques (i.e., fully-reciprocated triads) are resistant to dissolution (see Refs. 43,48,63 for primers). The third is social exchange theory (as it relates to structured reciprocity) which posits that individuals will unilaterally give benefits to others in response to benefits received such that indirect reciprocity (i.e., returns to generosity) and generalised reciprocity (i.e. paying-it-forward) in groups of three people encourage cyclic closure — i.e., the simplest form of chain-generalised exchange (see Refs. 19,20,43 for primers). Furthermore, the third specification reflects the broad prediction that individuals vary in their propensity to send and receive relationships based on their structural position alone (e.g., popularity-biased attachment) leading to dispersion in the distribution of in-degrees and out-degrees (see Refs. 39,44,49 for primers) — especially for ties with an inherent cost to their maintenance39,42.Last, I consider a fourth specification (i.e., Model 3) that uses a subset of the nine network-structure-related covariates included in Model 4. This limited set of structural effects typifies the specifications used in prior human evolutionary studies of empirical help that present generative models of entire networks2,7,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34. Specifically, the fourth specification features just three network-structure-related covariates to account for structural balance theory, self-reinforcing in-degree (i.e., popularity-bias), and the interplay between in-degree and out-degree.Descriptive statistics for the relevant attributes of the 108 residents of Arang Dak appear in Table 1. Formulae used to calculate the network statistics sk,i(x) underlying each effect k used to specify my SAOMs, alongside verbal descriptions to aid reader interpretation, appear in Online-Only Table 1. See Methods for additional rationale behind the third specification.Table 1 Descriptive statistics for the monadic and dyadic attributes of the residents of Arang Dak.Full size tableModel ComparisonCompared to prior human evolutionary research on social support networks, I take two novel approaches to gauging the importance of kinship and reciprocity to help. First, I use a technique41 specifically designed to measure the relative importance of individual effects in SAOMs (see Methods). And second, I evaluate each specification’s ability to produce synthetic graphs with topologies representative of the structure of the analysed tangible aid network64.Judging model specifications using topological properties reflects one of the core purposes of methods such as the SAOM and the Exponential Random Graph Model (ERGM) — i.e., to explain the emergence of global network structure (see Refs. 40,42,46,47,49 also Refs. 18,48), not simply the state of individual dyads (i.e., is aid given or not?). Admittedly, explaining global network structure is not a stated primary aim of dyadic-centric or sociocentric studies of help by human evolutionary scientists, including those wherein authors rely on SAOMs or ERGMs2,7,15,28,29,30,31,32,33,34. Still, topological reproduction is an important, strong test of the relative quality of the four archetypal specifications as each encodes the set of rules presumed to govern network members’ decisions about whom to help.To clarify, recall that here it is assumed, a priori, that network members can, in principle, cooperate with whomever they wish, that their cooperative decisions are intertwined across multiple scales, and that their micro-level decisions ultimately give rise to macro-level patterns of supportive social bonds (see Refs. 18,19,20,21,22). The macro-level patterns generated by SAOMs and ERGMs can differ dramatically based on specification40,46,47,49,64,65. Thus, the empirical relevance of a candidate model rests with its ability to produce synthetic graphs similar to the observed structure40,42,46,47,48,49,64. Ultimately, divergence between the real and simulated graphs suggests that a candidate specification is suspect as it does not describe how some network of interest could have formed. More

Hardwicke, T. E. et al. Analytic reproducibility in articles receiving open data badges at the journal Psychological Science: an observational study. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 201494 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Enserink, M. Sea of doubts. Science 372, 560–565 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buxton, R. T. et al. Avoiding wasted research resources in conservation science. Conserv. Sci. Pract. 3, 1–11 (2021).
Google Scholar 
Tai, T. C. & Robinson, J. P. W. Enhancing climate change research with open science. Front. Environ. Sci. 6, 1–5 (2018).Article 

Google Scholar 
Popkin, G. Data sharing and how it can benefit your scientific career. Nature 569, 445–447 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilkinson, M. D. et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci. Data 3, 160018 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Roche, D. G. et al. Slow improvement to the archiving quality of open datasets shared by researchers in ecology and evolution. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 289, 20212780 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Tedersoo, L., Küngas, R., Oras, E., Köster, K. & Helen, E. Data sharing practices and data availability upon request differ across scientific disciplines. Sci. Data 8, 1–11 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Christian, T. M., Gooch, A., Vision, T. & Hull, E. Journal data policies: exploring how the understanding of editors and authors corresponds to the policies themselves. PLoS ONE 15, 1–15 (2020).
Google Scholar 
Sholler, D., Ram, K., Boettiger, C. & Katz, D. S. Enforcing public data archiving policies in academic publishing: a study of ecology journals. Big Data Soc. 6, 1–18 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Postma, E., Gonzalez‐Voyer, A. & Holman, L. A comment on The adaptive value of gluttony: predators mediate the life history trade‐offs of satiation threshold by Pruitt & Krauel (2010). J. Evol. Biol. 34, 1989–1993 (2021).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stodden, V., Seiler, J. & Ma, Z. An empirical analysis of journal policy effectiveness for computational reproducibility. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 2584–2589 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rohrer, J. M. et al. Putting the self in self-correction: findings from the Loss-of-Confidence Project. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 16, 1255–1269 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Vazire, S. A toast to the error detectors. Nature 577, 9 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Culina, A., van den Berg, I., Evans, S. & Sánchez-Tójar, A. Low availability of code in ecology: a call for urgent action. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000763 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Roche, D. G. et al. Paths towards greater consensus building in experimental biology. J. Exp. Biol. 225, jeb243559 (2022).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Laurinavichyute, A., Yadav, H. & Vasishth, S. Share the code, not just the data: a case study of the reproducibility of articles published in the Journal of Memory and Language under the open data policy. J. Mem. Lang. 125, 104332 (2022).Article 

Google Scholar 
Roche, D. G., Kruuk, L. E. B., Lanfear, R. & Binning, S. A. Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: how well are we doing? PLoS Biol. 13, e1002295 (2015).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Besançon, L., Bik, E., Heathers, J. & Meyerowitz-Katz, G. Correction of scientific literature: too little, too late! PLoS Biol. 20, e3001572 (2022).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Holmes, N. P. I critiqued my past papers on social media—here’s what I learnt. Nature 595, 333 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Teixeira da Silva, J. A. & Al-Khatib, A. Ending the retraction stigma: encouraging the reporting of errors in the biomedical record. Res. Ethics 17, 251–259 (2021).Article 

Google Scholar 
Minocher, R., Atmaca, S., Bavero, C., McElreath, R. & Beheim, B. Estimating the reproducibility of social learning research published between 1955 and 2018. R. Soc. Open Sci. 8, 210450 (2021).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Montgomerie, R. From the Editor’s desk of The American Naturalist: data transparency 2020. The American Naturalist http://comments.amnat.org/2021/01/note-since-fall-2020-robert-montgomerie.html (2021).R Project. R version 4.0.3 https://cran.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/old/4.0.3/ (2020). More

Insect rearingThe B. dorsalis strain collected from a carambola (Averrhoa carambola) orchard in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, was reared under laboratory conditions (27 ± 1 °C, 12:12 h light:dark cycle, 70–80% RH). A maize-based artificial diet containing 150 g of corn flour, 150 g of banana, 0.6 g of sodium benzoate, 30 g of yeast, 30 g of sucrose, 30 g of paper towel, 1.2 mL of hydrochloric acid and 300 mL of water was used to feed the larvae. Adults were fed a solid diet (consisting of 50 g yeast and 50 g sugar) and 50 mL sterile water in a 35 cm × 35 cm × 35 cm wooden cage. For B. dorsalis, the female will start laying eggs once mated and the female will start mating 7 days after emergence. To make sure all females used in our study were gravid females, females were selected 10 day after emergence.Visualization of CF-BD with FISH and PCRFISH was carried out on dissected gut and ovary samples from B. dorsalis. The hybridization protocol for the gut and ovary was performed according to a previously described method32. Briefly, the gut and ovary were collected and immediately soaked in Carnoy’s fixative for 12 h. After sample fixation, proteinase K (2 mg/mL) treatment for 20 min at 37 °C and HCl (0.2 mol/L) treatment for 15 min at room temperature were performed successively. Then, followed by dehydration in ethanol, the samples were incubated in buffer (20 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 0.9 M NaCl, 0.01% sodium dodecyl sulfate, 30% formamide) containing 50 nM CF-BD specific probe (5′-AATGGCGTACACAAAGAG-3′) labeled with cy3 at the 5′ end for 90 min. After incubation, the samples were washed with buffer (0.1 M NaCl, 20 mM Tris/HCl (pH 8.0), 5 mM ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (pH 8.0), 0.01% SDS) and observed under an epifluorescence microscope (Axiophot, Carl Zeiss, Shinjuku-ku, Japan).To further confirm CF-BD in rectum and ovary of mature females, rectums and ovaries of mature females were dissected and fixed in formalin fixation for 24 h. After soaking in graded alcohols and xylene, all samples were embedded in paraffin for section preparation. Samples were sliced into 4 µm each before pasting on the glass slide and then sent for FISH with the same probe (labeled with cy3 at the 5′ end) used above. Moreover, nested PCR was applied to detect CF-BD in 19 ovaries of mature females according to the method of Guo et al., 201733. Briefly, a 1149 bp region of gyrB gene of CF-BD was amplified by the specific outer primer gyrBP1-F (5′-CAGCCCACTCTGAACTGTAT-3′) and gyrBP1-R (5′-TCAGGGCGTTTTCTTCGATA-3′) under a temperature profile of 95 °C for 1 min, which was followed by 25 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 52 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 90 s, and 72 °C for 5 min. Then, a 371 bp region of the gyrB gene of CF-BD was amplified by the specific inner primer gyrBP4-F (5′-ACGCTGGCTGAAGACTGCC-3′) and gyrBP4-R (5′-TGGATAGCGAGACCACGACG-3′) under a temperature profile of 95 °C for 2 min, which was followed by 35 cycles of 95 °C for 30 s, 57 °C for 30 s, 72 °C for 30 s, and 72 °C for 5 min.Influence of CF-BD on B. dorsalis ovary developmentTo evaluate the effect of CF-BD on ovary development, newly emerged B. dorsalis females were injected with streptomycin and CF-BD suspension (both dilute in sterile water). Specifically, 10 µL 25% glycerol solution containing CF-BD was added into 100 mL Luria-Bertani (LB) liquid medium and culturing for 1 day by shaking (180 rpm) in 30 °C incubator. After culturing, CF-BD was collected by centrifuging (3000 rpm, 15 min) the medium in a 50 mL centrifuge tube. Then collected CF-BD was re-suspended with 5 mL sterile water. CF-BD concentration was measured on a hemocytometer and CF-BD concentrations used in the following assays were prepared by diluting the original concentration with sterile water. A 0.5 mm inside diameter capillary needle with 1 μL streptomycin or CF-BD suspension was used for injection. The injection operation was carried out on a microinjector (Eppendorf FemtoJet), and every female was injected in the abdomen near the ovipositor. The concentrations of streptomycin used were 20 mg/mL, 10 mg/mL and 5 mg/mL, respectively. And CF-BD suspension concentrations were 3 × 107 cfu/mL, 1.5 × 107 cfu/mL and 7.5 × 106 cfu/mL, respectively. For control, the female fly was injected with 1 μL sterile water in the abdomen near the ovipositor. Then the development level of the ovary was assessed by comparing the width and length of ovary between streptomycin (or CF-BD suspension) injection flies and control. For CF-BD injected flies, developmental facilitation was observed for ovaries 2 days before the flies reached sexual maturity (flies will reach sexual maturity after 7 days). For antibiotic injected flies, ovaries were dissected after 7 days.Oviposition assaysThe method reported in previous studies was followed for the oviposition experiments17. Briefly, a 2-choice apparatus was assembled in a cage made up of wood and wire gauze (length: width: height = 60 cm: 60 cm: 60 cm) with two petri dishes (diameter: 3 cm) at the bottom of the cage (Fig. 2a). All devices were sterilized before each experiment. Fresh fruits of guava (Psidium guajava Linn.) and mango (Mangifera indica L.) were sourced from the local market in Guangzhou, China. These fruits were sterilized on the surface with ethanol and ground into puree with a sterilized grinder, and puree (2 g) was added to the sterilized Petri dishes of the cages (one dish with puree containing 100 μL CF-BD (0.8*108 cfu/mL) in sterile water, and one dish with puree containing 100 μL sterile water). Then the prepared cages were divided into two groups for different assays. Group 1: At 0 h, 50 gravid females of B. dorsalis were placed in the cages and egg numbers in the petri dishes were recorded after 2 h. Group 2: At 4 h, 50 gravid females of B. dorsalis were placed in the cages and egg numbers in the petri dishes were recorded after 2 h.To test the oviposition attraction of 3-HA, a 4-choice apparatus was assembled in a cage made up of wood and wire gauze (length: width: height = 60 cm: 60 cm: 60 cm) with four petri dishes (diameter: 3 cm) at the bottom of the cage. In the Petri dishes, 2 g puree, 2 g puree + 0.2 mg 3-HA, 2 g puree + 2 mg 3-HA and 2 g puree + 20 mg 3-HA were added. Then, the egg-laying behavior was observed31.To test the oviposition attraction of 3-HA to flies with genes knocked down, 20 females injected with dsRNA were placed into the above cage with two Petri dishes. In the Petri dishes, 2 g guava puree and 2 g guava puree + 20 mg 3-HA were added. Then, the egg-laying behavior was observed using the above method. Oviposition of normally reared females was performed as a control. The oviposition index was calculated using the following formula:Oviposition index = (O − C)/(O + C), where O is the number of eggs in the treatment and C is the number of eggs in the control.Volatile analysisThe volatile compounds in guava and mango purees were analyzed by GC–MS according to the method described in a previous study17. Briefly, 2 g puree mixed with sterile water or CF-BD was added into a 20 ml bottle, and then a 100-μm polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) SPME fiber (Supelco) was used to extract the headspace volatiles for 30 min. GC–MS was performed with an Agilent 7890B Series GC system coupled to a quadruple-type-mass-selective detector (Agilent 5977B; transfer line 250 °C, source 230 °C, ionization potential 70 eV). The 3-HA concentrations in puree mixed with sterile water and CF-BD were measured with the standard curve drawn by the authentic standards of 3-HA. And 3-HA concentration in puree mixed with sterile water and CF-BD was compared with a paired sample Student’s t-test.Olfactometer bioassaysAn olfactometer consisting of a Y-shaped glass tube with a main arm (20 cm length*5 cm diameter) and two lateral arms (20 cm length, 5 cm diameter) was used. The lateral arms were connected to glass chambers (20 cm diameter, 45 cm height) in which the odor sources were placed. To ensure a supply of odor-free air, both arms of the olfactometer received charcoal-purified and humidified air at a rate of 1.3 L/min.To test the attraction effect of puree supplemented with CF-BD or 3-HA for females, puree mixed with CF-BD was prepared and placed in one odor glass chamber. In the control odor glass chamber, puree mixed with sterile water was placed. After 4 h, gravid females were individually released at the base of the olfactometer and allowed 5 min to show a selective response. The response was recorded when a female moved >3 cm into one arm and stayed for >1 min. Females that did not leave the base of the olfactometer were recorded as nonresponders. Only females that responded were included in the data analysis. Odor sources were randomly placed in one arm or the other at the beginning of the bioassay, and the experiment was repeated ten times. The system was washed with ethanol after every experiment. More than 100 females were selected for testing, and each female was used only once for each odor. A chi-square test was performed to compare the attraction difference between puree mixed with sterile water and CF-BD.Olfactory trap assaysThe attraction of purees supplemented with CF-BD to mature females was also tested. The test chamber was assembled with a plastic cylinder (120 × 30 cm) covered by a ventilated lid. The test chamber contained an odor-baited trap (2 g puree + 100 μL CF-BD (0.8*108 cfu/mL)) and a control trap (2 g puree + 100 μL sterile water). The traps were made of transparent plastic vials (20 × 6 cm) and were sealed with a yellow lid on which small entrances were present to let the flies in (Fig. 3a). After 0 h or 4 h of fermentation, 100 gravid females were released in the cage. The fly number in each trap bottle was recorded after 2 h. The number of flies was compared with a paired sample Student’s t-test.The attraction effect of puree supplemented with 3-HA on mature females was tested by placing four traps (2 g puree, 2 g puree + 0.2 mg 3-HA, 2 g puree + 2 mg 3-HA and 2 g puree + 20 mg 3-HA) in the test chamber. Then, the attraction effect was observed31.Video observation of egg-laying behaviorEgg-laying behavior was observed in a Petri dish. Briefly, guava puree was added to a centrifuge tube on which a hole was made. Then, one gravid female was placed into the petri dish, and the lid was closed. Above the petri dish, a camera was placed to record the behavior of the female before laying eggs.EAG analysisEAG analysis was performed to determine whether 3-HA could elicit electrogram responses in the ovipositors of gravid females and Obps knocked down gravid females. For EAG preparations, the ovipositor of a gravid female was cut off and mounted between two glass electrodes (one electrode connected with the ovipositor tip). The ovipositor tip was cut slightly to facilitate electrical contact. Dilution of 3-HA in ethanol (0.1, 1 and 10 mg/mL) was used as a stimulant. Ethanol was used as control. For each ovipositor, ethanol and 3-HA diluted in ethanol were used as stimulants. The signals from the ovipositors were analyzed with GC-EAD 2014 software (version 4.6, Syntech).Transcriptome sequencing and gene identificationTo identify the olfactory genes that contribute to B. dorsalis oviposition preference, the transcriptome sequencing results of the female ovipositors at different developmental times (0 day, 3 days, 6 days, 9 days and 12 days) were compared. For each time, 5 ovipositors were dissected for RNA extraction. In addition, five replicates were included for each time. In the next step, paired-end RNA-seq libraries were prepared by following Illumina’s library construction protocol. The libraries were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq2000 platform (Illumina, USA). FASTQ files of raw reads were produced and sorted by barcodes for further analysis. Prior to assembly, paired-end raw reads (uploaded to National Genomics Data Center, Accession number: PRJCA004790) from each cDNA library were processed to remove adapters, low-quality sequences (Q  More

von Wintersdorff, C. J. et al. Dissemination of antimicrobial resistance in microbial ecosystems through horizontal gene transfer. Front. Microbiol. 7, 173 (2016).
Google Scholar 
Suay-García, B. & Pérez-Gracia, M. T. Present and future of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (CRE) infections. Antibiotics 8, 122 (2019).PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Blair, J. M., Webber, M. A., Baylay, A. J., Ogbolu, D. O. & Piddock, L. J. Molecular mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 13, 42–51 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Codjoe, F. S. & Donkor, E. S. Carbapenem resistance: a review. Med Sci. 6, 1 (2017).
Google Scholar 
Schechner, V. et al. Asymptomatic rectal carriage of blaKPC producing carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: who is prone to become clinically infected? Clin. Microbiol. Infect. 19, 451–456 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Penders, J., Stobberingh, E. E., Savelkoul, P. H. & Wolffs, P. F. The human microbiome as a reservoir of antimicrobial resistance. Front Microbiol. 4, 87 (2013).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Nordmann, P., Naas, T. & Poirel, L. Global spread of Carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 17, 1791–1798 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tooke, C. L. et al. β-Lactamases and β-lactamase inhibitors in the 21st century. J. Mol. Biol. 431, 3472–3500 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Sun, X. et al. Microbiota-derived metabolic factors reduce campylobacteriosis in mice. Gastroenterology 154, 1751–1763.e2 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ichinohe, T. et al. Microbiota regulates immune defense against respiratory tract influenza A virus infection. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 5354–5359 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Buffie, C. G. et al. Precision microbiome reconstitution restores bile acid mediated resistance to Clostridium difficile. Nature 517, 205–208 (2015).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lieberman, T. D. et al. Parallel bacterial evolution within multiple patients identifies candidate pathogenicity genes. Nat. Genet. 43, 1275–1280 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garud, N. R., Good, B. H., Hallatschek, O. & Pollard, K. S. Evolutionary dynamics of bacteria in the gut microbiome within and across hosts. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000102 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Chu, N. D., Smith, M. B., Perrotta, A. R., Kassam, Z. & Alm, E. J. Profiling living bacteria informs preparation of fecal microbiota transplantations. PLoS ONE 12, e0170922 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Ferreiro, A., Crook, N., Gasparrini, A. J. & Dantas, G. Multiscale evolutionary dynamics of host-associated microbiomes. Cell 172, 1216–1227 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mo, Y. et al. Duration of carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriaceae carriage in hospital patients. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 26, 2182–2185 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Haverkate, M. R. et al. Duration of colonization with Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase-producing bacteria at long-term acute care hospitals in Chicago, Illinois. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 3, ofw178 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Korach-Rechtman, H. et al. Intestinal dysbiosis in carriers of carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae. mSphere 5, e00173–20 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yoshida, N. et al. Bacteroides vulgatus and Bacteroides dorei reduce gut microbial lipopolysaccharide production and inhibit atherosclerosis. Circulation 138, 2486–2498 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lenoir, M. et al. Butyrate mediates anti-inflammatory effects of. Gut Microbes 12, 1–16 (2020).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Riedel, C. U. et al. Anti-inflammatory effects of bifidobacteria by inhibition of LPS-induced NF-κB activation. World J. Gastroenterol. 12, 3729–3735 (2006).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zeng, M. Y., Inohara, N. & Nuñez, G. Mechanisms of inflammation-driven bacterial dysbiosis in the gut. Mucosal Immunol. 10, 18–26 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Winter, S. E. & Bäumler, A. J. A breathtaking feat: to compete with the gut microbiota, Salmonella drives its host to provide a respiratory electron acceptor. Gut Microbes 2, 58–60 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rivera-Chávez, F., Lopez, C. A. & Bäumler, A. J. Oxygen as a driver of gut dysbiosis. Free Radic. Biol. Med. 105, 93–101 (2017).PubMed 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Chng, K. R. et al. Metagenome-wide association analysis identifies microbial determinants of post-antibiotic ecological recovery in the gut. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1256–1267 (2020).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tenaillon, O., Skurnik, D., Picard, B. & Denamur, E. The population genetics of commensal Escherichia coli. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 8, 207–217 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Stacy, A. et al. Infection trains the host for microbiota-enhanced resistance to pathogens. Cell 184, 615–627.e17 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Barreto, H. C., Sousa, A. & Gordo, I. The landscape of adaptive evolution of a gut commensal bacteria in aging mice. Curr. Biol. 30, 1102–1109.e5 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ernst, C. M. et al. Adaptive evolution of virulence and persistence in carbapenem-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Nat. Med. 26, 705–711 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zhao, S. et al. Adaptive evolution within gut microbiomes of healthy people. Cell Host Microbe 25, 656–667.e8 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Warsi, O. M., Andersson, D. I. & Dykhuizen, D. E. Different adaptive strategies in E. coli populations evolving under macronutrient limitation and metal ion limitation. BMC Evol. Biol. 18, 72 (2018).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Hickman, R. A., Munck, C. & Sommer, M. O. A. Time-resolved tracking of mutations reveals diverse allele dynamics during Escherichia coli antimicrobial adaptive evolution to single drugs and drug pairs. Front. Microbiol. 8, 893 (2017).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Auriol, C., Bestel-Corre, G., Claude, J. B., Soucaille, P. & Meynial-Salles, I. Stress-induced evolution of Escherichia coli points to original concepts in respiratory cofactor selectivity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 1278–1283 (2011).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Juers, D. H., Matthews, B. W. & Huber, R. E. LacZ β-galactosidase: structure and function of an enzyme of historical and molecular biological importance. Protein Sci. 21, 1792–1807 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Rogers, A. W. L., Tsolis, R. M. & Bäumler, A. J. Salmonella versus the microbiome. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 85, e00027–19 (2021).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hughes, E. R. et al. Microbial respiration and formate oxidation as metabolic signatures of inflammation-associated dysbiosis. Cell Host Microbe 21, 208–219 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gupta, S., Allen-Vercoe, E. & Petrof, E. O. Fecal microbiota transplantation: in perspective. Ther. Adv. Gastroenterol. 9, 229–239 (2016).Article 

Google Scholar 
Wortelboer, K., Nieuwdorp, M. & Herrema, H. Fecal microbiota transplantation beyond Clostridioides difficile infections. EBioMedicine 44, 716–729 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Lee, S. M. et al. Bacterial colonization factors control specificity and stability of the gut microbiota. Nature 501, 426–429 (2013).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Martinson, J. N. V. et al. Rethinking gut microbiome residency and the Enterobacteriaceae in healthy human adults. ISME J. 13, 2306–2318 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Woyke, T., Doud, D. F. R. & Schulz, F. The trajectory of microbial single-cell sequencing. Nat. Methods 14, 1045–1054 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Domingo, E. & Perales, C. Viral quasispecies. PLoS Genet. 15, e1008271 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Yamada, C. et al. Molecular insight into evolution of symbiosis between breast-fed infants and a member of the human gut microbiome Bifidobacterium longum. Cell Chem. Biol. 24, 515–524.e5 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Zerbino, D. R. & Birney, E. Velvet: algorithms for de novo short read assembly using de Bruijn graphs. Genome Res. 18, 821–829 (2008).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Gao, S., Bertrand, D., Chia, B. K. & Nagarajan, N. OPERA-LG: efficient and exact scaffolding of large, repeat-rich eukaryotic genomes with performance guarantees. Genome Biol. 17, 102 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Gao, S., Bertrand, D. & Nagarajan, N. FinIS: improved in silico finishing using an exact quadratic programming formulation. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 7534, 314–325 (2012).Article 

Google Scholar 
Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv 1303.3997v2 (2013).Segata, N. et al. Metagenomic microbial community profiling using unique clade-specific marker genes. Nat. Methods 9, 811–814 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Franzosa, E. A. et al. Species-level functional profiling of metagenomes and metatranscriptomes. Nat. Methods 15, 962–968 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Salter, S. J. et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol. 12, 87 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Segata, N. et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biol. 12, R60 (2011).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hawinkel, S., Mattiello, F., Bijnens, L. & Thas, O. A broken promise: microbiome differential abundance methods do not control the false discovery rate. Brief. Bioinformatics 20, 210–221 (2019).PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Morton, J. T. et al. Establishing microbial composition measurement standards with reference frames. Nat. Commun. 10, 2719 (2019).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Inouye, M. et al. SRST2: rapid genomic surveillance for public health and hospital microbiology labs. Genome Med. 6, 90 (2014).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Alcock, B. P. et al. CARD 2020: antibiotic resistome surveillance with the comprehensive antibiotic resistance database. Nucleic Acids Res. 48, D517–D525 (2020).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Kurtz, S. et al. Versatile and open software for comparing large genomes. Genome Biol. 5, R12 (2004).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Wilm, A. et al. LoFreq: a sequence-quality aware, ultra-sensitive variant caller for uncovering cell-population heterogeneity from high-throughput sequencing datasets. Nucleic Acids Res. 40, 11189–11201 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hinrichs, A. S. et al. The UCSC Genome Browser Database: update 2006. Nucleic Acids Res. 34, D590–D598 (2006).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Pracana, R., Priyam, A., Levantis, I., Nichols, R. A. & Wurm, Y. The fire ant social chromosome supergene variant Sb shows low diversity but high divergence from SB. Mol. Ecol. 26, 2864–2879 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Quinlan, A. R. BEDTools: the Swiss-Army tool for genome feature analysis. Curr. Protoc. Bioinformatics 47, 11.12.1–34 (2014).Article 

Google Scholar 
Spedicato, G. Discrete time Markov chains with R. R J. 9.2, 84 (2017).Article 

Google Scholar 
Cingolani, P. et al. A program for annotating and predicting the effects of single nucleotide polymorphisms, SnpEff: SNPs in the genome of Drosophila melanogaster strain w1118; iso-2; iso-3. Fly 6, 80–92 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Hahsler, M., Piekenbrock, M. & Doran, D. dbscan: fast density-based clustering with R. J. Stat. Softw. 91, 1–30 (2019).Article 

Google Scholar 
Galata, V., Fehlmann, T., Backes, C. & Keller, A. PLSDB: a resource of complete bacterial plasmids. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D195–D202 (2019).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Ondov, B. D. et al. Mash: fast genome and metagenome distance estimation using MinHash. Genome Biol. 17, 132 (2016).PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 
CAS 

Google Scholar 
Quan, S. et al. Adaptive evolution of the lactose utilization network in experimentally evolved populations of Escherichia coli. PLoS Genet. 8, e1002444 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Tsuchido, T., VanBogelen, R. A. & Neidhardt, F. C. Heat shock response in Escherichia coli influences cell division. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 83, 6959–6963 (1986).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Trubetskoy, D., Proux, F., Allemand, F., Dreyfus, M. & Iost, I. SrmB, a DEAD-box helicase involved in Escherichia coli ribosome assembly, is specifically targeted to 23S rRNA in vivo. Nucleic Acids Res. 37, 6540–6549 (2009).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Garoff, L., Huseby, D. L., Praski Alzrigat, L. & Hughes, D. Effect of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase mutations on susceptibility to ciprofloxacin in Escherichia coli. J. Antimicrob. Chemother. 73, 3285–3292 (2018).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Aponte, R. A., Zimmermann, S. & Reinstein, J. Directed evolution of the DnaK chaperone: mutations in the lid domain result in enhanced chaperone activity. J. Mol. Biol. 399, 154–167 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Mundhada, H. et al. Increased production of l-serine in Escherichia coli through adaptive laboratory evolution. Metab. Eng. 39, 141–150 (2017).CAS 
PubMed 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Conrad, T. M. et al. RNA polymerase mutants found through adaptive evolution reprogram Escherichia coli for optimal growth in minimal media. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 107, 20500–20505 (2010).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar 
Li, Y. et al. LPS remodeling is an evolved survival strategy for bacteria. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 8716–8721 (2012).CAS 
PubMed 
PubMed Central 
Article 

Google Scholar  More