TABLE 2.
Model predictions of which bat species in western North America will be resistant to white-nose syndrome based on different mycobiome characteristics
| Bat species (n) and parameter | Susceptibility or resistance based ona: |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yeast abundance | Cutaneotrichosporon moniliiforme | Debaryomyces sp. 3 | Debaryomyces sp. 1 | Debaryomyces hansenii | |
| Matthews correlation coefficient | 0.80 | 0.48 | 0.05 | 0.31 | 0.85 |
| Antrozous pallidus (39) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Corynorhinus townsendii (83) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Eptesicus fuscus (9) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Euderma maculatum (8) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Myotis californicus (34) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Myotis ciliolabrum (36) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Myotis evotis (47) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Myotis lucifugus (13) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Myotis thysanodes (32) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Myotis velifer (31) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Resistant | Resistant | Resistant |
| Myotis volans (43) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Myotis yumanensis (55) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
| Parastrellus hesperus (17) | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible | Susceptible |
Shown are the results of our model predictions of which bat species in western North America will be resistant to white-nose syndrome (WNS) based on different mycobiome characteristics, including yeast abundance cultured from skin swabs (counts of CFU) and the presence of four yeast taxa that were differentially abundant on WNS-resistant bat species in eastern North America (as determined by Vanderwolf et al. [11]). A Matthews correlation coefficient of +1 represents perfect prediction, 0 no better than random prediction, and −1 indicates total disagreement between prediction and observation for each model. “n” indicates sample size.