MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6939940442 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26579483

Additional file 1 of Distinct cervical tissue-adherent and luminal microbiome communities correlate with mucosal host gene expression and protein levels in Kenyan sex workers

2024· dataset· en· W6939940442 sur OpenAlexaff

Notice bibliographique

RevueFigshare · 2024
Typedataset
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Manitoba
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésKEGGMicrobiomeAbundance (ecology)Relative species abundanceHost (biology)Gene expressionGene

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Supplementary Figure 1. Abundance distribution of individual taxa in the luminal and tissue microbiome data sets. Violin plots showing the distribution of relative abundance of the top 30 most abundant taxa in the luminal and tissue-adherent data sets. Supplementary Figure 2. Differential bacterial abundance across the luminal and tissue microbiome datasets. Differential bacterial abundance was compared between the luminal and tissue-adherent microbiome data sets. The results are shown as a) dot plots, and b) bar plots, respectively. Bacteria with log2FC above 0.25 and p-value < 0.01 (from the Wilcoxon’s test) were considered significantly different and were sorted by the highest expression. The color scale indicates the difference in total abundance between the datasets as a proportion, where “max” is the highest abundance of the two datasets, and the other becomes a proportion of this value. The size of the dots indicates the average abundance of the given bacteria in the given data set. Supplementary Figure 3. Summary of pairwise comparisons between the study groups for differentially expressed genes, GO and KEGG pathways as well as PPI analysis. The results are shown as: a) Summary of pairwise comparison between the luminal study groups, and for the b) tissue-based study groups. For both a) and b): The number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) (p<0.01) are displayed in the hexagon shape, these were further used for GO (round shape) and KEGG pathways (number outside round shape) analysis (FDR<0.05), as well as for PPI analysis (square shape) (FDR<0.05). The luminal group in the middle circle represents “Group A” and the luminal group at the end of the line “Group B”, and the comparison represents Group A vs. Group B, i.e. Group A has X number of upregulated DEGs compared to Group B. Supplementary Figure 4. Functional associations of the luminal microbiome with host tissue gene expression profiles. Bacterial abundances in the luminal samples were correlated with gene expression of the top 5,000 highly variable genes from the RNAseq dataset. This generated a correlation matrix between bacteria and genes. For each bacteria, genes were ranked based on their correlation to that bacteria, followed by gene set enrichment anlaysis (GSEA) using the KEGG gene annotation database. The resulting matrix display associations between individual bacterial taxa and corresponding KEGG term as defined in the host tissue sample. The heatmap shows the normalized enrichment score (NES). Only enrichments with p-value < 0.05 are shown. Bacterium and pathways with less than 10 significant NES scores were omitted from the heatmap. Bacteria are grouped according to anatomical/functional activity and marked with different colors per category. Supplementary Figure 5. Functional associations of the tissue microbiome with host tissue gene expression profiles. Bacterial abundances in the tissue samples were correlated with the gene expression of the top 5,000 highly variable genes from the RNAseq dataset. This generated a correlation matrix between bacteria and genes. For each bacteria, genes were ranked based on their correlation to that bacteria, followed by gene set enrichment anlaysis (GSEA) using the KEGG gene annotation database. The resulting matrix display associations between individual bacterial taxa and corresponding KEGG term as defined in the host tissue sample. The heatmap shows the normalized enrichment score (NES). Only enrichments with p-value < 0.05 are shown. Bacterium and pathways with less than 10 significant NES scores were omitted from the heatmap. Bacteria are grouped according to anatomical/functional activity and marked with different colors according to category. Supplementary Figure 6. Rarefaction curves for the microbiome 16S rRNA V4 sequencing. The rarefaction curves show numbers of unique ASVs detected in each sample when simulating increasing sequencing depth. Although low abundant taxa can be undetected at low sequencing depth, they can be detected at a higher sequencing depth (x-axis). When the curve flattens out, all taxa in the sample are considered detected. a) Luminal microbiome dataset, and b) Tissue-adherent microbiome dataset. The sequencing depth was > 40,000 reads in all but nine samples for the luminal dataset, while 16 samples had fewer than 2,500 reads in the tissue-adherent microbiome dataset.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Jeu de données · Signal consensuel: Jeu de données
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,840
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,228

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,016
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0020,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,8400,126

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,215
Écart entre enseignants0,194 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreJeu de données

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueFigshare→Même sujetMycorrhizal Fungi and Plant Interactions→Travaux en français237 207→