Serial analysis of ribosomal sequence tags (SARST): a high‐throughput method for profiling complex microbial communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two decades of culture-independent studies have confirmed that microbial communities represent the most complex and concentrated pool of phylogenetic diversity on the planet. There remains a need for innovative molecular tools that can further our knowledge of microbial diversity and its functional implications. We present the method and application of serial analysis of ribosomal sequence tags (SARST) as a novel tool for elucidating complex microbial communities, such as those found in soils and sediments. Serial analysis of ribosomal sequence tags uses a series of enzymatic reactions to amplify and ligate ribosomal sequence tags (RSTs) from bacterial small subunit rRNA gene (SSU rDNA) V1-regions into concatemers that are cloned and sequenced. This approach offers a significant increase in throughput over traditional SSU rDNA clone libraries, as up to 20 RSTs are obtained from each sequencing reaction. To test SARST and measure the bias associated with this approach, RST libraries were prepared from a defined mixture of pure cultures and from duplicate arctic soil DNA samples. The actual RST distribution reflected the theoretical composition of the original defined mixture. Data from duplicate soil libraries (1345 and 1217 RSTs, with 525 and 505 unique RSTs, respectively) indicated that replication provides a strongly correlated RST profile (r(2) = 0.80) and division-level distribution of RSTs (r(2) = 0.99). Using sequence data from abundant soil RSTs, we designed specific primers that successfully amplified a larger portion of the SSU rDNA for further phylogenetic analysis. These results suggest that SARST is a powerful approach for reproducible high-throughput profiling of microbial diversity amenable to medical, industrial or environmental microbiology applications.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".