Measures of phylogenetic differentiation provide robust and complementary insights into microbial communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput sequencing techniques have made large-scale spatial and temporal surveys of microbial communities routine. Gaining insight into microbial diversity requires methods for effectively analyzing and visualizing these extensive data sets. Phylogenetic β-diversity measures address this challenge by allowing the relationship between large numbers of environmental samples to be explored using standard multivariate analysis techniques. Despite the success and widespread use of phylogenetic β-diversity measures, an extensive comparative analysis of these measures has not been performed. Here, we compare 39 measures of phylogenetic β diversity in order to establish the relative similarity of these measures along with key properties and performance characteristics. While many measures are highly correlated, those commonly used within microbial ecology were found to be distinct from those popular within classical ecology, and from the recently recommended Gower and Canberra measures. Many of the measures are surprisingly robust to different rootings of the gene tree, the choice of similarity threshold used to define operational taxonomic units, and the presence of outlying basal lineages. Measures differ considerably in their sensitivity to rare organisms, and the effectiveness of measures can vary substantially under alternative models of differentiation. Consequently, the depth of sequencing required to reveal underlying patterns of relationships between environmental samples depends on the selected measure. Our results demonstrate that using complementary measures of phylogenetic β diversity can further our understanding of how communities are phylogenetically differentiated. Open-source software implementing the phylogenetic β-diversity measures evaluated in this manuscript is available at http://kiwi.cs.dal.ca/Software/ExpressBetaDiversity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".