Factors That Affect Large Subunit Ribosomal DNA Amplicon Sequencing Studies of Fungal Communities: Classification Method, Primer Choice, and Error
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA is widely used in fungal phylogenetics and to an increasing extent also amplicon-based environmental sequencing. The relatively short reads produced by next-generation sequencing, however, makes primer choice and sequence error important variables for obtaining accurate taxonomic classifications. In this simulation study we tested the performance of three classification methods: 1) a similarity-based method (BLAST + Metagenomic Analyzer, MEGAN); 2) a composition-based method (Ribosomal Database Project naïve bayesian classifier, NBC); and, 3) a phylogeny-based method (Statistical Assignment Package, SAP). We also tested the effects of sequence length, primer choice, and sequence error on classification accuracy and perceived community composition. Using a leave-one-out cross validation approach, results for classifications to the genus rank were as follows: BLAST + MEGAN had the lowest error rate and was particularly robust to sequence error; SAP accuracy was highest when long LSU query sequences were classified; and, NBC runs significantly faster than the other tested methods. All methods performed poorly with the shortest 50-100 bp sequences. Increasing simulated sequence error reduced classification accuracy. Community shifts were detected due to sequence error and primer selection even though there was no change in the underlying community composition. Short read datasets from individual primers, as well as pooled datasets, appear to only approximate the true community composition. We hope this work informs investigators of some of the factors that affect the quality and interpretation of their environmental gene surveys.
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 | 0.051 | 0.125 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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".