Quantifying microbial communities with 454 pyrosequencing: does read abundance count?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyrosequencing technologies have revolutionized how we describe and compare complex microbial communities. In 454 pyrosequencing data sets, the abundance of reads pertaining to taxa or phylotypes is commonly interpreted as a measure of genic or taxon abundance, useful for quantitative comparisons of community similarity. Potentially systematic biases inherent in sample processing, amplification and sequencing, however, may alter read abundance and reduce the utility of quantitative metrics. Here, we examine the relationship between read abundance and biological abundance in a sample of house dust spiked with known quantities and identities of fungi along a dilution gradient. Our results show one order of magnitude differences in read abundance among species. Precision of quantification within species along the dilution gradient varied from R(2) of 0.96-0.54. Read-quality based processing stringency profoundly affected the abundance of one species containing long homopolymers in a read orientation-biased manner. Order-level composition of background environmental fungal communities determined from pyrosequencing data was comparable with that derived from cloning and Sanger sequencing and was not biased by read orientation. We conclude that read abundance is approximately quantitative within species, but between-species comparisons can be biased by innate sequence structure. Our results showed a trade off between sequence quality stringency and quantification. Careful consideration of sequence processing methods and community analyses are warranted when testing hypotheses using read abundance data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it