Identifying biologically relevant differences between metagenomic communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Metagenomics is the study of genetic material recovered directly from environmental samples. Taxonomic and functional differences between metagenomic samples can highlight the influence of ecological factors on patterns of microbial life in a wide range of habitats. Statistical hypothesis tests can help us distinguish ecological influences from sampling artifacts, but knowledge of only the P-value from a statistical hypothesis test is insufficient to make inferences about biological relevance. Current reporting practices for pairwise comparative metagenomics are inadequate, and better tools are needed for comparative metagenomic analysis. RESULTS: We have developed a new software package, STAMP, for comparative metagenomics that supports best practices in analysis and reporting. Examination of a pair of iron mine metagenomes demonstrates that deeper biological insights can be gained using statistical techniques available in our software. An analysis of the functional potential of 'Candidatus Accumulibacter phosphatis' in two enhanced biological phosphorus removal metagenomes identified several subsystems that differ between the A.phosphatis stains in these related communities, including phosphate metabolism, secretion and metal transport. AVAILABILITY: Python source code and binaries are freely available from our website at http://kiwi.cs.dal.ca/Software/STAMP CONTACT: beiko@cs.dal.ca SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".