MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950635543 · doi:10.1101/672295

PICRUSt2: An improved and customizable approach for metagenome inference

2019· preprint· en· W2950635543 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismNational Institutes of HealthNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGlaxoSmithKline
KeywordsMetagenomicsInferenceGene predictionDNA sequencingReference databaseGenomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One major limitation of microbial community marker gene sequencing is that it does not provide direct information on the functional composition of sampled communities. Here, we present PICRUSt2 ( https://github.com/picrust/picrust2 ), which expands the capabilities of the original PICRUSt method 1 to predict the functional potential of a community based on marker gene sequencing profiles. This updated method and implementation includes several improvements over the previous algorithm: an expanded database of gene families and reference genomes, a new approach now compatible with any OTU-picking or denoising algorithm, and novel phenotype predictions. Upon evaluation, PICRUSt2 was more accurate than PICRUSt1 and other current approaches overall. PICRUSt2 is also now more flexible and allows the addition of custom reference databases. We highlight these improvements and also important caveats regarding the use of predicted metagenomes, which are related to the inherent challenges of analyzing metagenome data in general.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations736
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207