Current and Promising Approaches to Identify Horizontal Gene Transfer Events in Metagenomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-throughput shotgun metagenomics sequencing has enabled the profiling of myriad natural communities. These data are commonly used to identify gene families and pathways that were potentially gained or lost in an environment and which may be involved in microbial adaptation. Despite the widespread interest in these events, there are no established best practices for identifying gene gain and loss in metagenomics data. Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) represents several mechanisms of gene gain that are especially of interest in clinical microbiology due to the rapid spread of antibiotic resistance genes in natural communities. Several additional mechanisms of gene gain and loss, including gene duplication, gene loss-of-function events, and de novo gene birth are also important to consider in the context of metagenomes but have been less studied. This review is largely focused on detecting HGT in prokaryotic metagenomes, but methods for detecting these other mechanisms are first discussed. For this article to be self-contained, we provide a general background on HGT and the different possible signatures of this process. Lastly, we discuss how improved assembly of genomes from metagenomes would be the most straight-forward approach for improving the inference of gene gain and loss events. Several recent technological advances could help improve metagenome assemblies: long-read sequencing, determining the physical proximity of contigs, optical mapping of short sequences along chromosomes, and single-cell metagenomics. The benefits and limitations of these advances are discussed and open questions in this area are highlighted.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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".