Function is what counts: how microbial community complexity affects species, proteome and pathway coverage in metaproteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Metaproteomics is an established method to obtain a comprehensive taxonomic and functional view of microbial communities. After more than a decade, we are now able to describe the promise, reality, and perspectives of metaproteomics and provide useful information about the choice of method, applications, and potential improvement strategies.Areas covered: In this article, we will discuss current challenges of species and proteome coverage, and also highlight functional aspects of metaproteomics analysis of microbial communities with different levels of complexity. To do this, we re-analyzed data from microbial communities with low to high complexity (8, 72, 200 and >300 species). High species diversity leads to a reduced number of protein group identifications in a complex community, and thus the number of species resolved is underestimated. Ultimately, low abundance species remain undiscovered in complex communities. However, we observed that the main functional categories were better represented within complex microbiomes when compared to species coverage.Expert opinion: Our findings showed that even with low species coverage, metaproteomics has the potential to reveal habitat-specific functional features. Finally, we exploit this information to highlight future research avenues that are urgently needed to enhance our understanding of taxonomic composition and functions of complex microbiomes.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".