To rarefy or not to rarefy: Enhancing diversity analysis of microbial communities through next-generation sequencing and rarefying repeatedly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Amplicon sequencing has revolutionized our ability to study DNA collected from environmental samples by providing a rapid and sensitive technique for microbial community analysis that eliminates the challenges associated with lab cultivation and taxonomic identification through microscopy. In water resources management, it can be especially useful to evaluate ecosystem shifts in response to natural and anthropogenic landscape disturbances to signal potential water quality concerns, such as the detection of toxic cyanobacteria or pathogenic bacteria. Amplicon sequencing data consist of discrete counts of sequence reads, the sum of which is the library size. Groups of samples typically have different library sizes that are not representative of biological variation; library size normalization is required to meaningfully compare diversity between them. Rarefaction is a widely used normalization technique that involves the random subsampling of sequences from the initial sample library to a selected normalized library size. Rarefying is often dismissed as statistically invalid because subsampling effectively discards a portion of the observed sequences. Nonetheless, it remains prevalent in practice. Notably, the superiority of rarefying relative to many other normalization approaches has been argued in diversity analysis. Here, repeated rarefying is proposed as a tool for diversity analyses to normalize library sizes. This enables (i) proportionate representation of all observed sequences and (ii) characterization of the random variation introduced to diversity analyses by rarefying to a smaller library size shared by all samples. While many deterministic data transformations are not tailored to produce equal library sizes, repeatedly rarefying reflects the probabilistic process by which amplicon sequencing data are obtained as a representation of the source microbial community. Specifically, it evaluates which data might have been obtained if a particular sample’s library size had been smaller and allows graphical representation of the effects of this library size normalization process upon diversity analysis results.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".