Microbial interaction-driven community differences as revealed by network analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversity and compositional analysis are the most common approaches in deciphering microbial community differences. However, these approaches neglect microbial structural differences driven by microbial interactions. In this study, the microbiota data were generated from 12 rectal digesta samples collected from steers in which the Shiga toxin 2 gene (stx2) was not expressed (defined as Stx2− group) in the bacteria, and those with stx2 expressed (defined as Stx2+ group) and used to explore whether microbial networks affect gut microbiota and foodborne pathogen virulence in cattle. Although the Shannon and Chao1 indices of rectal digesta microbial communities did not differ between the two groups (P > 0.05), 24 and 13 taxa were identified to be group-specific genera for Stx2− and Stx2+ microbial communities, respectively. The network analysis indicated 12 and 14 generalists (microbes that were densely connected with other taxa) in microbial communities for Stx2− and Stx2+ groups, and 8 out of 12 generalists and 6 out of 14 generalists were designated to Stx2− and Stx2+ group-specific genera, respectively. However, the 66 core genera were not classified as network generalists. Natural connectivity measurements revealed that the higher stability of the Stx2− microbial network in comparison to the Stx2+ network, suggesting that the structure of each microbial community was inherently different even when their diversity and composition were comparable. Group-specific genera intensely interacted with other taxa in the co-occurrence network, indicating that characterizing microbial networks together with group-specific genera could be an alternative approach to identify variation in microbial communities.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it