MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206594040 · doi:10.1101/gr.275533.121

Accurate and robust inference of microbial growth dynamics from metagenomic sequencing reveals personalized growth rates

2022· article· en· W4206594040 on OpenAlexafffund
Tyler Joseph, Philippe Chlenski, Aviya Litman, Tal Korem, Itsik Pe’er

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
FundersNational Cancer InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchNational Institutes of HealthNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMetagenomicsBiologyMicrobiomeInferenceComputational biologyGenomeEvolutionary biologyBioinformaticsComputer scienceGeneticsArtificial intelligenceGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patterns of sequencing coverage along a bacterial genome-summarized by a peak-to-trough ratio (PTR)-have been shown to accurately reflect microbial growth rates, revealing a new facet of microbial dynamics and host-microbe interactions. Here, we introduce Compute PTR (CoPTR): a tool for computing PTRs from complete reference genomes and assemblies. Using simulations and data from growth experiments in simple and complex communities, we show that CoPTR is more accurate than the current state of the art while also providing more PTR estimates overall. We further develop a theory formalizing a biological interpretation for PTRs. Using a reference database of 2935 species, we applied CoPTR to a case-control study of 1304 metagenomic samples from 106 individuals with inflammatory bowel disease. We show that growth rates are personalized, are only loosely correlated with relative abundances, and are associated with disease status. We conclude by showing how PTRs can be combined with relative abundances and metabolomics to investigate their effect on the microbiome.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.216
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations61
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenome ResearchSame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207