Separation of cohorts on the basis of bacterial type IV conjugation systems identified from metagenomic assemblies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conjugation enables the exchange of genetic elements throughout environments, including the human gut microbiome. Conjugative elements can carry and transfer clinically relevant metabolic pathways which makes precise identification of these systems in metagenomic samples clinically important. Here, we outline two distinct methods to identify conjugative systems in the human gut microbiome. We first show that conjugative systems exhibit strong population and age-level stratification. Additionally, we find that the total relative abundance of all conjugative systems present in a sample is not an informative metric to use, regardless of the method of identifying the systems. Finally, we demonstrate that the majority of assembled conjugative systems are not included within metagenomic bins, and that only a small proportion of the binned conjugative systems are included in “high-quality” metagenomic bins. Our findings highlight that conjugative systems differ between general North Americans and a cohort of North American pre-term infants, revealing a potential use as an age-related biomarker. Furthermore, conjugative systems can distinguish between other geographical-based cohorts. Our findings emphasize the need to identify and analyze conjugative systems outside of standard metagenomic binning pipelines. Importance The human gut microbiome is increasingly being associated with human health outcomes through shotgun metagenomic sequencing. The usual approach of metagenomic-level analyses is to bin assembled sequences into approximations of bacterial genomes and perform further investigations on the resultant bins. Here, we show that type IV conjugative systems differ between age and geographically-based cohorts and that these systems are systematically excluded by binning algorithms. We suggest that analysis of type IV conjugative systems should be added to the current metagenomic analysis approaches as they contain much information that could explain differences between cohorts beyond those we investigated.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".