Metagenomics versus total RNA sequencing: most accurate data-processing tools, microbial identification accuracy and perspectives for ecological assessments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metagenomics and total RNA sequencing (total RNA-Seq) have the potential to improve the taxonomic identification of diverse microbial communities, which could allow for the incorporation of microbes into routine ecological assessments. However, these target-PCR-free techniques require more testing and optimization. In this study, we processed metagenomics and total RNA-Seq data from a commercially available microbial mock community using 672 data-processing workflows, identified the most accurate data-processing tools, and compared their microbial identification accuracy at equal and increasing sequencing depths. The accuracy of data-processing tools substantially varied among replicates. Total RNA-Seq was more accurate than metagenomics at equal sequencing depths and even at sequencing depths almost one order of magnitude lower than those of metagenomics. We show that while data-processing tools require further exploration, total RNA-Seq might be a favorable alternative to metagenomics for target-PCR-free taxonomic identifications of microbial communities and might enable a substantial reduction in sequencing costs while maintaining accuracy. This could be particularly an advantage for routine ecological assessments, which require cost-effective yet accurate methods, and might allow for the incorporation of microbes into ecological assessments.
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 | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".