Evaluation of multiple displacement amplification for metagenomic analysis of low biomass samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combining multiple displacement amplification (MDA) with metagenomics enables the analysis of samples with extremely low DNA concentrations, making them suitable for high-throughput sequencing. Although amplification bias and nonspecific amplification have been reported from MDA-amplified samples, the impact of MDA on metagenomic datasets is not well understood. We compared three MDA methods (i.e. bulk MDA, emulsion MDA, and primase MDA) for metagenomic analysis of two DNA template concentrations (approx. 1 and 100 pg) derived from a microbial community standard "mock community" and two low biomass environmental samples (i.e. borehole fluid and groundwater). We assessed the impact of MDA on metagenome-based community composition, assembly quality, functional profiles, and binning. We found amplification bias against high GC content genomes but relatively low nonspecific amplification such as chimeras, artifacts, or contamination for all MDA methods. We observed MDA-associated representational bias for microbial community profiles, especially for low-input DNA and with the primase MDA method. Nevertheless, similar taxa were represented in MDA-amplified libraries to those of unamplified samples. The MDA libraries were highly fragmented, but similar functional profiles to the unamplified libraries were obtained for bulk MDA and emulsion MDA at higher DNA input and across these MDA libraries for the groundwater sample. Medium to low-quality bins were possible for the high input bulk MDA metagenomes for the most simple microbial communities, borehole fluid, and mock community. Although MDA-based amplification should be avoided, it can still reveal meaningful taxonomic and functional information from samples with extremely low DNA concentration where direct metagenomics is otherwise impossible.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".