The Landscape and Perspectives of the Human Gut Metaproteomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The human gut microbiome is closely associated with human health and diseases. Metaproteomics has emerged as a valuable tool for studying the functionality of the gut microbiome by analyzing the entire proteins present in microbial communities. Recent advancements in liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) techniques have expanded the detection range of metaproteomics. However, the overall coverage of the proteome in metaproteomics is still limited. While metagenomics studies have revealed substantial microbial diversity and functional potential of the human gut microbiome, few studies have summarized and studied the human gut microbiome landscape revealed with metaproteomics. In this article, we present the current landscape of human gut metaproteomics studies by re-analyzing the identification results from 15 published studies. We quantified the limited proteome coverage in metaproteomics and revealed a high proportion of annotation coverage of metaproteomics-identified proteins. We conducted a preliminary comparison between the metaproteomics view and the metagenomics view of the human gut microbiome, identifying key areas of consistency and divergence. Based on the current landscape of human gut metaproteomics, we discuss the feasibility of using metaproteomics to study functionally unknown proteins and propose a whole workflow peptide-centric analysis. Additionally, we suggest enhancing metaproteomics analysis by refining taxonomic classification and calculating confidence scores, as well as developing tools for analyzing the interaction between taxonomy and function.
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 | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".