Shotgun metagenomic analysis of saliva microbiome suggests Mogibacterium as a factor associated with chronic bacterial osteomyelitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Osteomyelitis of the jaw is a severe inflammatory disorder that affects bones, and it is categorized into two main types: chronic bacterial and nonbacterial osteomyelitis. Although previous studies have investigated the association between these diseases and the oral microbiome, the specific taxa associated with each disease remain unknown. In this study, we conducted shotgun metagenome sequencing (≥10 Gb from ≥66,395,670 reads per sample) of bulk DNA extracted from saliva obtained from patients with chronic bacterial osteomyelitis (N = 5) and chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis (N = 10). We then compared the taxonomic composition of the metagenome in terms of both taxonomic and sequence abundances with that of healthy controls (N = 5). Taxonomic profiling revealed a statistically significant increase in both the taxonomic and sequence abundance of Mogibacterium in cases of chronic bacterial osteomyelitis; however, such enrichment was not observed in chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis. We also compared a previously reported core saliva microbiome (59 genera) with our data and found that out of the 74 genera detected in this study, 47 (including Mogibacterium) were not included in the previous meta-analysis. Additionally, we analyzed a core-genome tree of Mogibacterium from chronic bacterial osteomyelitis and healthy control samples along with a reference complete genome and found that Mogibacterium from both groups was indistinguishable at the core-genome and pan-genome levels. Although limited by the small sample size, our study provides novel evidence of a significant increase in Mogibacterium abundance in the chronic bacterial osteomyelitis group. Moreover, our study presents a comparative analysis of the taxonomic and sequence abundances of all genera detected using deep salivary shotgun metagenome data. The distinct enrichment of Mogibacterium suggests its potential as a marker to distinguish between patients with chronic nonbacterial osteomyelitis and chronic bacterial osteomyelitis, particularly at the early stages when differences are unclear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".