Shared environments complicate the use of strain-resolved metagenomics to infer microbiome transmission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY In humans and other social animals, social partners have more similar microbiomes than expected by chance, suggesting that social contact transfers microorganisms. Yet, social microbiome transmission can be difficult to identify based on compositional data alone. To overcome this challenge, recent studies have used information about microbial strain sharing (i.e., the shared presence of highly similar microbial sequences) to infer transmission. However, the degree to which strain sharing is influenced by shared traits and environments among social partners, rather than transmission per se , is not well understood. Here, we first use a fecal microbiota transplant dataset to show that strain sharing can recapitulate true transmission networks under ideal settings when donor-recipient pairs are unambiguous and recipients are sampled shortly after transmission. In contrast, in gut metagenomes from a wild baboon population, we find that demographic and environmental factors can override signals of strain sharing among social partners. We conclude that strain-level analyses provide useful information about microbiome similarity, but other facets of study design, especially longitudinal sampling and careful consideration of host characteristics, are essential for inferring the underlying mechanisms.
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 | 0.016 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".