Vaginal metatranscriptome meta-analysis reveals functional BV subgroups and novel colonisation strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The application of '-omics' technologies to study bacterial vaginosis (BV) has uncovered vast differences in composition and scale between the vaginal microbiomes of healthy and BV patients. Compared to amplicon sequencing and shotgun metagenomic approaches focusing on a single or few species, investigating the transcriptome of the vaginal microbiome at a system-wide level can provide insight into the functions which are actively expressed and differential between states of health and disease. RESULTS: We conducted a meta-analysis of vaginal metatranscriptomes from three studies, split into exploratory (n = 42) and validation (n = 297) datasets, accounting for the compositional nature of sequencing data and differences in scale between healthy and BV microbiomes. Conducting differential expression analyses on the exploratory dataset, we identified a multitude of strategies employed by microbes associated with states of health and BV to evade host cationic antimicrobial peptides (CAMPs); putative mechanisms used by BV-associated species to resist and counteract the low vaginal pH; and potential approaches to disrupt vaginal epithelial integrity so as to establish sites for adherence and biofilm formation. Moreover, we identified several distinct functional subgroups within the BV population, distinguished by genes involved in motility, chemotaxis, biofilm formation and co-factor biosynthesis. After defining molecular states of health and BV in the validation dataset using KEGG orthology terms rather than community state types, differential expression analysis confirmed earlier observations regarding CAMP resistance and compromising epithelial barrier integrity in healthy and BV microbiomes and also supported the existence of motile vs. non-motile subgroups in the BV population. These findings were independent of the enzyme classification system used (KEGG or EggNOG). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight a need to focus on functional rather than taxonomic differences when considering the role of microbiomes in disease and identify pathways for further research as potential BV treatment targets. Video Abstract.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".