Peptide abundance correlations in metaproteomics enhance taxonomic and functional analysis of the human gut microbiome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics is widely used for quantitative protein profiling and protein interaction studies. However, most current research focuses on single-species proteomics, while protein interactions within complex microbiomes, composed of hundreds of bacterial species, remain largely unexplored. In this study, we analyzed peptide abundance correlations within a metaproteomics dataset derived from in vitro cultured human gut microbiomes subjected to various drug treatments. Our analysis revealed that peptides from the same protein or taxon exhibited correlated abundance changes. By using t-SNE for visualization, we generated a peptide correlation map in which peptides from the same taxon formed distinct clusters. Furthermore, peptide abundance correlations enabled genome-level taxonomic assignments for a greater number of peptides. For instance, 1880 (48.9%) of the 3845 peptides initially assigned only to the family Bacteroidaceae could now be assigned to a specific genome. In species representative genome subsets, peptide correlation networks based on taxon-normalized peptide abundance (TNPA) linked functionally related peptides and provided insights into uncharacterized proteins. Altogether, our study demonstrates that analyzing peptide abundance correlations enhances both taxonomic and functional analyses in human gut metaproteomics research.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".