Manually weighted taxonomy classifiers improve species-specific rumen microbiome analysis compared to unweighted or average weighted taxonomy classifiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research has demonstrated that applying taxonomic weights to shotgun metagenomic data can improve species identification in 16S rRNA gene-based microbiome analysis. However, such an approach does not allow for accurate analysis of samples collected from less studied habitats, such as rumen. In the present study, we developed a method to incorporate taxonomic weights based on relative abundance of species identified from shotgun sequencing and amplicon sequencing data derived from rumen. Using this weighting method, we evaluated latest versions of five prominent databases-SILVA, Greengenes2 (GG2), RDP, NCBI RefSeq, and GTDB-against the BLAST 16S rRNA database, assessing classification counts, fully classified ratios (proportion of ASVs classified to a known genus and species), and error rates. Our results indicated that providing taxonomic weights partially increased classification counts and fully classified ratios, although the extent of improvement varied across databases. A reduction in error rates was also observed compared to the unweighted taxonomy classifier (P < 0.05). While GG2 and SILVA struggled with accurate classification at the species level owing to their inherent database characteristics, GTDB consistently improved all metrics using the manually weighted taxonomy classifier, achieving up to an 8% error rate reduction at the species level. NCBI RefSeq and RDP also exhibited remarkable improvement in the classification counts and fully classified ratios, along with error rate reductions by up to 47% at the species level. These findings demonstrate that amplicon sequencing datasets can enhance rumen microbiome analyses through effective weighting methods. While SILVA is commonly used in metataxonomic analyses of the rumen microbiome, we recommend NCBI RefSeq for species-level classification due to its superior accuracy and minimal ambiguous classification (e.g., "uncultured" or "sp.") in future metataxonomic studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".