Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30336775›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2018

Fecal source identification using random forest.

Adélaïde Roguet, A Murat Eren, Ryan J Newton, Sandra L McLellan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Usefulness of Random Forest Algorithm in Predicting Severe Acute Pancreatitis.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2022
    Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Salinity Impacts the FunctionalMicroorganisms · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Adélaïde RoguetSchool of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
A Murat ErenDepartment of Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
Ryan J NewtonSchool of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
Sandra L McLellanSchool of Freshwater Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA. mclellan@uwm.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3283-1151

Funding

Microbial Community Profiles Identify New Indicators of Waterborne PathogensR01AI091829 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MILWAUKEE · PI MCLELLAN, SANDRA L. · 2011 to 2019
$3.1M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI091829
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClostridiales and Bacteroidales are uniquely adapted to the gut environment and have co-evolved with their hosts resulting in convergent microbiome patterns within mammalian species. As a result, members of Clostridiales and Bacteroidales are particularly suitable for identifying sources of fecal contamination in environmental samples. However, a comprehensive evaluation of their predictive power and development of computational approaches is lacking. Given the global public health concern for waterborne disease, accurate identification of fecal pollution sources is essential for effective risk assessment and management. Here, we use random forest algorithm and 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences assigned to Clostridiales and Bacteroidales to identify common fecal pollution sources. We benchmarked the accuracy, consistency, and sensitivity of our classification approach using fecal, environmental, and artificial in silico generated samples.

resultsClostridiales and Bacteroidales classifiers were composed mainly of sequences that displayed differential distributions (host-preferred) among sewage, cow, deer, pig, cat, and dog sources. Each classifier correctly identified human and individual animal sources in approximately 90% of the fecal and environmental samples tested. Misclassifications resulted mostly from false-positive identification of cat and dog fecal signatures in host animals not used to build the classifiers, suggesting characterization of additional animals would improve accuracy. Random forest predictions were highly reproducible, reflecting the consistency of the bacterial signatures within each of the animal and sewage sources. Using in silico generated samples, we could detect fecal bacterial signatures when the source dataset accounted for as little as ~ 0.5% of the assemblage, with ~ 0.04% of the sequences matching the classifiers. Finally, we developed a proxy to estimate proportions among sources, which allowed us to determine which sources contribute the most to observed fecal pollution.

conclusionRandom forest classification with 16S rRNA gene amplicons offers a rapid, sensitive, and accurate solution for identifying host microbial signatures to detect human and animal fecal contamination in environmental samples.

Indexed as

AnimalsBacteroidetesCatsCattleDecision TreesDeerDogsEnvironmental MonitoringEubacterialesFecesFresh WaterGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSewageSwineRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSewage16S rRNA geneBacteroidalesClostridialesHigh-throughput sequencingMicrobial source trackingRandom forest classification

Identifiers

PMID30336775
PMCPMC6194674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.