Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30419949›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2018

Dynamic linear models guide design and analysis of microbiota studies within artificial human guts.

Justin D Silverman, Heather K Durand, Rachael J Bloom, Sayan Mukherjee, Lawrence A David

Erratum issuedAbstract 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Justin D SilvermanProgram in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Duke University, CIEMAS, Room 2171, 101 Science Drive, Box 3382, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Heather K DurandDepartment of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Rachael J BloomUniversity Program in Genetics and Genomics, Duke University, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Sayan MukherjeeProgram in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Duke University, CIEMAS, Room 2171, 101 Science Drive, Box 3382, Durham, NC, 27708, USA.
Lawrence A DavidProgram in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Duke University, CIEMAS, Room 2171, 101 Science Drive, Box 3382, Durham, NC, 27708, USA. lawrence.david@duke.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-3570-4767

Funding

MEDICAL SCIENTIST TRAINING PROGRAMT32GM007171 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI KONTOS, CHRISTOPHER D · 1985 to 2021
$31.2M
Personalizing prebiotic therapies that target human gut microbiotaR01DK116187 · NIDDK · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI Lawrence Anthony David · 2018 to 2026
$3.7M
NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK116187NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM007171
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial gut models provide unique opportunities to study human-associated microbiota. Outstanding questions for these models' fundamental biology include the timescales on which microbiota vary and the factors that drive such change. Answering these questions though requires overcoming analytical obstacles like estimating the effects of technical variation on observed microbiota dynamics, as well as the lack of appropriate benchmark datasets.

resultsTo address these obstacles, we created a modeling framework based on multinomial logistic-normal dynamic linear models (MALLARDs) and performed dense longitudinal sampling of four replicate artificial human guts over the course of 1 month. The resulting analyses revealed how the ratio of biological variation to technical variation from sample processing depends on sampling frequency. In particular, we find that at hourly sampling frequencies, 76% of observed variation could be ascribed to technical sources, which could also skew the observed covariation between taxa. We also found that the artificial guts demonstrated replicable trajectories even after a recovery from a transient feed disruption. Additionally, we observed irregular sub-daily oscillatory dynamics associated with the bacterial family Enterobacteriaceae within all four replicate vessels.

conclusionsOur analyses suggest that, beyond variation due to sequence counting, technical variation from sample processing can obscure temporal variation from biological sources in artificial gut studies. Our analyses also supported hypotheses that human gut microbiota fluctuates on sub-daily timescales in the absence of a host and that microbiota can follow replicable trajectories in the presence of environmental driving forces. Finally, multiple aspects of our approach are generalizable and could ultimately be used to facilitate the design and analysis of longitudinal microbiota studies in vivo.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeModels, AnatomicArtificial OrgansBacteroidesEnterobacteriaceaeGastrointestinal TractHumansLinear ModelsArtificial gutBayesian statisticsBioreactorCompositional dataMetagenomicsMicrobiomeTime series analysis

Identifiers

PMID30419949
PMCPMC6233358

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.