ArticleISME communications2024
Combining compositional data sets introduces error in covariance network reconstruction.
Article in ISME communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Microbial and Chemical Terroir of Agarwood in French Guiana.Microbial ecology · 2026Article
- Nutrient limitation shapes functional traits of mycorrhizal fungi and phosphorus-cycling bacteria across an elevation gradient.mSystems · 2026Article
- Interkingdom microbiome physiology in colorectal cancer: barrier dysfunction, immune-metabolic signaling, and therapeutic resistance.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
- Synthetic DNA spike-in standards for cross-domain absolute quantification of microbiomes by rRNA gene amplicon sequencing.ISME communications · 2025Article
- Networks as tools for defining emergent properties of microbiomes and their stability.Microbiome · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microbial communities are diverse biological systems that include taxa from across multiple kingdoms of life. Notably, interactions between bacteria and fungi play a significant role in determining community structure. However, these statistical associations across kingdoms are more difficult to infer than intra-kingdom associations due to the nature of the data involved using standard network inference techniques. We quantify the challenges of cross-kingdom network inference from both theoretical and practical points of view using synthetic and real-world microbiome data. We detail the theoretical issue presented by combining compositional data sets drawn from the same environment, e.g. 16S and ITS sequencing of a single set of samples, and we survey common network inference techniques for their ability to handle this error. We then test these techniques for the accuracy and usefulness of their intra- and inter-kingdom associations by inferring networks from a set of simulated samples for which a ground-truth set of associations is known. We show that while the two methods mitigate the error of cross-kingdom inference, there is little difference between techniques for key practical applications including identification of strong correlations and identification of possible keystone taxa (i.e. hub nodes in the network). Furthermore, we identify a signature of the error caused by transkingdom network inference and demonstrate that it appears in networks constructed using real-world environmental microbiome data.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.