Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38812718›Full record

ArticleISME communications2024

Combining compositional data sets introduces error in covariance network reconstruction.

James D Brunner, Aaron J Robinson, Patrick S G Chain

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

3 authors.

James D BrunnerBiosciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8147-2522
Aaron J RobinsonBiosciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1406-5636
Patrick S G ChainBiosciences Division, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3949-3634

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bacterial fungal interactionmicrobiometranskingdom network inference

Identifiers

PMID38812718
PMCPMC11135214

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.