Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 40 references

Evidence for a multi-level trophic organization of the human gut microbiome

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that the human gut microbiome is organized into about four cross-feeding trophic levels, and that a two-parameter model built on that structure independently predicts individual fecal metabolomes in quantitative agreement…

desk verdict A transparent and useful coarse-grained trophic model whose headline 'independent prediction' is partly in-sample; the four-level conclusion is plausible but needs a held-out metabolome cohort to be sold as quantitative support. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10963 v1 pith:D4BCFMUE submitted 2019-08-28 q-bio.PE physics.bio-phq-bio.GN

Tong Wang , Akshit Goyal , Veronika Dubinkina , Sergei Maslov This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.PEphysics.bio-phq-bio.GN
keywords gutmicrobiometrophiclevelscross-feedingmetabolomepredictionconsumer-resourcemodelbyproductfractionmicrobialdiversitymetagenome
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the human gut microbiome is not a flat tangle of cross-feeding reactions but a short hierarchical food chain: about four trophic levels, with roughly 90% of each level's consumed nutrients passed downward as metabolic byproducts rather than converted to biomass. The authors build a deliberately coarse-grained model that needs only two global parameters—the number of levels $N_\ell$ and the byproduct fraction $f$—together with a manually curated map of which microbes eat and secrete which metabolites. On 41 individuals with paired metagenomes and fecal metabolomes, the model calibrates to $f=0.9$, $N_\ell=4$, and then predicts each person's metabolite profile with a median $P$-value near $10^{-3}$. If the claim holds, a simple linear accounting of cross-feeding connects metagenomes to metabolomes and gives causal, level-by-level links between microbial species and metabolites.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the pair of matrices $A_{\mathrm{in}}$ (which microbial species consume which metabolites, weighted by measured abundances) and $A_{\mathrm{out}}$ (which byproducts each species secretes, split evenly), iterated level by level. Equations (5) and (7) accumulate biomass and unconsumed byproducts over $N_\ell$ rounds, with each round multiplying by the byproduct fraction $f$ and by $A_{\mathrm{out}}A_{\mathrm{in}}$. This linear cascade converts the 19 fitted nutrient inputs into a predicted metabolome, so the machinery is the level-by-level iteration of consumption and secretion matrices rather than a dynamical simulation.

What would settle it

The paper's shuffled-network control is the right template: randomize species–metabolite consumption and secretion labels while preserving each species' degree, repeat the calibration, and ask whether $(f,N_\ell)=(0.9,4)$ still beats all other parameter pairs on a held-out paired metagenome–metabolome cohort. If shuffled networks produce the same optimum and similar metabolome correlations, the inferred trophic levels are an artifact of the fitting procedure; a cleaner version would replace the curated network with genome-scale metabolic reconstructions and see whether the four-level optimum and the roughly 0.7 correlation survive.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a linear, level-by-level cascade of consumption and secretion can reproduce both community composition and metabolite pools. Treating each round of consumption-and-secretion as a trophic level and assuming every species passes the same fraction $f$ of its intake into byproducts, the model finds that measured gut communities are best described by $N_\ell=4$ levels and $f=0.9$. With those parameters, the predicted fecal metabolome—accumulated unconsumed byproducts from all levels—correlates with experimental metabolomes at Pearson $r\approx0.7$ across individuals, while a shuffled-capability control drops to non-significant levels. The authors read this as quantitative evidence that cross-feeding in the gut is hierarchically organized, that most metabolites reaching the feces are unconsumed byproducts from earlier levels, and that species and metabolites can be tentatively assigned to layers matching known gut ecology: primary polysaccharide degraders upstream, butyrate producers and their products downstream.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the manually curated set of which microbes consume and secrete which metabolites is complete enough for the species present, and that holding measured abundances fixed while fitting the 19 nutrient inputs does not manufacture the apparent metabolome agreement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A person's fecal metabolome can be predicted from their metagenome once the two global parameters are fixed, at a level comparable to or better than flux-balance models.
  • Trophic level assignment turns correlative microbe–metabolite links into level-adjacent causal hypotheses: for example, polysaccharide degraders sit upstream, acetate consumers and butyrate producers downstream, and short-chain fatty acids accumulate as terminal byproducts.
  • Effective diversity decomposes by level: microbial species vary more between individuals than metabolites do at every level, supporting functional stability despite taxonomic turnover.
  • The model quantifies biomass flow across levels, predicting that most nutrient carbon exits as byproducts or feces rather than microbial biomass, and that individual species can grow on inputs from multiple levels.
  • High species-level but lower genus-level beta diversity, strongest at the first trophic level, supports a lottery-like within-genus competition picture of gut assembly.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The metabolome correlation is not a fully independent test in my reading: the 19 intake levels are fitted against the same measured abundances that are hardwired into the consumption matrix, so the prediction is conditional on the curated network and on the fixed-abundance assumption; a sterner test would infer abundances dynamically or hold out metabolites.
  • If $f=0.9$, then roughly 90% of each consumed nutrient leaves as byproduct rather than biomass; that energy budget, if right, is relevant to host nutrition and to interventions that shift the cascade, since moving a species between levels changes downstream byproduct pools.
  • If level number is controlled by gut transit time and length, a testable extension is that faster transit or shorter colons should show fewer effective levels and a metabolome dominated by early-level byproducts.
  • The same linear cascade could be applied to other host-associated or environmental microbiomes with known capability networks, turning 'number of levels' into a comparative measure of how deeply an ecosystem processes its inputs.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a coarse-grained consumer-resource model of the human gut microbiome that describes metabolic flow through a fixed number of trophic levels. The model has two global parameters, the byproduct fraction f and the number of trophic levels Nℓ, and uses a manually curated metabolic interaction network (NJS16) together with a per-individual nutrient intake vector that is fitted to each person's measured microbial abundances. Calibrating f and Nℓ on 41 Thai children with paired metagenome and metabolome data yields f=0.9 and Nℓ=4, with an average Pearson correlation of about 0.7 between predicted and measured fecal metabolomes. The calibrated model is then applied to 380 HMP/MetaHIT samples to characterize metabolite and biomass flow, level-resolved microbial and metabolic diversity, and the assignment of species and metabolites to trophic levels.

Significance. If the central inference is valid, the paper offers a strikingly simple mechanistic link between metagenomic abundances and fecal metabolomes, and its level-resolved diversity analysis is a novel and potentially useful framework for gut microbiome ecology. The shuffled-network control is a strong and appropriate test that the specific metabolic interaction structure, rather than generic network properties, is what drives the model's behavior. The availability of code and extracted data on GitHub is a further strength. However, the paper's headline claim of 'independently predicting' the fecal metabolome is not supported by the current analysis because the global parameters are calibrated on the same data used to report the prediction accuracy, and the predicted metabolome is a deterministic function of per-individual fitted inputs. The significance of the specific values Nℓ=4 and f=0.9 therefore hinges on out-of-sample validation that the manuscript does not provide.

major comments (3)
  1. [Calibrating the key parameters of the model; Methods: Fitting and inferring the nutrient intake] The claim that the fecal metabolome is an 'independent prediction' (Discussion, p.10; Methods, p.14) is not supported as stated. The global parameters f and Nℓ are selected by maximizing the average Pearson correlation on the same 41 individuals whose metabolomes are then used to report r≈0.7 (Figure 2A), and the predicted metabolome in Eq. (7) is a linear function of the per-individual fitted nutrient vector c_nut from Eq. (6). This makes the reported correlation an in-sample calibration statistic rather than a predictive test. The P-value correction described in Methods accounts for p=2 global parameters but not for the 19 fitted nutrient-intake values per individual, so the statistical significance of the correlation is overstated. A hold-out validation, such as leave-one-out or a split cohort for choosing f and Nℓ, is needed to support the inferred trophic organization, or the claims should be reframed as calibration rather than prediction.
  2. [Methods: Constructing and validating the trophic model, Eq. (2) and Eq. (5)] The uptake matrix A_in is constructed from the experimentally measured abundances B^exp_α (Eq. 2), and then the nutrient intake vector is fitted so that the predicted biomasses in Eq. (5) reproduce those same measured abundances. Consequently, the agreement between predicted and measured microbial abundances in Figure 2B is partly a consequence of the model construction rather than an independent validation. The Methods section acknowledges that measured abundances are always used, but the Results and Discussion should state clearly that the metabolome prediction therefore inherits information from the measured metagenome through A_in, weakening the 'independent prediction' language used in the Discussion.
  3. [Supplementary Figure S3] The shuffled-network control calibrates f and Nℓ on the same 41 metabolomes before comparing the real and shuffled networks. While this demonstrates that the specific metabolic interaction pattern matters more than the shuffled pattern, it does not establish that the real-network r≈0.7 would survive out-of-sample evaluation. The control should be run at the parameter values selected on a training set, or the comparison should be presented as an in-sample model-selection result. As written, the control does not rescue the central claim that Nℓ=4 and f=0.9 are robustly supported.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Figure 1 caption] The caption contains a typo: 'which uses fit s the gut nutrient intake profile' should be 'which fits the gut nutrient intake profile'.
  2. [Abstract and Discussion] The abstract states that the model 'quantitatively predicts the typical metabolic environment of the gut', but the reported comparison is for individual fecal metabolomes; the wording should clarify whether the claim is about individual-level or average prediction.
  3. [Methods: Determining the components of the nutrient intake to the gut] The sentence 'This is discussed in greater detail in the next section' is vague; the reader must infer that the next section is 'Constructing and validating the trophic model'. It would be clearer to cite the section explicitly.
  4. [Supplementary Figure S5] The caption for Figure S5 describes blue and red nodes and edges, but the title says 'Adjusted P-values for the model predictions'; the caption appears to be mismatched with the figure content or is missing the actual legend for the P-value panel.
  5. [Methods: Obtaining data for microbial metabolic capabilities] The abbreviation NJS16 is used without definition. It should be defined at first use, e.g., as the database from Sung et al. (2017), reference [6].
  6. [Eq. (5) and Eq. (6)] The notation (AoutAin)^{ℓ-1} would be clearer with explicit multiplication signs or parentheses, e.g., (A_out · A_in)^{ℓ-1}, to avoid ambiguity about the order of matrix multiplication.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Metabolome 'independent prediction' is evaluated on the same 41 individuals used to calibrate f and Nℓ, so the central r≈0.7 is partly an in-sample fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 'Calibrating the key parameters of the model'; Fig. 1 caption; Fig. 2A]
    "To calibrate the two key parameters of our model, f and Nℓ, we used data from the 41 individuals ... for which both, 16S rRNA metagenomic profiles, as well as quantitative levels of 214 metabolites in the fecal metabolome, were available. ... The model with parameters f = 0.9 and Nℓ = 4 best agreed with the experimental metabolome data, among all the values we tried (Pearson correlation 0.7 ± 0.2 ...). ... the fecal metabolome is an independent prediction of our model."

    The two global parameters f and Nℓ are chosen by maximizing the same average Pearson correlation between predicted and measured fecal metabolomes on the 41 Thai individuals that are later used to report the 'independent prediction' (Fig. 2A: r≈0.7). Thus the reported metabolome agreement is an in-sample optimum over the parameter grid, not an out-of-sample prediction. The only quantity not directly fit to the metabolome is the 19-dimensional nutrient intake vector, which is fit to microbial abundances; but the global parameters that determine the metabolome prediction are calibrated on the very metabolomes used for evaluation. The claim of independent prediction is therefore substantially overstated.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Methods, 'Constructing and validating the trophic model', Eqs. 2 and 5; Fig. 2B]
    "(A_in)_{α,i} = κ_i λ_{α,i} B^exp_α. ... the nutrient input to the model (which we fit; see next section) resulted in a predicted set of microbial abundances, B (obtained from equation (5)) that were very close to the experimentally observed abundances. This allowed us to simplify our calculation; we used the experimentally measured microbial abundances instead of a more complicated, step-wise calculation in the sum of equation (5)."

    The uptake matrix A_in is constructed to be proportional to the experimentally measured abundances B^exp (Eq. 2). The predicted abundances in Eq. 5 are therefore linear in B^exp, and the 19 nutrient intake values are fitted to minimize the log-difference between these predicted abundances and the same measured B^exp. The 'predicted metagenome' shown in Fig. 2B is thus a fitted reconstruction of its own input, not an independent model output. Because the subsequent metabolome prediction (Eq. 7) is evaluated using these fitted nutrient intakes, the metabolome 'prediction' also inherits the measured abundances by construction, although it is not directly fit to the measured metabolome.

full rationale

The paper contains no self-citation chain or imported uniqueness theorem; the metabolic capability database NJS16 is external (Ref. 6), and the model equations are explicit. However, the central evidential claim is partially circular: f and Nℓ are selected by maximizing the average Pearson correlation between predicted and measured fecal metabolomes on the 41 Thai children, and the same individuals are then used to report the 'independent prediction' (r≈0.7). The shuffled-network control also selects its best parameters on the same data, so it does not provide a fully out-of-sample null. The per-individual nutrient intake is fit to metagenomic abundances rather than metabolomes, which preserves some independent content, and the level assignments are consistent with known butyrate/acetate producers, but the headline metabolome prediction is not independent in the sense claimed. Score 6 reflects a central prediction that is partly forced by in-sample calibration, not a fully definitional circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on two fitted global parameters, a per-individual 19-parameter intake fit, and the assumptions that the curated metabolic network is accurate and that all species obey the same simple uptake/secretion rules. No new physical entities are introduced; 'trophic level' is an operational definition.

free parameters (3)
  • byproduct fraction f = 0.9
    Fraction of consumed nutrients secreted as byproducts; calibrated on 41 Thai metabolomes by maximizing Pearson correlation to measured fecal metabolomes (Figure 2A).
  • number of trophic levels Nℓ = 4
    Number of iterative consumption/byproduct rounds; calibrated jointly with f on the same Thai metabolomes (Figure 2A); optimum is broad.
  • per-individual nutrient intake vector (19 metabolites) = 19 fitted values per individual
    For each of 41 calibration and 380 prediction individuals, the 19 intake metabolite amounts are fitted by nonlinear optimization to reproduce the measured relative microbial abundances (Methods, 'Fitting and inferring the nutrient intake to the gut'). This is a large set of free parameters, one 19-vector per individual.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The NJS16 manual curation of which of 567 microbes consume or secrete which of 235 metabolites is accurate and representative of gut metabolism.
    The entire flow is computed from this table (Table S1). If key interactions are missing, unconsumed metabolites would be misassigned to the fecal metabolome.
  • domain assumption Microbial species consume available metabolites in proportion to their experimentally measured relative abundances, and split secreted byproducts equally.
    Equations (2) and (4) fix the uptake and secretion matrices; the paper tests sensitivity to λ but keeps this structural assumption.
  • domain assumption All species share the same byproduct fraction f, and the process stops after Nℓ levels.
    The paper states this is a conscious simplification (Discussion) because species differ in byproduct ratios.
  • domain assumption The nutrient intake to the lower gut is adequately represented by 19 curated breakdown products; polysaccharides themselves are excluded.
    Methods: excluded polysaccharides due to limited quantitative understanding, used their breakdown products instead.
  • standard math Linear algebra operations are valid; the matrix products converge to well-defined sums.
    Equations (5)-(7) use finite sums of matrix products; no convergence issues for finite Nℓ.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evidence for a multi-level trophic organization of the human gut microbiome." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D4BCFMUE

@misc{pith2026190810963,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evidence for a multi-level trophic organization of the human gut microbiome},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D4BCFMUE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10963}
}
read the original abstract

The human gut microbiome is a complex ecosystem, in which hundreds of microbial species and metabolites coexist, in part due to an extensive network of cross-feeding interactions. However, both the large-scale trophic organization of this ecosystem, and its effects on the underlying metabolic flow, remain unexplored. Here, using a simplified model, we provide quantitative support for a multi-level trophic organization of the human gut microbiome, where microbes consume and secrete metabolites in multiple iterative steps. Using a manually-curated set of metabolic interactions between microbes, our model suggests about four trophic levels, each characterized by a high level-to-level metabolic transfer of byproducts. It also quantitatively predicts the typical metabolic environment of the gut (fecal metabolome) in approximate agreement with the real data. To understand the consequences of this trophic organization, we quantify the metabolic flow and biomass distribution, and explore patterns of microbial and metabolic diversity in different levels. The hierarchical trophic organization suggested by our model can help mechanistically establish causal links between the abundances of microbes and metabolites in the human gut.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10963 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the trophic model, its calibration and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Calibration of the model. (A) Heatmap of the Pearson correlation between experimentally measured and predicted metabolomes for different combinations of parameters f and Nℓ. The plotted value is the correlation coefficient averaged over 41 individuals in Ref. [22] (B) Comparison between the experimentally observed bacterial abundances in a representative individual (y-axis) and their best fits from our model (x-axis… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Metabolite and biomass flow through the levels. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Metabolite and microbial diversity at different l [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Structure, function and diversit y of the healthy human microbiome

    Consortium HMP, et al. Structure, function and diversit y of the healthy human microbiome. Nature. 2012;486(7402):207–214

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    A human gut micro- bial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing

    Qin J, Li R, Raes J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf KS, Manichanh C, e t al. A human gut micro- bial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing . nature. 2010;464(7285):59–65

    work page 2010

  3. [3]

    Generation of genome-scale metabolic reconstructions for 773 members of the human gut microbiota

    Magn´ usd´ ottir S, Heinken A, Kutt L, Ravcheev DA, Bauer E, Noronha A, et al. Generation of genome-scale metabolic reconstructions for 773 members of the human gut microbiota. Nature biotechnology. 2017;35(1):81

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    An enormous potential for niche con struction through bacterial cross-feeding in a homogeneous environment

    San Roman M, Wagner A. An enormous potential for niche con struction through bacterial cross-feeding in a homogeneous environment. PLo S computational biology. 2018;14(7):e1006340

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Costless metabolic secretio ns as drivers of interspecies interactions in microbial ecosystems

    Pacheco AR, Moel M, Segre D. Costless metabolic secretio ns as drivers of interspecies interactions in microbial ecosystems. Nature communicati ons. 2019;10(1):103

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    G lobal metabolic interaction network of the human gut microbiota for context-specific co mmunity-scale analysis

    Sung J, Kim S, Cabatbat JJT, Jang S, Jin YS, Jung GY, et al. G lobal metabolic interaction network of the human gut microbiota for context-specific co mmunity-scale analysis. Nature communications. 2017;8:15393

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Metabolic adaptations underlying genome flexi bility in prokaryotes

    Goyal A. Metabolic adaptations underlying genome flexi bility in prokaryotes. PLoS genetics. 2018;14(10):e1007763

    work page 2018

  8. [8]

    Metabolic interactions in micro bial communities: untangling the Gordian knot

    Ponomarova O, Patil KR. Metabolic interactions in micro bial communities: untangling the Gordian knot. Current opinion in microbiology. 2015;27:37 –44

    work page 2015

Show all 40 references
  1. [9]

    Using metabolic networks to resolve ecological properties of microbiomes

    Muller EE, Faust K, Widder S, Herold M, Arbas SM, Wilmes P. Using metabolic networks to resolve ecological properties of microbiomes. Current Opi nion in Systems Biology. 2018;8:73– 80

    2018

  2. [10]

    From network analysis to functional m etabolic modeling of the human gut microbiota

    Bauer E, Thiele I. From network analysis to functional m etabolic modeling of the human gut microbiota. MSystems. 2018;3(3):e00209–17

    2018

  3. [11]

    Modeling metabolism of the human gut microbiome

    Magn´ usd´ ottir S, Thiele I. Modeling metabolism of the human gut microbiome. Current opinion in biotechnology. 2018;51:90–96

    2018

  4. [12]

    Towards predict ing the environmental metabolome from metagenomics with a mechanistic model

    Garza DR, Verk MC, Huynen MA, Dutilh BE. Towards predict ing the environmental metabolome from metagenomics with a mechanistic model. Nat ure microbiology. 2018; p. 1

    2018

  5. [13]

    Effect of flow and peristaltic mixing on bacterial growth in a gut-like channe l

    Cremer J, Segota I, Yang Cy, Arnoldini M, Sauls JT, Zhang Z, et al. Effect of flow and peristaltic mixing on bacterial growth in a gut-like channe l. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016;113(41):11414–11419

    2016

  6. [14]

    Effect of water flow and che mical environment on micro- biota growth and composition in the human colon

    Cremer J, Arnoldini M, Hwa T. Effect of water flow and che mical environment on micro- biota growth and composition in the human colon. Proceeding s of the National Academy of Sciences. 2017;114(25):6438–6443

    2017

  7. [15]

    Stoichiometric flux balance model s quantitatively predict growth and metabolic by-product secretion in wild-type Escherich ia coli W3110

    Varma A, Palsson BO. Stoichiometric flux balance model s quantitatively predict growth and metabolic by-product secretion in wild-type Escherich ia coli W3110. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994;60(10):3724–3731. 18

    1994

  8. [16]

    Theoretical and experime ntal investigations of micro- bial competition in continuous culture

    Waltman P, Hubbell SP, Hsu SB. Theoretical and experime ntal investigations of micro- bial competition in continuous culture. In: Modeling and di fferential equations in biology. Routledge; 2017. p. 107–152

    2017

  9. [17]

    Emergent simplicity in microbial community assembly

    Goldford JE, Lu N, Baji´ c D, Estrela S, Tikhonov M, Sanch ez-Gorostiaga A, et al. Emergent simplicity in microbial community assembly. Science. 2018 ;361(6401):469–474

    2018

  10. [18]

    Modifying and reacting to the environm ental pH can drive bacterial interactions

    Ratzke C, Gore J. Modifying and reacting to the environm ental pH can drive bacterial interactions. PLoS biology. 2018;16(3):e2004248

    2018

  11. [19]

    Modell ing the emergent dynam- ics and major metabolites of the human colonic microbiota

    Kettle H, Louis P, Holtrop G, Duncan SH, Flint HJ. Modell ing the emergent dynam- ics and major metabolites of the human colonic microbiota. E nvironmental microbiology. 2015;17(5):1615–1630

    2015

  12. [20]

    Reaction-centric modeling of micro bial ecosystems

    Louca S, Doebeli M. Reaction-centric modeling of micro bial ecosystems. Ecological mod- elling. 2016;335:74–86

    2016

  13. [21]

    A metagenome- wide association study of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes

    Qin J, Li Y, Cai Z, Li S, Zhu J, Zhang F, et al. A metagenome- wide association study of gut microbiota in type 2 diabetes. Nature. 2012;490(7418): 55

    2012

  14. [22]

    Urban diets linked to gut microbiome and metabolome alterations i n children: A comparative cross-sectional study in Thailand

    Kisuse J, La-ongkham O, Nakphaichit M, Therdtatha P, Mo moda R, Tanaka M, et al. Urban diets linked to gut microbiome and metabolome alterations i n children: A comparative cross-sectional study in Thailand. Frontiers in microbiol ogy. 2018;9

    2018

  15. [23]

    Competitive lottery-based a ssembly of selected clades in the human gut microbiome

    Verster AJ, Borenstein E. Competitive lottery-based a ssembly of selected clades in the human gut microbiome. Microbiome. 2018;6(1):186

    2018

  16. [24]

    Trophic levels are differentially sensitive to climate

    Voigt W, Perner J, Davis AJ, Eggers T, Schumacher J, B¨ ah rmann R, et al. Trophic levels are differentially sensitive to climate. Ecology. 2003;84 (9):2444–2453

    2003

  17. [25]

    Trophic cas cades revealed in diverse ecosys- tems

    Pace ML, Cole JJ, Carpenter SR, Kitchell JF. Trophic cas cades revealed in diverse ecosys- tems. Trends in ecology & evolution. 1999;14(12):483–488

    1999

  18. [26]

    Limits to trophic levels and o mnivory in complex food webs: theory and data

    Williams RJ, Martinez ND. Limits to trophic levels and o mnivory in complex food webs: theory and data. The American Naturalist. 2004;163(3):458 –468

    2004

  19. [27]

    Interspecies cross- feeding orchestrates carbon degradation in the rumen ecosy stem

    Solden LM, Naas AE, Roux S, Daly RA, Collins WB, Nicora CD , et al. Interspecies cross- feeding orchestrates carbon degradation in the rumen ecosy stem. Nature Microbiology. 2018;3(11):1274

    2018

  20. [28]

    Number of trophic levels in ecological communities

    Pimm S, Lawton J. Number of trophic levels in ecological communities. Nature. 1977;268(5618):329

    1977

  21. [29]

    Lindeman’s contradiction and the trophic str ucture of ecosystems

    Burns TP. Lindeman’s contradiction and the trophic str ucture of ecosystems. Ecology. 1989;70(5):1355–1362

    1989

  22. [30]

    A critical evaluation of the trophic leve l concept

    Kozlovsky DG. A critical evaluation of the trophic leve l concept. I. Ecological efficiencies. Ecology. 1968;49(1):48–60

    1968

  23. [31]

    The simulator of the human intestinal microbial ecosystem (SHIME R© )

    Van de Wiele T, Van den Abbeele P, Ossieur W, Possemiers S , Marzorati M. The simulator of the human intestinal microbial ecosystem (SHIME R© ). In: The impact of food bioactives on health. Springer, Cham; 2015. p. 305–317. 19

    2015

  24. [32]

    Development of human colonic microbiota in the computer-controlled dynamic SIM ulator of the GastroIntestinal tract SIMGI

    Barroso E, Cueva C, Pel´ aez C, Mart ´ ınez-Cuesta MC, Requena T. Development of human colonic microbiota in the computer-controlled dynamic SIM ulator of the GastroIntestinal tract SIMGI. L WT-Food Science and Technology. 2015;61(2): 283–289

    2015

  25. [33]

    Ecology and physiology of the intestinal tract

    Blaut M. Ecology and physiology of the intestinal tract . In: Between Pathogenicity and Commensalism. Springer; 2011. p. 247–272

    2011

  26. [34]

    The gut microbiota, bacteria l metabolites and colorectal cancer

    Louis P, Hold GL, Flint HJ. The gut microbiota, bacteria l metabolites and colorectal cancer. Nature reviews microbiology. 2014;12(10):661

    2014

  27. [35]

    Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions

    Nicholson JK, Holmes E, Kinross J, Burcelin R, Gibson G, Jia W, et al. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions. Science. 2012;336(6086):1262–1 267

    2012

  28. [36]

    Healthy hu- man gut phageome

    Manrique P, Bolduc B, Walk ST, van der Oost J, de Vos WM, Yo ung MJ. Healthy hu- man gut phageome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci ences. 2016;113(37):10400– 10405

    2016

  29. [37]

    The gut mic robiome: connecting spatial organization to function

    Tropini C, Earle KA, Huang KC, Sonnenburg JL. The gut mic robiome: connecting spatial organization to function. Cell host & microbe. 2017;21(4): 433–442

    2017

  30. [38]

    Evolution and measurement of species div ersity

    Whittaker RH. Evolution and measurement of species div ersity. Taxon. 1972; p. 213–251

    1972

  31. [39]

    A diversity of beta diversities: straighte ning up a concept gone awry

    Tuomisto H. A diversity of beta diversities: straighte ning up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma dive rsity. Ecography. 2010;33(1):2– 22

    2010

  32. [40]

    A consistent terminology for quantifying s pecies diversity? Yes, it does exist

    Tuomisto H. A consistent terminology for quantifying s pecies diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia. 2010;164(4):853–860. 20 Supplementary Figures Figure S1: Effect of changing kinetic parameters on model pr ediction. Scatter plot of the measured and predicted metabolome wh...

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.