Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 7 minor 61 references

A novel approach to differential expression analysis of co-occurrence networks for small-sampled microbiome data

T0 review · 5 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proposes a bootstrap-based statistical filter to remove spurious associations from co-occurrence networks built from small-sampled 16S microbiome data, and demonstrates it on chicken Eimeria data.

desk verdict The statistical filter at the paper's core is internally inconsistent and tests against the data's own distribution; the workflow and dataset are real, but the results don't stand. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03744 v1 pith:BUZAYRAW submitted 2024-12-04 q-bio.QM

Nandini Gadhia , Michalis Smyrnakis , Po-Yu Liu , Damer Blake , Melanie Hay , Anh Nguyen , Dominic Richards , Dong Xia
show 1 more author
Ritesh Krishna
This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.QM
keywords microbiome16SrRNAco-occurrencenetworkbootstrappingsmall-sampledatafilteringEimeriatenellapersistent
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

The paper aims to establish that co-occurrence networks can be inferred from 16S microbiome data even when each experimental condition has only ten samples, by pairing a bespoke edge-weighting scheme with a bootstrap-based statistical filter. The filter is meant to identify and discard spurious nodes and edges that arise from sequencing noise and sampling artifacts, so that the remaining network is statistically significant and biologically interpretable. The authors apply the method to chicken gut microbiota across three stages of Eimeria tenella infection and claim that the filtered networks show disease-progression shifts in node-weight distributions, reveal clusters of mutualistic and parasitic interactions, and expose an eight-species persistent microbiome. A sympathetic reader would care because small-sample microbiome studies are common, and existing tools such as SparCC and SPIEC-EASI either need large samples or fail to converge on ten samples.

What carries the argument

The central object is the weighted co-occurrence graph plus a bootstrap filtering loop. An edge between ASV $m$ and $n$ exists if they co-occur in at least one sample, with weight $w_{mn} = \left(\frac{x_{mn} + 1/x_{mn}}{2}\right)^{-1}$ where $x_{mn}=r_m/r_n$ and $r_m,r_n$ are relative abundances, so weights near 1 correspond to similar abundances. Node attributes include average relative abundance, degree, weighted degree, betweenness centrality, and co-occurrence counts. Filtering works by generating $n$ bootstrapped graphs from synthetic ASV tables created by resampling observed samples, computing the distribution of mean node/edge weights, and discarding nodes or edges whose observed weight lies outside the $2\sigma$ confidence interval, justified by the central limit theorem. An intersection of nodes present in all filtered condition networks defines the persistent microbiome.

What would settle it

Run the bootstrap exactly as described, sampling ten of ten observed samples without replacement, and verify that every synthetic ASV table equals the original, so the 2-sigma interval is degenerate and no edge can be pruned; Table III reports extensive pruning, so this observation would show the stated mechanism cannot be what produced the reported networks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that a Monte-Carlo bootstrapping procedure can serve as a principled replacement for prevalence-based or correlation-based filtering in small-sample microbiome networks. For each experimental condition, the authors build an aggregated co-occurrence graph whose edges record co-presence of two ASVs across samples and are weighted by a function of the ratio of their relative abundances. They then generate a large population of synthetic graphs by resampling from the observed samples, compute the distribution of each node's average edge weight and each edge's weight under that population, and prune any node or edge whose observed value falls outside the two-standard-deviation confidence interval. On the chicken dataset this pruning leaves networks that cluster into distinct communities and a core of eight taxa present across all conditions, which the paper interprets as a persistent microbiome. The claimed result is that the statistical properties of the simulated population identify spurious artifacts that prevalence filtering would miss while preserving rare but potentially important species.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that resampling the ten observed samples yields a valid null distribution for distinguishing real from spurious edges, despite the text saying the samples are drawn without replacement from the same ten samples.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At the 5% significance level, filtered node-weight distributions differ significantly between unchallenged and challenged conditions and between 6 and 10 days post infection, supporting the claim that network expression tracks disease progression.
  • After edge-level filtering, the algorithm reveals four distinct clusters where clustering before filtering had failed, indicating that spurious edges were masking community structure.
  • The persistent microbiome of eight taxa, including Burkholderia, Escherichia-Shigella, Prevotella, Bacteroides, and Clostridia, is present across all conditions and could serve as candidate targets for vaccine or probiotic development.
  • Because the pipeline is implemented in Nextflow with containerised tools, the proposed inference and filtering method is reusable and extensible to multi-omics data.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the resampling step is corrected to sampling with replacement, the method still only resamples the observed ten-sample empirical distribution; the null it constructs is a null of no edge only if spurious edges are equally likely to appear in any resample, which is not argued. A proper test would need a null that destroys the co-occurrence structure while preserving marginals.
  • The edge weight formula is a monotone transform of the absolute log-ratio of abundances, $w_{mn}=2/(e^{|\ln x_{mn}|}+e^{-|\ln x_{mn}|})$, so it rewards equal abundance. This conflates mutualism with equal abundance under uniform sampling depth; disentangling them would require a compositionally aware null.
  • The same bootstrap-filtering logic could be ported to any sparse compositional data type such as metabolomics or transcriptomics where sample sizes are small and prevalence thresholds are arbitrary.
  • The claim that the persistent microbiome is biologically meaningful is a post-hoc interpretation; a natural extension is to test whether the eight core ASVs are functionally linked in metagenomic or metabolomic data.
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

5 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a graph-based co-occurrence network inference and filtering workflow for small-sample 16S microbiome data. Edges represent co-occurrence of ASVs across samples, edge weights are derived from ratios of relative abundances, and node attributes summarize local network topology. The authors generate bootstrap resamples of the observed samples, construct confidence intervals for node- and edge-level weights, and prune observations that fall outside these intervals. The method is applied to chicken caecal samples across three Eimeria infection stages, followed by downstream analyses including a persistent-microbiome subnetwork, K-S tests between conditions, and hierarchical clustering. The central claim is that this approach yields networks that are feature-rich, biologically meaningful, and statistically significant from small-sampled data.

Significance. The application domain is relevant, and the engineering contributions are real: the Nextflow/Docker pipeline, containerization, use of public sequencing data, and the explicit discussion of small-sample challenges are strengths. If the statistical filter were valid, the paper could offer a useful addition to the microbiome network inference toolkit. However, the central filtering procedure is not a valid test for spurious associations, and the reported results are internally inconsistent. Because the persistent-microbiome result, the K-S based differential-expression claims, and the biological interpretations all depend on the filtered networks being statistically meaningful, these conclusions are not supported by the evidence as presented.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.C] The description that synthetic ASV tables are generated by 'randomly selecting 10 samples without replacement from the 10 observed samples' is deterministic when the sample size equals the number of observed samples: every bootstrap graph is identical, the bootstrap distribution is degenerate, and no confidence interval or empirical p-value can be produced. If the intended text is 'with replacement', the bootstrap still only characterizes the sampling variability of the observed statistic; it does not provide a null distribution under a model of no association or under an artifact-free model. This invalidates the claimed identification of spurious edges.
  2. [Section III.C, null hypothesis] The null hypothesis is stated as H0: µ_w,bootstrapped = observed w. Since the bootstrap mean is approximately the observed value by construction, this null is circular; the test can only flag weights that are atypical relative to the data's own empirical distribution, not edges that arise from experimental or preprocessing artifacts. Additionally, the alternative hypothesis is printed identically to H0 and should be µ_w,bootstrapped ≠ observed w. This is not a statistical test for spurious associations.
  3. [Section VI.A.1, Table II and Figure 1] Table II reports zero species filtered at the 2σ level in all three conditions, yet Figure 1 and the accompanying text state that a number of species lie beyond two standard deviations and are pruned. The 1σ filter removes 106/142/26 species, which, under a normal approximation and a true null, would correspond to roughly a 32% false-positive rate rather than a controlled error rate. The table, figure, and narrative are mutually inconsistent.
  4. [Section VI.A.2, Table III] Edge-level filtering at the 5% significance level leaves 795/132/42 edges out of 15715/17536/6064, i.e., only about 5% of edges remain. A two-tailed 5% test would be expected to remove about 5% of edges under the null; removing 95% indicates that the procedure is not behaving as a significance filter. No multiple-testing correction is applied across the thousands of simultaneous edge tests. The column heading 'Filtered number of edges' is also ambiguous, since the text says edges outside the confidence interval are pruned but the table appears to report retained counts.
  5. [Section VI.C.1] The K-S tests are performed on the filtered distributions, using the same data that determined which nodes and edges were filtered. This circular reuse of the data invalidates the reported p-values, and no correction is made for testing multiple pairs of distributions. The claim that the post-filtering distributions are 'statistically significant' differential expression is therefore not supported.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section III.A, Eq. (2)] The formula for w_mn as printed appears malformed; please rewrite with explicit parentheses and define x_mn in a displayed equation before introducing w_mn.
  2. [Section III.C] The alternative hypothesis H1 should read µ_w,bootstrapped ≠ observed w, not µ_w,bootstrapped = observed w.
  3. [Figure 1] The figure lacks axis labels and the caption does not state whether the plotted quantity is a node-level or edge-level weight; please clarify.
  4. [Throughout] There are repeated typos, including 'co-occurences' for 'co-occurrences', 'wadvocating' in Section II, 'ecostystem' in Section III.C, and 'microbome' in the Table IV heading.
  5. [Reference [45]] Reference [45] is malformed: the year '2019,' appears before the article title; please fix the citation format.
  6. [Section VI.C.2] Please clarify whether the 'persistent microbiome' of 8 species refers to the three-condition quasi-time series or to all experimental conditions; Section III.D defines it across 'all conditions', while the text says the filtered quasi-time-series data contains 8 species.
  7. [Section VI.B.2, Table III] The SPIEC-EASI comparison is reported only for 'All samples'; please state explicitly that per-condition SPIEC-EASI did not converge and explain why the all-sample comparison is a valid benchmark for the proposed method.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The bootstrap filter constructs its null from the observed samples, so the claimed statistical removal of spurious edges reduces to comparing the data with itself.

  1. self definitional [Section III.C (Filtering), null hypothesis formulation]
    "Then confidence intervals can be defined, and empirical p-values calculated to test that the null hypothesis that the average of this same attribute in the bootstrapped population is the observed value. H0 : µw,bootstrapped = ˜w"

    The synthetic ASV tables are produced by resampling the same 10 observed samples, so the bootstrap distribution estimates the sampling distribution of the observed statistic and is centered at the observed value. Testing whether the observed weight lies inside the central 96% of its own empirical sampling distribution does not compare against a null model of no association or of experimental artifact. Calling the tails 'spurious' is therefore equivalent to calling observations atypical relative to the observed data itself; the filter's statistical significance claim is self-referential by construction.

  2. other [Section III.C (Filtering), bootstrap generation]
    "The synthetic ASV tables are generated by randomly selecting 10 samples without replacement from the 10 observed samples in each experimental condition. For the central limit theorem to apply, n ought to be sufficiently large."

    With exactly 10 observed samples, selecting 10 without replacement is deterministic: each synthetic table is a permutation of the original table, so all n=1000 bootstrapped graphs are identical, the confidence intervals have zero width, and the 'simulated population' is the observed network itself. Thus the filtering step is degenerate and cannot identify spurious edges by any independent criterion. If the intended resampling was with replacement, the null would still be the data's own empirical distribution, not a no-association null.

full rationale

The preprocessing pipeline and co-occurrence network construction are self-contained, and there are no load-bearing self-citations or imported uniqueness theorems. The circularity is concentrated in the bootstrap filtering step, which is a core contribution of the paper. The null hypothesis H0: bootstrap mean equals the observed weight is true by construction when the bootstrap population is resampled from the same 10 observed samples, so calling an edge 'spurious' when it falls outside the bootstrap interval only means the edge is atypical relative to the observed data's own empirical distribution; it does not test, let alone demonstrate, that the edge is an experimental or preprocessing artifact. The additional statement that resampling is done without replacement from 10 observations makes the procedure deterministic and internally inconsistent with the reported filtering results. The post-filtering K-S comparisons also reuse the same samples that determined the filter, so they do not provide an independent check. Because the claimed statistical significance of the filtered networks is the basis for the downstream biological interpretations, the central 'statistically significant' claim is partially circular, while the network construction and clustering per se retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. Its central assumptions are the validity of bootstrap resampling from the observed data, the CLT for n=10, the biological interpretation of edge weights, and the filtering rule, none of which are independently established.

free parameters (6)
  • edge weight harmonic ratio
    The weight function w_mn = ((x + 1/x)/2)^{-1} is a modeling choice, not derived from data. It determines all network attributes and filtering outcomes.
  • bootstrap significance threshold = 2 sigma (also 1 sigma in Table II)
    The paper uses 2 sigma for filtering, but Table II reports 1 sigma counts; the choice is arbitrary and not justified by error control.
  • edge-level significance level = 5%
    Two-tailed test at 5% is applied per edge across thousands of edges without multiple testing correction.
  • number of clusters k = 5
    Gap statistic peaks at 5 for the unchallenged condition and k=5 is reused for all conditions for comparability.
  • number of bootstrap replicates = 1000
    n=1000 is chosen for CLT, but with only 10 samples the bootstrap distribution may be degenerate as described.
  • prevalence filter threshold in comparison = 0.1%
    Used only for the comparison in Figure 3; not central to the method.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Resampling the observed samples preserves the underlying probability distribution of species presence and abundance
    Section III.C states synthetic data are created by re-sampling from the original data, assuming the empirical distribution is the true distribution.
  • standard math The central limit theorem applies to the bootstrap mean of edge weights for n=10
    Section III.C invokes CLT to justify normal confidence intervals despite the small sample size.
  • ad hoc to paper Edge weight close to 1 indicates mutualism and lower weights indicate commensalism or parasitism
    Section III.A asserts this biological interpretation without external validation.
  • ad hoc to paper Edges outside the bootstrap confidence interval are spurious
    Section III.C defines the filtering rule, but this is only valid if the bootstrap null represents absence of association, which it does not.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A novel approach to differential expression analysis of co-occurrence networks for small-sampled microbiome data." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/BUZAYRAW

@misc{pith2026241203744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A novel approach to differential expression analysis of co-occurrence networks for small-sampled microbiome data},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/BUZAYRAW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03744}
}
read the original abstract

Graph-based machine learning methods are useful tools in the identification and prediction of variation in genetic data. In particular, the comprehension of phenotypic effects at the cellular level is an accelerating research area in pharmacogenomics. In this article, a novel graph theoretic approach is proposed to infer a co-occurrence network from 16S microbiome data. The approach is specialised to handle datasets containing a small number of samples. Small datasets exacerbate the significant challenges faced by biological data, which exhibit properties such as sparsity, compositionality, and complexity of interactions. Methodologies are also proposed to enrich and statistically filter the inferred networks. The utility of the proposed method lies in that it extracts an informative network from small sampled data that is not only feature-rich, but also biologically meaningful and statistically significant. Although specialised for small data sets, which are abundant, it can be generally applied to any small-sampled dataset, and can also be extended to integrate multi-omics data. The proposed methodology is tested on a data set of chickens vaccinated against and challenged by the protozoan parasite Eimeria tenella. The raw genetic reads are processed, and networks inferred to describe the ecosystems of the chicken intestines under three different stages of disease progression. Analysis of the expression of network features derive biologically intuitive conclusions from purely statistical methods. For example, there is a clear evolution in the distribution of node features in line with the progression of the disease. The distributions also reveal clusters of species interacting mutualistically and parasitically, as expected. Moreover, a specific sub-network is found to persist through all experimental conditions, representative of a persistent microbiome.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03744 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Bootstrapped weight distribution against actual data distribution of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A visualisation of the co-occurence network of samples in two con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The distribution of the discarded weights in a typical filtering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Histograms showing average weight distribution for the unvaccinated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Clustering(k=5) using hierarchical clustering with Bray-Curtis distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Distribution of node attributes for each cluster identified in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    How to get genomes at one ten-thousandth the cost,

    J. Schloss, “How to get genomes at one ten-thousandth the cost,” Nat Biotechnol , vol. 26, p. 1113, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1008-1113

    work page doi:10.1038/nbt1008-1113 2008

  2. [2]

    Microbiome multi-omics network analysis: Statistical considerations, limitations, and opportunities,

    D. Jiang et al. , “Microbiome multi-omics network analysis: Statistical considerations, limitations, and opportunities,” Front. Genet, vol. 10, p. 995, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Evolution and measurement of species diversity,

    R. H. Whittaker, “Evolution and measurement of species diversity,” TAXON, vol. 21, pp. 213–251, 1972. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.2307/1218190

    doi:10.2307/1218190 1972

  4. [4]

    Inferring correlation networks from genomic survey data,

    J. Friedman and E. J. Alm, “Inferring correlation networks from genomic survey data,” PLOS Computational Biology, vol. 8, p. 9, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002687 11

    doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002687 2012

  5. [5]

    Microbial co-occurrence relationships in the human microbiome,

    F. K., S. J.F., I. J., S. N., G. D. et al. , “Microbial co-occurrence relationships in the human microbiome,” PLOS Computational Biology, vol. 8, p. 7, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pcbi.1002606

    doi:10.1371/journal 2012

  6. [6]

    Untangling direct species associations from indirect mediator species effects with graphical models,

    G. C. Popovic, D. I. Warton, F. J. Thomson, F. K. C. Hui, and A. Moles, “Untangling direct species associations from indirect mediator species effects with graphical models,” Methods Ecol Evol , vol. 10, p. 1571,

    work page

  7. [7]

    Novel whole yeast-based subunit oral vaccine against eimeria tenella in chickens,

    F. Soutter et al., “Novel whole yeast-based subunit oral vaccine against eimeria tenella in chickens,” Front Immunol, vol. 13, no. 80971, p. 1, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Investigating reproducibility and tracking provenance: A genomic workflow case study,

    S. Kanwal, F. Z. Khan, A. Lonie et al. , “Investigating reproducibility and tracking provenance: A genomic workflow case study,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 18, p. 337, 2017. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1186/s12859-017-1747-0

    doi:10.1186/s12859-017-1747-0 2017

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows,

    D. Tommaso et al. , “Nextflow enables reproducible computational workflows,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 35, p. 4, 2017

    2017

  2. [10]

    Evolutionary computation in bioinformatics: a review,

    S. K. Pal, S. Bandyopadhyay, and S. S. Ray, “Evolutionary computation in bioinformatics: a review,” in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 601–615, September 2006

    2006

  3. [11]

    Defining the human microbiome,

    L. K. Ursell, J. L. Metcalf, L. W. Parfrey, and R. Knight, “Defining the human microbiome,” Nutrition reviews , vol. 70, no. suppl 1, pp. S38–S44, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    Benchmarking in cluster analysis: A white paper,

    I. V . Mechelen, A.-L. Boulesteix, R. Dangl, N. Dean, I. Guyon, C. Hennig, F. Leisch, and D. Steinley, “Benchmarking in cluster analysis: A white paper,” 2018

    2018

  5. [13]

    A comparative study of cluster detection algorithms in protein–protein interaction for drug target discovery and drug repurpos- ing,

    J. Ma et al. , “A comparative study of cluster detection algorithms in protein–protein interaction for drug target discovery and drug repurpos- ing,” Frontiers in pharmacology, vol. 10, p. 109, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Interaction strength promotes robustness against cascading effects in mutualistic networks,

    M. Gaiarsa and P. Guimar ˜aes, “Interaction strength promotes robustness against cascading effects in mutualistic networks,” Scientific Reports , vol. 9, 01 2019

    2019

  7. [15]

    Drug target prioritization by perturbed gene expression and network information,

    Z. Isik, C. Baldow, C. V . Cannistraci, and M. Schroeder, “Drug target prioritization by perturbed gene expression and network information,” Scientific reports, vol. 5, no. 1, p. 17417, 2015

    2015

  8. [16]

    Walking the interactome for prioritization of candidate disease genes,

    S. K ¨ohler, S. Bauer, D. Horn, and P. N. Robinson, “Walking the interactome for prioritization of candidate disease genes,” The American Journal of Human Genetics , vol. 82, no. 4, pp. 949–958, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Meta-analysis of microbiome association networks reveal patterns of dysbiosis in diseased microbiomes,

    T. J. Lam and Y . Ye, “Meta-analysis of microbiome association networks reveal patterns of dysbiosis in diseased microbiomes,” Scientific Reports, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 17482, 2022

    2022

  10. [18]

    Gastric microbiota in a low–helicobacter pylori prevalence general population and their associations with gastric le- sions,

    N. Ndegwa et al. , “Gastric microbiota in a low–helicobacter pylori prevalence general population and their associations with gastric le- sions,” 2020

    2020

  11. [19]

    Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data,

    N. M. Davis, D. M. Proctor, S. P. Holmes, D. A. Relman, and B. J. Callahan, “Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data,” Microbiome, vol. 6, pp. 1–14, 2018

    2018

  12. [20]

    Microbiome differential abundance methods produce different results across 38 datasets,

    J. T. Nearing, G. M. Douglas, M. G. Hayes et al. , “Microbiome differential abundance methods produce different results across 38 datasets,” Nat Commun , vol. 13, p. 342, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28034-z

    2022 doi

  13. [21]

    Genetic risk for autoimmunity is associated with distinct changes in the human gut microbiome

    J. T. Russell, L. F. W. Roesch, M. Ordberg et al. , “Genetic risk for autoimmunity is associated with distinct changes in the human gut microbiome.” Nat Commun, vol. 10, p. 3621, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-11460-x

    2019 doi

  14. [22]

    The statistical analysis of compositional data,

    J. Aitchison, “The statistical analysis of compositional data,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) , vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 139–177, 1982. [Online]. Available: http: //www.jstor.org/stable/2345821

    1982

  15. [23]

    Microbiome datasets are compositional: And this is not optional,

    G. B. Gloor, J. M. Macklaim, V . Pawlowsky-Glahn, and J. J. Egozcue, “Microbiome datasets are compositional: And this is not optional,” Front. Microbiol., vol. 8, p. 2224, 2017

    2017

  16. [24]

    Assessment and selection of competing models for zero-inflated microbiome data,

    L. Xu, A. D. Paterson, W. Turpin, and W. Xu, “Assessment and selection of competing models for zero-inflated microbiome data,” PLOS ONE , vol. 10, pp. 1–30, 07 2015. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0129606

    2015 doi

  17. [25]

    mbdenoise: microbiome data denoising using zero-inflated probabilistic principal components analysis,

    Y . Zeng, J. Li, C. Wei et al. , “mbdenoise: microbiome data denoising using zero-inflated probabilistic principal components analysis,” Genome Biol , vol. 23, p. 94, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-022-02657-3

    2022 doi

  18. [26]

    Identifying keystone species in the hu- man gut microbiome from metagenomic timeseries using sparse linear regression,

    C. K. Fisher and P. Mehta, “Identifying keystone species in the hu- man gut microbiome from metagenomic timeseries using sparse linear regression,” PloS one, vol. 9, no. 7, p. e102451, 2014

    2014

  19. [27]

    The analysis of zero-inflated count data: Beyond zero-inflated poisson regression

    T. Loeys, B. Moerkerke, O. De Smet, and A. Buysse, “The analysis of zero-inflated count data: Beyond zero-inflated poisson regression.” British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 163–180, 2012. [Online]. Available: https://bpspsychub. onli...

    2012

  20. [28]

    Quantification of bacterial species of the vaginal microbiome in different groups of women, using nucleic acid amplification tests,

    V . Jespers, J. Menten, H. Smet, S. Porados ´u, S. Abdellati, R. Verhelst, L. Hardy, A. Buv ´e, and T. Crucitti, “Quantification of bacterial species of the vaginal microbiome in different groups of women, using nucleic acid amplification tests,” BMC microbiology, vol. 12, no....

    2012

  21. [29]

    Sparse and compositionally robust inference of microbial ecological networks,

    Z. D. Kurtz, C. L. Muller, E. R. Miraldi, D. R. Littman, M. J. Blaser et al., “Sparse and compositionally robust inference of microbial ecological networks,” PLOS Computational Biology , vol. 11, p. 5,

  22. [30]

    High-dimensional graphs and vari- able selection with the lasso,

    N. Meinshausen and P. Buhlmann, “High-dimensional graphs and vari- able selection with the lasso,” Ann. Stat, vol. 34, p. 1436, 2006

    2006

  23. [31]

    Central limit theorem: the cornerstone of modern statistics,

    S. G. Kwak and K. JH., “Central limit theorem: the cornerstone of modern statistics,” EpubFeb, vol. 21, pp. 144–156, 2017

    2017

  24. [32]

    Defining higher-order interactions in synthetic ecology: Lessons from physics and quantitative genetics,

    A. Sanchez, “Defining higher-order interactions in synthetic ecology: Lessons from physics and quantitative genetics,” Cell Systems , vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 519–520, 2019. [Online]. Available: https: //www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405471219304296

    2019

  25. [33]

    Filling key gaps in population and community ecology,

    A. A. Agrawal et al. , “Filling key gaps in population and community ecology,” 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Beyond the venn diagram: the hunt for a core microbiome,

    A. Shade and J. Handelsman, “Beyond the venn diagram: the hunt for a core microbiome,” Environmental microbiology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 4–12, 2012

    2012

  27. [35]

    The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability,

    K. Z. Coyte, J. Schluter, and K. R. Foster, “The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability,” Science, vol. 350, no. 6261, pp. 663–666, 2015

    2015

  28. [36]

    The human microbiome project,

    P. Turnbaugh, R. Ley, M. Hamady et al. , “The human microbiome project,” Nature, vol. 449, p. 804, 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06244

    2007 doi

  29. [37]

    Re-calculating the cost of coccidiosis in chickens,

    D. P. Blake et al. , “Re-calculating the cost of coccidiosis in chickens,” Vet Res , vol. 51, p. 115, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13567-020-00837-2

    2020 doi

  30. [38]

    Dada2: High resolution sample inference from amplicon data,

    B. J. Callahan et al. , “Dada2: High resolution sample inference from amplicon data,” 2015. [Online]. Available: https://www.biorxiv. org/content/early/2015/08/06/024034

    2015

  31. [39]

    Provenance and scientific workflows: challenges and opportunities,

    S. B. Davidson and J. Freire, “Provenance and scientific workflows: challenges and opportunities,” 2008

    2008

  32. [40]

    Docker: lightweight linux containers for consistent devel- opment and deployment,

    D. Merkel, “Docker: lightweight linux containers for consistent devel- opment and deployment,” Linux Journal, vol. 2014, no. 239, p. 2, 2014

    2014

  33. [41]

    Singularity: Scientific containers for mobility of compute,

    G. M. Kurtzer, V . Sochat, and M. W. Bauer, “Singularity: Scientific containers for mobility of compute,” PLoS ONE , vol. 12, p. 5, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177459

    2017 doi

  34. [42]

    Andrews, FastQC

    S. Andrews, FastQC. A Quality Control Tool for High Throughput Sequence Data [Online], 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    high-speed fastqc emulation for quality control of sequencing data,

    G. de Sena Brandine and S. A. Falco, “high-speed fastqc emulation for quality control of sequencing data,” F, vol. 7, p. 8, Nov 2019

    2019

  36. [44]

    Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads,

    M. Martin, “Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads,” EMBnet.journal, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 10–12, 2011

    2011

  37. [45]

    Bolyen et al

    E. Bolyen et al. , “2019,” Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME , vol. 37, p. 852, 2009. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9

    2019 doi

  38. [46]

    Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with qiime 2 q2-feature-classifier plugin,

    N. A. Bokulich, B. D. Kaehler, J. R. Rideout et al. , “Optimizing taxonomic classification of marker-gene amplicon sequences with qiime 2 q2-feature-classifier plugin,” Microbiome, vol. 6, p. 90, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0470-z

    2018 doi

  39. [47]

    a versatile open source tool for metagenomics,

    T. Rognes, T. Flouri, B. Nichols, C. Quince, and M. F. Vsearch, “a versatile open source tool for metagenomics,” PeerJOct, vol. 18, p. 4, 2016

    2016

  40. [48]

    The silva ribosomal rna gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools,

    C. Quast et al., “The silva ribosomal rna gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools,” Opens external link in new windowNucl. Acids Res , vol. 41, pp. D590–D596, 2013

    2013

  41. [49]

    Cytoscape: A software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks,

    P. Shannon, A. Markiel, O. Ozier, N. S. Baliga, J. T. Wang, D. Ramage, N. Amin, B. Schwikowski, and T. Ideker, “Cytoscape: A software environment for integrated models of biomolecular interaction networks,” Genome Research , vol. 13, no. 11, p. 2498–2504, Nov

  42. [50]

    Clustering by passing messages between data points,

    B. J. Frey and D. Dueck, “Clustering by passing messages between data points,” Science, vol. 315, no. 5814, p. 972–976, Feb. 2007. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1136800

    2007 doi

  43. [51]

    Glay: community structure analysis of biological networks,

    G. Su, A. Kuchinsky, J. H. Morris, D. J. States, and F. Meng, “Glay: community structure analysis of biological networks,” Bioinformatics, vol. 26, no. 24, p. 3135–3137, Nov. 2010. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq596 12

    2010 doi

  44. [52]

    High-dimensional graphs and variable selection with the lasso,

    N. Meinshausen and P. B ¨uhlmann, “High-dimensional graphs and variable selection with the lasso,” The Annals of Statistics , vol. 34, no. 3, Jun. 2006. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/ 009053606000000281

    2006

  45. [53]

    Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso,

    J. Friedman, T. Hastie, and R. Tibshirani, “Sparse inverse covariance estimation with the graphical lasso,” Biostatistics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 432–441, 12 2007. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/ biostatistics/kxm045

    2007

  46. [54]

    Stability approach to regular- ization selection (stars) for high dimensional graphical models,

    H. Liu, K. Roeder, and L. Wasserman, “Stability approach to regular- ization selection (stars) for high dimensional graphical models,” 2010

    2010

  47. [55]

    Effects of eimeria tenella infection on chicken caecal microbiome diversity, exploring variation associated with severity of pathology,

    S. E. Macdonald, M. J. Nolan, K. Harman, K. Boulton, D. A. Hume, F. M. Tomley, R. A. Stabler, and D. P. Blake, “Effects of eimeria tenella infection on chicken caecal microbiome diversity, exploring variation associated with severity of pathology,” PLOS ONE, vol. 12, no. 9, pp...

    2017 doi

  48. [56]

    On some properties of the bray-curtis dissimilarity and their ecological meaning,

    C. Ricotta and J. Podani, “On some properties of the bray-curtis dissimilarity and their ecological meaning,” Ecological Complexity , vol. 31, pp. 201–205, 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1476945X17300582

    2017

  49. [57]

    Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic,

    R. Tibshirani, G. Walther, and T. Hastie, “Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology) , vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 411–423, 2001. [Online]. Available: https: //rss.onlinelibrary....

    2001

  50. [58]

    Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction,

    L. McInnes, J. Healy, and J. Melville, “Umap: Uniform manifold approximation and projection for dimension reduction,” 2020. IX. B IOGRAPHY SECTION Nandini Gadhia Nandini Gadhia completed her B.Sc. (Hons) in Maths and Physics from the University of Warwick in 2020, followed by ...

    2012

  51. [2003]

    Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.1239303

    [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.1239303

    doi

  52. [2015]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004226

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004226

    doi

  53. [2019]

    Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13247

    [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.13247

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.