4.6 Article

Cross-biome comparison of microbial association networks

Journal

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 6, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.01200

Keywords

microbial communities; 16S rDNA sequencing; co-occurrence; network comparison; positive edge percentage; evenness

Categories

Funding

  1. Research Foundation Flanders (FWO)
  2. Flemish agency for Innovation by Science and Technology (IWT)
  3. EU-FP7 grant [METACARDIS HEALTH-F4-2012-305312]
  4. KU Leuven
  5. Rega Institute
  6. Direct For Biological Sciences
  7. Div Of Biological Infrastructure [1053486] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Clinical and environmental meta-omics studies are accumulating an ever-growing amount of microbial abundance data over a wide range of ecosystems. With a sufficiently large sample number, these microbial communities can be explored by constructing and analyzing co-occurrence networks, which detect taxon associations from abundance data and can give insights into community structure. Here, we investigate how co-occurrence networks differ across biomes and which other factors influence their properties. For this, we inferred microbial association networks from 20 different 16S rDNA sequencing data sets and observed that soil microbial networks harbor proportionally fewer positive associations and are less densely interconnected than host associated networks. After excluding sample number, sequencing depth and beta-diversity as possible drivers, we found a negative correlation between community evenness and positive edge percentage. This correlation likely results from a skewed distribution of negative interactions, which take place preferentially between less prevalent taxa. Overall, our results suggest an under appreciated role of evenness in shaping microbial association networks.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available