ArticleEcology and evolution2024
Identifying microbial drivers in biological phenotypes with a Bayesian network regression model.
Article in Ecology and evolution, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Semisynthetic simulation for microbiome data analysis.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- A next-generation dynamic programming language Julia: Its features and applications in biological science.Journal of advanced research · 2024Review
- Identifying microbial drivers in biological phenotypes with a Bayesian network regression model.Ecology and evolution · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Bayesian Network Regression models, networks are considered the predictors of continuous responses. These models have been successfully used in brain research to identify regions in the brain that are associated with specific human traits, yet their potential to elucidate microbial drivers in biological phenotypes for microbiome research remains unknown. In particular, microbial networks are challenging due to their high dimension and high sparsity compared to brain networks. Furthermore, unlike in brain connectome research, in microbiome research, it is usually expected that the presence of microbes has an effect on the response (main effects), not just the interactions. Here, we develop the first thorough investigation of whether Bayesian Network Regression models are suitable for microbial datasets on a variety of synthetic and real data under diverse biological scenarios. We test whether the Bayesian Network Regression model that accounts only for interaction effects (edges in the network) is able to identify key drivers (microbes) in phenotypic variability. We show that this model is indeed able to identify influential nodes and edges in the microbial networks that drive changes in the phenotype for most biological settings, but we also identify scenarios where this method performs poorly which allows us to provide practical advice for domain scientists aiming to apply these tools to their datasets. BNR models provide a framework for microbiome researchers to identify connections between microbes and measured phenotypes. We allow the use of this statistical model by providing an easy-to-use implementation which is publicly available Julia package at https://github.com/solislemuslab/BayesianNetworkRegression.jl.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.