ArticlePLoS computational biology2024
Emergent ecological patterns and modelling of gut microbiomes in health and in disease.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The human microbiome at translational crossroads: an ecological and causal perspective.Singapore medical journal · 2026Review
- Linking complex microbial interactions and dysbiosis through a disordered Lotka-Volterra model.eLife · 2026Article
- Exploring the association between gut microbiota and venous thromboembolism using a Mendelian randomization analysis.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2026Article
- N2SIMBA: from Network topology to SIMulation of interactions and BActerial abundance, using microbial consumer resource model.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Emergent Functional Organization of Gut Microbiomes in Health and Diseases.Biomolecules · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advancements in next-generation sequencing have revolutionized our understanding of the human microbiome. Despite this progress, challenges persist in comprehending the microbiome's influence on disease, hindered by technical complexities in species classification, abundance estimation, and data compositionality. At the same time, the existence of macroecological laws describing the variation and diversity in microbial communities irrespective of their environment has been recently proposed using 16s data and explained by a simple phenomenological model of population dynamics. We here investigate the relationship between dysbiosis, i.e. in unhealthy individuals there are deviations from the "regular" composition of the gut microbial community, and the existence of macro-ecological emergent law in microbial communities. We first quantitatively reconstruct these patterns at the species level using shotgun data, and addressing the consequences of sampling effects and statistical errors on ecological patterns. We then ask if such patterns can discriminate between healthy and unhealthy cohorts. Concomitantly, we evaluate the efficacy of different statistical generative models, which incorporate sampling and population dynamics, to describe such patterns and distinguish which are expected by chance, versus those that are potentially informative about disease states or other biological drivers. A critical aspect of our analysis is understanding the relationship between model parameters, which have clear ecological interpretations, and the state of the gut microbiome, thereby enabling the generation of synthetic compositional data that distinctively represent healthy and unhealthy individuals. Our approach, grounded in theoretical ecology and statistical physics, allows for a robust comparison of these models with empirical data, enhancing our understanding of the strengths and limitations of simple microbial models of population dynamics.
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.