It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Differential abundance analysis is controversial throughout microbiome research. Gold standard approaches require laborious measurements of total microbial load, or absolute number of microorganisms, to accurately determine taxonomic shifts. Therefore, most studies rely on relative abundance data. Here, we demonstrate common pitfalls in comparing relative abundance across samples and identify two solutions that reveal microbial changes without the need to estimate total microbial load. We define the notion of “reference frames”, which provide deep intuition about the compositional nature of microbiome data. In an oral time series experiment, reference frames alleviate false positives and produce consistent results on both raw and cell-count normalized data. Furthermore, reference frames identify consistent, differentially abundant microbes previously undetected in two independent published datasets from subjects with atopic dermatitis. These methods allow reassessment of published relative abundance data to reveal reproducible microbial changes from standard sequencing output without the need for new assays.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details




1 Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
2 Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
3 Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT, USA
4 Program in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, USA; Medical Scientist Training Program, Duke University, Durham, USA; Center for Genomic and Computational Biology, Duke University, Durham, USA
5 J. Craig Venter Institute, Genomic Medicine Group, La Jolla, CA, USA
6 Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Bioengineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Center for Microbiome Innovation, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
7 Department of Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Department of Computer Science & Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA; Center for Microbiome Innovation, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA