CBEA: Competitive balances for taxonomic enrichment analysis

BugSigDB captures patterns of differential abundance across a broad range of host-associated microbial signatures

The literature of human and other host-associated microbiome studies is expanding rapidly, but systematic comparisons among published results of host-associated microbiome signatures of differential abundance remain difficult. We present BugSigDB, a community-editable database of manually curated microbial signatures from published differential abundance studies accompanied by information on study geography, health outcomes, host body site and experimental, epidemiological and statistical methods using controlled vocabulary. The initial release of the database contains >2,500 manually curated signatures from >600 published studies on three host species, enabling high-throughput analysis of signature similarity, taxon enrichment, co-occurrence and coexclusion and consensus signatures. These data allow assessment of microbiome differential abundance within and across experimental conditions, environments or body sites. Database-wide analysis reveals experimental conditions with the highest level of consistency in signatures reported by independent studies and identifies commonalities among disease-associated signatures, including frequent introgression of oral pathobionts into the gut.

Addressing erroneous scale assumptions in microbe and gene set enrichment analysis

By applying Differential Set Analysis (DSA) to sequence count data, researchers can determine whether groups of microbes or genes are differentially enriched. Yet sequence count data suffer from a scale limitation: these data lack information about the scale (i.e., size) of the biological system under study, leading some authors to call these data compositional (i.e., proportional). In this article, we show that commonly used DSA methods that rely on normalization make strong, implicit assumptions about the unmeasured system scale. We show that even small errors in these scale assumptions can lead to positive predictive values as low as 9%. To address this problem, we take three novel approaches. First, we introduce a sensitivity analysis framework to identify when modeling results are robust to such errors and when they are suspect. Unlike standard benchmarking studies, this framework does not require ground-truth knowledge and can therefore be applied to both simulated and real data. Second, we introduce a statistical test that provably controls Type-I error at a nominal rate despite errors in scale assumptions. Finally, we discuss how the impact of scale limitations depends on a researcher's scientific goals and provide tools that researchers can use to evaluate whether their goals are at risk from erroneous scale assumptions. Overall, the goal of this article is to catalyze future research into the impact of scale limitations in analyses of sequence count data; to illustrate that scale limitations can lead to inferential errors in practice; yet to also show that rigorous and reproducible scale reliant inference is possible if done carefully.