The unifrac significance test is sensitive to tree topology

BMC Bioinformatics

Rob Knight¹  Catherine A. Lozupone² 

[1]Departments of Pediatrics and Computer Science & Engineering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla 92093, CA, USA

[2]Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora 80045, CO, USA

关键词: Significance tests;    Phylogenetic tree;    Microbial community;    UniFrac;   

Others  :  1231808
DOI  :  10.1186/s12859-015-0640-y

 received in 2015-02-18, accepted in 2015-06-06,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Long et al. (BMC Bioinformatics 2014, 15(1):278) describe a “discrepancy” in using UniFrac to assess statistical significance of community differences. Specifically, they find that weighted UniFrac results differ between input trees where (a) replicate sequences each have their own tip, or (b) all replicates are assigned to one tip with an associated count. We argue that these are two distinct cases that differ in the probability distribution on which the statistical test is based, because of the differences in tree topology. Further study is needed to understand which randomization procedure best detects different aspects of community dissimilarities.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Lozupone and Knight.

【 图 表 】

Fig. 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lozupone C, Knight R. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005; 71(12):8228-35.
• [2]Long JR, Pittet V, Trost B, Yan Q, Vickers D, Haakensen M, Kusalik A. Equivalent input produces different output in the UniFrac significance test. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014; 15(1):278. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3]Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK, Fierer N, Pena AG, Goodrich JK, Gordon JI et al.. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat Methods. 2010; 7(5):335-6.
• [4]Schloss PD, Westcott SL, Ryabin T, Hall JR, Hartmann M, Hollister EB, Lesniewski RA, Oakley BB, Parks DH, Robinson CJ et al.. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2009; 75(23):7537-41.
• [5]Stackebrandt E, Goebal BM. Taxonomic note: a place for DNA-DNA reassociation and 16S rRNA sequence analysis in the present species definition in bacteriology. Int Syst Bacteriol. 1994; 44:846-9.
• [6]Martin AP. Phylogenetic approaches for describing and comparing the diversity of microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002; 68(8):3673-82.
• [7]Schloss PD, Handelsman J. Introducing TreeClimber, a test to compare microbial community structures. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006; 72(4):2379-84.
• [8]Abouheif E. Random trees and the comparative method: A cautionary tale. Evolution. 1998; 52(4):1197-204.
• [9]Furnas GW. The generation of random, binary, unordered trees. J Classif. 1984; 1:187-233.
• [10]Losos JB, Adler FR. Stumped by trees? A generalized null model for patterns of organismal diversity. Am Nat. 1995; 145(3):329-42.
• [11]Maddison WP, Slatkin M. Null Models for the Number of Evolutionary Steps in a Character on a Phylogenetic Tree. Evolution. 1991; 45(5):1184-97.
• [12]Lozupone CA, Hamady M, Kelley ST, Knight R. Quantitative and qualitative beta diversity measures lead to different insights into factors that structure microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007; 73(5):1576-85.
• [13]Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate - a Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. J Roy Stat Soc B Met. 1995; 57(1):289-300.
• [14]Clarke KR. Nonparametric multivariate analyses of changes in community structure. Aust J Ecology. 1993; 18:117-43.
• [15]Dixon P. VEGAN, a package of R functions for community ecology. J Veg Sci. 2003; 14(6):927-30.
• [16]Turnbaugh PJ, Hamady M, Yatsunenko T, Cantarel BL, Duncan A, Ley RE, Sogin ML, Jones WJ, Roe BA, Affourtit JP et al.. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature. 2009; 457(7228):480-4.