Disentangling environmental effects in microbial association networks.
Association network
Effect of indirect dependencies
Environmentally driven edge detection
Microbial interactions
Journal
Microbiome
ISSN: 2049-2618
Titre abrégé: Microbiome
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101615147
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
26 11 2021
26 11 2021
Historique:
received:
11
08
2020
accepted:
20
07
2021
entrez:
26
11
2021
pubmed:
27
11
2021
medline:
22
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Ecological interactions among microorganisms are fundamental for ecosystem function, yet they are mostly unknown or poorly understood. High-throughput-omics can indicate microbial interactions through associations across time and space, which can be represented as association networks. Associations could result from either ecological interactions between microorganisms, or from environmental selection, where the association is environmentally driven. Therefore, before downstream analysis and interpretation, we need to distinguish the nature of the association, particularly if it is due to environmental selection or not. We present EnDED (environmentally driven edge detection), an implementation of four approaches as well as their combination to predict which links between microorganisms in an association network are environmentally driven. The four approaches are sign pattern, overlap, interaction information, and data processing inequality. We tested EnDED on networks from simulated data of 50 microorganisms. The networks contained on average 50 nodes and 1087 edges, of which 60 were true interactions but 1026 false associations (i.e., environmentally driven or due to chance). Applying each method individually, we detected a moderate to high number of environmentally driven edges-87% sign pattern and overlap, 67% interaction information, and 44% data processing inequality. Combining these methods in an intersection approach resulted in retaining more interactions, both true and false (32% of environmentally driven associations). After validation with the simulated datasets, we applied EnDED on a marine microbial network inferred from 10 years of monthly observations of microbial-plankton abundance. The intersection combination predicted that 8.3% of the associations were environmentally driven, while individual methods predicted 24.8% (data processing inequality), 25.7% (interaction information), and up to 84.6% (sign pattern as well as overlap). The fraction of environmentally driven edges among negative microbial associations in the real network increased rapidly with the number of environmental factors. To reach accurate hypotheses about ecological interactions, it is important to determine, quantify, and remove environmentally driven associations in marine microbial association networks. For that, EnDED offers up to four individual methods as well as their combination. However, especially for the intersection combination, we suggest using EnDED with other strategies to reduce the number of false associations and consequently the number of potential interaction hypotheses. Video abstract.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Ecological interactions among microorganisms are fundamental for ecosystem function, yet they are mostly unknown or poorly understood. High-throughput-omics can indicate microbial interactions through associations across time and space, which can be represented as association networks. Associations could result from either ecological interactions between microorganisms, or from environmental selection, where the association is environmentally driven. Therefore, before downstream analysis and interpretation, we need to distinguish the nature of the association, particularly if it is due to environmental selection or not.
RESULTS
We present EnDED (environmentally driven edge detection), an implementation of four approaches as well as their combination to predict which links between microorganisms in an association network are environmentally driven. The four approaches are sign pattern, overlap, interaction information, and data processing inequality. We tested EnDED on networks from simulated data of 50 microorganisms. The networks contained on average 50 nodes and 1087 edges, of which 60 were true interactions but 1026 false associations (i.e., environmentally driven or due to chance). Applying each method individually, we detected a moderate to high number of environmentally driven edges-87% sign pattern and overlap, 67% interaction information, and 44% data processing inequality. Combining these methods in an intersection approach resulted in retaining more interactions, both true and false (32% of environmentally driven associations). After validation with the simulated datasets, we applied EnDED on a marine microbial network inferred from 10 years of monthly observations of microbial-plankton abundance. The intersection combination predicted that 8.3% of the associations were environmentally driven, while individual methods predicted 24.8% (data processing inequality), 25.7% (interaction information), and up to 84.6% (sign pattern as well as overlap). The fraction of environmentally driven edges among negative microbial associations in the real network increased rapidly with the number of environmental factors.
CONCLUSIONS
To reach accurate hypotheses about ecological interactions, it is important to determine, quantify, and remove environmentally driven associations in marine microbial association networks. For that, EnDED offers up to four individual methods as well as their combination. However, especially for the intersection combination, we suggest using EnDED with other strategies to reduce the number of false associations and consequently the number of potential interaction hypotheses. Video abstract.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34823593
doi: 10.1186/s40168-021-01141-7
pii: 10.1186/s40168-021-01141-7
pmc: PMC8620190
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Video-Audio Media
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
232Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Cell Syst. 2017 Jan 25;4(1):129-137.e5
pubmed: 28125788
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(7):e1002606
pubmed: 22807668
IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2018 Jul-Aug;15(4):1193-1202
pubmed: 28981423
Bioinformatics. 2010 May 1;26(9):1135-9
pubmed: 20236946
Science. 2008 May 23;320(5879):1034-9
pubmed: 18497287
Front Microbiol. 2019 Mar 20;10:585
pubmed: 30949160
NPJ Syst Biol Appl. 2016 Mar 24;2:16007
pubmed: 28725469
J Mol Biol. 1990 Oct 5;215(3):403-10
pubmed: 2231712
BMC Bioinformatics. 2008 Oct 29;9:461
pubmed: 18959772
mSystems. 2019 May 28;4(3):
pubmed: 31138719
BMC Syst Biol. 2011;5 Suppl 2:S15
pubmed: 22784572
Nature. 2012 Jun 13;486(7402):207-14
pubmed: 22699609
Front Microbiol. 2014 May 20;5:219
pubmed: 24904535
PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Oct 2;13(10):e1005662
pubmed: 28968390
FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2018 Nov 1;42(6):761-780
pubmed: 30085090
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2012 Oct 2;109(40):16213-6
pubmed: 22927371
Science. 2015 May 22;348(6237):1262073
pubmed: 25999517
Mol Ecol. 2010 Mar;19 Suppl 1:21-31
pubmed: 20331767
Trends Microbiol. 2017 Mar;25(3):217-228
pubmed: 27916383
Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012 Jul 16;10(8):538-50
pubmed: 22796884
Science. 2011 May 6;332(6030):714-7
pubmed: 21551060
Methods. 2016 Jun 1;102:12-9
pubmed: 27025964
Nat Methods. 2016 Jul;13(7):581-3
pubmed: 27214047
Nat Commun. 2017 Dec 11;8(1):2042
pubmed: 29229902
PLoS Comput Biol. 2012;8(9):e1002687
pubmed: 23028285
BMC Bioinformatics. 2006 Mar 20;7 Suppl 1:S7
pubmed: 16723010
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Jun 22;118(25):
pubmed: 34155140
ISME J. 2011 Oct;5(10):1571-9
pubmed: 21472016
F1000Res. 2016 Jun 27;5:1519
pubmed: 27853510
PLoS One. 2014 May 07;9(5):e96732
pubmed: 24806471
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 15;29(2):230-7
pubmed: 23178636
Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Aug;71(2):439-41
pubmed: 12111669
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Aug;31(8):714-5
pubmed: 23929347
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2018 Aug;44:41-49
pubmed: 30041083
Front Microbiol. 2017 Nov 15;8:2224
pubmed: 29187837
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2007 Aug;73(16):5261-7
pubmed: 17586664
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Aug;31(8):726-33
pubmed: 23851448
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 May 3;113(18):5130-5
pubmed: 27092000
Interface Focus. 2013 Aug 6;3(4):20130011
pubmed: 24511376
Nat Biotechnol. 2013 Aug;31(8):720-5
pubmed: 23851447
PLoS Comput Biol. 2015 May 07;11(5):e1004226
pubmed: 25950956
mSystems. 2019 May 21;4(3):
pubmed: 31117020
Mol Ecol. 2019 Mar;28(5):923-935
pubmed: 30411822
PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(12):e1003388
pubmed: 24348232
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D590-6
pubmed: 23193283
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 May 24;113(21):5970-5
pubmed: 27140646
ISME J. 2020 Feb;14(2):544-559
pubmed: 31685936
Sci Rep. 2018 Apr 12;8(1):5875
pubmed: 29651160
Nature. 2016 Jun 08;534(7606):259-62
pubmed: 27279224
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Sep 21;107(38):16420-7
pubmed: 20807744
Science. 2015 Feb 13;347(6223):1257594
pubmed: 25678667
Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2002 May;65(5 Pt 2):057102
pubmed: 12059755
BMC Genomics. 2019 Apr 4;20(Suppl 2):185
pubmed: 30967122
Cell Syst. 2019 Sep 25;9(3):286-296.e8
pubmed: 31542415
mSystems. 2021 Jun 29;6(3):e0056521
pubmed: 34060911
Nature. 2009 May 14;459(7244):200-6
pubmed: 19444206
BMC Bioinformatics. 2010 Mar 25;11:154
pubmed: 20338053
BMC Microbiol. 2014 Dec 04;14:284
pubmed: 25472003
ISME J. 2016 Jul;10(7):1669-81
pubmed: 26905627
Nucleic Acids Res. 2013 Jan;41(Database issue):D597-604
pubmed: 23193267
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 Jun 9;95(12):6578-83
pubmed: 9618454
Am Nat. 2011 Oct;178(4):E85-95
pubmed: 21956036