skip to main content

Title: A Novel Sparse Compositional Technique Reveals Microbial Perturbations
ABSTRACT The central aims of many host or environmental microbiome studies are to elucidate factors associated with microbial community compositions and to relate microbial features to outcomes. However, these aims are often complicated by difficulties stemming from high-dimensionality, non-normality, sparsity, and the compositional nature of microbiome data sets. A key tool in microbiome analysis is beta diversity, defined by the distances between microbial samples. Many different distance metrics have been proposed, all with varying discriminatory power on data with differing characteristics. Here, we propose a compositional beta diversity metric rooted in a centered log-ratio transformation and matrix completion called robust Aitchison PCA. We demonstrate the benefits of compositional transformations upstream of beta diversity calculations through simulations. Additionally, we demonstrate improved effect size, classification accuracy, and robustness to sequencing depth over the current methods on several decreased sample subsets of real microbiome data sets. Finally, we highlight the ability of this new beta diversity metric to retain the feature loadings linked to sample ordinations revealing salient intercommunity niche feature importance. IMPORTANCE By accounting for the sparse compositional nature of microbiome data sets, robust Aitchison PCA can yield high discriminatory power and salient feature ranking between microbial niches. The software to perform more » this analysis is available under an open-source license and can be obtained at ; additionally, a QIIME 2 plugin is provided to perform this analysis at . « less
; ; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
1804187 1804733 1804671
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract Background

    Understanding the factors that influence microbes’ environmental distributions is important for determining drivers of microbial community composition. These include environmental variables like temperature and pH, and higher-dimensional variables like geographic distance and host species phylogeny. In microbial ecology, “specificity” is often described in the context of symbiotic or host parasitic interactions, but specificity can be more broadly used to describe the extent to which a species occupies a narrower range of an environmental variable than expected by chance. Using a standardization we describe here, Rao’s (Theor Popul Biol, 1982., Sankhya A, 2010. ) Quadratic Entropy can be conveniently applied to calculate specificity of a feature, such as a species, to many different environmental variables.


    We present our R packagespecificityfor performing the above analyses, and apply it to four real-life microbial data sets to demonstrate its application. We found that many fungi within the leaves of native Hawaiian plants had strong specificity to rainfall and elevation, even though these variables showed minimal importance in a previous analysis of fungal beta-diversity. In Antarctic cryoconite holes, our tool revealed that many bacteria have specificity to co-occurring algal community composition. Similarly, in the human gut microbiome, many bacteria showed specificity tomore »the composition of bile acids. Finally, our analysis of the Earth Microbiome Project data set showed that most bacteria show strong ontological specificity to sample type. Our software performed as expected on synthetic data as well.


    specificityis well-suited to analysis of microbiome data, both in synthetic test cases, and across multiple environment types and experimental designs. The analysis and software we present here can reveal patterns in microbial taxa that may not be evident from a community-level perspective. These insights can also be visualized and interactively shared among researchers usingspecificity’s companion package,specificity.shiny.

    « less
  2. Large-scale microbiome studies investigating disease-inducing microbial roles base their findings on differences between microbial count data in contrasting environments (e.g., stool samples between cases and controls). These microbiome survey studies are often impeded by small sample sizes and database bias. Combining data from multiple survey studies often results in obvious batch effects, even when DNA preparation and sequencing methods are identical. Relatedly, predictive models trained on one microbial DNA dataset often do not generalize to outside datasets. In this study, we address these limitations by applying word embedding algorithms (GloVe) and PCA transformation to ASV data from the American Gut Project and generating translation matrices that can be applied to any 16S rRNA V4 region gut microbiome sequencing study. Because these approaches contextualize microbial occurrences in a larger dataset while reducing dimensionality of the feature space, they can improve generalization of predictive models that predict host phenotype from stool associated gut microbiota. The GMEmbeddings R package contains GloVe and PCA embedding transformation matrices at 50, 100 and 250 dimensions, each learned using ∼15,000 samples from the American Gut Project. It currently supports the alignment, matching, and matrix multiplication to allow users to transform their V4 16S rRNA data into thesemore »embedding spaces. We show how to correlate the properties in the new embedding space to KEGG functional pathways for biological interpretation of results. Lastly, we provide benchmarking on six gut microbiome datasets describing three phenotypes to demonstrate the ability of embedding-based microbiome classifiers to generalize to independent datasets. Future iterations of GMEmbeddings will include embedding transformation matrices for other biological systems. Available at: .« less
  3. Greene, Casey S. (Ed.)
    ABSTRACT UniFrac is an important tool in microbiome research that is used for phylogenetically comparing microbiome profiles to one another (beta diversity). Striped UniFrac recently added the ability to split the problem into many independent subproblems, exhibiting nearly linear scaling but suffering from memory contention. Here, we adapt UniFrac to graphics processing units using OpenACC, enabling greater than 1,000× computational improvement, and apply it to 307,237 samples, the largest 16S rRNA V4 uniformly preprocessed microbiome data set analyzed to date. IMPORTANCE UniFrac is an important tool in microbiome research that is used for phylogenetically comparing microbiome profiles to one another. Here, we adapt UniFrac to operate on graphics processing units, enabling a 1,000× computational improvement. To highlight this advance, we perform what may be the largest microbiome analysis to date, applying UniFrac to 307,237 16S rRNA V4 microbiome samples preprocessed with Deblur. These scaling improvements turn UniFrac into a real-time tool for common data sets and unlock new research questions as more microbiome data are collected.
  4. Globally, biodiversity has declined at an unprecedented rate, challenging the viability of ecosystems, species, and ecological functions and their corresponding services. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs have been established and implemented worldwide to combat the degradation or loss of essential ecosystems and ecosystem services with-out sacrificing the well-being of people. With an overarching goal of reducing soil ero-sion, China’s Grain-to-Green program (GTGP) converts cropland to forest or grassland. As one of the largest PES programs in the world, GTGP has great potential to offer biodi-versity conservation co-benefits. To consider how GTGP may influence biodiversity, we measured forest structure and plant and wildlife species diversity at both GTGP forest and natural forest sites in Fangjingshan National Nature Reserve, China. We also evaluated the relationship between canopy cover and biodiversity measures to test whether forest cover, the most commonly measured and reported ecological metric of PES programs, might act as a good proxy for other biodiversity related parameters. We found that forest cover and species diversity increased after GTGP implementation as understory and overstory plant cover, and understory and midstory plant diversity at GTGP sites were similar to natural forest. Our results suggest that GTGP may also have been associated withmore »increased habitat for protected and vulnerable wildlife species including Elliot’s pheasant (Syrmaticus elli-oti), hog badger (Arctonyx collaris), and wild boar (Sus scrofa). Nevertheless, we identi-fied key differences between GTGP forest and natural forest, particularly variation in forest types and heterogeneity of overstory vegetation. As a result, plant overstory diversity and wildlife species richness at GTGP forest were significantly lower than at natural forest. Our findings suggest, while forest cover may be a good proxy for some metrics of forest struc-ture, it does not serve as a robust proxy for many biodiversity parameters. These findings highlight the need for and importance of robust and representative indicators or proxy vari-ables for measuring ecological effects of PES programs on compositional and structural diversity. We demonstrate that PES may lead to biodiversity co-benefits, but changes in program implementation could improve the return on investment of PES programs to sup-port conservation of biodiversity.« less
  5. Obeid, I. (Ed.)
    The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples [1], as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” [2]. The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition [3], image recognition [4] and text processing [5] are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do notmore »have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets [6]. A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 [7], that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated [1] using the nine labels in Table 1 [8] to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER [9]. Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository ( -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES [1] N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. [2] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. [3] A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. [4] C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. [5] I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021]. [6] V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. [7] J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. [8] I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. [9] A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016.« less