Literature DB >> 35867822

LOCOM: A logistic regression model for testing differential abundance in compositional microbiome data with false discovery rate control.

Yingtian Hu1, Glen A Satten2, Yi-Juan Hu1.   

Abstract

Compositional analysis is based on the premise that a relatively small proportion of taxa are differentially abundant, while the ratios of the relative abundances of the remaining taxa remain unchanged. Most existing methods use log-transformed data, but log-transformation of data with pervasive zero counts is problematic, and these methods cannot always control the false discovery rate (FDR). Further, high-throughput microbiome data such as 16S amplicon or metagenomic sequencing are subject to experimental biases that are introduced in every step of the experimental workflow. McLaren et al. [eLife 8, e46923 (2019)] have recently proposed a model for how these biases affect relative abundance data. Motivated by this model, we show that the odds ratios in a logistic regression comparing counts in two taxa are invariant to experimental biases. With this motivation, we propose logistic compositional analysis (LOCOM), a robust logistic regression approach to compositional analysis, that does not require pseudocounts. Inference is based on permutation to account for overdispersion and small sample sizes. Traits can be either binary or continuous, and adjustment for confounders is supported. Our simulations indicate that LOCOM always preserved FDR and had much improved sensitivity over existing methods. In contrast, analysis of composition of microbiomes (ANCOM) and ANCOM with bias correction (ANCOM-BC)/ANOVA-Like Differential Expression tool (ALDEx2) had inflated FDR when the effect sizes were small and large, respectively. Only LOCOM was robust to experimental biases in every situation. The flexibility of our method for a variety of microbiome studies is illustrated by the analysis of data from two microbiome studies. Our R package LOCOM is publicly available.

Entities:  

Keywords:  experimental bias; log ratio; logit model; pseudocount; sparse data

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35867822      PMCID: PMC9335309          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2122788119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   12.779


  31 in total

1.  Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies.

Authors:  Paul I Costea; Georg Zeller; Shinichi Sunagawa; Eric Pelletier; Adriana Alberti; Florence Levenez; Melanie Tramontano; Marja Driessen; Rajna Hercog; Ferris-Elias Jung; Jens Roat Kultima; Matthew R Hayward; Luis Pedro Coelho; Emma Allen-Vercoe; Laurie Bertrand; Michael Blaut; Jillian R M Brown; Thomas Carton; Stéphanie Cools-Portier; Michelle Daigneault; Muriel Derrien; Anne Druesne; Willem M de Vos; B Brett Finlay; Harry J Flint; Francisco Guarner; Masahira Hattori; Hans Heilig; Ruth Ann Luna; Johan van Hylckama Vlieg; Jana Junick; Ingeborg Klymiuk; Philippe Langella; Emmanuelle Le Chatelier; Volker Mai; Chaysavanh Manichanh; Jennifer C Martin; Clémentine Mery; Hidetoshi Morita; Paul W O'Toole; Céline Orvain; Kiran Raosaheb Patil; John Penders; Søren Persson; Nicolas Pons; Milena Popova; Anne Salonen; Delphine Saulnier; Karen P Scott; Bhagirath Singh; Kathleen Slezak; Patrick Veiga; James Versalovic; Liping Zhao; Erwin G Zoetendal; S Dusko Ehrlich; Joel Dore; Peer Bork
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2017-10-02       Impact factor: 54.908

2.  A broken promise: microbiome differential abundance methods do not control the false discovery rate.

Authors:  Stijn Hawinkel; Federico Mattiello; Luc Bijnens; Olivier Thas
Journal:  Brief Bioinform       Date:  2019-01-18       Impact factor: 11.622

3.  Generalized Hotelling's test for paired compositional data with application to human microbiome studies.

Authors:  Ni Zhao; Xiang Zhan; Katherine A Guthrie; Caroline M Mitchell; Joseph Larson
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2018-05-07       Impact factor: 2.135

4.  A rarefaction-without-resampling extension of PERMANOVA for testing presence-absence associations in the microbiome.

Authors:  Yi-Juan Hu; Glen A Satten
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2022-06-20       Impact factor: 6.937

5.  Disordered microbial communities in the upper respiratory tract of cigarette smokers.

Authors:  Emily S Charlson; Jun Chen; Rebecca Custers-Allen; Kyle Bittinger; Hongzhe Li; Rohini Sinha; Jennifer Hwang; Frederic D Bushman; Ronald G Collman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys.

Authors:  Joseph N Paulson; O Colin Stine; Héctor Corrada Bravo; Mihai Pop
Journal:  Nat Methods       Date:  2013-09-29       Impact factor: 28.547

Review 7.  Microbiome Datasets Are Compositional: And This Is Not Optional.

Authors:  Gregory B Gloor; Jean M Macklaim; Vera Pawlowsky-Glahn; Juan J Egozcue
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2017-11-15       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 8.  The Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes Ratio: A Relevant Marker of Gut Dysbiosis in Obese Patients?

Authors:  Fabien Magne; Martin Gotteland; Lea Gauthier; Alejandra Zazueta; Susana Pesoa; Paola Navarrete; Ramadass Balamurugan
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-05-19       Impact factor: 5.717

9.  Analysis of compositions of microbiomes with bias correction.

Authors:  Huang Lin; Shyamal Das Peddada
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2020-07-14       Impact factor: 14.919

10.  A rarefaction-based extension of the LDM for testing presence-absence associations in the microbiome.

Authors:  Yi-Juan Hu; Andrea Lane; Glen A Satten
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2021-01-21       Impact factor: 6.937

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.