Boolean analysis reveals systematic interactions among low-abundance species in the human gut microbiome

PLoS Comput Biol. 2017 Jun 22;13(6):e1005361. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005361. eCollection 2017 Jun.

Abstract

The analysis of microbiome compositions in the human gut has gained increasing interest due to the broader availability of data and functional databases and substantial progress in data analysis methods, but also due to the high relevance of the microbiome in human health and disease. While most analyses infer interactions among highly abundant species, the large number of low-abundance species has received less attention. Here we present a novel analysis method based on Boolean operations applied to microbial co-occurrence patterns. We calibrate our approach with simulated data based on a dynamical Boolean network model from which we interpret the statistics of attractor states as a theoretical proxy for microbiome composition. We show that for given fractions of synergistic and competitive interactions in the model our Boolean abundance analysis can reliably detect these interactions. Analyzing a novel data set of 822 microbiome compositions of the human gut, we find a large number of highly significant synergistic interactions among these low-abundance species, forming a connected network, and a few isolated competitive interactions.

MeSH terms

  • Bacterial Load / methods
  • Bacterial Load / statistics & numerical data
  • Computer Simulation
  • Data Interpretation, Statistical
  • Gastrointestinal Microbiome / physiology*
  • Gastrointestinal Tract / microbiology*
  • Humans
  • Metagenome
  • Microbial Interactions / physiology*
  • Microbiota / physiology*
  • Models, Biological*
  • Models, Statistical*
  • Pattern Recognition, Automated

Grants and funding

Financial support from the German Ministery for Education and Research (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, BMBF) www.bmbf.de (sysINFLAME project within the e:med program, grant 01ZX1306D) is gratefully acknowledged. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.