{"id":618797,"date":"2023-03-17T03:56:06","date_gmt":"2023-03-17T08:56:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/news.sellorbuyhomefast.com\/index.php\/2023\/03\/17\/contamination-source-modeling-with-scrub-improves-cancer-phenotype-prediction-from-microbiome-data\/"},"modified":"2023-03-17T03:56:06","modified_gmt":"2023-03-17T08:56:06","slug":"contamination-source-modeling-with-scrub-improves-cancer-phenotype-prediction-from-microbiome-data","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2023\/03\/17\/contamination-source-modeling-with-scrub-improves-cancer-phenotype-prediction-from-microbiome-data\/","title":{"rendered":"Contamination source modeling with SCRuB improves cancer phenotype prediction from microbiome data"},"content":{"rendered":"

Science & Nature <\/p>\n

\n
\n

Data availability<\/h2>\n

Sequencing data from our experiments, along with all relevant metadata, was uploaded to SRA, accession PRJNA905430<\/a> (ref. 55<\/a><\/sup>). All other datasets analyzed in this study are publicly available. The college dormitory dataset25<\/a><\/sup> used in Fig. 1<\/a> and Extended Data Figs. 3<\/a>\u20135<\/a> is available from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA), accession ERP115809<\/a>, and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 12470. The marine sediments dataset, used in Extended Data Fig. 3a,b<\/a>, is available from Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 11922. The fish microbiome dataset42<\/a><\/sup>, used in Extended Data Fig. 3c,d<\/a>, is available from ENA, accession PRJEB54736<\/a>, and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 13414. The Earth Microbiome Project soil dataset43<\/a><\/sup>, used in Extended Data Fig. 3e,f<\/a>, is available from ENA, accession PRJEB42019<\/a>, and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 13114. The office dataset44<\/a><\/sup>, used in Extended Data Fig. 3g,h<\/a>, is available from ENA, accession PRJEB13115<\/a>, and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 10423. The Central Park soil dataset45<\/a><\/sup>, used in Extended Data Fig. 3i,j<\/a>, is available from ENA, accession PRJEB6614, and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 2104. The gut metagenomic dataset46<\/a><\/sup>, used in Extended Data Fig. 3k,l<\/a>, is available from ENA, accession PRJEB50408<\/a>, and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 13692. The negative controls dataset, used in Fig. 1<\/a>, and Extended Data Figs. 3a\u2013f<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 5<\/a> is available from Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 12019; the one used in Extended Data Fig. 3g,h,k,l<\/a> is available from ENA, accession PRJEB40903<\/a>, and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 12201; and the one used in Extended Data Fig. 3i,j<\/a> is available from ENA, accession PRJEB25617<\/a>, and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study ID 10333. The well-to-well leakage dataset32<\/a><\/sup>, is available from ENA, accession ERP115213<\/a>. The plasma cfDNA data20<\/a><\/sup> is available from ENA, accessions ERP119598<\/a>, ERP119596<\/a> and ERP119597<\/a>; and Qiita41<\/a><\/sup>, study IDs 12667, 12691 and 12692. The tumor microbiome dataset18<\/a><\/sup> is available from SRA, accession PRJNA624822<\/a>. The processed data was obtained from Supplementary Table 2<\/a> in ref. 18<\/a><\/sup>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Code availability<\/h2>\n
\n

SCRuB is available at https:\/\/github.com\/Shenhav-and-Korem-labs\/SCRuB<\/a>56<\/a><\/sup> and requires R (\u22653.6.3), glmnet57<\/a><\/sup> (4.1-4) and torch (1.3.1). A Code Ocean capsule replicating all analyses in this paper is available at https:\/\/codeocean.com\/capsule\/5737862\/tree\/v1<\/a> (ref. 58<\/a><\/sup>), with source code also available at https:\/\/github.com\/Shenhav-and-Korem-labs\/SCRuB_analysis<\/a>. Both use tidyverse59<\/a><\/sup> (0.7.2) and XGBoost60<\/a><\/sup> (1.5.0). The decontamination pipeline used by Nejman et al.18<\/a><\/sup> is available from Zenodo at https:\/\/doi.org\/10.5281\/zenodo.3740536<\/a>, and the prediction pipeline used by Poore et al.20<\/a><\/sup> is available at https:\/\/github.com\/biocore\/tcga<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n

References<\/h2>\n
\n
    \n
  1. \n

    Salter, S. J. et al. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact sequence-based microbiome analyses. BMC Biol.<\/i> 12<\/b>, 87 (2014).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Weyrich, L. S. et al. Laboratory contamination over time during low-biomass sample analysis. Mol. Ecol. Resour.<\/i> 19<\/b>, 982\u2013996 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Kim, D. et al. Optimizing methods and dodging pitfalls in microbiome research. Microbiome<\/i> 5<\/b>, 52 (2017).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Eisenhofer, R. et al. Contamination in low microbial biomass microbiome studies: issues and recommendations. Trends Microbiol.<\/i> 27<\/b>, 105\u2013117 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  5. \n

    Weiss, S. et al. Tracking down the sources of experimental contamination in microbiome studies. Genome Biol.<\/i> 15<\/b>, 564 (2014).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  6. \n

    Aagaard, K. et al. The placenta harbors a unique microbiome. Sci. Transl. Med.<\/i> 6<\/b>, 237ra65 (2014).<\/p>\n

    PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  7. \n

    Parnell, L. A. et al. Microbial communities in placentas from term normal pregnancy exhibit spatially variable profiles. Sci Rep.<\/i> 7<\/b>, 11200 (2017).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  8. \n

    Seferovic, M. D. et al. Visualization of microbes by 16S in situ hybridization in term and preterm placentas without intraamniotic infection. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.<\/i> 221<\/b>, 146.e1\u2013146.e23 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  9. \n

    de Goffau, M. C. et al. Human placenta has no microbiome but can contain potential pathogens. Nature<\/i> 572<\/b>, 329\u2013334 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  10. \n

    Leiby, J. S. et al. Lack of detection of a human placenta microbiome in samples from preterm and term deliveries. Microbiome<\/i> 6<\/b>, 196 (2018).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  11. \n

    Kuperman, A. A. et al. Deep microbial analysis of multiple placentas shows no evidence for a placental microbiome. BJOG<\/i> 127<\/b>, 159\u2013169 (2020).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  12. \n

    Sinha, R., Abnet, C. C., White, O., Knight, R. & Huttenhower, C. The microbiome quality control project: baseline study design and future directions. Genome Biol.<\/i> 16<\/b>, 276 (2015).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  13. \n

    Edmonds, K. & Williams, L. The role of the negative control in microbiome analyses. FASEB J.<\/i> 31<\/b>, 940.3 (2017).<\/p>\n


    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  14. \n

    Schierwagen, R. et al. Trust is good, control is better: technical considerations in blood microbiome analysis. Gut<\/i> 69<\/b>, 1362\u20131363 (2020).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  15. \n

    de Goffau, M. C. et al. Recognizing the reagent microbiome. Nat Microbiol<\/i> 3<\/b>, 851\u2013853 (2018).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  16. \n

    van der Horst, J. et al. Sterile paper points as a bacterial DNA-contamination source in microbiome profiles of clinical samples. J. Dent.<\/i> 41<\/b>, 1297\u20131301 (2013).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  17. \n

    Olomu, I. N. et al. Elimination of \u2018kitome\u2019 and \u2018splashome\u2019 contamination results in lack of detection of a unique placental microbiome. BMC Microbiol.<\/i> 20<\/b>, 157 (2020).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  18. \n

    Nejman, D. et al. The human tumor microbiome is composed of tumor type-specific intracellular bacteria. Science<\/i> 368<\/b>, 973\u2013980 (2020).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  19. \n

    Pinto-Ribeiro, I. et al. Evaluation of the use of formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded archive gastric tissues for microbiota characterization using next-generation sequencing. Int. J. Mol. Sci.<\/i> 21<\/b>, 1096 (2020).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  20. \n

    Poore, G. D. et al. Microbiome analyses of blood and tissues suggest cancer diagnostic approach. Nature<\/i> 579<\/b>, 567\u2013574 (2020).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  21. \n

    Wang, J. et al. Translocation of vaginal microbiota is involved in impairment and protection of uterine health. Nat. Commun.<\/i> 12<\/b>, 4191 (2021).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  22. \n

    Lam, S. Y. et al. Technical challenges regarding the use of formalin-fixed paraffin embedded (FFPE) tissue specimens for the detection of bacterial alterations in colorectal cancer. BMC Microbiol.<\/i> 21<\/b>, 297 (2021).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  23. \n

    Allali, I. et al. Gut microbiome compositional and functional differences between tumor and non-tumor adjacent tissues from cohorts from the US and Spain. Gut Microbes<\/i> 6<\/b>, 161\u2013172 (2015).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  24. \n

    Marotz, C. et al. SARS-CoV-2 detection status associates with bacterial community composition in patients and the hospital environment. Microbiome<\/i> 9<\/b>, 132 (2021).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  25. \n

    Richardson, M., Gottel, N., Gilbert, J. A. & Lax, S. Microbial similarity between students in a common dormitory environment reveals the forensic potential of individual microbial signatures. mBio<\/i> 10<\/b>, e01054-19 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  26. \n

    Chen, Q.-L. et al. Rare microbial taxa as the major drivers of ecosystem multifunctionality in long-term fertilized soils. Soil Biol. Biochem.<\/i> 141<\/b>, 107686 (2020).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  27. \n

    Smirnova, E., Huzurbazar, S. & Jafari, F. PERFect: PERmutation Filtering test for microbiome data. Biostatistics<\/i> 20<\/b>, 615\u2013631 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  28. \n

    Davis, N. M., Proctor, D. M., Holmes, S. P., Relman, D. A. & Callahan, B. J. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome<\/i> 6<\/b>, 226 (2018).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  29. \n

    McKnight, D. T. et al. microDecon: a highly accurate read\u2010subtraction tool for the post\u2010sequencing removal of contamination in metabarcoding studies. Environ. DNA<\/i> 1<\/b>, 14\u201325 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  30. \n

    Shenhav, L. et al. FEAST: fast expectation-maximization for microbial source tracking. Nat. Methods<\/i> 16<\/b>, 627\u2013632 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  31. \n

    Knights, D. et al. Bayesian community-wide culture-independent microbial source tracking. Nat. Methods<\/i> 8<\/b>, 761\u2013763 (2011).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  32. \n

    Minich, J. J. et al. Quantifying and understanding well-to-well contamination in microbiome research. mSystems<\/i> 4<\/b>, e00186-19 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  33. \n

    Lou, Y. C. et al. Using strain-resolved analysis to identify contamination in metagenomics data. Preprint at bioRxiv<\/i> https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1101\/2022.01.16.476537<\/a> (2022).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  34. \n

    An, U. et al. STENSL: Microbial Source Tracking with ENvironment SeLection. mSystems<\/i> 7<\/b>, e0099521 (2022).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  35. \n

    Bolyen, E. et al. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat. Biotechnol.<\/i> 37<\/b>, 852\u2013857 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  36. \n

    Karstens, L. et al. Controlling for contaminants in low-biomass 16S rRNA gene sequencing experiments. mSystems<\/i> 4<\/b>, e00290-19 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  37. \n

    Flores, R. et al. Collection media and delayed freezing effects on microbial composition of human stool. Microbiome<\/i> 3<\/b>, 33 (2015).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  38. \n

    Adams, R. I., Bateman, A. C., Bik, H. M. & Meadow, J. F. Microbiota of the indoor environment: a meta-analysis. Microbiome<\/i> 3<\/b>, 49 (2015).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  39. \n

    Lou, Y. C. et al. Infant gut strain persistence is associated with maternal origin, phylogeny, and traits including surface adhesion and iron acquisition. Cell Rep. Med.<\/i> 2<\/b>, 100393 (2021).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  40. \n

    Hornung, B. V. H., Zwittink, R. D. & Kuijper, E. J. Issues and current standards of controls in microbiome research. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.<\/i> 95<\/b>, fiz045 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  41. \n

    Gonzalez, A. et al. Qiita: rapid, web-enabled microbiome meta-analysis. Nat. Methods<\/i> 15<\/b>, 796\u2013798 (2018).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  42. \n

    Minich, J. J. et al. Host biology, ecology and the environment influence microbial biomass and diversity in 101 marine fish species. Nat. Commun.<\/i> 13<\/b>, 6978 (2022).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  43. \n

    Shaffer, J. P. et al. Standardized multi-omics of Earth\u2019s microbiomes reveals microbial and metabolite diversity. Nat Microbiol.<\/i> 7<\/b>, 2128\u20132150 (2022).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  44. \n

    Chase, J. et al. Geography and location are the primary drivers of office microbiome composition. mSystems<\/i> 1<\/b>, e00022-16 (2016).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  45. \n

    Ramirez, K. S. et al. Biogeographic patterns in below-ground diversity in New York City\u2019s Central Park are similar to those observed globally. Proc. Biol. Sci.<\/i> 281<\/b>, 20141988 (2014).<\/p>\n

    PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  46. \n

    Hanes, D. et al. The gastrointestinal and microbiome impact of a resistant starch blend from potato, banana, and apple fibers: a randomized clinical trial using smart caps. Front. Nutr.<\/i> 9<\/b>, 987216 (2022).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  47. \n

    Shaffer, J. P. et al. A comparison of DNA\/RNA extraction protocols for high-throughput sequencing of microbial communities. Biotechniques<\/i> 70<\/b>, 149\u2013159 (2021).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  48. \n

    Ruiz-Calderon, J. F. et al. Walls talk: microbial biogeography of homes spanning urbanization. Sci. Adv.<\/i> 2<\/b>, e1501061 (2016).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  49. \n

    Robin, X. et al. pROC: an open-source package for R and S to analyze and compare ROC curves. BMC Bioinformatics<\/i> 12<\/b>, 77 (2011).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  50. \n

    Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods<\/i> 13<\/b>, 581\u2013583 (2016).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  51. \n

    Annavajhala, M. K. et al. Oral and gut microbial diversity and immune regulation in patients with HIV on antiretroviral therapy. mSphere<\/i> 5<\/b>, e00798-19 (2020).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  52. \n

    Graspeuntner, S., Loeper, N., K\u00fcnzel, S., Baines, J. F. & Rupp, J. Selection of validated hypervariable regions is crucial in 16S-based microbiota studies of the female genital tract. Sci. Rep.<\/i> 8<\/b>, 9678 (2018).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  53. \n

    Herlemann, D. P. et al. Transitions in bacterial communities along the 2000 km salinity gradient of the Baltic Sea. ISME J.<\/i> 5<\/b>, 1571\u20131579 (2011).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     CAS<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  54. \n

    Law, C. W., Chen, Y., Shi, W. & Smyth, G. K. voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biol.<\/i> 15<\/b>, R29 (2014).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  55. \n

    Austin, G. I. et al. Contamination benchmark using human-derived samples. NCBI<\/i> https:\/\/www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov\/bioproject\/PRJNA905430<\/a> (2022).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  56. \n

    Austin, G. I., Shenhav, L. & Korem, T. SCRuB. GitHuB<\/i> https:\/\/github.com\/Shenhav-and-Korem-labs\/SCRuB<\/a> (2023).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  57. \n

    Friedman, J., Hastie, T. & Tibshirani, R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J. Stat. Softw.<\/i> 33<\/b>, 1\u201322 (2010).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed<\/a>\u00a0
    \n     PubMed Central<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  58. \n

    Shenhav, L., Korem, T., & Austin, G. Contamination source modeling with SCRuB improves cancer phenotype prediction from microbiome data. Code Ocean<\/i> https:\/\/doi.org\/10.24433\/CO.2307706.v1<\/a> (2023).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  59. \n

    Wickham, H. et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J. Open Source Softw.<\/i> 4<\/b>, 1686 (2019).<\/p>\n

    Article<\/a>\u00a0
    \n
    \n Google Scholar<\/a>\u00a0\n <\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  60. \n

    Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: a scalable tree boosting system. In Proc. 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining<\/i> (eds Krishnapuram, B. et al.) 785\u2013794 (ACM, 2016).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Download references<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    Acknowledgements<\/h2>\n

    We thank members of the Korem group for useful discussions. We are grateful to G. D. Poore, C. Martino, R. Knight, R. Straussman and I. Livyatan for assistance with analyzing and interpreting data from their studies, and to R. Straussman and I. Livyatan for helpful comments on the paper. In general, we thank all authors and participants involved in the generation of all data used in this study. The study was supported by the center for studies in Physics and Biology at Rockefeller University (L.S.), the Program for Mathematical Genomics at Columbia University (T.K.), the CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholarship in the Humans & the Microbiome Program (T.K.), R01HD106017 (T.K.) and R01CA245894 (A.-C.U.).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

    \n

    Author information<\/h2>\n
    \n

    Author notes<\/span><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. \n

      These authors contributed equally: Liat Shenhav, Tal Korem.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Authors and Affiliations<\/h3>\n
        \n
      1. \n

        Department of Computer Science, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA<\/p>\n

        George I. Austin\u00a0&\u00a0Itsik Pe\u2019er<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      2. \n

        Program for Mathematical Genomics, Department of Systems Biology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA<\/p>\n

        George I. Austin,\u00a0Yoli Meydan,\u00a0Itsik Pe\u2019er\u00a0&\u00a0Tal Korem<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      3. \n

        Division of Infectious Diseases, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA<\/p>\n

        Heekuk Park,\u00a0Dwayne Seeram\u00a0&\u00a0Anne-Catrin Uhlemann<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      4. \n

        Department of Dermatology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA<\/p>\n

        Tanya Sezin\u00a0&\u00a0Angela M. Christiano<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      5. \n

        Department of Plant and Microbial Biology, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA<\/p>\n

        Yue Clare Lou<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      6. \n

        Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA<\/p>\n

        Brian A. Firek\u00a0&\u00a0Michael J. Morowitz<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      7. \n

        Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA<\/p>\n

        Jillian F. Banfield<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      8. \n

        Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA<\/p>\n

        Jillian F. Banfield<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      9. \n

        Innovative Genomics Institute, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA<\/p>\n

        Jillian F. Banfield<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      10. \n

        Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, San Francisco, CA, USA<\/p>\n

        Jillian F. Banfield<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      11. \n

        Department of Genetics and Development, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA<\/p>\n

        Angela M. Christiano<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      12. \n

        Data Science Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA<\/p>\n

        Itsik Pe\u2019er<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      13. \n

        Center for Studies in Physics and Biology, Rockefeller University, New York, NY, USA<\/p>\n

        Liat Shenhav<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      14. \n

        Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA<\/p>\n

        Tal Korem<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

      15. \n

        CIFAR Azrieli Global Scholars program, CIFAR, Toronto, Canada<\/p>\n

        Tal Korem<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Contributions<\/h3>\n

        G.I.A. wrote SCRuB, and designed and conducted all computational analyses. H.K. designed and conducted all experiments. Y.M. assisted with analyses. D.S. contributed to experiments. T.S. collected samples. A.M.C. supervised sample collection. A.-C.U supervised all experiments. Y.C.L, B.F, M.M and J.F.B assisted in obtaining, analyzing and interpreting data from their study. L.S. and T.K. conceived and designed the study, designed analysis, jointly supervised the study and contributed equally to this work. G.I.A., I.P., L.S. and T.K. interpreted the results and wrote the paper.<\/p>\n

        Corresponding authors<\/h3>\n

        Correspondence to
        \n Liat Shenhav<\/a> or Tal Korem<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Ethics declarations<\/h2>\n
        \n

        Competing interests<\/h3>\n

        A.-C.U. has received research funding from Merck that is unrelated to this study. The other authors declare no competing interests.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Peer review<\/h2>\n
        \n

        Peer review information<\/h3>\n

        Nature Biotechnology<\/i> thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Additional information<\/h2>\n

        Publisher\u2019s note<\/b> Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended data<\/h2>\n
        \n
        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 1 Empirical validation of the source-tracking assumption in data from Nejman et al.18<\/a><\/sup>.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        The source-tracking assumption30<\/a>,31<\/a>,34<\/a><\/sup> in the context of contamination stipulates that taxa present together in a contamination source will be introduced together to other samples, and in similar proportions as in the contamination source. We demonstrate this empirically using data from Nejamn et al.18<\/a><\/sup>. a<\/b>, The average relative abundance of each ASV (y-axis) across samples from the Netherlands Cancer Institute, plotted against the abundance of the same ASV across negative controls from the same batch (x-axis; \u2018No Template Controls\u2019 in Nejman et al.18<\/a><\/sup>), separated to \u2018high\u2019 and \u2018low\u2019 contamination based on SCRuB\u2019s prediction (contamination parameter p\u2009>\u20090.5 and p\u2009\u2264\u20090.5 respectively). Consistent with the source-tracking assumption, taxa present together in a contamination source are introduced together to the samples, and in similar proportions, resulting in a clear positive correlation between the relative abundance of the taxa that are shared between samples and controls (Pearson R\u2009=\u20090.99, P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u221220<\/sup> and R\u2009=\u20090.082, P<\/i>\u2009=\u20090.037 for high and low contamination, respectively). As expected, this correlation varies with respect to SCRuB\u2019s predicted contamination in the samples: samples predicted to have high-contamination (blue) have a slope of 0.97, while those predicted to have low-contamination have a slope of 0.057. b,c<\/b>, Same as (a) for samples predicted to have the highest (b) and lowest (c) contamination. Pearson R is displayed for panels with >3 shared taxa. Correlation was very high for highly contaminated samples (Pearson R\u2009>\u20090.9, P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22124<\/sup> for all).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 2 Description of our simulation framework.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        A visualization of the simulation framework used to benchmark different decontamination methods. We implemented our simulation with the 3 outlined steps: a<\/b>, We generate a dataset with 88\u201394 samples, 2, 4 or 8 controls, and a contamination source from an unrelated study, assumed to be biologically distinct from the samples of interest. All samples are then assigned locations across the plate. b<\/b>, We add well-to-well leakage to the controls, and contamination from the shared source to the samples of interest (Methods<\/a>). c<\/b>, We run decontamination using one of several methods (Methods<\/a>). The decontaminated dataset is evaluated against the ground truth noncontaminated taxonomic compositions using the Jensen-Shannon divergence.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 3 SCRuB outperforms alternative decontamination methods under in silico simulations of diverse environments and data types.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        a-l<\/b>, Same as Fig. 1c, d<\/a>, but for simulations based on data from 16S amplicon sequencing of tropical marine sediments (Qiita41<\/a><\/sup> study ID 11922; a,b<\/b>); 16S amplicon sequencing of multiple body sites from southern California fish42<\/a><\/sup> (c,d<\/b>); 16S amplicon sequencing of soil from the Earth Microbiome Project43<\/a><\/sup> (e,f<\/b>); ITS sequencing of office samples44<\/a><\/sup> (g,h<\/b>); 18S amplicon sequencing of soil from Central Park, New York45<\/a><\/sup> (i,j<\/b>); and human gut metagenomic sequencing46<\/a><\/sup> (k,l<\/b>). N\u2009=\u2009120 simulations per panel. Across almost all simulation scenarios and environments SCRuB outperforms alternative decontamination approaches. Contamination levels were fixed to 5% for the simulations in panels b, d, f, h, j, and l. Box line, median; box, IQR; whiskers, 1.5*IQR; *, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22124<\/sup> for comparison between SCRuB and marked method (see Supplementary Table 1<\/a> for exact P<\/i> values).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 4 SCRuB is robust to evaluation metrics and simulation parameters.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        a-d<\/b>, Same as Fig. 1c, d<\/a>, box and swarm plot (line, median; box, IQR; whiskers, 1.5*IQR) showing the mean (a,b) and standard deviation (c,d) of the Jensen-Shannon divergence (JSD) between the ground truth of each experiment and its decontamination output. SCRuB performs similarly when evaluated using mean JSD, and displays stable standard deviation. e,f<\/b>, Same as Fig. 1c, d<\/a>, but with controls placed along the edge of a plate rather than randomly. Similar to Fig. 1c, d<\/a>, SCRuB outperforms alternative methods under all parameters except no decontamination and microDecon with 50% well-to-well leakage levels. g<\/b>, Shown are the results from Fig. 1d<\/a> with well-to-well leakage levels of 5%, stratified by the number of controls (N\u2009=\u200910 experiments per set). SCRuB outperforms alternative decontamination methods regardless of the number of controls (one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22123<\/sup> for all, P<\/i>\u2009=\u20090.0029 vs. microDecon with one control). h<\/b>, Same as Fig. 1d<\/a>, showing also results from SCRuB running without sample location, and thus without accounting for well-to-well leakage. While SCRuB outperforms SCRuB without sample locations in all simulations (P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22124<\/sup> for all), SCRuB without sample locations still outperforms alternative decontamination methods in many settings. *, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22123<\/sup> (panel g) P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22124<\/sup> (otherwise) for comparison between SCRuB (panels a-g) and SCRuB without sample locations (panel h) and the marked method (see Supplementary Table 1<\/a> for exact P<\/i> values). * is on the bottom if the marked method has better performance.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 5 SCRuB is robust to sequencing depth.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        Shown are results from in silico simulations under our model (Methods<\/a>). a<\/b>, Comparison between experiments in which the read counts of all samples were set to either 1,000, 5,000, 10,000, or 25,000 reads, under contamination and well-to-well leakage levels of 5%. With the exception of the depth of 1,000 reads, SCRuB outperformed the alternative methods in all simulations (one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22123<\/sup> for all). At a depth of 1,000 reads, SCRuB had comparable performance to decontam (P<\/i>\u2009=\u20090.19), and significantly outperformed the rest (P<\/i>\u2009<\u20090.01 for all). b<\/b>, For each experiment, the mean read depth was set to 10,000, the standard deviation to 2,500, and the contamination and well-to-well leakage levels to 5%. We divided the samples from each experiment into four groups, Q1-Q4, based on the within-experiment quantile to which the read depth of each sample belonged to. Within all groups, SCRuB outperformed alternative decontamination methods (P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22123<\/sup> for all), demonstrating that SCRuB has consistent performance within an experiment with varying read depths. c<\/b>, Results from experiments with a mean read depth of 10,000, standard deviation of 0, 500, 2,500 or 7,500, and contamination and well-to-well leakage levels of to 5%. Across all standard deviations, SCRuB outperformed competing methods, demonstrating that it is robust to variability in read coverage across experiments. Box line, median; box, IQR; box whiskers, 1.5*IQR; *, one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank P<\/i>\u2009<\u20090.01 for comparison between SCRuB and marked method (see Supplementary Table 1<\/a> for exact P<\/i> values).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 6 SCRuB correctly handles unrelated controls.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        a<\/b>, Venn diagram illustrating the taxa removed by each decontamination method, defined as a taxa with an aggregate sum greater than zero in the observed data, and an aggregate sum of zero in the decontaminated data. When presented with unrelated controls, SCRuB removed far fewer taxa than microDecon and either version of decontam, and the majority of taxa removed by SCRuB were also removed by microDecon and decontam (LB). b<\/b>, Box and swarm plots (line, median; box, IQR; whiskers, 1.5*IQR) showing the median Jensen-Shannon divergence per simulation between simulated samples before and after decontamination with an unrelated control (Methods<\/a>), across 50 simulated datasets of 88 samples and 8 negative controls. SCRuB is robust to non-informative controls, producing taxonomic compositions that are very close to the original, and significantly closer than alternative methods (one-sided Wilcoxon signed-rank P<\/i>\u2009=\u20094\u00d710\u221210<\/sup>, P<\/i>\u2009=\u20098.8\u00d710\u221210<\/sup> and P<\/i>\u2009=\u20093.8\u00d710\u221210<\/sup> between SCRuB and microDecon, decontam or decontam (LB), respectively).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 7 SCRuB correctly accounts for well-to-well leakage.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        a<\/b>, Similar to Fig. 2f<\/a>, showing the Jensen-Shannon divergence (y-axis) between the ground truth taxonomic composition, as defined by the experimental design of Minich et al.31<\/a><\/sup> (Methods<\/a>), and the taxonomic composition of the unprocessed dataset (\u2018No decontamination\u2019), or the dataset following decontamination by various methods (x-axis), and displayed separately for the 31 distinct low-prevalence (left) and 90 high-prevalence (right) monocultures. For low prevalence samples, SCRuB produced estimates that were significantly more similar to the ground truth compared to microDecon, decontam, decontam (LB), and to a restrictive approach (one-sided Wilcoxon P<\/i>\u2009<\u200910\u22124<\/sup> in all cases). For the high prevalence samples, SCRuB performed comparably to decontam and microDecon (P<\/i>\u2009=\u20090.93, P<\/i>\u2009=\u20090.12, respectively) and outperformed no decontamination, restrictive, and decontam (LB) (P<\/i>\u2009=\u200910\u22128<\/sup>, P<\/i>\u2009=\u20098.7\u00d710\u221217<\/sup> and P<\/i>\u2009=\u20091.3\u00d710\u22124<\/sup>, respectively). b-f<\/b>, A simulation of a more complicated well-to-well leakage experiment, in which each taxa was placed in two monocultures instead of one. To simulate such a scenario, we randomly chose pairs of taxa, and then reassigned all reads assigned to one taxa across the experiment to the other, \u2018focal\u2019, taxa. For example, Minich et al. placed E. coli<\/i> in well C10 (c<\/b>), resulting in well-to-well leakage (d<\/b>). We randomly selected well C3, containing a Corynbacterium<\/i> species, and reassigned all Corynbacterium<\/i> reads to E. coli<\/i> (e<\/b>). We then ran SCRuB on this simulated data, and evaluated the relative abundance of E. coli<\/i> in its original well (b, f<\/b>). We performed this 100 times, and examined the relative abundance of the focal taxa in its original well (b<\/b>). In all cases, SCRuB accurately handled well-to-well leakage in this more complex scenario and avoided removing the taxa belonging to the focal monoculture.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 8 SCRuB correctly infers well-to-well leakage into negative controls in a metagenomic study of infant and maternal microbiomes.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        a<\/b>, The plate design used by Lou et al.33<\/a>,39<\/a><\/sup>, which included a negative control placed in the corner of each extraction plate. Through a strain-level analysis, Lou et al. identified well-to-well leakage into certain negative controls. b<\/b>, When running SCRuB on each plate, using the MAG abundances of each sample (Methods<\/a>)<\/b>, we identified well-to-well leakage into the negative control in two of the four plates that included a negative control. c<\/b>, SCRuB\u2019s predictions of well-to-well leakage were consistent with an assessment based on the results of Lou et al.\u2019s strain-level analysis (Methods<\/a>).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 9 Well-to-well leakage is more prominent during DNA extraction.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        a,b<\/b>, Plate layout during DNA extraction (a<\/b>) and library preparation (b<\/b>) of experiment 2 (Fig. 3a<\/a>). 10 controls were included in the DNA extraction stage (triangles), and additional 7 in the library preparation stage (hexagon); a pair of each was away from other samples (\u2018far samples\u2019, purple). c<\/b>, Box and swarm plot (line, median; box, IQR; whiskers, 1.5*IQR) showing the Jensen-Shannon divergence (y-axis) between human-derived samples adjacent to DNA extraction and library preparation controls and the various controls of each processing stage, stratified by adjacent and near controls (purple in a,b<\/b>), and calculated from \u2018raw\u2019 taxonomic compositions, without any decontamination. Samples are more similar to near than far controls, demonstrating well-to-well leakage occurring during both DNA extraction and library preparation. Samples are also more similar to near extraction controls than to near library controls, suggesting that well-to-well leakage is more prominent during DNA extraction. P<\/i>, two-sided Mann-Whitney U; N, number of pairwise distances between relevant samples.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Extended Data Fig. 10 SCRuB improves prediction of melanoma and treatment response.<\/a><\/h3>\n

        a-f<\/b>, Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves evaluating the pairwise classification accuracy of gradient boosted decision trees on data from patients with lung cancer, prostate cancer, melanoma, and controls, using data from Poore et al.20<\/a><\/sup> Compared to alternative decontamination methods, SCRuB offers classification accuracy that is on-par or improved, and improved accuracy compared to the original analyses in all cases. See Supplementary Table 1<\/a> for P<\/i> values comparing between methods. Shaded area, 95% confidence interval. g<\/b>, A Venn diagram enumerating the number of taxa completely removed by each decontamination methods applied to the tumor microbiome data from Nejman et al.18<\/a><\/sup> SCRuB removed fewer taxa than alternative methods.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

        \n

        Supplementary information<\/h2>\n
        \n

        \n

        Reporting Summary<\/a><\/h3>\n<\/p>\n
        \n

        Supplementary Tables<\/a><\/h3>\n

        Supplementary Table 1: Exact P<\/i> values displayed in figures. Supplementary Table 2: Experimental metadata and plate layouts of experiments performed. Refers to experiments described in Fig. 3. Supplementary Table 3: V1\u2013V2 reads in control samples. The number of reads from the V1\u2013V2 regions found in each of the samples from the experiments with human-derived samples (Fig. 3a; Methods). Samples with NA had no reads following DADA2 processing.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n