Guest post by Katie Dahlhausen on her project on "The effect of antibiotics for chlamydia on koalas and their microbiomes"

This is a guest post by Katie Dahlhausen, a PhD Student in my lab.

Koala populations across Australia are on a rapid decline due to many culprits including habitat loss, being hit by cars, attacks by dogs, and the Chlamydia infection. Yes, that’s right, Chlamydia. And when koalas are brought into wildlife hospitals, they are treated with antibiotics to cure their Chlamydia infection. Although ridding koalas of Chlamydia, the antibiotics also kill off important gut microbes that are essential to the koala’s life biology. Koalas eat a diet solely of eucalyptus leaves, which would be poisonous to the koalas if it wasn’t for the tannin-protein-complex-degrading enterobacteria that break down the toxic components of the koala’s diet. Brace yourself, because the koala’s biology gets even more interesting! Mother koalas feed their young joeys a substance called pap, a fecal matter more concentrated in nutrients and microbes than normal feces. This form of a natural fecal transplant allows the joeys to colonize the critical gut microbes necessary for them to eat noxious eucaplytus leaves. But what does this mean for joeys whose mothers have been administered antibiotics?

My name is Katie Dahlhausen and I am A PhD student in Jonathan’s lab. I am crowd-funding a project to study this fascinating koala biology, as well as investigate alternative infectious disease treatment where antibiotics are not a viable option. Want to help out these adorable critters? You can support the Indiegogo campaign here, which is live until June 16, 2015. More information about the project is available on the crowdfunding page, and in these recent articles published in Scientific American and the Washington Post.

So how did I get into this project? Well, When I was at the Australia Wildlife Zoo in Australia last September, there was a sign next to the koala exhibit with picture of a joey whose mouth was covered in a brown substance. The sign read something like "It's not chocolate!" and explained the pap part of the koala's biology.

The moment I read this I knew there was some fascinating microbiology questions that were begging to be answered. While researching the microbiology behind this behavior, I found a study the recorded the detrimental effects antibiotics had on a koala's eating habit and inability to maintain weight, but the question of how antibiotics were effecting the microbial composition of koala's guts remained unsolved. That is how this whole project started. Like most people, I think koalas are cute and appreciate how iconic they are to Australia. Otherwise, I'm not very attached to koalas - they are actually quite mean and antisocial! But koalas are a fantastic model system - one food source, plenty of sampling opportunities (in Australia at least), frequently given antibiotics, and clear mechanism of the transfer of microbes from mother to offspring. The implications of the study are vast, but are aimed at the care for animals in captivity and foster changes in how/when we administer antibiotics.

Guest post from Student Alex Martin on Kittybiome & Animal Shelters

We are nearing the end of our Kitty Kickstarter to fund research on the microbiome of cats (only three days left).  We have received some requests to learn more about our work with animal shelters. Here is a blog post by Alex Martin, a UC Berkeley junior who is working with us to study shelter cats in Berkeley.

---

The Berkeley Animal Shelter takes in all cats from within Berkeley city limits. Thus, cats who once varied markedly with regards to diet and home environment come to live under a fairly uniform set of conditions. It typically houses between fifteen and forty cats, but has held as many as seventy during the peak of breeding season. Recently we have begun collecting samples from cats at the Berkeley shelter in order to better understand their gut microbiomes.

A major dichotomy in the shelter cat population is the one separating house cats from feral cats. Both are considered domestic cats, members of the species Felis catus. If a kitten during its first few months of life is not exposed to humans, it develops behaviors to facilitate surviving in the wild, and grows up to become a feral cat. Some see feral cats as a nuisance, but the animals also tend to live difficult lives, enduring food shortages and a lack of medical care. Thus, a relatively new effort referred to as “trap-neuter-return” (TNR) aims to spay and neuter feral cats to slowly and humanely diminish the size and number of feral cat colonies. Differences in the gut microbiomes of feral cats versus their tamer counterparts is perhaps expected, as the two groups have vastly different diets and levels of environmental exposure. However, these differences have yet to be characterized.

In addition to the differences between feral and house cats, a small but important FIV (Feline Immunodeficiency Virus) population can potentially serve as an interesting point of comparison. Much like Human Immunodeficiency Virus, FIV attacks the immune system of infected individuals, making them markedly more susceptible to other infections. We think that this virus will affect the microbiome of FIV-positive cats in measurable ways. By identifying any differences, we will gain a better understanding of FIV as a whole and will hopefully be better positioned to one day develop more effective methods of treatment.

Geronimo is one Berkeley shelter cat whose gut microbiome will be analyzed. He was picked up as a stray just a few blocks from the shelter, and is three years old. Geronimo is exceptionally friendly, and loves playing with his wand toy and hiding in his cat tree to nap. He gets along well with other cats and was even introduced to a rabbit without incident. After spending about two weeks in the shelter, Geronimo was adopted into a loving home.

Guest post on Yet Another Mostly Male Meeting (YAMMM) - Programming for Biology

I have posted on Twitter and other places saying that I would be willing to share here anonymous postings about meetings with skewed gender ratios.  I generally am not overly fond on anonymity on the web but realize it has some very important and powerful uses, including protecting people from retribution.  So in the case of meetings with skewed gender ratios, I know from personal experience that posting about them can lead to serious vitriol, threats, and possible repercussions.  I feel confident enough in my status and position to mostly ignore these responses but I know that not everyone is so blessed.

So - here is one such anonymous post I received.
-------------------------------------------------

Last year I was looking around for good workshops to learn programming for biology
(http://programmingforbiology.org/index.html) and
about genome assembly and annotation. I came across the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
course called "Programming for Biology" and applied as they have a good reputation.
I was happy to get in and overall really enjoyed the course. I learnt how to program in
Perl (not Python what I regret a bit), a lot of background on downstream genome analysis
and had a mostly pleasant time. An interesting slogan of the meeting was
"It's not only what you learn here, but also who you meet that makes this workshop so special"
(I am paraphrasing here a bit). Great! But wait are all big players in the field of bioinformatics
guys?

Out of the 10 Guest Lectures ALL were male.

• Scott Cain             Ontario Institute for Cancer Research
• Brian Haas            Broad Institute
• Winston Hide        Harvard School of Public Health, South African National Bioinformatics Institute
• Tomas Marques     Universitat Pompeu Fabra
• Barry Moore          University of Utah
• William Pearson    University of Virginia
• James Robinson     Broad Institute
• Michael Schatz      CSHL
• Jason Stajich          University of California, Riverside
• Paul Thomas          University of Southern California

Only 2 out of the 7 instructors and tutors were female

• Simon Prochnik DOE - Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, CA
• Sofia Robb         University of California, Riverside
• Steven Ahrendt University of California, Riverside
• Dave Messina Cofactor Genomics
• Shawn Rynearson University of Utah
• Deborah Triant University of Virginia
• Ken Youens-Clark University of Arizona

This means only 2 out of 17 teachers were actual women. This together with the fact that
the meeting was also sold as 'who you meet here is important' was the most disappointing
fact. There are so many talented and great female bioinformatics out there it would be
great to see at least some of them present at this workshop in 2015.

P.S.: Don't get me wrong Simon and Sofia are great and organize a lovely meeting. So this
goes under the category 'even when it hurts'.

Holly Ganz @hollyhganz on Why She Started the @Kittybiome Cat Microbiome Project

The Story Behind the Launch of the Kittybiome Cat Microbiome Project

Guest Post by Holly Ganz (Project Scientist in the Eisen Lab)



Recently a group of us launched a Kitty Kickstarter campaign where we offer to sequence the bacteria in your cat’s gut microbiome as part of a long term research project to learn more about how microbes may affect cat health, behavior and evolutionary history (and vice-versa). Jonathan has written about the origins story here. This project complements our interests in the microbiology of animal shelters and the evolution of bacterial communities in the Felidae. In addition, we thought that other people like cats too and might be interested in learning more about the hidden life of their cats. We have had an overwhelming response that vastly exceeded our expectations (and we are still welcoming more kitty “pawticipants”).



We have been asked “Why cats?” Personally I think it’s hard not to be fanatical about cats. The diversity of cats is astonishing and most people agree that cheetahs, leopards, lions and tigers are amazing. And when you see a lion in the wild for the first time, it’s hard not to see some of your house cat in there, in the way that it walks, naps, yawns, and even pounces (but not so much the roar). Also it’s really interesting that domestic cats have been associated with people for something like 10,000 years. Several years ago I decided to take what I learned from studying microbial ecology in soil (and how it might affect the transmission of anthrax in zebras) and apply it towards understanding the microbial ecology of the animals themselves. I believe that research in the microbiome of cats (and humans) will eventually lead to useful interventions.

In our kittybiome project, we aim to sequence the gut microbiome of 1,000 cats and by doing so begin to capture the variation in gut bacteria in different populations of cats (both domestic and wild). In domestic cats, we will compare cats living in houses with cats living in shelters and feral cats. We are starting to compare cats with different health conditions and have had some cats with diabetes and IBD join the project. This aspect of the project is really important because these conditions are fairly common and there is a lot of room for improvement in how cats suffering from IBD in particular are treated.



We are also collaborating with Adrian Tordiffe at the University of Pretoria, South Africa and the Africat Foundation on a study on how the diet of captive cheetahs might affect the gut microbiome. Here we hypothesize that the unnatural diet of captive cheetahs produces changes in the gut microbiota that may result in some of chronic diseases common in captive cheetahs.




In addition to being fanatical about cats and passionate about poop, I am especially interested in how social behavior affects the composition and function of microbial communities in cats (in their poop and their anal glands!). (My life was changed by reading about hyena scent gland bacteria.) The evolution of the interaction between cats and their symbiotic scent gland bacteria fascinates me. In the Serengeti, residential territorial cheetahs have been observed scent marking on an hourly basis. Domestic cats are really interesting because feral cats form social colonies. The only other cats that are social are lions (who form prides) and cheetahs (who form coalitions). We are comparing these cats with some social structure with some of their close relatives who are solitary (black-footed cats, leopards, and pumas).

Guest Post: 5 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Jonathan Eisen

5 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Jonathan Eisen 

1. He doesn't know how to play Minecraft
2. He mailed grass when he was a little kid
3. His new phone is "precious" to him
4. He loves Let it Go and Taylor Swift
5. He has very ugly pink boots 

by his bored daughter A. I. Eisen

Overselling the mcirobiome award: Dr Roizen's Preventative and Integrative Medicine Conference

Just got an email announcement for "Dr. Roizen's Preventative and Integrative Medicine Conference" in Las Vegas in December 2015.

The announcement did not start of well for me with the gender balance of the key speakers

But since I spoke at this meeting in 2013 and since there was a good gender balance at that meeting, I decided to give the benefit of the doubt and keep reading (though I note - not trying to say this 5:0 gender ratio is a good thing).

And this is when it got worse - here are the bullet points for what one should learn from attending this meeting

• The key concept about optimal aging that Dr. Roizen learned from 56 million people who took the RealAge® test
• Smart tips about changing you and your patient's microbiomes and what to do for your microbiome to promote weight loss and how it inhibits aging
• How you can affect the role of the GI tract in chronic disease
• How to understand the clinical utility of TMAO testing for monitoring cardiometabolic risk
• The tricks about measuring your microbiome's effects
• Why some choose a plant based diet and why you might not
• What supplements do you and your patient's need with a plant based diet to decrease inflammation and improve your microbiome
• Clarify how a systems-based approach can effectively treat illness and promote wellness

Now - I don't know much about Dr. Roizen or his optimal aging claims in his books (I am skeptical). But the microbiome stuff in here is silly.

Let's start with: "Smart tips about changing you and your patient's microbiomes and what to do for your microbiome to promote weight loss and how it inhibits aging".  I wonder how he will give these smart tips when as far as I know there is nothing actually known about this.  How the microbiome inhibits aging?  Really? Is this going to be a summary of future research not yet done or even imagined?

What about "The tricks about measuring your microbiome's effects."  So - there are 1000s of scientists studying this, they mostly say it is very very very hard to study the effects of the microbiome and Roizen and crew are going to solve this with a few "tricks"?  So is he saying everyone in the field is incompetent since they can't measure these effects but he knows how to with a few tricks?

Dr. Roizen seems like a smart person and some of what I have heard from him sounds reasonable.  These microbiome claims from him here are a clear example of "Overselling the microbiome" and buying into the hype and not staying with the science. Maybe he was not paying attention for my talk for this meeting in 2013 when I discussed overselling the microbiome

I hope he tones down his claims in the future ... but for now he is a winner of a coveted "Overselling the Microbiome Award".  For other "winners" see here.

Blind trust in unblinded observation in Ecology, Evolution and Behavior (Guest Post by Melissa Kardish)

This is a guest post from Melissa Kardish - a PhD student at UC Davis - writing about a recent paper from work she did at her prior position.  The citation for the paper she is writing about is below:

Kardish MR, Mueller UG, Amador-Vargas S, Dietrich EI, Ma R, Barrett B and Fang C-C (2015) Blind trust in unblinded observation in Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior. Front. Ecol. Evol. 3:51. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2015.00051

Here is her post.

---

Blind trust in unblinded observation in Ecology, Evolution and Behavior

We recently published our study in Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution where we found that a remarkable number of studies that could be affected by observer bias didn’t indicate whether or not they blinded their research. In fact only 13.3% of studies reported this:

We tried to make this a very transparent study. In addition to journal level data in the main article, we include in our supplemental material a table with the score for every article we read for this study (a summary of these scores per journal can be found in Figure S2 included here). If anything, our results under-represent the amount of studies that could have been scored blind (the real underreporting/underuse of blind observation is probably less than the 13.3% we report). For instance, we did not assess that there was potential for bias in the scoring of microsatellite markers (scored as unlikely to have observer bias). However, we did identify one study which was based on data from microsatellites which did blindly score their markers and report this scoring in their methods (and was therefore scored as “blind” in our study).  We also considered a study blind in its entirety for the purposes of our scoring if only one aspect is reported even if other experiments could also have been influenced by observer bias (Check out our supplemental methods for more ways we conservatively scored in our study).

We recognize that not all EEB studies can be blinded due to a variety of logistical or hypothesis driven reasons; however, we encourage such studies to accurately report this rationale and consider and attempt to minimize observer bias when designing experiments.

Thus far we have had a great response from the surveyed journals. Many of them have notified their editors about the lack of blind observation that we found reported in their journal. One journal has even notified us of plans already in place to address this issue at their next editorial board meeting.

We’re excited to have this work out there and hope this will inspire people to blind their studies and accurately report the science they are doing. We’re also excited to have the study published in an open-access format where we hope the encouragement for blind observation can reach all levels of science. Finally, as reporting of science in our fields improves in the coming years, we hope this study can serve as a template to address other potential concerns in experimental design and reporting.

For our article check out:  http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fevo.2015.00051/full

For our supplemental text and methods:  http://journal.frontiersin.org/file/downloadfile/10238/octet-stream/Data%20Sheet%201.PDF/711/2/142945

For our data table with each of the articles we surveyed: http://journal.frontiersin.org/file/downloadfile/10235/octet-stream/Table%201.XLSX/711/1/142945

Nice story from Dan Potter on KQED about Women Science PhDs

Nice story on KQED from Dan Potter: Women Getting Science Ph.D.s Still Face Gender Barriers    

Time to boycott Oxford Global meetings due to blatant sexism

I don't even know what to say or do about this it is so stunningly pathetic.  I saw this Tweet earlier in the day:

Oxford Global’s Pharmaceutical IT Congress: All 38 speakers male! (it seems)
http://t.co/ctu18mKLAw
@phylogenomics @GenderAvenger #YAMMM

— Elisabeth Bik (@MicrobiomDigest) May 13, 2015

I figured even in an era of blatant sexism in science, this must be a mistake right?  How could there be a conference with 38 male speakers and 0 female speakers.  So I went to the site: Who is Speaking – Oxford Global's 13th Pharmaceutical IT Congress, September 2015.  And, well, as far as I can tell Elisabeth Bik has the numbers right.  (See a list at the end of this post).  They even have a running slideshow of the speakers faces.

This is even worse than the 25:1 ratio of the qBio meeting I lost it over a few years ago.  I have never seen anything like this. I note - a 38:0 ratio is nearly impossible by chance in any field and I think pretty clearly an indication of massive bias of some kind.

I note - this is not the first case of a mostly male meeting from Oxford Global.  See for example:
Oxford Global Sequencing Meetings: Where MEN Tell You About Sequencing #YAMMM

I think it is time to just boycott meetings meetings from Oxford Global.  The only way they will change is if people stop speaking at or going to their meetings.  So please - stop going to their meetings.  Stop speaking at their meetings.

Koalas, Chlamydia, Antibiotics and Microbiomes - what else do you need?

Katie Dahlhausen, a PhD student in my lab, has become really really interested (perhaps a bit obsessed) with a really interesting case study regarding koalas, Chlamydia, antibiotics, and microbiomes.  Since we do not have funds to work on this in the lab, she has started an Indiegogo campaign to raise funds to work on this.  For more information on this project and how Koalas, Chlamydia, antibiotics and microbiomes are connected see "The Koala Project" page.

9 things PBS Newshour famously gets horrible wrong in story on fast food and microbiomes

Well, this is one of the worst microbiome news stories in a long time: Fast food kills gut bacteria that can keep you slim, book claims.  So many things wrong with it I don't even know where to go.  Here are nine:

1. The original headline: "Fast food kills gut bacteria that can keep you slim, study finds"

Here is the Tweet

Fast food kills gut bacteria that can keep you slim, study finds http://t.co/3fPIhJTuAB | @newshour

— PBS (@PBS) May 11, 2015

2. The correction:

is just completely lame and they should, as the New York Times does when it makes a correction, say what it used to say before they changed it

3. The sentence with the reference to Rob Knight is just bad reporting #1

Here is the quote:

Previous studies made similar findings: Professor Rob Knight of the University of Colorado Boulder, who collaborates with Spector, famously showed that transferring gut bacteria from obese humans to mice could make the rodents gain weight.

First of all - the paper they link to does include Rob Knight as a co-author, but the corresponding and senior author is Jeffrey Gordon and Rob is fourth to last (mind you I love Rob and his work, but in this case, saying this is something Rob showed without mentioning Gordon is just not right).

4 . The sentence with the reference to Rob Knight is just bad reporting #2

What the *$*$# does "famously showed" mean? Really.  What does it mean?

5 . The sentence with the reference to Rob Knight is just bad reporting #3

The statement "Previous studies made similar findings" is just so incredibly misleading.   It seems to be referring back to the previous sentences:

“What is emerging is that changes in our gut microbe community , or microbiome, are likely to be responsible for much of our obesity epidemic, and consequences like diabetes, cancer and heart disease,” he said. “It is clear that the more diverse your diet, the more diverse your microbes and the better your health at any age.”

This is just completely overblown.  The more diverse your diet the better your health at any age?  Oh #FFS that is just not based on any science.  And the "likely responsible for" is silly too.

6 . The sentence with the reference to Rob Knight is just bad reporting #4

Why exactly tell us he is collaborating with Rob Knight?  So some of Rob's good work rubs off?  I mean, Spector may do some fine work (and he has done some really good stuff).  But casually mentioning he collaborates with Knight who famously showed something (when actually it was more Jeff Gordon's work) which did not actually show what the article implies it showed.  Aaaaaaaaaaarg.

7. Good news.

Spector’s book claims that the diversity of microbes in the human body has decreased almost a third over the last century. But there’s also good news: Foods like dark chocolate, garlic, coffee and Belgian beer may help increase gut microbes.

Really?  Thinking about microbes MAY also increase gut microbes.  And so might listening to NPR.  Not something worth reporting here.

8. This sentence

This discovery suggested to his father that many cases of obesity may not simply be due to overeating.

That is right.  Looking at his son's poop and the microbes in it is the key to knowing that obesity might actually be fuc$*@#@ complex and not only caused by overeating.  Oh, that and 100 years of epidemiology and research.

9. This sentence

“Once on the diet I rapidly lost 1,300 species of bacteria and my gut was dominated by a different group called bacteroidetes. The implication is that the McDonald’s diet killed 1,300 of my gut species,” he said.

Sorry but that is NOT the implication.


UPDATE 1: May 11, 2015. 8:00 PM

Thanks to a Tweet from Jennifer Gunter I changed the title of my post from " 9 things horribly wrong with Newshour story on fast food and microbiomes" to "9 things PBS Newshour famously gets horrible wrong in story on fast food and microbiomes"

@PBS famously showed bad science reporting https://t.co/8VuGq5njWU

— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) May 12, 2015

Cell Symposia have a problem with gender balance of speakers

With apologies I don't have time right now to tease apart all the details on these meetings. But, yuck. Cell Symposia have a big and persistent problem with gender balance of speakers. See the Storify below:

Coming today to a cat near you - microbes

Only three years after first imagined ...

Guest post from Rachid Ounit on CLARK: Fast and Accurate Classification of Metagenomic and Genomic Sequences

Recently I received and email from Rachid Ounit pointing me to a new open access paper he had on a metagenomics analysis tool called CLARK.  I asked him if he would be willing to write a guest post about it and, well, he did.  Here is it:

CLARK: Accurate metagenomic analysis of a million reads in 20 seconds or less…

At the University of California, Riverside, we have developed a new lightweight algorithm to classify accurately metagenomic samples while minimizing computational resources better than any other classifiers (e.g., Kraken).  While CLARK and Kraken have comparable accuracy, CLARK is significantly faster (cf. Fig. a) and uses less RAM and disk space (cf. Fig. b-c). In default mode and single-threaded, CLARK’s classification speed is higher than 3 million short reads per minute (cf. Fig. a), and it also scales better in multithreading (cf. Fig. d). Like Kraken, CLARK uses k-mers (short DNA words of length k) to solve the classification problem. However, while Kraken and other k-mers based classifiers consider the whole taxonomy tree and must resolve k-mers that match genomes from different taxa (by using the concept of “lowest common ancestor” from MEGAN), CLARK rather considers taxa defined for a unique taxonomy rank (e.g. species/genus), and, during the preprocessing, discards any k-mers that can be found in any pair of taxon. In other words, CLARK exploits specificities of each taxon (against all others) to populate its light and efficient data structure. It uses a customized dictionary of k-mers, in which each k-mer is associated to at most one taxon and results in fast k-mer queries. Then, the read is assigned to the taxon that has the highest amount of k-mers matches with it. Since these matches are discriminative, CLARK assignments are highly accurate. We also show that the choice of the value of k is critical for the optimal performance, and long k-mers (e.g., 31-mers) are not necessarily the best choice to perform accurate identification.  For example, high confidence assignments using 20-mers from real metagenomes show strong consistency with several published and independent results. 

Finally, CLARK can be used for detecting contamination in draft reference genome or, in genomics, chimera in sequenced BACs. We are currently investigating new techniques for improving the sensitivity and the speed of the tool, and we plan to release a new version later this year. We are also extending the tool for comparative genomics/metagenomics purposes. A “RAM-light” version of CLARK for your 4 GB RAM laptop is also available. CLARK is user-friendly (i.e., easy to use, it does not require strong background in programming/bioinformatics) and self-contained (i.e., does not need depend on any external software tool). The latest version of CLARK (v1.1.2) contains several features to analyze your results and is freely available under the GNU GPL license (for more details, please visit CLARK’s webpage). Experimental results and algorithm details can be found in the BMC genomics manuscript.

Performance of Kraken (v0.10.4-beta) and CLARK (v1.0) for the classification of a metagenome sample of 10,000 reads (average reads length 92bp).  a) The classification speed (in 103 reads per minute) in default mode. b) RAM usage (in GB) for the classification. c) Disk space (in GB) required for the database (bacterial genomes from NCBI/RefSeq). d) Classification speed (in 10^3 reads per minute) using 1, 2, 4 and 8 threads.

Rob Dunn seeking community participation in suveying & analyzing Duke Forest warming chambers

Just got this email from Rob Dunn from NC State.  He said it was OK to post it ... so I am .. (I note - I just completely love this idea).

Hi folks,

As you might (or might not) know, we have for five years now been running a large-scale warming experiment in which we have warmed twelve 5 meter diameter open-top chambers in forest understory at Duke Forest. We have warmed these chambers in a regression design with the warmest chambers as warm as temperatures are predicted to be in the region in 2100 and the coolest chambers at ambient temperatures (We also have no-chamber controls). These are small worlds each of which mimics aspects of futures we might face. This entire set-up is replicated at Harvard Forest. In these chambers we have been studying the response of insects (with a focus on ants) and plants  over the last five years. When we built them these chambers were the biggest warming experiment in a forest understory in the world. I don't know if it is still true, but it probably is, if only because chambers of this size are so hard to keep going (especially in the early we felt like Fitzcarraldo dragging a ship through the rainforest) that most people have decided against repeating them elsewhere. 

Some basics on the chambers... http://robdunnlab.com/projects/warming-chambers/

I'm writing because on May 25th we are taking the chambers down and doing a final inventory of the response of everything--all the life we can possibly evaluate--to this warming. To varying extents we have considered the phenology of plants in the chambers, many things about ants in the chambers, shifts in composition of invertebrates in the chambers and simple responses of bacterial and fungal assemblages in the chambers. But, we have done all of this delicately, always mindful to not overly disturb the future world we are simulating. Now though that the chambers are coming down we can and will consider roots, plant biomass, the abundance of insect pests, fungal pathogens and much, much, more. 

As we do this intensive survey, we are hoping to train as many different eyes, lenses and perspectives on the chambers as possible. If you are potentially interested in studying some aspect of the response of understory forest life to warming, let us know. If you are interested in studying something that can be extracted from soil or litter samples, we may be able to send you material you can work on. If you have something grander in mind (and we love grand things), then we may need more help from you. If interested, send an email to me, copied to MJ Epps (Mj Epps <mycota@gmail.com>).  This collaboration might be in the form of bringing a new method to the chambers (looking at microbial processes, for instance) or considering a group of organisms we've somewhat ignored (e.g., fly larvae) or it might be something totally off the wall. Feel free to share this email with likable folks that might be interested. 

I'm also delighted to hear creative ideas about visualizing the differences that have emerged over the years of this experiment (hence the inclusion of several artists of various sorts on this email list, if you were wondering why you were copied). 

I hope this email finds you well. 

Best,

Rob

Today's Spammy journal Editorial Board Offer #1

Just got this - pretty lame given that, well, I do not do anything related to this journal.

Dear Dr.Jonathan A Eisen,   

Hope this mail brings you good health and prosperity 

Fisheries and Aquaculture Journal is successfully publishing quality open access journals with the support from scientists like you. We are aware of your reputation for quality of research and trustworthiness in the field of science and thereby we request you to be an Editorial Board Member of our Fisheries and Aqua culture Journal. It would be our immense pleasure to have you as one of our editorial board member. 

Please follow the below link for more information http://omicsonline.com/open-access/editorialboard-fisheries-and-aquaculture-journal-open-access.phpIf you are interested, you are requested to send 

• A recent passport size photo (to display at our website) 
• C.V
• Biography
• Research Interests for our records 

Kindly submit your details at editor.faj@omicsonline.net, editor.faj@omicsgroup.biz We look forward to a close and long lasting scientific relationship for the benefit of scientific community.Waiting for a positive response.

With Kind Regards,XXXEditorial Assistant 

Fisheries and aqua culture Journal7 

31 Gull Ave, 

Foster City CA 94404, USA

More microbe-themed art - the Eden Project's "Human Biome"

Just got pointed to this Wired article by Katie Collins -- Eden Project's 'Human Biome' is a gross, musical microbe showcase (Wired UK)



Fascinating project that I actually don't think is gross in any way.  From the article

Invisible You: The Human Biome will explore the community of microbes that live in and on each and every one of us. Artistic and interactive displays will show bacteria, fungi and viruses, with 11 artists commissioned to create works for the exhibition.

I want to just quote the entire story but I think that is not allowed so let's just say you really should read the whole thing and look at the gallery.

Glyphosate, Roundup, GMOs and the microbiome part 1: crowdsourcing literature

For many reasons I have been interested for the last few years in how agricultural practices affect microbiomes.  For example in regard to crops, how do farming practices affect the microbiomes of the plants, the microbiomes of the soil and area around the plants, and the microbiomes of organisms (including humans) who make use of the plants?

I won't go into all the detail right now for why I am interested in this topic but for some examples of my work in this area see The microbes we eat abundance and taxonomy of microbes consumed in a day’s worth of meals for three diet types and Structure, variation, and assembly of the root-associated microbiomes of rice.

Anyway, the reason I am writing this now is that tomorrow I am "testifying" to a NRC Committee about this topic and some related topics.  The presentation will be shown live online (register here).  And I thought, in the interest of openness, I would post some of what I am thinking about here before hand.

One of the key topics for tomorrow is something I have been snooping around at for a few years - how does glyphosate (the key ingredient of RoundUp and a widely used herbicide) affect microbiomes?  I am interested in this from both a scientific point of view (I think it is an interesting topic) and also from a "public policy / education" point of view.  I think this is a really good topic to have a public discussion of "microbiomes" and both the importance of microbial communities and the challenges with studying them.  So a few years ago I started thinking about working on this and developing a "Citizen Science" project around it.  And, well, I am still working on that idea and probably will be trying to launch something in the near future.  As a first start I thought it would be good to start to engage the community (researchers, teachers, the public, etc) in a discussion of this topic.  So .. this is the beginning of that I guess.

Some questions I think are interesting:

• Does glyphosate affect plant microbiomes?
• Does glyphosate affect soil microbiomes?
• Does consumption of plants treated with glyphosate affect the microbiomes of the consumer? 
• Directly (e.g., by glyphosate itself being in the food and directly affecting microbomes"
• Indirectly (by glyphosate affecting the microbiome of the food which in turn affects the microbiome of the consumer)
• If glyphosate affects any of these microbiomes above, are these significant affects (e.g., in terms of health)?

Now I am not the only person who is interested in this topic.  In fact, there have been many people looking into these and related topics for years.  Some of the things I have seen on this topic in the popular press and the scientific literature are, well, not good science.  And some of the things I have seen are fascinating and well done. 

So as a first step in looking into this, I scoured the literature for papers of interest.  And that is really why I am writing this.  I created an open collection of the papers I have found with the Zotero reference collection system.  See this link for the collection.  And if you know of any other papers truly related to this topic, please add them to the collection (learn more about Zotero here).  I do not profess to know everything about this topic.  But I think it is interesting and possibly important.  

Four simple tools to promote gender balance at conferences - guest post from Julie Pfeiffer @jkpfeiff

Guest post from Julie Pfeiffer.

Julie Pfeiffer
Associate Professor of Microbiology
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
https://twitter.com/jkpfeiff
http://www4.utsouthwestern.edu/pfeifferlab/Index/Home.html

---

Four simple tools to promote gender balance at conferences 

1. Know that you are biased. Identify your biases.

We all have biases and many of them are unconscious. You can discover your own biases using online social attitude tests developed by Project Implicit, a non-profit organization affiliated with Harvard University. The Gender-Science Implicit Association Test is particularly relevant here. It turns out that I have moderate bias linking science with males, as well as other biases. Knowing this fact has been extremely important. It is very difficult to alter unconscious bias, but it is easy to understand that you are biased and edit your actions accordingly. For example, if I need to make a list of potential speakers or authors quickly, the list will be of senior men from the United States. The key is to spend time EDITING the list to ensure diversity.

2. Keep track of numbers.

Most individuals in leadership positions are not seeking to exclude women or other groups from plenary talks, career opportunities, etc. Instead, they simply forget to count. They forget to keep track of gender ratio and other types of diversity. They forget to edit. When leaders/organizers have diversity in mind, diversity is relatively easy to achieve. Two examples illustrate this point:

1) Vincent Racaniello is President of the American Society for Virology and his goal was to put together an outstanding and diverse group of plenary speakers for the annual meeting in 2015. He asked for speaker suggestions via emails and Twitter (https://twitter.com/profvrr). He made a list and he edited it. The result? The best representation of female scientists at a conference I have ever seen--- 50% of the plenary speakers at ASV this year are female.

Painful, kind of hilarious, typesetting error in a #PLOSOne paper from my lab - should I try to get it fixed?

Saw this tweet:

@phylogenomics Funny/interesting typesetting trainwreck in equation 4 of PLOS PhyEco paper. English letters were replaced by Greek!
— Michael Hall (@mikehall_dal) March 30, 2015

So I went and found the paper.

Wu D, Jospin G, Eisen JA (2013) Systematic Identification of Gene Families for Use as “Markers” for Phylogenetic and Phylogeny-Driven Ecological Studies of Bacteria and Archaea and Their Major Subgroups. PLoS ONE 8(10): e77033. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0077033

And discovered what he was pointing to

Then I looked at the Pubmed Central version of the paper and it was the same.  So I wnet and found the arXiv version of the paper and it looked correct.

Calling attention to meetings with skewed speaker gender ratios, even when it hurts, part 2

A few weeks ago I gave a talk at the Future of Genomic Medicine 2015 (aka #FOGM15) meeting.  The talk seemed to go over well.  I talked right after Martin Blaser in a session on "The Microbiome".  I posted my slides and then a video of my talk as well as notes from the meeting: see My microbiome talk at #FOGM15 - the perils (and fun I guess) of redoing one's talk at the last minute.  And I met some really interesting people at the meeting and enjoyed most of the talks I went to.

But alas, one thing stuck in my head from this meeting.  One single Tweet from someone out there threw me for a loop:

Hey @phylogenomics, 77% of talks at #FOGM15 given by male speakers #justsayin
— Mick Watson (@BioMickWatson) March 6, 2015

And this let to a bit of soul searching on my part.  Some of the conversations on Twitter are captured in this Storify:

Which I guess culminated in a post to the organizers of the meeting

Dear #FOGM15 organizers - next time - you can (and really MUST) do MUCH better with the gender ratio of speakers
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 6, 2015

How to keep up with microbial ecology and the built environment: microBEnet is your place

Just posting a wrap up of posts on microBEnet (where I blog frequently as do many other folks that work on something related to microbial ecology, the built environment, or the intersection of the two).  microBEnet is really becoming a central place to find out what is going on in the world of microbial ecology and the built environment.  And I love that we are getting more and more posts from outsiders about their work, their meetings, their ideas and more.  Anyway - here is a wrap up of the posts for the last month.  If you are interesting in joining microBEnet and writing posts about relevant topics, let me know.

Jenna Lang (staff scientist in my lab) -- meeting reports from a Planetary Protection meeting

• Planetary Protection Workshop (Forward Contamination)
• Workshop on Planetary Protection Knowledge Gaps for Human Extraterrestrial Missions (Intro)

My posts:

• Is the MinION thumb drive sequencer taking off? Seems so …
• Interesting analysis of data sharing in paleogenetics #OpenScience
• Great “Hidden Life” (of homes and people) Learning Activity from the NY Times #microbiology
• Important read from Aaron Darling: Not so fast, FastTree
• Fascinating and distressing look at cruise ship turnaround
• Resistance (The Film) coming to UC Davis April 9
• Great #openaccess collection of papers on RNA
• Today in germophobia and antimicrobiomism: grandparents who hate microbes
• I love that @eLIFE is publishing draft papers now (brewery microbiome)
• Evolution of DNA Sequencing 2015 Version
• Methylisothiazolinone in household items – a growing (or well, killing) problem #germophobia
• Cool: James Clemens High School-Hudson Alpha Classroom Microbiome Project
• Well, I guess this means microbiome engineering has arrived (sort of)
• Today in “where’s the pathogen?” Can you find Burkholderia on 500 acres with 50 samples?
• Yes Virginia, there is a paper on microbial transfer during beer pong
• Healthy Buildings 2015 meeting promo / preview

Alexander Sczyrba on the Critical Assessment of Metagenome Interpretation (CAMI)

• CAMI Challenge is Now Open for Participation

Calling attention to poor speaker gender ratio - even when it hurts

So I saw this Tweet earlier today

Will be an excellent symposium! Register here @UCPlantBreeding http://t.co/Nd86UAr3hJ

— Gena Hoffman (@GenaEHoffman) March 24, 2015

And that sounded very interesting. So I clicked on the link to check out the Plant Breeding for Food Security: The Global Impact of Plant Genetics in Rice Production A symposium honoring Dr. Gurdev Khush symposium.  And, then I went to the program.  And sadly I saw something there that was not to my liking.  The speakers were almost all male (men labelled in yellow, women in green)

• Welcome to the Khush Symposium (Alan Bennett)
• The Plant Breeding Center (Charles Brummer)
• The Confucius Institute (Glenn Young)
• Global food production – challenges and opportunities (Ken Cassman) Food production, technology and climate (David Lobell)
• Panel – Impact of Gurdev Khush on plant genetics and food security Tomato genetics
• (Dani Zamir)
• (Pam Ronald)
•  (Gary Toenniessen)
•  (Gurdev Khush)
• Lunch; The California Rice Industry (Kent McKenzie)
• The rice theory of culture (Thomas Talhelm)
• Recent advances in rice productivity and the future (David MacKill)
• Hybrid rice technology contributions to global food security (Sant Virmani)
• Super green rice (Qifa Zhang)
• Tackling the wheat yield barrier (Matthew Reynolds)
• African Orphan Crops – inspiration and execution (Howard Shapiro/Allen Van Deynze)

If this was a symposium outside UC Davis the first thing I would do would be to post about it.  To Twitter or my blog or both.  And to critique them.  Why?  Because there is a bad history in STEM fields of having meetings and conferences have under-representation of women as speakers.  And this has become a passion of mine and I write about it a lot.  But I hesitated.  Why?  Because this was from UC Davis and many of the people involved are friends / colleagues.  I did not want to anger them, or embarrass them.  And I don't think there is any intentional bias here by any means.  But, if I am going to critique people outside UC Davis, it seems like I should also apply the same standards to people inside UC Davis and to colleagues and friends.

So I posted to Twitter a response:

@GenaEHoffman @UCPlantBreeding sadly the gender ratio of speakers is pretty disappointing - looks like about 14:1 M:F #STEMWomen
— Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics) March 25, 2015

But that did not seem sufficient.  So I wrote up this post.  Underrepresentation of women as speakers is a serious issue in STEM fields.  And it is solvable (e.g., see Some suggestions for having diverse speakers at meetings by myself and the wonderful Ten Simple Rules to Achieve Conference Speaker Gender Balance by Jennifer Martin).

Now - do I know who the possible speakers were for this symposium?  No - I don't really know the field.  Is it possible that there just are no women in the field?  Sure.  But I would bet anything that is not the case here.  Having a meeting where the ratio of speakers is 16:1 male: female sets a bad example.  UC Davis and the organizers of this meeting can do better.  And though this will possibly hurt me in various ways (I already got grief from one person who I will not name for the Tweet), I think it is critical that we call out examples such as this.

And finally I note - I have taken on the issue of women at STEM conferences and meetings because, well, it is easy to identify cases where the numbers are anomalous and it is relatively easy to solve.  But it is also important that we consider other aspects of diversity of speakers (age, ethnicity, career stage, etc).  It is important to have diversity of speakers at meetings for many many reasons.  Speaking is a career building opportunity.  Speakers serve as role models for others.  Diverse points of view are important to have represented.  Bias - whether simplicity or explicit damages the whole practice of science.  And more.  Yes, we need to work on many aspects of diversity in STEM fields.  Improving the diversity of speakers at meetings is but one part of this.  But it is an important part and it is relatively easy to do.  So just do it.  And call attention to it.  Even if it hurts.

Treponema are not "ancient" but absence from some human's guts is very interesting

So I saw some Tweets today that caught my attention, discussion news stories about "ancient" bacteria being missing from some human's gut microbiomes:

Uhh? http://t.co/psM91dMi50 pic.twitter.com/JBvXvhq66T
— Nick Loman (@pathogenomenick) March 25, 2015

There are no "ancient bacteria". when we actually see the paper i'm sure it will be a doozy. http://t.co/qewzlRHcLX
— Pat Schloss (@PatSchloss) March 25, 2015

These refer to a sadly inappropriate headline in Science



What is wrong with this?  Well, there are no "ancient" bacteria around today.  They are all modern.  I am not even sure what they were trying to say.  Just a really bad evolution argument I guess.  I pondered giving Science a Twisted Tree of Life Award which I give out for exactly this kind of thing -  but decided first to dig into the science here and gloss over the bad evolution headline.

And it turns out - what the news story is about is in fact interesting - a new paper out in Nature Communications:  Subsistence strategies in traditional societies distinguish gut microbiomes.

The paper is freely available and has some really interesting material in it.  They key to me - at least related to this "ancient" bacteria claim is the following part of their abstract:

As observed in previous studies, we find that Treponema are characteristic of traditional gut microbiomes. Moreover, through genome reconstruction (2.2–2.5 MB, coverage depth × 26–513) and functional potential characterization, we discover these Treponema are diverse, fall outside of pathogenic clades and are similar to Treponema succinifaciens, a known carbohydrate metabolizer in swine. Gut Treponema are found in non-human primates and all traditional peoples studied to date, suggesting they are symbionts lost in urban-industrialized societies.

And then some further detail in the paper:

Although Spirochaetes have been previously reported from the gut microbiome of non-human primates and ancient human populations, they have only been observed in high abundance among extant human populations with non-Western lifestyles, such as a traditional community in Burkina Faso and a hunter-gatherer community in Tanzania. As such, they may represent a part of the human ancestral gut microbiome that has been lost through the adoption of industrial agriculture and/or other lifestyle changes. 

So they don't go into the full detail here but what I think they are saying is that they infer that human ancestors had Spirochaetes (based on the finding of it in non human primates and some human populations).  And thus they further infer that human populations (e.g., the people they studied in Oklahoma) that do not have these Spirochaetes have "lost" them.

I note - I think this terminology of "loss" they are using is not quite right here in a way.  Saying that these Spirochaetes have been lost implies to me that they are heritable.  But they do not in fact show that.  It could be that these are related to diet or environment in some way - something shared by some human populations and non human primates, for example.  And thus the absence from some "Westernized" populations could be more of an environmental thing than a "loss" in the past.

The ChuckNorrisMicrobiome will get you, and you, and you ...

Some Saturday fun ...