Can relative abudance be more than 100?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zeynel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relative
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on interpreting the American Gut results, specifically the relative abundance of bacteria. A participant expresses confusion over a high relative abundance value of Bacteroides, mistakenly interpreting it as a percentage. Clarification is provided that relative abundance does not necessarily equate to a percentage and can represent an estimate of the number of different organisms from a specific phylum. The distinction between relative abundance and absolute abundance is emphasized, with relative abundance indicating the proportion of bacteria present without knowing the total count. The participant acknowledges a misunderstanding and plans to seek further clarification from the American Gut project regarding the data representation.
Zeynel
Messages
43
Reaction score
2
I'm looking at my American Gut results. The last column shows the relative abundance of bacteria.

Code:
#taxon                                                                                                                                     relative_abundance
k__Bacteria;p__Bacteroidetes;c__Bacteroidia;o__Bacteroidales;f__Bacteroidaceae;g__Bacteroides    487.453
k__Bacteria;p__Firmicutes;c__Clostridia;o__Clostridiales;f__Lachnospiraceae;g__    133.097
k__Bacteria;p__Verrucomicrobia;c__Verrucomicrobiae;o__Verrucomicrobiales;f__Verrucomicrobiaceae;g__Akkermansia    69.620

According to this table, relative abundance of Bacteroids is 487.453. I read this as "487.453 per cent". But this does not make sense to me because, relative abundance is described as "the number of organisms of a particular kind as a percentage of the total number of organisms of a given area or community". If so, relative abundance should be less than hundred. Can you explain where I err? Thanks.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
A definition of relative abundance is:
the number of organisms of a particular kind as a percentage of the total number of organisms of a given area or community;
the number of birds of a particular species as a percentage of the total bird population of a given area

So that figure, for whatever reason, is not a percentage, by definition: percentages have values between 0 and one multiplied by 100.

So something else is going on. Did the American Gut project people not give you explanatory material? Read that very carefully.
 
I just read the website - I think it might be an estimate the number of different organisms (species) from that Phylum, not a percentage. Someone involved with the study could certainly get us both on the right path.
 
Relative abundance does not necessarily imply percentage. It's useful to think of relative abundance in contrast to its alternative absolute abundance. Absolute abundance tells you the exact number of each species present in your sample. Relative abundance just means that you don't know the total number, but you do know the relative proportion of bacteria in your sample (e.g. you have roughly 2 bacteria of species A for every bacteria of species B).

Anyway, it's trival to convert the data to percentages.
 
Sorry, this was my mistake. They had three links for the results and all said "Summary" and I assumed all were in the same format. I will ask American Gut and post here what those numbers represent. Sorry again for the confusion.
 
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top