Can relative abudance be more than 100?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zeynel
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relative
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the interpretation of relative abundance values reported in the American Gut results, specifically whether values can exceed 100 and what those values represent in terms of bacterial populations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the interpretation of relative abundance values exceeding 100, suggesting that it should represent a percentage and thus be less than 100.
  • Another participant provides a definition of relative abundance, emphasizing that it should fall between 0 and 100, indicating that the reported values may not be percentages.
  • A different participant proposes that the values might represent estimates of the number of different organisms from a specific phylum rather than percentages.
  • One participant clarifies that relative abundance does not necessarily imply a percentage and contrasts it with absolute abundance, suggesting that relative abundance indicates proportions rather than total counts.
  • A later reply acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the format of the results and indicates intent to seek clarification from the American Gut project.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of relative abundance values, with no consensus reached on what the values represent or whether they can exceed 100.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the definitions and interpretations of relative abundance versus absolute abundance, as well as the specific context of the reported values from the American Gut results.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
9K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
9K
Replies
3
Views
19K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K