scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Tomasz Kosciolek

Bio: Tomasz Kosciolek is an academic researcher from University of California, San Diego. The author has contributed to research in topics: Microbiome & Biology. The author has an hindex of 23, co-authored 41 publications receiving 7937 citations. Previous affiliations of Tomasz Kosciolek include Polish Academy of Sciences & University College London.


Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
Evan Bolyen1, Jai Ram Rideout1, Matthew R. Dillon1, Nicholas A. Bokulich1, Christian C. Abnet2, Gabriel A. Al-Ghalith3, Harriet Alexander4, Harriet Alexander5, Eric J. Alm6, Manimozhiyan Arumugam7, Francesco Asnicar8, Yang Bai9, Jordan E. Bisanz10, Kyle Bittinger11, Asker Daniel Brejnrod7, Colin J. Brislawn12, C. Titus Brown5, Benjamin J. Callahan13, Andrés Mauricio Caraballo-Rodríguez14, John Chase1, Emily K. Cope1, Ricardo Silva14, Christian Diener15, Pieter C. Dorrestein14, Gavin M. Douglas16, Daniel M. Durall17, Claire Duvallet6, Christian F. Edwardson, Madeleine Ernst14, Madeleine Ernst18, Mehrbod Estaki17, Jennifer Fouquier19, Julia M. Gauglitz14, Sean M. Gibbons20, Sean M. Gibbons15, Deanna L. Gibson17, Antonio Gonzalez14, Kestrel Gorlick1, Jiarong Guo21, Benjamin Hillmann3, Susan Holmes22, Hannes Holste14, Curtis Huttenhower23, Curtis Huttenhower24, Gavin A. Huttley25, Stefan Janssen26, Alan K. Jarmusch14, Lingjing Jiang14, Benjamin D. Kaehler27, Benjamin D. Kaehler25, Kyo Bin Kang28, Kyo Bin Kang14, Christopher R. Keefe1, Paul Keim1, Scott T. Kelley29, Dan Knights3, Irina Koester14, Tomasz Kosciolek14, Jorden Kreps1, Morgan G. I. Langille16, Joslynn S. Lee30, Ruth E. Ley31, Ruth E. Ley32, Yong-Xin Liu, Erikka Loftfield2, Catherine A. Lozupone19, Massoud Maher14, Clarisse Marotz14, Bryan D Martin20, Daniel McDonald14, Lauren J. McIver23, Lauren J. McIver24, Alexey V. Melnik14, Jessica L. Metcalf33, Sydney C. Morgan17, Jamie Morton14, Ahmad Turan Naimey1, Jose A. Navas-Molina14, Jose A. Navas-Molina34, Louis-Félix Nothias14, Stephanie B. Orchanian, Talima Pearson1, Samuel L. Peoples35, Samuel L. Peoples20, Daniel Petras14, Mary L. Preuss36, Elmar Pruesse19, Lasse Buur Rasmussen7, Adam R. Rivers37, Michael S. Robeson38, Patrick Rosenthal36, Nicola Segata8, Michael Shaffer19, Arron Shiffer1, Rashmi Sinha2, Se Jin Song14, John R. Spear39, Austin D. Swafford, Luke R. Thompson40, Luke R. Thompson41, Pedro J. Torres29, Pauline Trinh20, Anupriya Tripathi14, Peter J. Turnbaugh10, Sabah Ul-Hasan42, Justin J. J. van der Hooft43, Fernando Vargas, Yoshiki Vázquez-Baeza14, Emily Vogtmann2, Max von Hippel44, William A. Walters32, Yunhu Wan2, Mingxun Wang14, Jonathan Warren45, Kyle C. Weber46, Kyle C. Weber37, Charles H. D. Williamson1, Amy D. Willis20, Zhenjiang Zech Xu14, Jesse R. Zaneveld20, Yilong Zhang47, Qiyun Zhu14, Rob Knight14, J. Gregory Caporaso1 
TL;DR: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and R.K.P. and partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 and U54MD012388.
Abstract: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and 1565057 to R.K. Partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 (J.G.C. and T.P.) and U54MD012388 (J.G.C. and T.P.); grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (J.G.C. and R.K.); ERCSTG project MetaPG (N.S.); the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences QYZDB-SSW-SMC021 (Y.B.); the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council APP1085372 (G.A.H., J.G.C., Von Bing Yap and R.K.); the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) to D.L.G.; and the State of Arizona Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF), administered by the Arizona Board of Regents, through Northern Arizona University. All NCI coauthors were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. S.M.G. and C. Diener were supported by the Washington Research Foundation Distinguished Investigator Award.

8,821 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Nov 2017-Nature
TL;DR: A meta-analysis of microbial community samples collected by hundreds of researchers for the Earth Microbiome Project is presented, creating both a reference database giving global context to DNA sequence data and a framework for incorporating data from future studies, fostering increasingly complete characterization of Earth’s microbial diversity.
Abstract: Our growing awareness of the microbial world’s importance and diversity contrasts starkly with our limited understanding of its fundamental structure. Despite recent advances in DNA sequencing, a lack of standardized protocols and common analytical frameworks impedes comparisons among studies, hindering the development of global inferences about microbial life on Earth. Here we present a meta-analysis of microbial community samples collected by hundreds of researchers for the Earth Microbiome Project. Coordinated protocols and new analytical methods, particularly the use of exact sequences instead of clustered operational taxonomic units, enable bacterial and archaeal ribosomal RNA gene sequences to be followed across multiple studies and allow us to explore patterns of diversity at an unprecedented scale. The result is both a reference database giving global context to DNA sequence data and a framework for incorporating data from future studies, fostering increasingly complete characterization of Earth’s microbial diversity.

1,676 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This Review focuses on recent findings that suggest that operational taxonomic unit-based analyses should be replaced with new methods that are based on exact sequence variants, methods for integrating metagenomic and metabolomic data, and issues surrounding compositional data analysis.
Abstract: Complex microbial communities shape the dynamics of various environments, ranging from the mammalian gastrointestinal tract to the soil. Advances in DNA sequencing technologies and data analysis have provided drastic improvements in microbiome analyses, for example, in taxonomic resolution, false discovery rate control and other properties, over earlier methods. In this Review, we discuss the best practices for performing a microbiome study, including experimental design, choice of molecular analysis technology, methods for data analysis and the integration of multiple omics data sets. We focus on recent findings that suggest that operational taxonomic unit-based analyses should be replaced with new methods that are based on exact sequence variants, methods for integrating metagenomic and metabolomic data, and issues surrounding compositional data analysis, where advances have been particularly rapid. We note that although some of these approaches are new, it is important to keep sight of the classic issues that arise during experimental design and relate to research reproducibility. We describe how keeping these issues in mind allows researchers to obtain more insight from their microbiome data sets.

992 citations

Posted ContentDOI
Evan Bolyen1, Jai Ram Rideout1, Matthew R. Dillon1, Nicholas A. Bokulich1, Christian C. Abnet, Gabriel A. Al-Ghalith2, Harriet Alexander3, Harriet Alexander4, Eric J. Alm5, Manimozhiyan Arumugam6, Francesco Asnicar7, Yang Bai8, Jordan E. Bisanz9, Kyle Bittinger10, Asker Daniel Brejnrod6, Colin J. Brislawn11, C. Titus Brown3, Benjamin J. Callahan12, Andrés Mauricio Caraballo-Rodríguez13, John Chase1, Emily K. Cope1, Ricardo Silva13, Pieter C. Dorrestein13, Gavin M. Douglas14, Daniel M. Durall15, Claire Duvallet5, Christian F. Edwardson16, Madeleine Ernst13, Mehrbod Estaki15, Jennifer Fouquier17, Julia M. Gauglitz13, Deanna L. Gibson15, Antonio Gonzalez18, Kestrel Gorlick1, Jiarong Guo19, Benjamin Hillmann2, Susan Holmes20, Hannes Holste18, Curtis Huttenhower21, Curtis Huttenhower22, Gavin A. Huttley23, Stefan Janssen24, Alan K. Jarmusch13, Lingjing Jiang18, Benjamin D. Kaehler23, Kyo Bin Kang13, Kyo Bin Kang25, Christopher R. Keefe1, Paul Keim1, Scott T. Kelley26, Dan Knights2, Irina Koester18, Irina Koester13, Tomasz Kosciolek18, Jorden Kreps1, Morgan G. I. Langille14, Joslynn S. Lee27, Ruth E. Ley28, Ruth E. Ley29, Yong-Xin Liu8, Erikka Loftfield, Catherine A. Lozupone17, Massoud Maher18, Clarisse Marotz18, Bryan D Martin30, Daniel McDonald18, Lauren J. McIver21, Lauren J. McIver22, Alexey V. Melnik13, Jessica L. Metcalf31, Sydney C. Morgan15, Jamie Morton18, Ahmad Turan Naimey1, Jose A. Navas-Molina32, Jose A. Navas-Molina18, Louis-Félix Nothias13, Stephanie B. Orchanian18, Talima Pearson1, Samuel L. Peoples30, Samuel L. Peoples33, Daniel Petras13, Mary L. Preuss34, Elmar Pruesse17, Lasse Buur Rasmussen6, Adam R. Rivers35, Ii Michael S Robeson36, Patrick Rosenthal34, Nicola Segata7, Michael Shaffer17, Arron Shiffer1, Rashmi Sinha, Se Jin Song18, John R. Spear37, Austin D. Swafford18, Luke R. Thompson38, Luke R. Thompson39, Pedro J. Torres26, Pauline Trinh30, Anupriya Tripathi13, Anupriya Tripathi18, Peter J. Turnbaugh9, Sabah Ul-Hasan40, Justin J. J. van der Hooft41, Fernando Vargas18, Yoshiki Vázquez-Baeza18, Emily Vogtmann, Max von Hippel42, William A. Walters29, Yunhu Wan, Mingxun Wang13, Jonathan Warren43, Kyle C. Weber35, Kyle C. Weber44, Chase Hd Williamson1, Amy D. Willis30, Zhenjiang Zech Xu18, Jesse R. Zaneveld30, Yilong Zhang45, Rob Knight18, J. Gregory Caporaso1 
24 Oct 2018-PeerJ
TL;DR: QIIME 2 provides new features that will drive the next generation of microbiome research, including interactive spatial and temporal analysis and visualization tools, support for metabolomics and shotgun metagenomics analysis, and automated data provenance tracking to ensure reproducible, transparent microbiome data science.
Abstract: We present QIIME 2, an open-source microbiome data science platform accessible to users spanning the microbiome research ecosystem, from scientists and engineers to clinicians and policy makers. QIIME 2 provides new features that will drive the next generation of microbiome research. These include interactive spatial and temporal analysis and visualization tools, support for metabolomics and shotgun metagenomics analysis, and automated data provenance tracking to ensure reproducible, transparent microbiome data science.

875 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
26 Jun 2018
TL;DR: The utility of the living data resource and cross-cohort comparison is demonstrated to confirm existing associations between the microbiome and psychiatric illness and to reveal the extent of microbiome change within one individual during surgery, providing a paradigm for open microbiome research and education.
Abstract: Although much work has linked the human microbiome to specific phenotypes and lifestyle variables, data from different projects have been challenging to integrate and the extent of microbial and molecular diversity in human stool remains unknown. Using standardized protocols from the Earth Microbiome Project and sample contributions from over 10,000 citizen-scientists, together with an open research network, we compare human microbiome specimens primarily from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia to one another and to environmental samples. Our results show an unexpected range of beta-diversity in human stool microbiomes compared to environmental samples; demonstrate the utility of procedures for removing the effects of overgrowth during room-temperature shipping for revealing phenotype correlations; uncover new molecules and kinds of molecular communities in the human stool metabolome; and examine emergent associations among the microbiome, metabolome, and the diversity of plants that are consumed (rather than relying on reductive categorical variables such as veganism, which have little or no explanatory power). We also demonstrate the utility of the living data resource and cross-cohort comparison to confirm existing associations between the microbiome and psychiatric illness and to reveal the extent of microbiome change within one individual during surgery, providing a paradigm for open microbiome research and education. IMPORTANCE We show that a citizen science, self-selected cohort shipping samples through the mail at room temperature recaptures many known microbiome results from clinically collected cohorts and reveals new ones. Of particular interest is integrating n = 1 study data with the population data, showing that the extent of microbiome change after events such as surgery can exceed differences between distinct environmental biomes, and the effect of diverse plants in the diet, which we confirm with untargeted metabolomics on hundreds of samples.

538 citations


Cited by
More filters
01 Jun 2012
TL;DR: SPAdes as mentioned in this paper is a new assembler for both single-cell and standard (multicell) assembly, and demonstrate that it improves on the recently released E+V-SC assembler and on popular assemblers Velvet and SoapDeNovo (for multicell data).
Abstract: The lion's share of bacteria in various environments cannot be cloned in the laboratory and thus cannot be sequenced using existing technologies. A major goal of single-cell genomics is to complement gene-centric metagenomic data with whole-genome assemblies of uncultivated organisms. Assembly of single-cell data is challenging because of highly non-uniform read coverage as well as elevated levels of sequencing errors and chimeric reads. We describe SPAdes, a new assembler for both single-cell and standard (multicell) assembly, and demonstrate that it improves on the recently released E+V-SC assembler (specialized for single-cell data) and on popular assemblers Velvet and SoapDeNovo (for multicell data). SPAdes generates single-cell assemblies, providing information about genomes of uncultivatable bacteria that vastly exceeds what may be obtained via traditional metagenomics studies. SPAdes is available online ( http://bioinf.spbau.ru/spades ). It is distributed as open source software.

10,124 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
Evan Bolyen1, Jai Ram Rideout1, Matthew R. Dillon1, Nicholas A. Bokulich1, Christian C. Abnet2, Gabriel A. Al-Ghalith3, Harriet Alexander4, Harriet Alexander5, Eric J. Alm6, Manimozhiyan Arumugam7, Francesco Asnicar8, Yang Bai9, Jordan E. Bisanz10, Kyle Bittinger11, Asker Daniel Brejnrod7, Colin J. Brislawn12, C. Titus Brown4, Benjamin J. Callahan13, Andrés Mauricio Caraballo-Rodríguez14, John Chase1, Emily K. Cope1, Ricardo Silva14, Christian Diener15, Pieter C. Dorrestein14, Gavin M. Douglas16, Daniel M. Durall17, Claire Duvallet6, Christian F. Edwardson, Madeleine Ernst14, Madeleine Ernst18, Mehrbod Estaki17, Jennifer Fouquier19, Julia M. Gauglitz14, Sean M. Gibbons20, Sean M. Gibbons15, Deanna L. Gibson17, Antonio Gonzalez14, Kestrel Gorlick1, Jiarong Guo21, Benjamin Hillmann3, Susan Holmes22, Hannes Holste14, Curtis Huttenhower23, Curtis Huttenhower24, Gavin A. Huttley25, Stefan Janssen26, Alan K. Jarmusch14, Lingjing Jiang14, Benjamin D. Kaehler27, Benjamin D. Kaehler25, Kyo Bin Kang28, Kyo Bin Kang14, Christopher R. Keefe1, Paul Keim1, Scott T. Kelley29, Dan Knights3, Irina Koester14, Tomasz Kosciolek14, Jorden Kreps1, Morgan G. I. Langille16, Joslynn S. Lee30, Ruth E. Ley31, Ruth E. Ley32, Yong-Xin Liu, Erikka Loftfield2, Catherine A. Lozupone19, Massoud Maher14, Clarisse Marotz14, Bryan D Martin20, Daniel McDonald14, Lauren J. McIver24, Lauren J. McIver23, Alexey V. Melnik14, Jessica L. Metcalf33, Sydney C. Morgan17, Jamie Morton14, Ahmad Turan Naimey1, Jose A. Navas-Molina14, Jose A. Navas-Molina34, Louis-Félix Nothias14, Stephanie B. Orchanian, Talima Pearson1, Samuel L. Peoples35, Samuel L. Peoples20, Daniel Petras14, Mary L. Preuss36, Elmar Pruesse19, Lasse Buur Rasmussen7, Adam R. Rivers37, Michael S. Robeson38, Patrick Rosenthal36, Nicola Segata8, Michael Shaffer19, Arron Shiffer1, Rashmi Sinha2, Se Jin Song14, John R. Spear39, Austin D. Swafford, Luke R. Thompson40, Luke R. Thompson41, Pedro J. Torres29, Pauline Trinh20, Anupriya Tripathi14, Peter J. Turnbaugh10, Sabah Ul-Hasan42, Justin J. J. van der Hooft43, Fernando Vargas, Yoshiki Vázquez-Baeza14, Emily Vogtmann2, Max von Hippel44, William A. Walters31, Yunhu Wan2, Mingxun Wang14, Jonathan Warren45, Kyle C. Weber46, Kyle C. Weber37, Charles H. D. Williamson1, Amy D. Willis20, Zhenjiang Zech Xu14, Jesse R. Zaneveld20, Yilong Zhang47, Qiyun Zhu14, Rob Knight14, J. Gregory Caporaso1 
TL;DR: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and R.K.P. and partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 and U54MD012388.
Abstract: QIIME 2 development was primarily funded by NSF Awards 1565100 to J.G.C. and 1565057 to R.K. Partial support was also provided by the following: grants NIH U54CA143925 (J.G.C. and T.P.) and U54MD012388 (J.G.C. and T.P.); grants from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (J.G.C. and R.K.); ERCSTG project MetaPG (N.S.); the Strategic Priority Research Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences QYZDB-SSW-SMC021 (Y.B.); the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council APP1085372 (G.A.H., J.G.C., Von Bing Yap and R.K.); the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) to D.L.G.; and the State of Arizona Technology and Research Initiative Fund (TRIF), administered by the Arizona Board of Regents, through Northern Arizona University. All NCI coauthors were supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Cancer Institute. S.M.G. and C. Diener were supported by the Washington Research Foundation Distinguished Investigator Award.

8,821 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Some notable features of IQ-TREE version 2 are described and the key advantages over other software are highlighted.
Abstract: IQ-TREE (http://www.iqtree.org, last accessed February 6, 2020) is a user-friendly and widely used software package for phylogenetic inference using maximum likelihood. Since the release of version 1 in 2014, we have continuously expanded IQ-TREE to integrate a plethora of new models of sequence evolution and efficient computational approaches of phylogenetic inference to deal with genomic data. Here, we describe notable features of IQ-TREE version 2 and highlight the key advantages over other software.

4,337 citations

Journal Article

4,293 citations

Journal Article
TL;DR: This volume is keyed to high resolution electron microscopy, which is a sophisticated form of structural analysis, but really morphology in a modern guise, the physical and mechanical background of the instrument and its ancillary tools are simply and well presented.
Abstract: I read this book the same weekend that the Packers took on the Rams, and the experience of the latter event, obviously, colored my judgment. Although I abhor anything that smacks of being a handbook (like, \"How to Earn a Merit Badge in Neurosurgery\") because too many volumes in biomedical science already evince a boyscout-like approach, I must confess that parts of this volume are fast, scholarly, and significant, with certain reservations. I like parts of this well-illustrated book because Dr. Sj6strand, without so stating, develops certain subjects on technique in relation to the acquisition of judgment and sophistication. And this is important! So, given that the author (like all of us) is somewhat deficient in some areas, and biased in others, the book is still valuable if the uninitiated reader swallows it in a general fashion, realizing full well that what will be required from the reader is a modulation to fit his vision, propreception, adaptation and response, and the kind of problem he is undertaking. A major deficiency of this book is revealed by comparison of its use of physics and of chemistry to provide understanding and background for the application of high resolution electron microscopy to problems in biology. Since the volume is keyed to high resolution electron microscopy, which is a sophisticated form of structural analysis, but really morphology in a modern guise, the physical and mechanical background of The instrument and its ancillary tools are simply and well presented. The potential use of chemical or cytochemical information as it relates to biological fine structure , however, is quite deficient. I wonder when even sophisticated morphol-ogists will consider fixation a reaction and not a technique; only then will the fundamentals become self-evident and predictable and this sine qua flon will become less mystical. Staining reactions (the most inadequate chapter) ought to be something more than a technique to selectively enhance contrast of morphological elements; it ought to give the structural addresses of some of the chemical residents of cell components. Is it pertinent that auto-radiography gets singled out for more complete coverage than other significant aspects of cytochemistry by a high resolution microscopist, when it has a built-in minimal error of 1,000 A in standard practice? I don't mean to blind-side (in strict football terminology) Dr. Sj6strand's efforts for what is \"routinely used in our laboratory\"; what is done is usually well done. It's just that …

3,197 citations