Ecogenomic Signatures in Bacteriophage Genomes: From Microbial Tracking to Precision Therapies

Abstract

Bacteriophage ecogenomic signatures—distinct genetic patterns reflecting their microbial habitat—are emerging as powerful tools for diagnosing ecosystem health, tracking contamination sources, and developing precision antimicrobials. This article synthesizes current research for scientific and drug development professionals, exploring the foundational principles that underpin these habitat-specific signals. It details advanced methodologies for signature detection, including metagenomic and holo-transcriptomic approaches, and addresses key challenges in host prediction and data interpretation. By comparing signature stability across health and disease states, we highlight their validation as biomarkers for dysbiosis and their growing potential in combatting multidrug-resistant infections through engineered phage therapy, marking a new frontier in ecological and clinical microbiology.

Decoding the Habitat: The Origin and Principles of Phage Ecogenomic Signatures

Ecogenomic signatures are defined as habitat-specific genetic patterns embedded within bacteriophage genomes. These signatures arise from the co-evolution and adaptation of phages to specific microbial ecosystems, making them powerful diagnostic tools for tracking the origin and dynamics of microbial communities [1]. The core principle is that individual phages associated with a particular environment, such as the human gut, encode a distinct genetic profile. Homologues of these genes display a significantly higher relative abundance in metagenomes derived from that specific habitat compared to others [1]. This concept moves beyond single marker genes to encompass a genome-wide, habitat-associated signal.

The utility of these signatures is profound. A primary application is in Microbial Source Tracking (MST), where phage ecogenomic signatures can distinguish, for instance, human faecal contamination from that of other animals in environmental waters [1]. Furthermore, within the context of a broader thesis on phage ecogenomics, these signatures provide insight into ecosystem health. A recent meta-analysis revealed that while virome α-diversity changes variably during dysbiosis, a shift in viral β-diversity (community composition) is a more consistent signature of microbiome disturbance [2]. This breakdown in the predictable relationship between bacterial and phage diversity under disturbance suggests ecogenomic signatures could serve as broad indicators of ecosystem imbalance [2].

Key Experiments and Data

The foundational evidence for phage ecogenomic signatures was demonstrated through a series of comparative genomic and metagenomic analyses. The following table summarizes the quantitative findings from key experiments that established this concept.

Table 1: Experimental Evidence for Ecogenomic Signatures in Model Bacteriophages

Bacteriophage (Habitat)	Analysis Type	Key Finding: Enrichment in Habitat	Statistical Significance & Details
ɸB124-14 (Human Gut) [1]	Viral Metagenomes	Significantly greater mean relative abundance of ORF homologues in human gut viromes vs. environmental viromes.	Yes (Significant); Profile distinct from marine and rhizosphere phages.
ɸB124-14 (Human Gut) [1]	Whole Community Metagenomes	Significantly greater representation in human-derived metagenomes vs. other body sites and environments.	Yes (Significant); Demonstrated detection in complex, non-viral metagenomes.
ɸSYN5 (Marine) [1]	Viral Metagenomes	Significantly greater representation in a subset of marine environment viromes vs. gut viromes.	Yes (Significant); Confirms habitat-specific signals are not unique to gut phages.
Virome Diversity (Multiple Hosts) [2]	Meta-Analysis (70 studies)	69% of studies (47/68) reported a significant change in viral β-diversity with dysbiosis.	Highly consistent signature across diverse disease systems and hosts.
Virome Diversity (Multiple Hosts) [2]	Meta-Analysis (70 studies)	89% of studies (62/70) reported significant enrichment of system-specific viral taxa under dysbiosis.	Indicates specific taxonomic shifts contribute to the ecogenomic signal.

Experimental Protocol: Establishing an Ecogenomic Signature

The following workflow details the methodology for identifying and validating an ecogenomic signature in a bacteriophage genome, based on established approaches [1].

Objective: To determine if a target bacteriophage genome encodes a genetic signature specific to a particular habitat (e.g., human gut).

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Phage Genome Selection and Preparation:

  • Select a bacteriophage of interest with a suspected habitat association (e.g., a phage infecting a common gut bacterium like Bacteroides fragilis).
  • Ensure the phage genome is complete and accurately annotated. Follow rigorous guidelines for assembly, checking for terminal redundancies, circular permutation, and frameshift errors [3]. Tools like SPAdes or Shovill are recommended for de novo assembly, with read mapping verification using BWA-MEM or Bowtie2 [3].

• Metagenomic Dataset Curation:

  • Compile a diverse set of publicly available metagenomic datasets from the target habitat (e.g., human gut) and control habitats (e.g., marine, soil, bovine/porcine gut). These should include both viral-enriched (virome) and whole-community shotgun metagenomes.

• Homology Search and Abundance Calculation:

  • For each metagenomic dataset, use BLAST to identify all sequences with similarity to the open reading frames (ORFs) encoded by the target phage.
  • Calculate the cumulative relative abundance of these phage ORF homologues within each metagenome. This metric normalizes the hit count by the total size of the metagenomic dataset.

• Statistical Comparison and Signature Identification:

  • Compare the cumulative relative abundance profiles of the target phage ORFs across all habitats using statistical tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA).
  • A statistically significant enrichment of ORF homologues in the target habitat (e.g., human gut) compared to non-target habitats indicates a positive ecogenomic signature.
  • For validation, repeat the analysis with control phages of known habitat origin (e.g., a marine cyanophage). The control phage should show a distinct enrichment pattern (e.g., in marine metagenomes), confirming the specificity of the approach [1].

• Discriminatory Power Assessment:

  • Apply machine learning or clustering algorithms (e.g., PCA, random forests) to the ORF homologue abundance data to test if the signature can accurately segregate metagenomes based on their environmental origin.
  • The signature's robustness can be further tested by challenging it with "contaminated" environmental metagenomes (e.g., simulated with in silico additions of human gut sequences) to see if it correctly identifies the pollution signal [1].

Diagram 1: Workflow for identifying a phage ecogenomic signature.

Data Visualization and Analysis

Effective visualization is critical for interpreting the complex data generated in ecogenomic studies. The field of untargeted metabolomics offers a parallel; its workflows are also highly dependent on expert "human-in-the-loop" input facilitated by visual tools that make abstract data tangible [4]. The following strategies are essential:

• Occupancy (Meta-)Plots: Show the average distribution of sequencing reads (e.g., from a metagenomic BLAST search) across a defined genomic region, such as the transcription start sites of host genes or the center of phage genomic islands. This reveals consistent patterns across many loci [5].
• Density Heatmaps: Display the signal strength of a habitat-specific signature (e.g., abundance of phage ORF homologues) for a large set of target genes or genomic intervals, ordered by a relevant metric. This allows for the visual identification of clusters with shared ecogenomic profiles [5].
• Comparative Visual Encodings: Use visualizations like UpSet plots instead of traditional Venn diagrams to clearly illustrate the complex intersections of phage genes present across multiple metagenomic habitats, especially when dealing with more than three sets [6].

The diagram below illustrates a proposed analytical pipeline for processing metagenomic data to extract and visualize these signatures.

Diagram 2: Data analysis pipeline for ecogenomic signatures.

The Scientist's Toolkit

This section provides a curated list of essential reagents, software, and data resources for conducting research on phage ecogenomic signatures.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Phage Ecogenomics

Resource Name	Type	Function in Research	Relevance to Ecogenomic Signatures
SPAdes/Shovill [3]	Software (Assembler)	De novo assembly of phage genomes from sequencing reads.	Generates the high-quality, complete phage genomes required for downstream signature analysis.
PHASTER [7]	Web Server	Identification and annotation of prophage sequences within bacterial genomes.	Discovers cryptic phage elements in host genomes that may carry habitat-specific signals.
BLAST Suite [1]	Software (Alignment)	Finding regions of local similarity between phage sequences and metagenomic datasets.	The core tool for identifying homologues of phage ORFs in metagenomes to calculate abundance.
PhageTerm [3]	Software	Predicts phage genome termini type (e.g., circularly permuted, terminally redundant).	Confirms genome completeness and configuration, a critical prerequisite for accurate annotation.
VirNucPro/DeepPhage [8]	AI-Based Tool	Annotation of viral sequences using machine learning and language models.	Improves functional annotation of phage "dark matter," uncovering novel genes potentially contributing to signatures.
AlphaFold [8]	AI-Based Tool	Protein structure prediction from amino acid sequences.	Aids in functional prediction of orphan phage proteins, linking sequence to potential habitat-specific function.
RefSeq Genome Database [5]	Data Resource	Provides curated chromosome size and gene annotation files for various genome assemblies.	Essential for normalizing and mapping metagenomic data to a consistent genomic coordinate system.
MetaViralSPAdes [8]	Software (Assembler)	Metagenomic assembler specifically designed for viral sequences.	Recovers novel and divergent viral genomes from complex metagenomes, expanding the reference database.
Paniculoside I	Paniculoside I, MF:C26H40O8, MW:480.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Stachartin C	Stachartin C, MF:C29H41NO6, MW:499.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

The concept of ecogenomic signatures refers to the distinct, habitat-associated genetic patterns encoded within bacteriophage genomes. These signatures arise from the prolonged co-evolution and adaptation of phages and their bacterial hosts within specific ecosystems. The genomic composition of an individual phage can serve as a diagnostic marker for its originating environment, reflecting the selective pressures and functional requirements of that niche. Research has demonstrated that individual phages, such as the gut-associated ɸB124-14, encode a clear habitat-related signal, with their gene homologues showing significantly different representation across viromes from different environments [1]. This foundational principle enables researchers to utilize phage genomes as robust indicators of microbial community structure and function.

The dynamics of the arms race between bacteria and phages are a primary evolutionary force shaping these signatures. Bacteria have developed sophisticated immune systems—including both passive adaptations (inhibiting phage adsorption, preventing DNA entry) and active defense systems (restriction-modification systems, CRISPR-Cas)—to counter phage infection [9]. In response, phages continuously evolve counter-measures, creating an ongoing molecular dialogue that leaves distinct evolutionary imprints on both parters' genomes. This co-evolutionary process generates the specific genetic patterns that constitute identifiable ecogenomic signatures [9] [1].

Quantitative Evidence of Phage-Ecosystem Relationships

Analysis of viral metagenomes (viromes) across habitats reveals that phages encode discernible ecological signals. The table below summarizes key quantitative findings from a systematic review of 74 studies investigating virome signatures in dysbiosis:

Table 1: Virome Diversity Changes in Dysbiosis Across 74 Studies [2]

Metric of Change	Number of Studies Reporting Significant Changes	Percentage of Studies	Directional Trend
α-diversity (within-sample)	28 out of 69	41%	Variable (58% decrease, 42% increase)
β-diversity (between-sample composition)	47 out of 68	69%	More consistent signature of dysbiosis
Taxon Enrichment (specific viral taxa)	62 out of 70	89%	System-specific viral taxa enriched

Further evidence comes from studies tracking specific phage genes across environments. The relative abundance of gene homologues from the human gut-associated phage ɸB124-14 is significantly enriched in human gut viromes compared to environmental viromes, confirming that individual phage genomes can carry a strong habitat-specific signal [1]. Conversely, cyanophage SYN5, isolated from marine environments, shows the inverse pattern, with greater representation in marine metagenomes [1]. This indicates that the ecogenomic signature is a generalizable phenomenon applicable to phages from diverse habitats.

Table 2: Ecogenomic Signatures in Model Bacteriophages [1]

Phage	Natural Habitat	Representation in Human Gut Viromes	Representation in Environmental Viromes	Statistical Significance
ɸB124-14	Human Gut (Bacteroides)	High	Low	p < 0.05
ɸSYN5	Marine (Cyanobacteria)	Low	High (Marine)	p < 0.05
ɸKS10	Plant Rhizosphere	Very Low	Very Low	Not Discernible

A critical insight from meta-analysis is that the relationship between bacterial diversity and phage diversity follows ecological patterns. Bacterial α-diversity is a strong predictor of virome α-diversity in healthy states (mean r² = 0.380), but this correlation breaks down under dysbiosis (mean r² = 0.118) [2]. This decoupling during disturbance suggests that the phage-bacteria relationship is a key feature of ecosystem health and a potential diagnostic signature.

Protocols for Ecogenomic Signature Discovery

Protocol 1: Holo-Transcriptomic Profiling of Phage-Host Dynamics

Principle: This approach captures the entire transcriptome (host, bacteria, and phage) within a sample to identify transcriptionally active microbes and phage-host interactions, providing a dynamic view of community activity beyond mere presence/absence [10].

Experimental Workflow:

• Sample Acquisition & Storage: Collect biological material (e.g., stool, tissue, environmental sample) and immediately flash-freeze in liquid nitrogen. Store at -80°C to preserve RNA integrity.
• RNA Extraction: Use a commercial kit designed for co-extraction of total RNA, including small RNAs. Treat samples with DNase I to remove genomic DNA contamination.
• Host RNA Depletion: To enrich for microbial and viral transcripts, treat total RNA with a probe-based hybridization method (e.g., NuGEN's AnyDeplete) to remove abundant host ribosomal RNA.
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Convert the depleted RNA into a sequencing library using a strand-specific protocol. Sequence on an Illumina platform to achieve a minimum of 20-30 million paired-end reads per sample.
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Quality Control: Assess read quality using FastQC [10]. Trim adapters and low-quality bases (Q<30) using Cutadapt, removing reads shorter than 35-50 bp [10].
  • Host Transcript Removal: Map reads to the host reference genome (e.g., human, mouse) and discard mapped reads.
  • Metatranscriptomic Assembly: De novo assemble the remaining reads into contigs using a dedicated assembler (e.g., MEGAHIT, rnaSPAdes).
  • Phage & AMR Gene Identification: Classify contigs using a combination of:
    • Reference-based: Map reads to curated phage genome databases like PhageScope or IMG/VR using BWA-MEM or minimap2 [10].
    • De novo: Use annotation tools like PhANNs or PhaGAA to identify phage-related contigs based on intrinsic genomic features [10].
    • Functional Annotation: Annotate contigs against AMR gene databases (e.g., CARD, ARG-ANNOT) and general protein databases (e.g., UniProt, KEGG) to identify active antibiotic resistance genes and metabolic pathways.

<100: Holo-Transcriptomic Profiling Workflow

Protocol 2: Metagenomic Validation of Ecogenomic Signatures

Principle: This protocol uses whole-community or viral metagenomic sequencing to validate the habitat-specificity of phage-encoded ecogenomic signatures, as demonstrated for phage ɸB124-14 [1].

Experimental Workflow:

• Metagenomic Sample Collection: Obtain a set of metagenomes from distinct habitats (e.g., human gut, other mammalian guts, various environmental waters).
• Sequence Data Processing: Download quality-filtered metagenomic reads or assemblies from public repositories or process raw sequences through a standardized pipeline (quality control, adapter trimming).
• Ecogenomic Signature Quantification:
  • Reference Selection: Choose one or more well-characterized phage genomes as reference ecogenomic signatures (e.g., ɸB124-14 for human gut).
  • Homology Search: For each metagenome, perform a translated search (using BLASTX or DIAMOND) of all reads/contigs against the proteome of the reference phage.
  • Calculate Cumulative Relative Abundance: For a given metagenome and reference phage, calculate the cumulative relative abundance (CRA) of its ORFs using the formula: CRA = (Total number of valid hits to all phage ORFs) / (Total number of sequences in metagenome)
• Statistical Analysis & Discrimination:
  • Compare the CRA values for the target phage across different habitats using statistical tests (e.g., Mann-Whitney U test).
  • Use the CRA profile to build a classification model (e.g., LDA, random forest) to discriminate metagenomes based on their environmental origin (e.g., contaminated vs. uncontaminated water) [1].

<100: Metagenomic Validation of Phage Signatures

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Ecogenomic Signature Research

Item	Function/Application	Example Resources
Phage Genome Databases	Reference for sequence-based identification and classification of phages.	PhageScope, IMG/VR, Microbe Versus Phage database [10].
Phage Annotation Tools	De novo identification and functional annotation of phage sequences in omics data.	PhANNs, PhaGAA web servers [10].
AMR Gene Databases	Annotation of antibiotic resistance genes in phage and bacterial genomic data.	CARD (Comprehensive Antibiotic Resistance Database) [10].
Pre-trained Protein Language Models	Generating context-rich protein embeddings for predicting phage-host interactions.	ProtBERT, ProT5 [11].
Host Depletion Kits	Enrichment of microbial and viral RNA in holo-transcriptomic studies by removing host ribosomal RNA.	Commercial probe-based kits (e.g., NuGEN AnyDeplete) [10].
AI-Based Genome Design Tools	Generating novel, functional phage genomes to explore sequence-function relationships and overcome resistance.	Evo genomic foundation models [12].
Epimedonin B	Epimedonin B, MF:C20H16O6, MW:352.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
4-Epicommunic acid	4-Epicommunic acid, MF:C20H30O2, MW:302.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Advanced Predictive Modeling of Phage-Host Interactions

Accurately predicting which bacteria a phage can infect is fundamental to applying ecogenomic principles. MoEPH (Mixture-of-Experts for Phage-Host prediction) is a novel framework that integrates transformer-based protein embeddings (from ProtBERT, ProT5) with domain-specific statistical descriptors (Amino Acid Composition, Atomic Composition) [11]. This model uses a gated fusion mechanism to dynamically combine features, achieving high accuracy (99.6% on balanced datasets) and significantly improved robustness on imbalanced data, which is common in biological studies [11]. The model's interpretability, provided by visualizing expert weights, builds trust and offers biological insight, making it suitable for clinical applications like phage therapy selection.

<100: MoEPH Model for Predicting Phage-Host Interactions

Bacteriophages (phages), the viruses that infect bacteria, are now recognized as critical drivers of microbial ecosystem dynamics. A pivotal advancement in environmental microbiology has been the discovery that the genomes of individual bacteriophages encode discernible, habitat-specific signals, termed ecogenomic signatures [1]. These signatures are based on the relative abundance of phage-encoded gene homologues in different metagenomic datasets and are diagnostic of the underlying host microbiome [1]. This application note details the patterns of these ecogenomic signatures across major habitats, focusing on the human gut and aquatic environments, and provides detailed protocols for their resolution and application in fields such as microbial source tracking (MST) and therapeutic development.

Data Presentation: Ecogenomic Signatures Across Habitats

The core evidence for habitat-specific patterns in phages comes from quantifying the representation of phage-encoded open reading frames (ORFs) in viral and whole-community metagenomes from different environments. The gut-associated phage ɸB124-14, which infects Bacteroides fragilis, serves as a key model organism [1].

Table 1: Cumulative Relative Abundance of ɸB124-14 ORFs in Viral Metagenomes

Habitat	Mean Relative Abundance	Statistical Significance (vs. Environmental)	Key Observations
Human Gut	High	Significantly greater	Notable variation between individual viromes
Porcine & Bovine Gut	High	Not significant (vs. Human Gut)
Aquatic Environments (Marine/Freshwater)	Low	Baseline

Table 2: Comparative Ecogenomic Profiles of Model Phages

Phage	Natural Host / Origin	Ecogenomic Profile in Metagenomes	Key Application
ɸB124-14	Bacteroides fragilis / Human Gut	Enriched in mammalian gut viromes [1]	Microbial Source Tracking (MST) for human faecal pollution
ɸSYN5	Cyanobacteria / Marine Environment	Enriched in marine metagenomes; low in gut viromes [1]	Environmental habitat marker
ɸKS10	Burkholderia cenocepacia / Plant Rhizosphere	Poorly represented; no discernible profile in datasets analysed [1]	Distantly related control phage

Analysis of whole-community metagenomes further confirms that the ɸB124-14 ecogenomic signature can distinguish human-derived data sets from those of other origins, demonstrating its power to segregate metagenomes according to environmental source and even identify environments subject to simulated human faecal contamination [1].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Resolving an Ecogenomic Signature from a Bacteriophage Genome

This protocol outlines the steps to identify and validate a habitat-associated ecogenomic signature for a target phage, such as ɸB124-14 [1].

1. Define the Query and Reference Databases:

• Query Phage Genome: Obtain the complete genome sequence of the phage of interest (e.g., ɸB124-14, GenBank: NC_007804.1).
• Reference Metagenomic Databases: Curate a diverse set of metagenomic datasets from public repositories (e.g., NCBI SRA). The set should include:
  • Viral metagenomes (viromes) and whole-community metagenomes.
  • Habitats of interest (e.g., human gut) and control habitats (e.g., other mammalian guts, aquatic environments, soils).

2. Homology Search and Abundance Calculation:

• ORF Prediction: Predict all Open Reading Frames (ORFs) from the query phage genome using tools like Prodigal.
• Sequence Similarity Search: For each ORF, search against the processed metagenomic datasets using translated search tools (e.g., BLASTx or DIAMOND). Use a standardized e-value threshold (e.g., 1e-5).
• Calculate Cumulative Relative Abundance: For each metagenome, calculate the cumulative relative abundance of all hits to the query phage's ORFs. This is typically normalized by the total number of sequences or total base pairs in the metagenome.

3. Data Analysis and Signature Validation:

• Statistical Comparison: Use statistical tests (e.g., Mann-Whitney U test) to compare the relative abundance of the phage's ORFs between different habitat groups (e.g., human gut vs. aquatic environments).
• Discriminatory Power Assessment: Apply machine learning classifiers (e.g., Random Forest) to evaluate if the signature can accurately predict the habitat origin of blinded metagenomic samples.
• Control Comparisons: Validate the specificity of the signature by repeating the analysis with phages from other, non-target habitats (e.g., ɸSYN5 as a marine control).

Protocol: Phage Amplification-Based Detection of Bacteria via Quantitative Imaging

This protocol leverages phage amplification for sensitive bacterial detection, utilizing fluorescence imaging as an alternative to PCR [13].

1. Sample Enrichment and Phage Infection:

• Incubate the sample (e.g., coconut water, spinach wash water) with a growth medium to enrich for the target bacteria (e.g., E. coli) for a period (e.g., 4-6 hours).
• Add a high titer of a lytic phage specific to the target bacterium (e.g., T7 phage for E. coli) to the enriched sample.
• Incubate to allow for phage infection, replication, and host cell lysis (typically 25-40 minutes for T7).

2. Phage Particle Enrichment and Staining:

• Centrifuge the lysed sample to pellet bacterial debris.
• Collect the supernatant containing the amplified phage particles.
• Stain the phage particles in the supernatant with a nucleic acid stain, such as SYBR Green I.

3. Imaging and Quantification:

• Pipette a defined volume of the stained solution onto a microscope slide and apply a coverslip.
• Image the sample using a standard fluorescence microscope.
• Perform quantitative image analysis to enumerate the fluorescent phage particles. A significant increase in phage count compared to a negative control (no host bacteria) indicates the presence of the target bacterium in the original sample. This method can detect as low as 10 CFU/ml in 8 hours, including enrichment time [13].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for establishing a phage ecogenomic signature, from initial bioinformatic analysis to practical application.

Diagram 1: Workflow for establishing a phage ecogenomic signature.

The experimental protocol for detecting bacteria via phage amplification and imaging is summarized in the following workflow.

Diagram 2: Workflow for phage amplification-based bacterial detection.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Materials for Ecogenomic and Phage-Based Detection Studies

Item	Function / Application	Example / Specification
Model Phages	Benchmark organisms for establishing habitat-specific signatures and detection assays.	ɸB124-14 (Human gut, infects Bacteroides fragilis), T7 phage (for E. coli detection), ɸSYN5 (Marine control) [1] [13].
Reference Metagenomic Datasets	Publicly available data for calculating gene homologue abundance across habitats.	Human Gut Virome, Marine Virome, Freshwater Metagenomes, Soil Metagenomes (e.g., from NCBI SRA) [1].
Bioinformatic Tools	Software for ORF prediction, sequence similarity search, and statistical analysis.	Prodigal (ORF prediction), BLAST or DIAMOND (homology search), R packages (for statistical testing and graphing) [1].
Lytic Phages	Used in detection protocols to infect and lyse specific target bacteria.	Wild-type or genetically modified phages with a broad host range within the target bacterial species [13].
Nucleic Acid Stain	To fluorescently label amplified phage particles for imaging-based quantification.	SYBR Green I [13].
Fluorescence Microscope	Equipment for visualizing and counting stained phage particles.	Conventional fluorescence microscope with appropriate filters [13].
13-Hydroxygermacrone	13-Hydroxygermacrone, MF:C15H22O2, MW:234.33 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Psa-IN-1	Psa-IN-1, MF:C28H32ClN7O3S, MW:582.1 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Bacteriophages (phages), the viruses that infect bacteria, are the most abundant biological entities on Earth, playing a crucial role in shaping microbial community structure and function through their predatory activity and horizontal gene transfer [14] [15]. The concept of phage ecogenomic signatures refers to the unique genetic patterns encoded within phage genomes that reflect their adaptation to specific habitats and microbial communities [16]. These signatures represent a powerful framework for assessing ecosystem health and detecting perturbations, as phages co-evolve with their bacterial hosts and carry a genetic record of these interactions. Research has demonstrated that individual phage genomes encode clear habitat-related signals that can distinguish microbial ecosystems based on the relative representation of phage-encoded gene homologues in metagenomic datasets [16]. For instance, the gut-associated phage Ï•B124-14 encodes an ecogenomic signature that can successfully segregate metagenomes according to environmental origin and even distinguish contaminated environmental metagenomes from uncontaminated datasets [16]. This capacity to serve as precise indicators of microbial community structure and health positions phages as invaluable tools for ecosystem monitoring, public health protection, and therapeutic development.

Theoretical Foundations of Phage Ecogenomics

Ecological Principles of Phage-Host Interactions

Phages influence microbial community structure through multiple ecological mechanisms that ultimately define their utility as ecosystem indicators. The fundamental dynamic is based on density-dependent lysis of bacterial populations, similar to Lotka-Volterra predator-prey relationships, which promotes microbial diversity and resource utilization efficiency [14]. Through this regulatory function, phages prevent the dominance of any single bacterial taxon, thereby maintaining ecosystem balance and resilience.

The lifestyle strategies of phages significantly impact their indicator capabilities. Lytic phages directly kill their host cells through lysis, providing immediate feedback on the presence and abundance of specific bacterial hosts [17]. In contrast, temperate phages can integrate into bacterial chromosomes as prophages, entering a state of lysogeny that provides both a historical record of bacterial populations and a mechanism for horizontal gene transfer [14]. The prophage reservoir within a microbial community represents a genetic archive of past infections and co-evolutionary relationships [14]. Environmental conditions influence the lysis-lysogeny decision, with unfavorable conditions and low host density typically favoring lysogeny, although recent evidence suggests high host densities may also select for this strategy in complex communities [14]. This intricate relationship between phage life history strategies and microbial population dynamics forms the theoretical basis for interpreting phage ecogenomic signatures in ecosystem assessment.

Molecular Basis of Ecogenomic Signatures

The genomic composition of phages reflects their evolutionary adaptation to specific environments and hosts, creating identifiable patterns that serve as diagnostic markers. Tetranucleotide frequency profiles represent one such pattern, where the relative abundance of specific DNA four-mer sequences creates a distinctive signature that can associate phages with particular habitats or host organisms [16] [18]. Research on Proteus mirabilis bacteriophages demonstrated how tetranucleotide profiling could reveal broader host ranges and ecological affiliations, with one myophage showing a recent evolutionary association with Morganella morganii and other members of the Morganellaceae family despite being isolated using a P. mirabilis host [19].

Another crucial molecular signature lies in codon adaptation patterns, where phage genomes exhibit preferential use of certain codons that match the tRNA pools of their preferred bacterial hosts [18]. Analysis of marine Pseudoalteromonas phage H105/1 revealed that regions of the phage genome with the most host-adapted proteins also carried the strongest bacterial tetranucleotide signature, while the least host-adapted proteins displayed the strongest phage tetranucleotide signature [18]. This differential adaptation across functional modules within a single phage genome provides insights into the evolutionary history of phage proteins and their ecological relationships.

Table 1: Molecular Features Comprising Phage Ecogenomic Signatures

Molecular Feature	Description	Ecological Significance	Detection Method
Tetranucleotide Frequency	Relative abundance of DNA 4-mer sequences	Reflects evolutionary adaptation to specific habitats	Frequency profiling, Machine learning
Codon Adaptation Index	Measure of codon usage bias matching host preferences	Indicates host specificity and co-evolution	Comparative genomics
Auxiliary Metabolic Genes (AMGs)	Phage-encoded genes modulating host metabolism	Directly influences ecosystem biogeochemical cycling	Metagenomic sequencing, Functional annotation
Host Range Genetic Determinants	Genes encoding tail fibers, receptor-binding proteins	Defines breadth of susceptible bacterial hosts	Phylogenetic analysis, Protein structure prediction

Detection and Analysis Methodologies

Computational Workflows for Signature Identification

The identification of phage ecogenomic signatures from complex microbial communities relies on integrated computational workflows that combine sequence similarity-based methods with machine learning approaches. Modern phage detection tools have evolved from early composition-based algorithms to sophisticated hybrid frameworks that integrate multiple analytical strategies [17]. The current state-of-the-art encompasses four principal approaches:

• Sequence similarity-based methods identify viral regions by homology to known phage proteins using BLAST or hidden Markov models (HMMs) from databases such as pVOGs [17]. These methods offer high accuracy when close reference sequences exist but poorly detect novel or highly divergent phages.
• K-mer-based approaches classify sequences using the frequency of short nucleotide substrings of length k (k-mers), enabling alignment-free detection of viruses with limited similarity to known phages [17].
• Machine learning and deep learning models apply random forests (RF), support vector machines (SVMs), convolutional neural networks (CNNs), and long short-term memory (LSTM) networks to learn complex patterns distinguishing viral from microbial sequences [17].
• Hybrid approaches integrate similarity-based methods with homology-independent features (GC/AT skew, transcription directionality, gene density, tRNA occurrence) to achieve higher accuracy and flexibility [17].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the integrated computational pipeline for phage ecogenomic signature analysis:

Experimental Protocol: Ecogenomic Signature Profiling for Microbial Source Tracking

Protocol 1: Detection of Habitat-Associated Phage Signatures for Water Quality Assessment

Background: This protocol describes a method for detecting phage ecogenomic signatures to identify faecal contamination in water resources, enabling microbial source tracking (MST) with higher specificity and persistence than traditional faecal indicator bacteria [16].

Materials:

• Water samples (1L each) from target aquatic environments
• 0.22µm pore-size filters for bacterial concentration
• DNase I to eliminate free bacterial DNA
• DNA extraction kits (for viral DNA)
• PCR reagents and primers for host-specific phage detection
• Metagenomic sequencing library preparation kits

Procedure:

• Sample Processing and Viral Concentration

  • Filter 500mL water through 0.22µm membranes to remove bacteria and particulate matter
  • Concentrate viral particles from filtrate using ultrafiltration (100kDa MWCO) or iron chloride flocculation
  • Treat concentrate with DNase I (1U/µL, 30min, 37°C) to degrade free bacterial DNA

• Viral Nucleic Acid Extraction

  • Extract viral DNA using commercial kits with modifications for environmental samples
  • Include viral internal standards (e.g., phage Ï•X174) for quantification and extraction efficiency assessment
  • Quantify DNA using fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit dsDNA HS Assay)

• Library Preparation and Sequencing

  • Prepare metagenomic libraries using Illumina-compatible kits with dual index barcodes
  • Perform quality control on libraries using Bioanalyzer or TapeStation
  • Sequence on Illumina platform (2x150bp, minimum 10M read pairs per sample)

• Bioinformatic Analysis

  • Quality trim reads using Trimmomatic or FastP
  • Assemble reads into contigs using metaSPAdes or MEGAHIT with multiple k-mer sizes
  • Identify viral sequences using VirSorter2 and DeepVirFinder with default parameters
  • Annotate phage genomes using Prokka with custom viral databases
  • Calculate relative abundance of target phage signatures (e.g., Ï•B124-14 homologs) using BLASTn and custom scripts

• Signature Validation

  • Compare signature abundance across habitats using statistical tests (Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's post-hoc)
  • Construct receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine discriminatory power
  • Validate specificity using samples from known contamination sources

Troubleshooting:

• Low viral DNA yield: Increase starting water volume or use alternative concentration methods
• High host DNA contamination: Optimize DNase treatment duration and concentration
• Poor assembly: Sequence to higher depth or use hybrid assembly approaches

Applications in Ecosystem Monitoring

Microbial Source Tracking in Water Quality Assessment

Phage ecogenomic signatures offer a powerful approach for detecting faecal contamination in water resources and identifying its sources. Traditional methods relying on faecal indicator bacteria (FIB) such as E. coli and Enterococcus spp. suffer from limitations including lack of specificity to human faeces, poor persistence in environments, and potential regrowth [16]. Phage-based approaches overcome these limitations through:

• Extended environmental persistence compared to bacterial indicators
• Human-specific associations through co-evolution with gut microbiota
• Amplification capability via propagation in host bacteria

Research has demonstrated that the gut-associated phage Ï•B124-14 encodes a distinct ecogenomic signature that enables discrimination of human gut viromes from other environmental data sets [16]. Sequences with similarity to Ï•B124-14 open reading frames showed significantly greater relative abundance in human gut viromes compared to environmental datasets, while non-gut phages like Cyanophage SYN5 and Burkholderia prophage KS10 displayed entirely different ecological profiles [16]. This specificity forms the basis for developing molecular assays that can distinguish human faecal contamination from animal sources in water quality monitoring.

Table 2: Quantitative Comparison of Phage-Based vs. Traditional Microbial Source Tracking Approaches

Parameter	Culture-Based FIB	Molecular FIB Detection	Phage Ecogenomic Signatures
Turnaround Time	24-48 hours	4-6 hours	8-12 hours (sequencing-based)
Human Specificity	Low	Moderate	High
Environmental Persistence	Variable, may regrow	DNA may persist after cell death	High, longer than bacterial hosts
Sensitivity	10-100 CFU/mL	1-10 gene copies/mL	Varies with signature and sequencing depth
Source Discrimination	Limited	Moderate to High	High (multiple signature types)
Cost per Sample	$10-20	$15-30	$50-100 (decreasing with sequencing costs)

Agricultural Ecosystem Health Assessment

Agricultural environments represent complex microbial ecosystems where phage ecogenomic signatures can monitor pathogen dissemination and antibiotic resistance gene transfer. A metagenomic investigation of an organic farm revealed how bacteriophages mediate antibiotic resistance gene (ARG) dissemination between bacterial populations in fecal and environmental samples [20]. The study demonstrated:

• Similarities in ARG-associated viruses across fecal and environmental components despite differences in total microbiome composition
• Caudovirales phages, particularly the Siphoviridae family, contained diverse ARG types and interacted with various bacterial hosts
• Predictive models of phage-bacterial interactions on bipartite ARG transfer networks identified key vectors for resistance dissemination

The following diagram illustrates the phage-mediated ARG transfer network in agricultural ecosystems:

Therapeutic Ecosystem Management

Phage ecogenomic signatures extend beyond environmental monitoring to therapeutic applications where they guide precise microbiome interventions. Unlike broad-spectrum antibiotics that cause widespread dysbiosis, phage therapy demonstrates remarkable specificity with minimal impact on non-target bacterial communities [21]. A controlled study comparing phage treatment to antibiotics found:

• Phage treatment caused no significant differences in bacterial density, α- and β-diversity, successional patterns, and community assembly when the host bacterium was present
• Antibiotics induced significant changes in all community characteristics investigated, including a bloom of γ-proteobacteria and a shift from selection to ecological drift dominating community assembly
• Higher amounts of bacterial host increased the contribution of stochastic community assembly but did not amplify phage treatment impacts [21]

This preservation of community structure during targeted pathogen control represents a fundamental advantage for therapeutic applications where microbiome integrity is crucial for host health, such as in human medicine, aquaculture, and agricultural disease management.

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Phage Ecogenomic Studies

Category	Specific Products/Tools	Application	Key Features
Viral Concentration	0.22µm filters, 100kDa MWCO ultrafiltration units, Iron chloride flocculation reagents	Concentrate viral particles from large-volume environmental samples	Efficient recovery of diverse phage morphologies
DNA Extraction Kits	DNeasy PowerWater Kit, QIAamp Viral RNA Mini Kit, Custom protocols with DNase treatment	Isolation of high-quality viral nucleic acids	Effective removal of contaminating bacterial DNA
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina NovaSeq, MiSeq; Oxford Nanopore GridION, PromethION	Metagenomic sequencing of viral communities	High throughput for detection of rare signatures
Bioinformatic Tools	VirSorter2, DeepVirFinder, PhiSpy, metaSPAdes, MEGAHIT	Viral sequence identification and genome assembly	Machine learning approaches for novel phage detection
Reference Databases	pVOGs, IMG/VR, RefSeq, RVDB	Functional annotation and classification	Curated collections of viral protein families
Analysis Frameworks	Kaiju, Kraken2, MetaVir, iVirus	Taxonomic classification and ecological profiling	Integrated workflows for virome analysis

Phage ecogenomic signatures represent a transformative approach for tracking microbial community structure and health across diverse ecosystems. The specificity of these genetic signatures to particular habitats and host organisms enables precise monitoring of environmental changes, contamination events, and ecosystem perturbations. As sequencing technologies continue to advance and computational methods become more sophisticated, the resolution and applicability of phage-based ecosystem assessment will expand accordingly.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on standardized signature panels for specific ecosystem types, rapid detection methodologies that bypass metagenomic sequencing, and integration of phage ecogenomic data with other molecular profiling approaches for comprehensive ecosystem assessment. The growing recognition of phages as key players in microbial ecosystems ensures that their ecogenomic signatures will play an increasingly important role in environmental monitoring, public health protection, and therapeutic interventions aimed at preserving or restoring microbial community health.

The study of bacteriophages has entered a revolutionary phase with the emergence of ecogenomics, which investigates the genetic adaptations of viruses to specific ecological niches. Within this framework, the concept of an "ecogenomic signature" has become pivotal—referring to a distinct pattern of gene homologs and genomic features that consistently associates with a particular habitat, providing a diagnostic marker for that environment [16]. The human gut microbiome represents a complex ecosystem where bacteriophages exert profound influence on microbial community structure and function. Despite their importance, the gut virome remains largely uncharted biological "dark matter," with few well-characterized reference genomes available [22] [23]. Bacteriophage ϕB124-14 infecting Bacteroides fragilis has emerged as a paradigm for understanding these habitat-associated genetic signatures. This case study explores how ϕB124-14 serves as a model system for detecting and exploiting ecogenomic signatures, with applications ranging from microbial source tracking to therapeutic development.

Ï•B124-14 Characterization and Genomic Properties

Physical and Biological Characteristics

ϕB124-14 is a bacteriophage that specifically infects human gut-associated strains of Bacteroides fragilis. Physical characterization through transmission electron microscopy reveals that ϕB124-14 possesses a binary morphology with an icosahedral head (49.8 ± 3.9 nm in diameter) and a non-contractile tail (162 ± 21 nm in length, 13.6 ± 1.6 nm in diameter), classifying it within the Caudovirales order and Siphoviridae family [22] [23]. The phage produces small, clear plaques (0.7 ± 0.3 mm) when plated on its original host, Bacteroides fragilis GB-124, and demonstrates notable environmental stability, particularly regarding UV resistance [22].

Host range analysis demonstrates that Ï•B124-14 exhibits remarkably narrow tropism, infecting only a subset of closely related B. fragilis strains isolated from the same municipal wastewater source, along with reference strain DSM 1396 (originally from human pleural fluid) [23]. This restricted host range underscores the high specialization of gut phages and reflects the niche adaptation that occurs at fine phylogenetic scales within the gut ecosystem [23].

Table 1: Physical and Biological Properties of Ï•B124-14

Property	Specification
Family	Siphoviridae
Morphology	Icosahedral head with non-contractile tail
Head Diameter	49.8 ± 3.9 nm
Tail Dimensions	162 ± 21 nm length, 13.6 ± 1.6 nm diameter
Plaque Morphology	Small (0.7 ± 0.3 mm), clear plaques
Host Specificity	Restricted subset of Bacteroides fragilis strains
Environmental Stability	High UV resistance

Genomic Features and Unusual Functions

Ï•B124-14 contains a circular double-stranded DNA genome, with comparative analyses revealing its closest relationship to Ï•B40-8, another Bacteroides phage [22] [23]. At the time of its characterization, only one other complete Bacteroides phage genome was publicly available, highlighting the unexplored nature of this phage gene-space [22]. The Ï•B124-14 genome encodes functions previously considered rare in viral genomes and human gut viral metagenomes, including genes that may confer advantages to either the phage or its bacterial host [22] [23].

The genomic characterization of ϕB124-14 has been extended through the identification of a novel wastewater Bacteroides fragilis bacteriophage, vBBfrS23, which shares similar ecological and genomic features with ϕB124-14 [24]. This more recently isolated phage has a genome of 48,011 bp, encoding 73 putative open reading frames, and displays stability at temperatures of 4°C and 60°C for at least one hour [24].

Table 2: Genomic Characteristics of Ï•B124-14 and Related Bacteroides Phages

Genomic Feature	Ï•B124-14	vBBfrS23	Ï•B40-8
Genome Type	Circular dsDNA	Circularly permuted dsDNA	dsDNA
Genome Size	Not specified	48,011 bp	Not specified
ORF Count	Not specified	73	Not specified
Relatedness	-	Similar to Ï•B124-14	Closest relative to Ï•B124-14
Unusual Genes	Encodes rare viral functions	Not specified	Not specified

Ecological Profiling and Habitat Association

Human Gut-Specific Distribution

Comparative metagenomic analysis provides compelling evidence for the human gut-specific nature of Ï•B124-14. Initial investigations failed to identify homologous sequences in 136 non-human gut metagenomic datasets, while demonstrating prevalence in human gut microbiomes and viromes from diverse geographic regions including Europe, America, and Japan [22] [23]. This distribution pattern suggests both human specificity and potential geographic variation in carriage [22].

Further ecological profiling using both gene-centric phylogenetic analyses and alignment-free approaches confirmed that Ï•B124-14 and related Bacteroides phages populate a distinct ecological landscape within the human gut microbiome [22] [23]. This specialized niche adaptation forms the foundation of their utility as ecological markers.

Ecogenomic Signature Concept and Validation

The ecogenomic signature of Ï•B124-14 manifests as the relative abundance of its gene homologs within metagenomic datasets, which is significantly enriched in human gut samples compared to other environments [16]. This signature was systematically validated by analyzing the cumulative relative abundance of sequences similar to Ï•B124-14 open reading frames (ORFs) across diverse viral metagenomes from human, porcine, and bovine guts, as well as various aquatic environments [16].

The habitat-specificity of this signature becomes evident when compared to phages from other environments. While ϕB124-14 shows significant enrichment in human gut viromes, cyanophage SYN5 (from marine environments) displays the opposite pattern—greater representation in marine samples—whereas Burkholderia prophage KS10 shows no discernible habitat association [16]. This comparative approach demonstrates that individual phage can encode clear habitat-related ecogenomic signatures reflective of their underlying host microbiomes [16].

Research Protocols and Methodologies

Phage Isolation and Purification Protocol

Principle: Bacteriophages infecting Bacteroides fragilis can be isolated from wastewater samples, which contain human gut-derived phage particles.

Materials:

• Bacteroides fragilis GB-124 (host strain)
• Raw municipal wastewater sample
• Bacteriophage recovery medium (BPRM)
• Anaerobic chamber (5% COâ‚‚, 5% Hâ‚‚, 90% Nâ‚‚ at 37°C)
• Filtration units (0.45 μm and 0.22 μm PES membranes)
• Amicon Ultra-15 10K centrifugal filter units

Procedure:

• Collect 100 mL raw wastewater and filter through 0.45 μm membrane
• Concentrate filtrate by centrifugation at 5,000 × g for 15 min using Amicon Ultra-15 10K filters
• Mix 1 mL concentrated filtrate with 1 mL mid-exponential growth phase B. fragilis GB-124 (OD₆₂₀ 0.3-0.4)
• Allow 5 minutes for phage adsorption
• Mix with semi-soft BPRM agar (0.35%) and pour onto BPRM agar (1.5%) base layers
• Incubate anaerobically for 18 hours at 37°C
• Pick individual plaques and resuspend in BPRM medium with fresh host culture
• Incubate for 18 hours to propagate phages
• Filter through 0.22 μm membrane to remove bacteria
• Repeat plaque purification three times to obtain pure phage stock [24]

Ecogenomic Signature Detection Protocol

Principle: The habitat-specificity of Ï•B124-14 can be quantified by calculating the cumulative relative abundance of its gene homologs in metagenomic datasets.

Materials:

• Assembled metagenomes from target habitats
• Ï•B124-14 reference genome sequence
• Bioinformatics tools (BLAST, sequence alignment algorithms)
• Computational resources for large-scale sequence analysis

Procedure:

• Compile metagenomic datasets from various habitats (human gut, other body sites, environmental samples)
• Annotate Ï•B124-14 genome to identify all open reading frames (ORFs)
• For each metagenome, identify sequences with similarity to Ï•B124-14 ORFs using tBLASTn or similar tools
• Calculate cumulative relative abundance by summing the normalized hit counts across all Ï•B124-14 ORFs for each metagenome
• Compare abundance profiles across habitats using statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA)
• Validate specificity by comparing with control phages from other habitats [16]

Genome Signature-Based Phage Sequence Recovery

Principle: The phage genome signature-based recovery (PGSR) approach exploits similarities in tetranucleotide usage patterns to identify phylogenetically related phage sequences in metagenomic data.

Diagram 1: PGSR Workflow for Phage Sequence Recovery (Title: Phage Genome Signature Recovery Workflow)

Materials:

• Assembled metagenomic contigs (≥10 kb) from human gut samples
• Bacteroidales phage driver sequences
• Bioinformatics tools for tetranucleotide frequency calculation
• Functional annotation pipelines (e.g., Prokka, RAST)
• Reference databases of phage and bacterial genomes

Procedure:

• Compile large contigs (≥10 kb) from human gut metagenomes
• Calculate tetranucleotide usage profiles (TUPs) for driver phage sequences and metagenomic contigs
• Identify contigs with TUPs similar to Bacteroidales phage drivers
• Perform functional profiling of candidate contigs to categorize as phage or chromosomal
• Annotate ORFs of recovered phage fragments to verify consistent phage-related signals
• Validate by comparing relative abundance of homologous ORFs in phage genomes versus chromosomes [25]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Ï•B124-14 and Gut Phage Studies

Reagent/Material	Specification	Application	Function
Bacterial Host	Bacteroides fragilis GB-124	Phage isolation & propagation	Provides susceptible host for phage replication
Culture Medium	Bacteriophage Recovery Medium (BPRM)	Bacterial & phage culture	Supports anaerobic growth of host and phage propagation
Anaerobic Chamber	5% CO₂, 5% H₂, 90% N₂ at 37°C	All cultivation steps	Maintains anaerobic conditions essential for Bacteroides
Filtration Membranes	0.45 μm & 0.22 μm PES membranes	Phage purification	Removes bacterial cells while allowing phage passage
Concentration Devices	Amicon Ultra-15 10K filters	Sample processing	Concentrates phage particles from large volumes
Reference Genomes	Ï•B124-14, Ï•B40-8 sequences	Bioinformatic analyses	Provides reference for comparative genomics & signature identification
Metagenomic Datasets	Human gut, environmental viromes	Ecological profiling	Enables habitat association studies
Axomadol	Axomadol, CAS:454221-09-1, MF:C16H25NO3, MW:279.37 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
8-Br-NHD+	8-Br-NHD+, MF:C21H25BrN6O15P2, MW:743.3 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Applications and Technological Implications

Microbial Source Tracking (MST) Tools

The strong human gut-specific ecogenomic signature of Ï•B124-14 enables its application in microbial source tracking (MST) for water quality assessment [16]. Phage-based MST offers significant advantages over traditional fecal indicator bacteria, including longer environmental persistence, greater abundance than host bacteria, and human-specific signals that distinguish contamination sources [16]. The Ï•B124-14 ecogenomic signature can successfully discriminate human gut viromes from other datasets and identify 'contaminated' environmental metagenomes in simulated fecal pollution scenarios [16].

The development of culture-independent detection methods based on Ï•B124-14's genetic signature provides a pathway toward rapid, sensitive water quality monitoring that could potentially deliver results in near real-time [16]. This application addresses critical public health needs for managing water resources and safeguarding against fecal contamination.

Therapeutic Exploration and Biotechnological Applications

While Ï•B124-14 itself is not currently deployed therapeutically, its characterization contributes to the growing foundation for phage therapy applications. Bacteriophages in general are gaining attention as promising alternatives to antibiotics for multidrug-resistant infections, with the ability to target specific pathogens, disrupt biofilms, and reach intracellular pathogens [26]. The detailed understanding of narrow host-range phages like Ï•B124-14 informs therapeutic strategies for targeting specific pathogenic strains without disrupting commensal microbiota.

Recent regulatory advances, including the EMA's "Guideline on quality aspects of phage therapy medicinal products," establish frameworks for characterizing therapeutic phages, requiring taxonomic classification, host range determination, genome sequencing, and detailed characterization of phage seed lots [27]. The methodologies applied to Ï•B124-14 provide a template for such characterization.

Visualizing Ecogenomic Signature Analysis

Diagram 2: Ecogenomic Signature Analysis Pipeline (Title: Ecogenomic Signature Analysis Workflow)

Ï•B124-14 exemplifies how individual bacteriophages can encode distinct habitat-associated genetic signatures that reflect their co-evolution with host bacteria and adaptation to specific ecosystems. The ecogenomic signature of Ï•B124-14 provides a powerful tool for detecting human fecal contamination in environmental waters, with potential for development into rapid, culture-independent microbial source tracking methods [16]. Furthermore, the genomic characterization of Ï•B124-14 and related Bacteroides phages illuminates a portion of the biological "dark matter" within the human gut virome, revealing a population of potentially gut-specific Bacteroidales-like phages that are poorly represented in virus-like particle-derived metagenomes [25].

Future research directions should focus on expanding the catalog of well-characterized gut phages, refining ecogenomic signature detection methodologies, and translating these findings into practical applications for water quality monitoring and therapeutic development. As sequencing technologies advance and regulatory frameworks mature [27] [26], the principles demonstrated through Ï•B124-14 will undoubtedly find broader applications in managing microbial ecosystems and combating antibiotic-resistant infections.

From Sequence to Solution: Detecting and Applying Phage Ecogenomic Signatures

Ecogenomic signatures are habitat-specific genetic patterns encoded within phage genomes, serving as powerful indicators of their microbial ecosystem origins. The discovery that individual bacteriophages encode discernible habitat-associated signals has opened new frontiers in microbial source tracking (MST) and therapeutic development [1]. This application note details standardized protocols for extracting these signatures from complex metagenomic data, enabling researchers to classify phage origins and identify novel therapeutic candidates. By integrating computational mining with experimental validation, we provide a comprehensive framework for leveraging phage ecogenomics in drug development and diagnostic applications.

Quantitative Foundations of Phage Ecogenomics

The Oral Phage Database (OPD) exemplifies the scale of modern phage ecogenomics, comprising 189,859 representative phage genomes from 5,427 metagenomic samples across diverse populations [28]. This resource reveals that oral phages demonstrate remarkable genetic diversity with a median genome size of 27.61 kbp, including 3,416 huge phages (>200 kbp). Notably, over 90% of oral phages represent previously unknown genetic diversity, encoding an enormous variety of "dark proteins" with uncharacterized functions [28].

Table 1: Quantitative Profile of Oral Phage Database (OPD)

Parameter	Value	Significance
Total metagenomic samples	5,427	Cross-population coverage
Representative phage genomes	189,859	Extensive sequence diversity
Median genome size	27.61 kbp	Benchmark for oral phages
Huge phages (>200 kbp)	3,416	Expanded complexity
Complete/high-quality genomes	4,709 (2.5%)	High-quality reference set
Medium-quality genomes	53,432 (28.1%)	Usable draft genomes
Non-singleton viral clusters	1,915	Taxonomic grouping
Sub viral clusters (subVCs)	9,983	Strain-level diversity

Comparative analysis reveals distinct ecological partitioning between body sites. The OPD exhibits minimal overlap with gut virome databases (GVD, GPD), confirming specialized phage communities adapt to specific microbial habitats [28]. This ecological specialization forms the foundation for reliable ecogenomic signature identification.

Experimental Workflow for Signature Discovery

The following diagram illustrates the integrated computational and experimental workflow for phage ecogenomic signature discovery:

Core Protocol: Identifying Phage Ecogenomic Signatures

Computational Protocol: Ecogenomic Signature Extraction

Objective: Identify habitat-specific genetic signatures in phage genomes from metagenomic data.

Materials:

• High-quality metagenomic sequencing data from target habitats
• High-performance computing cluster with ≥64GB RAM
• Reference databases: OPD, GVD, IMG/VR [28] [29]

Methodology:

• Viral Sequence Recovery

  • Process raw metagenomic contigs through VirSorter2 and VirFinder to identify viral-like sequences [28] [17]
  • Apply quality control: remove sequences <10 kbp for metagenomes, <1 kbp for isolate genomes
  • Eliminate non-viral mobile genetic elements (plasmids, ICEs) and host contamination

• Database Construction & Clustering

  • Assess genome completeness using CheckV (>50% completeness for draft genomes) [28]
  • Cluster viral genomes using vConTACT2 based on shared protein clusters
  • Generate viral clusters (VCs) and sub-clusters (subVCs) for taxonomic analysis

• Ecogenomic Signature Identification

  • Annotate representative genomes using geNomad with ICTV MSL39 database [28]
  • Calculate cumulative relative abundance of phage-encoded ORFs across habitats
  • Perform comparative analysis against reference phage (ɸB124-14 for gut, ɸSYN5 for marine) [1]
  • Identify signature genes significantly enriched in target habitat (p<0.05, fold-change>2)

• Machine Learning Enhancement

  • Predict protein-protein interactions between phage and bacterial hosts
  • Train random forest classifiers using PPI features and experimental host-range data [30]
  • Validate model accuracy through cross-validation (>80% accuracy benchmark)

Deliverables: Habitat-specific phage signatures, classified phage genomes, trained prediction models.

Experimental Protocol: Signature Validation & Host Range Determination

Objective: Validate computational predictions of phage-host interactions through experimental assays.

Materials:

• Bacterial strains from target species (e.g., Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli)
• Phage isolates or synthetic phage variants
• Luria-Bertani broth and agar
• 96-well microtiter plates
• Microplate reader with temperature control

Methodology:

• Quantitative Host Range Assay

  • Grow bacterial cultures to ~1×10^8 CFU/mL in appropriate media
  • Dilute cultures to 1×10^6 CFU/mL and mix with bacteriophage at 2×10^8 PFU/mL (MOI=20)
  • Incubate in microtiter plate at 37°C with continuous agitation
  • Monitor OD600 every 10 minutes for 6 hours
  • Calculate growth inhibition as percentage reduction in area under curve versus untreated control
  • Classify as "sensitive" (>15% inhibition) or "resistant" (<15% inhibition) [30]

• Plaque Assay Validation

  • Mix 100μL overnight bacterial culture with 6mL 0.45% soft agar
  • Pour over 1.5% agar plates and allow to solidify
  • Spot 10μL of each bacteriophage (1×10^8 PFU/mL) on bacterial lawns
  • Incubate overnight at 37°C
  • Score lytic activity by presence of clearance zones or distinct plaques

• Therapeutic Efficacy Assessment

  • Select phage variants with validated host range against target pathogens
  • Test efficacy under physiologically relevant conditions (pH, temperature, media)
  • For E. coli O121 targeting: use Meta-SIFT engineered T7 phage variants [29]

Deliverables: Experimentally validated phage-host interaction network, therapeutic candidate prioritization.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Phage Ecogenomics

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application
Sequence Analysis Tools	VirSorter2, VirFinder, CheckV	Viral sequence identification, quality assessment [28] [17]
Classification & Clustering	vConTACT2, geNomad	Taxonomic classification, viral cluster generation [28]
Metagenomic Mining	Meta-SIFT	Functionally relevant motif discovery [29]
Reference Databases	OPD, GVD, IMG/VR, pVOGs	Reference sequences, functional annotation [28] [17] [29]
Host Range Assay	96-well microtiter plates, LB media	High-throughput interaction validation [30]
PCR Reagents	PCR Biosystems reagents	Target gene amplification, diagnostic development [31]
Paprotrain	Paprotrain, CAS:57046-73-8, MF:C16H11N3, MW:245.28 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Conophyllidine	Conophyllidine, MF:C44H50N4O9, MW:778.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Advanced Applications in Therapeutic Development

Meta-SIFT: Metagenomic Mining for Phage Engineering

The Meta-SIFT (Metagenomic Sequence Informed Functional Training) platform enables mining of functionally validated sequence motifs from metagenomic databases to engineer phage host range [29]. This method uses deep mutational scanning (DMS) data to create weighted substitution profiles, then searches metagenomic databases for matching motifs in structural proteins. When applied to T7 phage, Meta-SIFT identified 15,561 6mer motifs from 61,017 metagenomic structural proteins, enabling engineering of variants with novel host specificity, including activity against foodborne pathogen E. coli O121 where wild-type phage lacked efficacy [29].

Machine Learning for Strain-Specific Predictions

Protein-protein interaction (PPI) data coupled with experimental host-range datasets enables training of machine learning models with 78-94% accuracy for predicting strain-specific phage-host interactions [30]. This approach overcomes limitations of taxonomy-based prediction by incorporating molecular interaction data, providing more reliable therapeutic candidate selection.

Ecogenomic signatures in bacteriophage genomes represent a powerful tool for understanding microbial ecosystems and developing targeted therapeutic interventions. The integrated computational and experimental framework presented here enables researchers to reliably extract these signatures from complex metagenomic data and validate their functional significance. As phage ecogenomics continues to evolve, these approaches will play an increasingly vital role in combating antimicrobial resistance and developing precise microbial community management strategies.

Holo-transcriptomics: Capturing Transcriptionally Active Phage-Host Interactions

The study of bacteriophages has entered a revolutionary phase with the emergence of holo-transcriptomics, a powerful approach that captures the complete transcriptome of an ecosystem by simultaneously sequencing host, bacterial, and phage RNAs. This technique provides unprecedented insights into the dynamic interactions between phages and their bacterial hosts, moving beyond static genomic information to reveal the functionally active components of these relationships. When framed within the context of ecogenomic signatures—the habitat-specific genetic patterns embedded in phage genomes—holo-transcriptomics enables researchers to identify not only which phages are present in a particular environment, but which are transcriptionally active and potentially influencing microbial community structure and function [10] [1].

The significance of this approach lies in its ability to bridge the gap between genomic potential and functional activity. While genomic studies have revealed that bacteriophage genomes encode discernible habitat-associated signals, holo-transcriptomics illuminates how these genetic signatures are expressed in different environmental contexts [1] [32]. This is particularly valuable for understanding phage therapy applications, monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR) dynamics, and investigating how phages modulate microbiomes in various disease states [10]. By capturing the transcriptional activity of all biological entities within a sample, researchers can now explore the intricate defense and counter-defense interactions that occur during phage infection, providing essential insights for advancing bacterial control in clinical settings [10] [33].

Theoretical Foundation: From Genomic Signatures to Transcriptional Activity

Ecogenomic Signatures in Phage Genomes

The concept of ecogenomic signatures is fundamental to understanding phage ecology. Research has demonstrated that individual phage genomes encode habitat-specific signals based on the relative representation of their gene homologues in metagenomic datasets [1]. For example, the gut-associated phage ɸB124-14 carries a distinct ecological signature that enables segregation of metagenomes according to their environmental origin, effectively distinguishing human fecal contamination in environmental samples [1] [32]. These signatures arise from the co-evolution and adaptation of phage and host to specific environments, creating a genomic record of their ecological relationships [1].

The power of these ecogenomic signatures lies in their discriminatory capability. Studies have shown that phages from different habitats—human gut, marine environments, soil ecosystems—maintain distinct genomic profiles that reflect their ecological origins [1] [34]. For instance, while the gut-associated ɸB124-14 shows significant enrichment in mammalian gut-derived viromes, marine cyanophage SYN5 displays greater representation in marine environmental datasets [1]. This habitat-specific signal provides a foundation for investigating how environmental conditions influence phage gene expression and host interactions.

The Holo-Transcriptomic Advantage

Holo-transcriptomics advances beyond ecogenomic profiling by capturing the functionally active dimension of phage-host relationships. Where genomic approaches identify which phages are present, holo-transcriptomics reveals which are actively transcribing genes, engaging with hosts, and potentially influencing microbial community dynamics [10]. This approach is particularly valuable for identifying transcriptionally active microbes (TAMs) and their phage predators, offering insights into the functional state of a microbial ecosystem [10].

The application of holo-transcriptomics enables researchers to:

• Identify novel viral transcripts and phage-encoded small regulatory RNAs [33]
• Characterize transcription unit architectures and phage-specific regulatory elements [33]
• Detect active antimicrobial resistance genes during phage infection [10]
• Uncover phage-mediated modulation of host metabolic pathways [35]
• Profile temporal changes in bacterial and viral gene expression during infection [36]

By integrating these transcriptional insights with established ecogenomic principles, researchers can develop a more comprehensive understanding of how phage-host interactions shape microbial communities across different habitats.

Experimental Workflows and Methodologies

Holo-Transcriptomic Sequencing Framework

The successful application of holo-transcriptomics to phage-host interactions requires careful experimental design and execution. The following workflow outlines the key steps in a standard holo-transcriptomic protocol:

Table 1: Key Steps in Holo-Transcriptomic Workflow for Phage-Host Studies

Step	Procedure	Purpose	Technical Considerations
Sample Collection & Stabilization	Immediate stabilization of RNA using reagents like RNAlater	Preserves in situ transcriptional profiles	Critical for capturing transient infection events; sample volume must be sufficient for downstream analyses [35]
RNA Extraction	Total RNA isolation using commercial kits with modifications for viral RNA	Captures host, bacterial, and phage transcripts	Must optimize for diverse RNA species; include DNase treatment to remove genomic DNA contamination [36]
Host RNA Depletion	Selective removal of ribosomal and eukaryotic host RNAs	Enriches for microbial and viral transcripts	Significantly improves detection of low-abundance phage transcripts; can use probe-based hybridization [10]
Library Preparation	Construction of strand-specific RNA-seq libraries	Maintains transcriptional directionality	Essential for identifying antisense transcripts and precise mapping of transcription start sites [33]
Sequencing	High-throughput sequencing on Illumina, PacBio, or Oxford Nanopore platforms	Generates comprehensive transcriptomic data	Long-read technologies (ONT, PacBio) facilitate full-length transcript assembly and operon mapping [10] [33]
Bioinformatic Analysis	Multi-step computational pipeline for quality control, assembly, and annotation	Extracts biological insights from raw data	Requires specialized databases (PhageScope, IMG/VR) and both reference-based and de novo approaches [10]

Specialized Methodologies for Phage Transcriptomics

Several advanced methodologies have been developed specifically to address the unique challenges of studying phage transcriptomes:

Differential RNA-seq (dRNA-seq): This technique employs terminator exonuclease treatment to degrade processed transcripts, thereby enriching for primary transcripts and enabling precise mapping of transcription start sites (TSSs) and their associated promoters [33]. The application of dRNA-seq to jumbo phage ΦKZ infection in Pseudomonas aeruginosa revealed distinct promoter motifs and phage transcription unit architectures, uncovering previously unknown regulatory elements [33].

Term-seq: This approach specifically sequences exposed 3´-transcript termini, enabling high-throughput discovery of transcription termination events [33]. When combined with TSS mapping, this provides a comprehensive view of transcript boundaries and operon structures.

Long-read transcriptome sequencing: Methodologies utilizing Oxford Nanopore Technology (ONT) or PacBio sequencing allow for full-length transcript characterization without assembly, greatly facilitating the annotation of complex transcriptional architectures [33]. The recent application of ONT-cappable-seq to phages LUZ7 and LUZ100 has provided high-resolution maps of transcriptional regulatory elements in both the virus and its host from a single experiment [33].

Temporal transcriptomic profiling: Time-series sampling during phage infection reveals the dynamic sequence of transcriptional events. For example, a study tracking E. coli infection with phage vBEcoK1B4 identified precise temporal regulation of both host and phage genes, showing how the phage sequentially redirects host resources while countering bacterial defense mechanisms [36].

The following diagram illustrates the integrated experimental workflow for holo-transcriptomic analysis of phage-host interactions:

Key Research Applications and Findings

Characterizing Phage-Host Transcriptional Dynamics

Holo-transcriptomic approaches have revealed intricate transcriptional interplay between phages and their hosts. A study of Pseudomonas aeruginosa infected with lytic phage PaP1 demonstrated that 7.1% (399/5655) of host genes were differentially expressed, with the majority (354 genes) being downregulated during late infection [35]. These suppressed genes were predominantly involved in amino acid and energy metabolism pathways, indicating strategic reprogramming of host resources to support phage replication [35].

Complementary metabolomic profiling of the same system revealed significant alterations in metabolite levels, including increased thymidine (supported by phage-encoded thymidylate synthase expression) and drastic reduction of intracellular betaine with corresponding choline accumulation [35]. These findings illustrate how phage-directed host gene expression, combined with phage-encoded auxiliary metabolic genes, collaboratively reprograms host metabolism to support viral replication.

Ecogenomic Applications in Microbial Source Tracking

The integration of ecogenomic signatures with transcriptional activity has powerful practical applications, particularly in microbial source tracking (MST). Research has demonstrated that the gut-associated phage ɸB124-14 encodes a distinct habitat-associated signature that can distinguish human gut metagenomes from other environmental sources [1] [32]. This ecogenomic signature remains detectable even in simulated in silico human fecal pollution scenarios, demonstrating sufficient discriminatory power for water quality monitoring applications [1].

Holo-transcriptomic approaches enhance these ecogenomic applications by identifying which signature genes are actively expressed in different environments. This functional dimension provides insights into the physiological state of phage populations and their potential impact on microbial communities in various ecosystems.

Monitoring Antimicrobial Resistance Dynamics

The combination of genomic and transcriptomic approaches provides a powerful platform for monitoring antimicrobial resistance (AMR) dynamics. Genomic sequencing facilitates the identification of resistance genes and mutations, while holo-transcriptomics reveals when these genes are actively expressed [10]. This integrated approach is particularly valuable for tracking the activity of AMR genes in multidrug-resistant pathogens, including the globally significant ESKAPE pathogens [10].

Holo-transcriptomic profiling has been applied to investigate AMR-bacteria in diverse disease contexts, including COVID-19 and Dengue, demonstrating its broad utility for understanding how phage-host interactions might influence resistance gene transfer and expression in various clinical scenarios [10].

Data Analysis Frameworks

Computational Pipelines for Phage Transcriptomics

The analysis of holo-transcriptomic data requires specialized computational approaches to resolve the complex interplay of viral and host transcripts. These pipelines typically incorporate both reference-based and de novo methods to comprehensively capture phage-host interactions:

Table 2: Bioinformatics Tools for Holo-Transcriptomic Analysis of Phage-Host Interactions

Tool Category	Representative Tools	Function	Application Context
Quality Control & Preprocessing	FastQC, Cutadapt, Fastp	Assess read quality, adapter trimming, quality filtering	Essential first step; removes low-quality bases ([10] [36] )>
Read Alignment & Assembly	Hisat2, BWA-MEM, Minimap2, Unicycler	Map reads to reference genomes or perform de novo assembly	Reference-based approaches use sensitive alignment algorithms; de novo methods assemble contigs without prior references [10] [36]
Phage Annotation	Pharokka, PhANNs, PhaGAA	Annotate phage genomes and identify phage sequences	Specialized phage annotation tools that identify phage-specific genomic features and functional elements [10]
Feature Identification	dRNA-seq, Term-seq, SEnd-seq pipelines	Map TSSs, terminators, and transcript boundaries	Precisely delineate transcriptional features including promoters, transcription units, and non-coding RNAs [33]
Database Resources	PhageScope, IMG/VR, Microbe Versus Phage database	Provide reference sequences and host interaction data	PhageScope contains 873,718 partial and complete phage genomes; essential for annotation and host prediction [10]

Integrative Analysis Approaches

Advanced analytical frameworks combine multiple data types to extract deeper biological insights. The following diagram illustrates the integrated bioinformatic pipeline for resolving phage-host interactions from holo-transcriptomic data:

Machine learning approaches are increasingly being integrated into these analytical frameworks, particularly for predicting strain-specific phage-host interactions. Recent studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of using protein-protein interactions (PPI) as features in machine learning models, achieving prediction accuracies of 78-94% for Salmonella and Escherichia phages [30]. These computational advances are enhancing our ability to translate holo-transcriptomic data into predictive models of phage-host dynamics.

Successful implementation of holo-transcriptomic studies requires carefully selected reagents and resources. The following table details essential materials for investigating transcriptionally active phage-host interactions:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Holo-Transcriptomic Studies of Phage-Host Interactions

Category	Specific Reagents/Resources	Function/Application	Notes
RNA Stabilization & Extraction	RNAlater, TRIzol Reagent, PureLink RNA Kits	Stabilize and purify total RNA from complex samples	Critical for preserving labile phage transcripts; must include protocols effective for both Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [35] [36]
Host RNA Depletion	Ribo-off rRNA Depletion Kit, probe-based hybridization methods	Remove host ribosomal RNA to enrich microbial and viral transcripts	Significantly improves detection of low-abundance phage mRNAs; essential for host-dominated systems [10] [36]
Library Preparation	VAHTS Universal V8 RNA-seq Library Prep Kit, Strand-specific RNA-seq kits	Prepare sequencing libraries that maintain transcriptional directionality	Strand-specificity is crucial for identifying antisense transcripts and overlapping genes in compact phage genomes [33] [36]
Reference Databases	PhageScope, IMG/VR, PFAM, Microbe Versus Phage database	Annotate phage genomes and identify functional domains	PhageScope contains 873,718 phage sequences; PFAM essential for protein domain identification and interaction prediction [10] [30]
Analysis Tools	Pharokka, PhANNs, PhaGAA, FastQC, Hisat2	Specialized bioinformatic tools for phage annotation and analysis	Pharokka specifically designed for phage genome annotation; PhANNs uses neural networks for phage identification [10]

Concluding Perspectives

Holo-transcriptomics represents a transformative approach for investigating phage-host interactions by capturing the dynamic transcriptional activity of all biological components within an ecosystem. When integrated with the established framework of ecogenomic signatures, this methodology provides unprecedented insights into the functional relationships between phages and their hosts across diverse environments. The protocols and applications outlined in this document provide researchers with a roadmap for implementing these powerful techniques in their own investigations of microbial communities.

As sequencing technologies continue to advance and computational methods become increasingly sophisticated, holo-transcriptomic approaches will undoubtedly expand our understanding of how phage-host interactions shape microbial ecosystems, influence human health, and impact global biogeochemical cycles. The integration of these transcriptional insights with genomic, metabolomic, and proteomic data will further enhance our ability to predict and manipulate phage-host dynamics for therapeutic and biotechnological applications.

The expanding field of bacteriophage genomics increasingly relies on sophisticated bioinformatic workflows for the identification and characterization of viral sequences from complex metagenomic data. Framed within ecogenomic signatures research—which investigates the unique genomic patterns reflecting phage-host and environmental interactions—these workflows enable scientists to decipher the profound influence of phages on microbial ecosystems [25]. This application note provides a detailed protocol for two principal bioinformatic approaches: reference-based identification and de novo assembly, outlining their application in the dissection of ecogenomic signatures from sequencing data.

Workflow Comparison and Selection Guidelines

The choice between reference-based and de novo identification strategies is contingent on the research objectives, the availability of reference genomes, and the nature of the metagenomic sample. The table below summarizes the core characteristics of each approach.

Table 1: Comparison of Bioinformatic Identification Workflows for Phage Genomics

Feature	Reference-Based Workflow	De Novo Workflow
Core Principle	Alignment of sequencing reads to a database of known genomes [37].	Assembly of overlapping reads into longer contigs without a reference [38].
Primary Application	Detection and abundance profiling of known phages; host prediction [25].	Discovery of novel phages and genomic elements [38].
Key Advantage	High accuracy for known targets; provides direct host information from aligned references.	Access to the "biological dark matter" not present in databases [25].
Main Limitation	Completely blind to novel viruses absent from the reference database.	Computationally intensive; susceptible to misassembly in repetitive regions [39].
Ecogenomic Insight	Rapid profiling of known phage populations and their ecosystem roles.	Reveals novel viral sequences and allows for the calculation of evolutionary distances, as in the identification of a 1300-year-old phage genome with 97.7% identity to its modern counterpart [38].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Reference-Based Identification Using Genome Signatures

This protocol details a method for extracting subliminal, phylogenetically targeted phage sequences from whole-community metagenomes based on tetranucleotide usage patterns (Tetra-nucleotide Usage Profiles, TUPs), a robust ecogenomic signature [25].

• 1. Objective: To identify phage sequences related to a target host group (e.g., Bacteroidales-like phage) from assembled metagenomic contigs.
• 2. Input Data: Assembled contigs (recommended minimum length: 10 kb) from a whole-community metagenome (e.g., human gut DNA) [25].
• 3. Software & Databases:
  • Drivers: A set of complete phage genomes with known, related host ranges (e.g., Bacteroidales phage genomes).
  • TUP Calculation Tool: A custom script or software (e.g., in-house Perl/Python script) to calculate the frequency of all 256 tetranucleotides in a sequence.
  • Similarity Search Tool: BLAST+ suite [25].
  • Functional Annotation Pipeline: Prodigal for ORF prediction, followed by homology searches against databases like pVOGs and InterProScan [39].
• 4. Step-by-Step Procedure:
  • Driver Preparation: Calculate and store the TUP for each driver phage genome.
  • Contig Interrogation: Calculate the TUP for each large contig from the metagenomic assembly.
  • Similarity Scoring: Compare the TUP of each contig against the driver TUPs using a distance metric (e.g., Pearson correlation coefficient or Euclidean distance). Recover contigs with TUPs similar to the drivers.
  • Functional Binning: Annotate all predicted ORFs from the recovered contigs. Categorize a contig as "phage" if a significant proportion of its ORFs have homologs in phage databases, as determined by the functional profile [25].
  • Host-Range Affilation: Infer the host of the identified PGSR (Phage Genome Signature-based Recovery) phage sequences based on the host of the phylogenetically related driver phages.
• 5. Expected Results: The protocol is expected to yield multiple near-complete phage genome fragments (e.g., 10-63.7 kb) that are poorly represented in VLP-derived metagenomes, including temperate phages and sequences carrying auxiliary metabolic genes like antibiotic resistance determinants [25].

Protocol 2: De Novo Reconstruction of Ancient Phage Genomes

This protocol describes the authentication and characterization of novel phage genomes from ancient DNA (aDNA), a process that relies heavily on de novo assembly and rigorous validation [38].

• 1. Objective: To reconstruct and authenticate ancient phage genomes from palaeofaeces or other aDNA sources.
• 2. Input Data: High-quality aDNA sequencing libraries from well-preserved samples (e.g., palaeofaeces), with damage patterns consistent with antiquity [38].
• 3. Software & Databases:
  • Quality Control: FASTQC, Trimmomatic [39].
  • Decontamination: Bowtie2/BWA to filter residual host genomes [39].
  • Assembly: SPAdes or MEGAHIT for short-read data; Flye or Canu for long-read data [38] [39].
  • Viral Identification: VIBRANT, VirSorter2 [38].
  • Completeness Assessment: CheckV [38].
  • Authentication: mapDamage or similar tools to assess characteristic aDNA damage patterns (e.g., cytosine deamination at read ends) [38].
  • Taxonomy & Host Prediction: vContact2, geNomad, CRISPR spacer matching [38] [39].
• 4. Step-by-Step Procedure:
  • Sequencing & QC: Sequence the aDNA libraries and perform adapter trimming and quality filtering.
  • De novo Assembly: Assemble the quality-filtered reads into contigs.
  • Viral Sequence Identification: Run multiple viral identification tools on the assembled contigs and select those identified by at least two tools as bona fide virus contigs.
  • Quality Filtering: Retain contigs with medium or high quality (e.g., >50% completeness as assessed by CheckV) and a minimum length (e.g., 20 kb).
  • Authentication: Map the sequencing reads back to the viral contigs and analyze the damage patterns. Authentic aDNA should show elevated frequencies of misincorporations at the ends of the reads.
  • Taxonomic Classification & Host Prediction: Use gene-sharing networks (vContact2) and marker-based classifiers (geNomad) to determine taxonomy. Predict hosts based on matches to CRISPR spacers or prophage integration sites.
• 5. Expected Results: Successful execution can yield hundreds of authenticated ancient phage genomes (aMGVs). A notable outcome may include the discovery of an ultra-conserved phage genome, such as a Mushuvirus mushu sequence with 97.7% nucleotide identity to a modern isolate, demonstrating evolutionary stability over 1300 years [38].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical structure and key decision points in the integrated bioinformatic analysis of bacteriophage sequences.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Phage Bioinformatics

Item	Function/Application
SM Buffer (100 mM NaCl, 10 mM MgSOâ‚„, 50 mM Tris-HCl, 0.01% gelatine)	Storage and dilution of purified phage particles [19].
Mitomycin C (0.5 µg/mL)	Chemical inducing agent used to trigger the lytic cycle in lysogenic prophages for their sequencing and detection [39].
DNase I/RNase A & Proteinase K	Enzymatic treatment to degrade free host nucleic acids and proteins in clinical or complex samples, enriching for viral particles [39].
CheckV	Software for assessing the quality and completeness of viral genomes assembled from metagenomic data [38].
vContact2	Tool for clustering viral sequences into taxonomic units based on gene-sharing networks, aiding in the classification of novel phages [38].
Prodigal	Rapid and effective gene-finding software for predicting Open Reading Frames (ORFs) in prokaryotic genomes, including phage sequences [39].
PhiML	Machine learning-based tool for predicting the host of a phage genome from its sequence, with an accuracy of 50-70% [39].
Indolokine A5	Indolokine A5, MF:C13H8N2O3S, MW:272.28 g/mol
L1BC8	L1BC8, MF:C86H98F2N16O18S2, MW:1745.9 g/mol

The faecal contamination of environmental waters poses a significant risk to public health and ecosystem stability. Microbial Source Tracking (MST) has emerged as a critical discipline for detecting faecal pollution and determining its origin, which is essential for safeguarding water resources and implementing effective remediation strategies [1]. While traditional methods rely on cultivating faecal indicator bacteria (FIB) such as Escherichia coli and Enterococcus spp., these approaches suffer from several limitations including lack of specificity to human faeces, poor persistence in certain environments, and long turnaround times [1].

Bacteriophages (phages)—viruses that specifically infect bacteria—offer a promising alternative for MST applications [1]. The foundation of phage-based MST lies in the concept of ecogenomic signatures: distinct, habitat-associated genetic patterns embedded within phage genomes that serve as diagnostic markers for specific microbial ecosystems [1] [32]. These signatures arise from the co-evolution and adaptation of phages and their bacterial hosts within particular environments, such as the human gut [1]. This application note details the protocols and mechanistic basis for utilizing these phage-encoded ecogenomic signatures as powerful tools for water quality assessment and biosecurity surveillance.

Theoretical Foundation: Ecogenomic Signatures in Bacteriophages

Ecogenomic signatures are based on the principle that phages associated with a specific habitat (e.g., human gut) encode a distinct genetic signal reflective of that environment. This signal can be detected through the relative representation of phage-encoded gene homologues in metagenomic datasets [1].

Mechanistic Basis of Habitat Association

• Host-Driven Specificity: The high host-specificity of phages, determined by tail fiber proteins binding to bacterial surface receptors, inherently ties phages to the bacterial communities of their native environment [40].
• Genomic Adaptation: Phages co-evolve with their bacterial hosts in distinct environments, leading to the acquisition of habitat-specific genetic markers through horizontal gene transfer and selective pressure [10].
• Persistence Advantage: Phages often exhibit longer environmental persistence compared to their bacterial hosts, and their ability to replicate within cultured host species can amplify signals of faecal contamination, thereby improving detection sensitivity [1].

Research has demonstrated that individual human gut-associated phages, such as Ï•B124-14 which infects human-associated Bacteroides fragilis strains, encode clear habitat-related signatures that can segregate metagenomes according to environmental origin and distinguish contaminated environmental metagenomes from uncontaminated datasets [1] [32].

Experimental Protocols

This section provides detailed methodologies for implementing phage-based MST, from sample collection to data analysis.

Protocol 1: Phage Recovery and Concentration from Water Samples

Principle: Separate and concentrate viral particles from complex water matrices while preserving phage viability and nucleic acid integrity for downstream analysis [41].

Materials:

• Sample Containers: Sterile, nuclease-free polypropylene bottles
• Filtration System: Peristaltic pump or vacuum manifold
• Filters: 0.45 µm and 0.22 µm pore size polyethersulfone membranes
• Concentration Device: Tangential flow filtration system or ultrafiltration spin columns
• Elution Buffer: 10 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.2) with 0.1% Tween 80
• Storage Solution: SM Buffer (100 mM NaCl, 10 mM MgSO₄·7Hâ‚‚O, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5)

Procedure:

• Sample Collection: Collect at least 1L of water in sterile bottles. Process immediately or store at 4°C for ≤24 hours.
• Pre-filtration: Pass sample sequentially through 0.45 µm and 0.22 µm filters to remove bacteria and particulate matter.
• Virus Concentration:
  • Option A (Tangential Flow Filtration): Recirculate filtrate through TFF system with 30 kDa molecular weight cut-off until volume reduced to 10-20 mL.
  • Option B (Ultrafiltration): Concentrate using centrifugal filter devices at 4000 × g, 4°C.
• Elution (if concentrating from filters): Back-flush 0.22 µm filter with 10 mL elution buffer.
• Storage: Add sterile glycerol to 50% (v/v) final concentration and store at -80°C.

Technical Notes:

• For samples with high sediment load, pre-clarify by centrifugation at 10,000 × g for 20 minutes.
• Chemical pre-treatment with beef extract or potassium citrate may enhance phage recovery from complex matrices like wastewater [41].
• Avoid chloroform treatment if lipid-containing phages are targeted.

Protocol 2: Metagenomic Sequencing and Ecogenomic Signature Analysis

Principle: Recover and sequence viral nucleic acids to detect habitat-specific phage signatures through comparative genomic analysis [1] [10].

Materials:

• Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit: DNase/RNase-free viral DNA/RNA extraction kit
• DNase Treatment: RNase-free DNase I
• Amplification Reagents: Multiple displacement amplification (MDA) kit for whole genome amplification
• Library Prep Kit: Illumina-compatible library preparation kit
• Sequencing Platform: Illumina, Oxford Nanopore, or PacBio systems
• Bioinformatics Tools: FastQC, Cutadapt, MetaPhlAn, FEAST

Procedure:

• Nucleic Acid Extraction:
  • Extract total nucleic acid from 200 µL concentrated phage suspension using viral extraction kit.
  • Treat with DNase I (1 U/µL, 30 min, 37°C) to remove external DNA.
  • Inactivate DNase (75°C for 10 min).

• Whole Genome Amplification:

  • Perform MDA using 10 µL extracted nucleic acid.
  • Purify amplified DNA with magnetic beads.

• Library Preparation and Sequencing:

  • Fragment DNA to 300-500 bp (if necessary).
  • Prepare sequencing libraries per manufacturer's protocol.
  • Sequence on appropriate platform (e.g., Illumina NovaSeq, 2×150 bp).

• Bioinformatic Analysis:

  • Quality control: FastQC for quality assessment, Cutadapt for adapter trimming.
  • Host sequence removal: Map reads to bacterial genome databases.
  • De novo assembly: Use SPAdes or metaSPAdes.
  • Gene prediction: Prodigal for identifying open reading frames.
  • Ecogenomic profiling:
    • Calculate cumulative relative abundance of phage-encoded ORFs in metagenomes.
    • Compare representation across different habitat types.
    • Apply signature scoring to identify habitat-enriched phage markers [1].

Technical Notes:

• Include extraction controls to monitor contamination.
• For RNA phage detection, incorporate reverse transcription step.
• Signature SNVs (Single Nucleotide Variants) can provide higher resolution than species-level markers [42].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the complete process from sample collection to data interpretation:

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Essential research reagents and materials for phage-based MST

Reagent/Material	Function/Application	Specifications/Alternatives
SM Buffer [19]	Phage suspension and storage medium	100 mM NaCl, 10 mM MgSO₄·7H₂O, 50 mM Tris-HCl pH 7.5, 0.01% gelatin
Tangential Flow Filtration System [41]	Concentration of viral particles from large volume samples	30-50 kDa molecular weight cut-off; Alternative: Ultrafiltration spin columns
Polyethersulfone Membranes [41]	Removal of bacteria and particulate matter	0.45 µm and 0.22 µm pore sizes; Pre-sterilized
Multiple Displacement Amplification (MDA) Kit [10]	Whole genome amplification of viral nucleic acids	φ29 DNA polymerase-based; Reduces amplification bias
DNase I, RNase-free [10]	Removal of external DNA prior to nucleic acid extraction	1 U/µL concentration; Thermolabile for easy inactivation
Viral Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit [10]	Isolation of DNA/RNA from viral particles	Silica membrane or magnetic bead-based; Compatible with diverse phage types
Signature Phage Probes [1]	Detection of specific ecogenomic signatures	e.g., Ï•B124-14 for human faecal contamination; Human gut Bacteroides phage markers

Data Interpretation and Quantitative Analysis

The interpretation of phage ecogenomic signature data relies on comparative analysis of signature representation across different environments and sample types.

Signature Enrichment Analysis

Table 2: Representative ecogenomic signature profiles of model phages across different habitats (adapted from [1])

Phage (Ecological Origin)	Human Gut Viromes	Bovine Gut Viromes	Porcine Gut Viromes	Marine Environments	Freshwater Systems
Ï•B124-14 (Human Gut)	High	Moderate	Moderate	Low	Low
Ï•SYN5 (Marine)	Low	Low	Low	High	Moderate
Ï•KS10 (Plant Rhizosphere)	Low	Low	Low	Low	Low

The table demonstrates how habitat-specific phages show significantly greater representation of their gene homologues in metagenomes from their native environment compared to other habitats [1]. This differential representation forms the basis for detecting contamination sources.

Advanced Signature Detection with SNV-FEAST

For higher resolution source tracking, Single Nucleotide Variants (SNVs) can be used as features in the FEAST algorithm (SNV-FEAST) [42]. This approach involves:

• Signature SNV Identification:

  • Compute signature scores by comparing binomial log-likelihoods for competing hypotheses about allele frequency origins.
  • Select SNVs with signature scores >2 standard deviations above the mean.

• Source Contribution Estimation:

  • Apply FEAST algorithm to signature SNVs to estimate proportional contributions of potential sources.
  • SNV-based approaches can outperform species-level methods, particularly when transmission rates are low and unknown source proportions are high [42].

The following diagram illustrates the computational workflow for SNV-FEAST analysis:

Application to Water Quality and Biosecurity

The implementation of phage-based MST provides critical data for water safety management and contamination response:

• Water Quality Monitoring: Phage signatures serve as highly specific indicators of human faecal contamination, enabling targeted intervention in water treatment systems [40] [1].
• Pollution Source Identification: Differential detection of human-specific versus animal-specific phage signatures facilitates pinpointing contamination sources in watersheds [1].
• Biosecurity Surveillance: Monitoring for specific pathogen-associated phages can provide early warning of biological threats in water systems [40].
• Treatment Efficacy Assessment: Phage community dynamics (β-diversity) serve as sensitive indicators of disturbance and treatment effectiveness in engineered systems [2].

Phage-based Microbial Source Tracking leveraging ecogenomic signatures represents a powerful paradigm for water quality assessment and biosecurity protection. The protocols outlined herein provide researchers with comprehensive methodologies for detecting and interpreting these habitat-specific signatures. As sequencing technologies advance and phage genome databases expand, the resolution and applicability of this approach will continue to improve, offering increasingly sophisticated tools for protecting water resources and public health. The integration of phage ecogenomics into environmental monitoring frameworks represents a promising frontier in microbial risk assessment and management.

Bacteriophages (phages), the viruses that infect bacteria, are emerging as powerful biomarkers for diagnosing microbiome dysbiosis and associated diseases. Their abundance and direct relationship with their bacterial hosts make them ideal sentinels of ecosystem health [2]. The concept of ecogenomic signatures—habitat-specific genetic patterns encoded within phage genomes—provides a novel framework for detecting deviations from a healthy microbiome state [1]. This application note details the quantitative evidence, protocols, and key reagents for leveraging phage-borne signatures in clinical diagnostics, supporting the broader thesis that phage genomes are a rich source of ecological diagnostic information.

Quantitative Evidence: Phage Signatures in Dysbiosis

Recent systematic analyses provide robust quantitative evidence supporting the role of virome signatures as biomarkers for dysbiosis. The table below summarizes key findings from a meta-analysis of 74 studies across human and animal hosts.

Table 1: Quantitative Signatures of Virome Dysbiosis from Meta-Analysis [2]

Parameter of Dysbiosis	Number of Studies Reporting Significant Change	Proportion/Key Finding	Notes on Directionality
α-Diversity Change	28 out of 69 studies	41%	Variable directional change; 58% of datasets showed decrease, 42% increase [2]
β-Diversity Change	47 out of 68 studies	69%	Shifting virome composition is a more consistent signature than α-diversity [2]
Taxa Enrichment	62 out of 70 studies	89%	Significant enrichment of system-specific viral taxa under dysbiosis [2]
Bacteriome-Virome Diversity Correlation	Healthy: mean R² = 0.380 (95% CI 0.597–0.163)Dysbiosis: mean R² = 0.118 (95% CI 0.223–0.012)	-	Breakdown of correlation in dysbiosis is a potential signature (p = 4.9 × 10⁻¹⁰) [2]

Furthermore, proof-of-concept research demonstrates that individual phage genomes can encode powerful habitat-associated signals. The gut-associated phage Ï•B124-14 was shown to encode a discernible ecogenomic signature, enabling the segregation of metagenomes based on environmental origin [1].

Table 2: Ecogenomic Signature of Model Phage Ï•B124-14 [1]

Metagenome Type	Representation of Ï•B124-14 ORFs	Statistical Significance
Human Gut Viromes	Significantly greater mean relative abundance	Yes, compared to environmental datasets [1]
Other Gut Viromes (Porcine, Bovine)	No significant difference from human gut	-
Marine Environment Viromes	No enrichment; distinct profile for cyanophage SYN5	-
Human Whole Community Metagenomes	Significantly greater vs. other human body sites	Yes [1]

Experimental Protocols

This section provides detailed methodologies for detecting phage ecogenomic signatures in clinical samples.

Protocol 1: Detecting Phage Ecogenomic Signatures via Metagenomic Sequencing

This protocol is designed to identify habitat-specific signals within phage communities or from a target phage genome [1].

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Sample Collection and Preservation:

  • Collect clinical samples (e.g., stool, saliva, skin swabs) in sterile containers.
  • Immediately freeze samples at -80°C to preserve nucleic acid integrity. Avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles.

• Viral Particle Isolation and DNA Extraction:

  • Differential Filtration & Centrifugation: Resuspend samples in SM Buffer. Remove large debris and bacteria through sequential filtration using 0.45μm and 0.2μm pore-size filters. Concentrate viral particles via ultrafiltration or polyethylene glycol (PEG) precipitation [1] [10].
  • Nucleic Acid Extraction: Use commercial viral DNA/RNA extraction kits. Treat with DNase/RNase to remove free-floating nucleic acids not protected within viral capsids prior to extraction.

• Library Preparation and Sequencing:

  • Use a high-throughput sequencing platform (e.g., Illumina, PacBio, Oxford Nanopore) [10].
  • Prepare sequencing libraries from the extracted viral DNA/RNA using standard kits. For RNA phages, include a reverse transcription step.
  • Sequence to an appropriate depth (e.g., 10-20 million paired-end reads per sample) to ensure adequate coverage of the virome.

• Bioinformatic Processing:

  • Quality Control: Use FastQC to assess read quality. Trim adapters and remove low-quality bases (Q<30) and short reads (<50 bp) using tools like Cutadapt [10].
  • Host DNA Depletion: Align reads to the human reference genome (e.g., GRCh38) and remove matching sequences.
  • Virome Assembly & Gene Prediction: De novo assemble quality-filtered reads into contigs using metaSPAdes or MEGAHIT. Predict open reading frames (ORFs) on assembled contigs and unassembled reads using Prodigal or FragGeneScan.

• Ecogenomic Signature Analysis:

  • Reference-Based Method: For a specific phage of interest (e.g., Ï•B124-14), calculate the cumulative relative abundance of its ORFs in the metagenome by aligning metagenomic reads to its genome sequence using BWA-MEM or Bowtie2 [1].
  • De Novo Method: Cluster predicted ORFs from the entire virome against reference databases (e.g., PhageScope, IMG/VR) using BLASTP or HMMER to identify and quantify phage taxa and functional genes [10].

• Statistical Analysis and Interpretation:

  • Compare α-diversity (within-sample) and β-diversity (between-sample) metrics (e.g., using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity) between healthy and dysbiotic cohorts. PERMANOVA can test for significant β-diversity shifts [2].
  • Use linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size (LEfSe) to identify phage taxa or gene functions significantly enriched in dysbiotic states.

Protocol 2: Profiling Transcriptionally Active Phages via Holo-Transcriptomics

This protocol captures the active virome by sequencing all RNA transcripts, providing a dynamic view of phage-host interactions [10].

Workflow Overview:

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Total RNA Extraction:

  • Extract total RNA from clinical samples using kits designed for robust yield and integrity. Preserve samples in RNAlater at the time of collection.

• Depletion of Host Ribosomal RNA (rRNA):

  • Use probe-based kits (e.g., Ribo-Zero) to selectively remove abundant host rRNA, thereby enriching for bacterial and viral mRNA.

• RNA Sequencing (RNA-Seq):

  • Construct RNA-seq libraries from the enriched RNA. Sequence on a platform like Illumina to a depth sufficient for transcript quantification.

• Bioinformatic Analysis:

  • Quality Control & Trimming: Process raw reads as in Protocol 1, step 4.
  • Host Transcript Separation: Map reads to the host genome and remove them. Retain non-host reads for subsequent analysis.
  • Identification of Transcriptionally Active Phages (TAPs): Assemble the non-host reads. Annotate contigs against phage-specific databases (e.g., PhANNs, PhaGAA) and phage genome databases to identify active phage communities [10].

• Functional Enrichment and Correlation:

  • Analyze the functional profile of TAPs and their bacterial hosts.
  • Correlate the abundance of specific TAPs with clinical metadata (e.g., disease severity) and the presence of transcriptionally active antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Phage Biomarker Research

Item	Function/Description	Example Use Case
Ï•B124-14 Genome	Model gut-associated phage; reference for ecogenomic signature analysis [1]	Detecting human faecal contamination in water; gut dysbiosis biomarker [1]
PhageScope / IMG/VR	Comprehensive databases of phage genomes and metadata [10]	Annotation and taxonomic classification of phage sequences from metagenomes
PhANNs / PhaGAA	Machine learning-based web servers for phage annotation [10]	Rapid identification of phage sequences in sequencing data
CRISPR Spacer Databases	Collections of bacterial CRISPR spacers, which record past phage infections [43]	Linking specific phages to their bacterial hosts and studying phage-bacteria dynamics
Anti-CRISPR Protein Genes	Phage-encoded genes that inactivate bacterial CRISPR-Cas systems [44] [43]	Indicators of intense phage-bacteria arms race, potential biomarkers for specific dysbiotic states
Depolymerase/Endolysin Genes	Phage-derived enzymes that degrade biofilms or bacterial cell walls [45] [44]	Targets for engineered diagnostics; indicators of phage lytic activity
Holo-Transcriptomic Kits	Kits for rRNA depletion and strand-specific RNA-seq library prep	Profiling transcriptionally active phages and their hosts in clinical samples [10]

Navigating the Complexities: Challenges and Refinement of Signature Analysis

Accurately predicting bacteriophage hosts is a critical challenge in viral ecology and the development of phage-based applications, such as therapies against antimicrobial-resistant pathogens. The concept of ecogenomic signatures—habitat-associated genetic signals embedded in phage genomes—provides a foundational framework for this pursuit. Research has demonstrated that individual phages can encode clear habitat-related signals, which are diagnostic of the underlying host microbiome from which they originate [1]. For instance, the gut-associated phage ϕB124-14 was shown to encode an ecogenomic signature that could distinguish human gut metagenomes from those of other environments [1].

While in silico host prediction methods offer a powerful means to decipher these signatures and predict phage-host interactions, they face significant limitations. The growing number of computational tools has created a complex landscape where performance is highly context-dependent, and no single tool is universally optimal [46]. This application note examines the principal constraints of existing computational approaches and outlines robust experimental validation strategies essential for confirming predictions, thereby advancing research within the broader context of ecogenomic signature discovery.

Key Limitations of In Silico Host Prediction Methods

Computational prediction of phage-host interactions is hampered by several interconnected challenges that affect the accuracy and applicability of these methods.

Data-Related Challenges

The foundation of any predictive model is the data on which it is trained. In the realm of phage-host interactions, this foundation is notably unstable.

• The Annotation Gap and "Viral Dark Matter": Public databases contain an exponential growth of viral sequences, yet a vast fraction constitutes "viral dark matter" with no known host. Even within curated reference databases, host annotations often lack the granularity to distinguish between different stages of interaction, such as mere adsorption versus productive infection [46].
• Historical Bias and the Long-Tail Problem: Available host annotation data is heavily skewed toward a small set of well-studied model organisms (e.g., Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica). This creates a long-tail distribution, where models perform well for common hosts but fail to generalize to the broader, sparsely populated bacterial domain [46].
• Oversimplification of Host Range: Database annotations often imply a simple one-to-one relationship between a phage and a host species. This simplification obscures the biological reality that many phages can infect multiple species or even cross genus boundaries, making it difficult for models to predict broad-host-range behavior accurately [46].

Methodological and Conceptual Limitations

The inherent complexity of phage-bacteria interactions introduces further obstacles for computational tools.

• Dependence on Genomic Similarity: Many tools rely on genomic features like k-mer frequencies, codon usage, or GC content. However, these signals can be weak or misleading, especially for phages distantly related to those in reference databases [46].
• Inability to Capture Multi-Stage Interaction Dynamics: A phage-host interaction is a multi-stage process involving adsorption, genome injection, and the overcoming of host defense systems. Computational predictions often fail to distinguish between these stages, potentially identifying phages that can bind to a host but not complete a successful lytic cycle [46].
• Strain-Level Specificity: Phage-host interactions can vary even among strains of the same bacterial species due to differences in surface receptors and defense systems. Most in silico methods lack the resolution to predict these fine-grained, strain-specific outcomes reliably [30].

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Selected In Silico Host Prediction Tools in Specific Contexts

Tool Name	Primary Framework	Reported Accuracy	Strengths	Key Limitations
CHERRY	Link Prediction	Varies by context [46]	Robust, broad applicability [46]	Performance is context-dependent [46]
iPHoP	Multi-class Classification	Varies by context [46]	Robust, broad applicability [46]	Performance is context-dependent [46]
RaFAH	Not Specified	Excels in specific contexts [46]	High performance in specific niches [46]	Does not perform universally optimally [46]
PHIST	Not Specified	Excels in specific contexts [46]	High performance in specific niches [46]	Does not perform universally optimally [46]
ML (PPI-based)	Machine Learning	78-94% (Strain-level) [30]	Uses protein-protein interactions for strain-level prediction [30]	Accuracy varies between phages [30]

Experimental Validation Strategies

To overcome the limitations of in silico predictions, rigorous experimental validation is indispensable. The following protocols provide a framework for confirming computational forecasts.

Protocol 1: Quantitative Host Range Assay

This protocol determines the lytic capability of a phage against a panel of bacterial strains, providing a quantitative measure of host range.

Workflow Overview

Materials and Reagents

• Target Bacterial Strains: Panel of genetically diverse isolates of the target species [30].
• Phage Stock: Purified phage suspension, titer >1E+08 PFU/mL [30].
• Growth Media: Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB) or Luria-Bertani (LB) Broth [30].
• Equipment: Multichannel pipette, 96-well microtiter plates, temperature-controlled microplate reader with continuous shaking and OD600 measurement capability [30].

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Inoculate and Grow Bacteria: From a frozen stock, inoculate the bacterial strains in liquid media and grow overnight at 37°C with agitation.
• Standardize Bacterial Concentration: Sub-culture the overnight growth in fresh media until the mid-logarithmic phase is reached (approximately OD600 = 0.1, ~1E+08 CFU/mL). Dilute the culture to a final concentration of 1E+06 CFU/mL in fresh media [30].
• Prepare Phage-Bacteria Mixture: In a 96-well plate, combine the diluted bacterial suspension with the phage stock to achieve a Multiplicity of Infection (MOI) input of 20 (e.g., 2E+08 PFU/mL phage mixed with 1E+06 CFU/mL bacteria) [30].
• Monitor Growth Kinetics: Seal the plate and incubate in the microplate reader at 37°C with continuous agitation. Measure the optical density at 600 nm (OD600) every 10 minutes for 6 hours [30].
• Data Analysis: Calculate the area under the bacterial growth curve (AUC) for each phage-bacteria combination. Compute the percentage of growth inhibition relative to an untreated bacterial control using the formula: Growth Inhibition (%) = [1 - (AUC_sample / AUC_control)] × 100 [30].
• Phenotype Classification: Classify a bacterial strain as "sensitive" if the growth inhibition exceeds 15%; otherwise, classify it as "resistant” [30].

Protocol 2: Plaque and Lysis Assay

This traditional method visually confirms phage lytic activity and provides a semi-quantitative assessment.

Workflow Overview

Materials and Reagents

• Soft Agar: 0.45% LB agar, maintained molten at 45-50°C.
• Base Agar: 1.5% LB agar plates, pre-poured and dried [30].
• Bacterial Overnight Culture: ~100 µL per plate.
• Phage Lysate: Serial dilutions may be required for high-titer stocks.

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Prepare Bacterial Lawn: Add 100 µL of an overnight bacterial culture to 6 mL of molten soft agar. Mix gently and pour the mixture as an overlay onto a pre-formed base agar plate. Allow the overlay to solidify completely [30].
• Spot Phage Lysate: Apply 10 µL of each phage lysate (typically at 1E+08 PFU/mL) onto the surface of the solidified bacterial lawn. Allow the spots to dry [30].
• Incubate and Observe: Invert the plates and incubate overnight at 37°C.
• Score Results: The next day, examine the plates for the presence of clear zones (plaques) or confluent lysis halos at the spot locations. The presence of these clearings indicates successful phage infection and lysis, confirming a positive interaction [30].

Protocol 3: Genomic Validation of Ecogenomic Signatures

This bioinformatic protocol validates predictions by analyzing the representation of phage gene homologs in metagenomic datasets to confirm habitat association.

Workflow Overview

Materials and Software

• Phage Genome Sequence: FASTA file of the phage of interest.
• Metagenomic Datasets: Whole community or viral metagenomes from relevant habitats (e.g., human gut, ocean, soil) [1].
• Computational Tools: ORF prediction software (e.g., Prodigal), sequence similarity search tools (e.g., BLAST), and statistical computing environment (e.g., R).

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Data Acquisition: Download the nucleotide sequence of the phage genome of interest. Obtain publicly available metagenomic datasets from various environmental and host-associated habitats [1].
• Open Reading Frame (ORF) Prediction: Annotate all potential protein-coding genes (ORFs) in the phage genome using a standard gene prediction tool [1].
• Metagenomic Mapping: For each metagenomic dataset, map the sequencing reads (or assembled contigs) against the database of translated phage ORFs. Identify sequences that generate valid hits (e.g., using BLASTX) with an appropriate e-value threshold (e.g., < 10^-3) [1].
• Quantitative Profiling: Calculate the cumulative relative abundance of sequences similar to the phage's ORFs in each metagenome. This metric represents the sum of the relative abundances of all ORF homologs detected [1].
• Statistical Analysis: Compare the cumulative relative abundance profiles across different habitats (e.g., human gut vs. marine environments) using statistical tests. A significantly higher abundance in the predicted host environment provides strong corroborating evidence for the ecogenomic signature and, by extension, the host prediction [1].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for Phage-Host Interaction Studies

Item Name	Function/Application	Specifications & Quality Control
Bacterial Cell Banks	Host for phage propagation and assays	Two-tiered system (Master & Working Seed Lots); Full genome sequencing for identity and purity; Viability and phage sensitivity testing [27].
Phage Seed Lots	Source of phage particles for experiments	Derived from a single plaque; Full genome sequencing; Electron microscopy for structure; Plaque assay for potency [27].
Phage Therapy Medicinal Product (PTMP)	Investigational therapeutic material	Must be lytic; Characterized per Ph. Eur. chapter 5.31; Demonstrated genetic stability; Free of transducing particles [47] [27].
Protein-Protein Interaction Databases	Feature for machine learning models	Used to predict interactions between phage and bacterial proteins; Informs models predicting strain-specific interactions [30].

The path to reliable phage host prediction requires a concerted effort that acknowledges the limitations of current in silico methods. The challenges of data bias, annotation gaps, and methodological constraints are significant but not insurmountable. By integrating computational forecasts with rigorous, multi-faceted experimental validation—such as quantitative growth inhibition assays, plaque tests, and genomic analyses of ecogenomic signatures—researchers can achieve a more accurate and biologically relevant understanding of phage-host interactions. This integrated approach is fundamental for advancing the application of phages in medicine, biotechnology, and ecology.

In microbial ecology, dysbiosis—a shift from a healthy microbiome state—is characterized by measurable changes in diversity metrics. Traditional analyses often focus solely on taxonomic diversity (the identities of microorganisms present), but this provides an incomplete picture. Different types of diversity—taxonomic (based on organism identity), phylogenetic (based on evolutionary relationships), and functional (based on metabolic capabilities)—can respond differently to environmental stress, a phenomenon known as decoupling [48].

Understanding this decoupling is particularly crucial in bacteriophage ecogenomic signatures research, as phages are key drivers of bacterial evolution and community dynamics. Different diversity metrics can reveal distinct ecological patterns: for instance, a decline in taxonomic diversity may not necessarily translate to reduced functional capacity if functional redundancy exists within the community [48]. Similarly, analyzing phage-bacteria interaction networks provides deeper insights into community stability and response to disturbance than diversity metrics alone [49].

This protocol provides analytical frameworks for interpreting these shifting diversity patterns within dysbiotic systems, with emphasis on their application to phage ecogenomics research.

Theoretical Framework: The Decoupling Phenomenon

Diversity Metrics in Microbial Ecology

Table 1: Key Diversity Metrics and Their Interpretations

Metric Type	Definition	Ecological Interpretation	Measurement Approaches
Taxonomic α-diversity	Richness and evenness of taxa within a sample	Indicates immediate stress response and species loss; most sensitive to disturbance	16S rRNA amplicon sequencing, metagenomic taxonomic profiling [50]
Phylogenetic α-diversity	Evolutionary relationships among community members	Reflects deep evolutionary history and conserved traits; intermediate sensitivity to stress	Phylogenetic trees from marker genes or genomes [48]
Functional α-diversity	Metabolic potential and functional gene richness	Measures ecosystem functional potential; often buffered against stress due to redundancy	Shotgun metagenomics, functional gene arrays [48]
β-diversity	Compositional differences between communities	Reveals ecological drift and environmental filtering; indicates community stability	Distance metrics (Bray-Curtis, UniFrac, Weighted UniFrac) [48] [50]

Documented Cases of Diversity Decoupling

Research in contaminated aquifers demonstrates clear decoupling patterns: under extreme contamination (pH < 3, high heavy metals), taxonomic α-diversity decreased by 85% and phylogenetic α-diversity decreased by 81%, while functional α-diversity showed a smaller, statistically insignificant decrease of 55% [48]. This indicates microbial communities can maintain functional capacity despite significant taxonomic loss.

Similarly, in phage-bacteria systems, diversity correlations are strongest at the strain level rather than species level, and when considering the explicit phage-bacteria interaction network [49]. This suggests that different resolutions of analysis can reveal different diversity relationships.

Figure 1: Theoretical framework of diversity decoupling under environmental stress. Different diversity types respond variably to stressors, with functional diversity often maintained through ecological mechanisms.

Analytical Protocols

Wet-Lab Workflow for Diversity Assessment

Figure 2: Comprehensive workflow for assessing decoupled diversity patterns, integrating taxonomic, functional, and viral components.

Computational Analysis Pipeline

α-diversity Analysis Protocol

Objective: Quantify within-sample diversity across multiple dimensions Input: Processed abundance tables (taxonomic, functional, phylogenetic)

β-diversity Analysis Protocol

Objective: Quantify between-sample compositional differences Input: Normalized abundance tables, phylogenetic tree, environmental metadata

Phage-Bacteria Interaction Network Analysis

Objective: Reconstruct and analyze phage-bacteria interaction networks Input: Paired bacterial and viral metagenomes, CRISPR spacers, homology data

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for Diversity Analysis

Category	Specific Tool/Reagent	Function/Application	Key Features
Wet-Lab Reagents	ZymoBIOMICS DNA/RNA Kits	Nucleic acid extraction from complex samples	Handles difficult-to-lyse microorganisms; maintains integrity
	PROMEGA Wizard DNA Clean-Up	Library purification	High recovery for low-input samples
	Illumina DNA Prep Kits	Library preparation for metagenomics	Efficient tagmentation; low input requirements
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina NovaSeq	High-throughput metagenomics	High coverage for rare taxa; cost-effective for large projects
	Oxford Nanopore MinION	Long-read sequencing	Resolves repetitive regions; phage genome assembly
Bioinformatic Tools	QIIME 2 [50]	Amplicon sequence analysis	Integrated pipeline; extensive plugin ecosystem
	MOTHUR [50]	16S rRNA analysis	Established workflow; comprehensive SOPs
	VirSorter [17]	Viral sequence identification	Detects both lytic and temperate phages; curated databases
	PhiSpy [17]	Prophage prediction	Hybrid approach combining multiple genomic features
	CheckV [49]	Viral genome quality assessment	Genome completeness estimation; host contamination detection
Ecological Analysis	Phyloseq (R) [50]	Multifaceted diversity analysis	Integrates taxonomic, phylogenetic, and sample data
	vegan (R) [50]	Community ecology analysis	Extensive distance metrics; statistical testing
	NetworkX (Python) [49]	Interaction network analysis	Graph theory applications; modularity calculations

Case Study: Contaminated Aquifer Microbiome

Experimental Setup and Results

A comprehensive study of aquifer microbial communities along a contamination gradient (pH 3.4-7.3, uranium 0-17 mg/L, nitrate 0-9000 mg/L) revealed clear diversity decoupling patterns [48].

Table 3: Diversity Metrics Along Contamination Gradient

Contamination Level	Taxonomic α-diversity (Richness)	Phylogenetic α-diversity (Faith's PD)	Functional α-diversity (Gene Richness)	Functional β-diversity (Dispersion)
Uncontaminated	100% (reference)	100% (reference)	100% (reference)	Low
Low Contamination	92%	95%	98%	Low-Moderate
Mid Contamination	110%	115%	105%	Moderate
High Contamination	15%	19%	45%	High

Functional Gene Shifts

The study documented significant functional shifts despite taxonomic depletion [48]:

• Decreased: Carbon degradation genes
• Increased: Denitrification genes, adenylylsulfate reduction, sulfite reduction
• Dominant taxa: Proteobacteria (74% in high-contamination), Rhodanobacter (up to 80% in FW106 well)

Protocol Application: Aquifer Analysis

Step 1: Sample collection and processing

• Collect groundwater from monitoring wells along contamination gradient
• Filter biomass onto 0.22μm membranes
• Extract DNA using ZymoBIOMICS DNA Miniprep Kit

Step 2: Multi-omics library preparation

• 16S rRNA amplicons (V4-V5 region) for taxonomic profiling
• Shotgun metagenomics for functional potential
• Metatranscriptomics for functional activity

Step 3: Bioinformatic processing

Step 4: Diversity decoupling analysis

Advanced Applications in Phage Ecogenomics

Phage-Host Diversity Correlations

Recent research on honeybee gut microbiota demonstrates that phage diversity mirrors bacterial strain diversity when analyzed through interaction networks [49]. Key findings include:

• Strain-level resolution is critical for meaningful diversity correlations
• Modular network structure with nested interactions within modules
• Correlated α- and β-diversity within network modules

Ecogenomic Signature Analysis

Bacteriophages encode habitat-associated "ecogenomic signatures" diagnostic of their underlying microbiomes [1]. The gut-associated φB124-14 phage demonstrates:

• Enrichment of gene homologs in human gut viromes
• Discrimination of human gut metagenomes from other habitats
• Application potential for microbial source tracking

Protocol: Phage Ecogenomic Signature Detection

Objective: Identify habitat-specific signatures in phage genomes Input: Phage genomes, habitat-metagenome database

Troubleshooting and Quality Control

Common Analytical Challenges

• False functional redundancy: Apparent redundancy may stem from incomplete functional annotation rather than true functional overlap.

• Database bias: Reference databases for both taxonomic and functional assignment are biased toward well-studied systems.

• Strain-level resolution: Most amplicon-based methods cannot resolve strain-level diversity, which is critical for phage-host interactions [49].

Quality Control Metrics

Table 4: Quality Control Thresholds for Diversity Analyses

Analysis Type	Sequence Depth	Replication	Negative Controls	Mock Communities
16S Amplicon	>10,000 reads/sample	≥5 per condition [50]	Extraction and sequencing blanks	ZymoBIOMICS or similar
Shotgun Metagenomics	>5 million reads/sample	≥3 per condition	Extraction blanks	Defined community standards
Viral Metagenomics	>2 million reads/sample	≥5 per condition [49]	Filter blanks	Phage PhiX174 spiked-in
Metatranscriptomics	>20 million reads/sample	≥3 per condition	RNA extraction blanks	External RNA controls

The decoupling of diversity metrics during dysbiosis provides critical insights into microbial community stability and functional resilience. By applying the protocols outlined here—encompassing wet-lab methods, computational analyses, and advanced network approaches—researchers can move beyond basic diversity estimates to mechanistic interpretations of microbial community dynamics. The integration of phage ecogenomic perspectives further enriches this framework, revealing how viral components contribute to overall ecosystem response and recovery.

The lysis-lysogeny decision-making process in temperate bacteriophages represents a critical adaptive strategy with profound implications for microbial ecology and therapeutic applications. Temperate phages can adopt either a lytic cycle, which results in host cell lysis and viral progeny release, or a lysogenic cycle, where the viral genome integrates into the host chromosome as a prophage and replicates passively with the host cell [51] [52]. This decision is not random but is influenced by a complex interplay of environmental cues, host physiological factors, and molecular signals [51] [53]. Understanding these signals is paramount for interpreting ecogenomic signatures in viral metagenomes, predicting microbial community dynamics, and developing precise phage-based therapeutics. The lysogenic state, characterized by prophage integration, can persist through numerous bacterial generations until environmental stressors trigger induction into the lytic cycle [54]. This transition impacts not only phage and host fitness but also broader ecological processes, including biogeochemical cycling and the transmission of virulence factors through horizontal gene transfer [51].

The lysis-lysogeny decision is governed by a hierarchy of environmental and host-derived factors. The tables below synthesize quantitative and qualitative data on these influential signals.

Table 1: Environmental and Host-Derived Factors Influencing Lysis-Lysogeny Decisions

Factor Category	Specific Factor	Effect on Decision	Key Observations and Mechanisms
Environmental Nutrients	Phosphorus Availability	Lysogeny favored under phosphorus-poor conditions [51]	Phage burst size reduced by 80% under P-limitation; lysis rate can drop to 10% of P-rich conditions [51].
	System Productivity / Nutrients	Lysogeny favored in low-productivity (oligotrophic) systems; Lysis favored in high-productivity (eutrophic) systems [51]	Lytic infection correlates with high dissolved organic carbon and chlorophyll a content; host metabolic status is a key determinant [51].
Host Physiology	Multiplicity of Infection (MOI)	High MOI promotes lysogeny [55] [53]	A higher number of co-infecting phages per cell increases the likelihood of lysogenic establishment [55].
	Cell Size & Nutritional Status	Small cell size and starvation promote lysogeny [55] [53]	Poor host growth conditions bias the decision toward the dormant lysogenic state [55].
Physical & Chemical	Stressors / SOS Response	UV light, Mitomycin C, and other SOS-inducing agents trigger prophage induction (lytic cycle) [51] [56]	Host RecA protein is activated, leading to cleavage of the CI repressor and initiation of the lytic cycle [51].
	Quorum Sensing Signals	High bacterial population density can promote lysogeny [53]	Phages can exploit host quorum-sensing systems (e.g., via small peptides like AHLs) to sense host density [53].

Table 2: Host Immune Response to Different Phage Types in a Murine Model Data derived from intraperitoneal administration in mice [57]

Phage Administered	Effect on Cytokine Gene Expression & Concentration	Effect on Phage-Specific Antibody Titers
vBEcoMSCS4 & vBEcoMSCS57	No increase in TLR3, TLR9, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6. Led to a multi-fold increase in IFNγ [57].	No difference in IgA, IgG, or IgM compared to control animals [57].
vBEcoSSCS44	Increased expression of TLR3, TLR9, IL-4, IL-6 (4-7 times) and concentration of IL-2, IL-4, IL-6, IFNγ (2-3 times) [57].	Stimulated a twofold increase in phage-specific IgA, IgG, and IgM [57].

Experimental Protocols for Signal Analysis

Protocol 1: High-Resolution Single-Cell Analysis of Phage Decision-Making

This protocol utilizes advanced microscopy and genetic reporters to dissect the heterogeneity of phage infection outcomes at the single-cell level, moving beyond bulk population averages [55].

1. Preparation of Fluorescently Tagged Phages:

• Objective: Engineer bacteriophage lambda (λ) to enable visualization of individual virions.
• Method: Clone genes for fluorescent proteins (e.g., GFP, mCherry) into capsid genes to generate phage particles with fluorescent capsids [55].
• Outcome: Allows for precise quantification of the Multiplicity of Infection (MOI) by counting the number of fluorescent phage particles attached to each bacterial cell.

2. Construction of a Lysogenic Reporter Strain:

• Objective: Create a bacterial host system that reports the establishment of lysogeny in real-time.
• Method: Integrate a reporter gene (e.g., GFP) under the control of a late lytic promoter or a stable lysogenic promoter into the host chromosome. Lysogeny is indicated by the absence of lytic signal or presence of lysogenic maintenance signal [55].

3. Single-Cell Infection and Time-Lapse Imaging:

• Objective: Track the fate of individual infected cells.
• Method:
  • Infect the reporter strain with fluorescent phages at a low MOI in a microfluidic device that allows for continuous nutrient flow and waste removal.
  • Image cells over time using high-resolution fluorescence microscopy to monitor phage attachment (fluorescent capsids), gene expression (reporter fluorescence), and cell lysis [55].
• Key Measurements: Correlate the initial MOI per cell with the final outcome (lysis or lysogeny) for hundreds of individual cells.

4. Single-Molecule Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization (smFISH):

• Objective: Quantify the copy number and spatial distribution of specific phage mRNA transcripts (e.g., cI, cII, cro) within single infected cells.
• Method: Design fluorescently labeled DNA probes complementary to target phage mRNAs. Hybridize probes to fixed infected cells and image using microscopy. Each fluorescent spot represents a single mRNA molecule [55].
• Application: Reveals how stochastic fluctuations in key regulatory mRNA levels correlate with fate decisions and how these are affected by phage DNA replication.

5. Data Analysis and Modeling:

• Objective: Move from descriptive observations to predictive models.
• Method: Use quantitative data on MOI, mRNA counts, and protein expression dynamics from single cells to build and refine mathematical models of the phage genetic network [55].

Protocol 2: Ecogenomic Profiling of Phage Signatures in Metagenomic Data

This protocol outlines a bioinformatics workflow to identify habitat-specific "ecogenomic signatures" of phages within whole-community or viral metagenomes, useful for microbial source tracking (MST) and ecological studies [16].

1. Sequence Acquisition and Pre-processing:

• Objective: Compile a curated set of metagenomic sequencing reads from target habitats (e.g., human gut, ocean, soil).
• Method: Download public datasets or use in-house generated metagenomes. Perform quality control (adapter trimming, quality filtering) and, if necessary, de novo assembly of reads into contigs [16].

2. Reference Phage Genome Selection:

• Objective: Define the phage(s) of interest for signature profiling.
• Method: Select complete genome sequences of phages known to be associated with a specific habitat or host. Example: the human gut-associated phage Ï•B124-14 [16].

3. Homology Search and Abundance Calculation:

• Objective: Determine the relative abundance of the reference phage's genes in each metagenome.
• Method:
  • Translate all open reading frames (ORFs) from the reference phage genome.
  • Use a translated search tool (e.g., BLASTX or DIAMOND) to identify sequences in the metagenomic datasets with similarity to these ORFs.
  • For each metagenome, calculate the cumulative relative abundance by summing the normalized hit counts (e.g., hits per million reads) for all reference phage ORFs [16].

4. Statistical Analysis and Habitat Discrimination:

• Objective: Determine if the phage's ecogenomic signature can distinguish metagenomes based on environmental origin.
• Method:
  • Compare the cumulative relative abundance of the reference phage's ORFs across metagenomes from different habitats (e.g., human gut vs. marine) using statistical tests (e.g., t-test, ANOVA).
  • Use clustering or ordination methods (e.g., PCoA) to visualize how metagenomes group based on the phage signature profile [16].
• Validation: Test the signature's power to identify "contaminated" samples (e.g., a seawater metagenome spiked with human gut virome sequences) [16].

Signaling Pathway and Workflow Visualizations

Lambda Phage Lysis-Lysogeny Decision Network

Ecogenomic Signature Analysis Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Studying Phage Lifecycle Decisions

Reagent / Tool	Function and Application	Specific Examples / Notes
Fluorescent Protein (FP)-Tagged Phages	Enable visualization and quantification of individual phage particles, MOI determination, and tracking of infection in real-time at the single-cell level [55].	Lambda phages with fluorescent capsids (e.g., GFP, mCherry) [55].
Reporter Gene Constructs	Report on specific phage genetic activity (e.g., promoter activity for lytic or lysogenic genes) via fluorescence or colorimetric output [55].	Bacterial strains with GFP under control of phage pR (lytic) or pRM (lysogenic) promoters [55].
smFISH Probe Sets	Allow precise quantification and localization of specific phage mRNA transcripts within single infected cells, revealing transcriptional dynamics [55].	Fluorescently labeled DNA probes targeting key decision mRNAs like cI, cII, and cro [55].
Microfluidic Devices	Provide a controlled environment for long-term, high-resolution imaging of single cells by maintaining constant growth conditions and removing waste products [55].	Commercial or custom-fabricated devices for bacterial cell immobilization and time-lapse microscopy.
Prophage Inducing Agents	Experimentally trigger the transition from lysogeny to the lytic cycle by causing DNA damage and activating the host SOS response [51] [56].	Mitomycin C, Ultraviolet (UV) light. Critical for studying induction efficiency and lytic yield.
Quorum Sensing Molecules	Investigate the role of bacterial communication in phage decision-making. Adding or inhibiting these signals can modulate infection outcomes [53].	Acyl-homoserine lactones (AHLs) for Gram-negative systems; can be quantified via HPLC/MS [53].
Phage Genome Sequences	Serve as references for ecogenomic profiling, primer/probe design, and comparative genomics to understand genetic determinants of lifestyle [16].	Public databases (NCBI, INSDC); Phages like ϕB124-14, λ, VP882 [16] [53].

Application Notes and Protocols

Ecogenomic signatures—the habitat-specific genetic patterns embedded within bacteriophage genomes—represent a powerful tool for understanding viral ecology and evolution, with applications ranging from microbial source tracking (MST) to therapeutic discovery [1]. However, the accurate resolution of these subtle signals is critically dependent on the fidelity of the underlying genomic data. High-throughput sequencing (HTS) magnifies the impact of technical noise, including non-biological variations introduced during library preparation, sequencing, and assembly [58] [59]. This noise, manifesting as coverage bias in GC-extreme regions, misassembly of repetitive sequences, and inaccurate gene annotations, can obscure genuine biological patterns and lead to spurious interpretations [39] [59]. This document outlines key protocols and analytical strategies to overcome these technical challenges, ensuring the robust detection and analysis of ecogenomic signatures in phage research.

Technical Challenges and Quantitative Biases

Technical noise in phage genomics is not uniform; it arises from specific, measurable biases at different stages of the sequencing and analysis workflow. The table below summarizes the primary sources of bias and their impact on ecogenomic analysis.

Table 1: Key Technical Challenges in Bacteriophage Genomics

Challenge	Description	Impact on Ecogenomic Signatures	Quantitative Example
Sequencing Coverage Bias	Deviation from uniform read distribution, often in regions of extreme GC content [59].	Obscures habitat-specific genes in promoters or high-GC regions, leading to false negatives [58] [59].	In deep-coverage Illumina data (198x mean), 0.23% of bases can have <10% coverage. 1,000 human promoters are exceptionally resistant to sequencing [59].
Repetitive Sequence Assembly	Misassembly of terminal repeats (cos sites), tandem repeats, or homopolymers, fragmenting genomes [39].	Impedes accurate reconstruction of complete phage genomes, disrupting the genomic context needed for signature identification.	A Vibrio harveyi phage assembly may fragment into 21 contigs due to repeats. Hybrid assembly can improve scaffold N50 by 3-5x [39].
Gene Annotation (ORFans)	A high proportion (40-50%) of phage genes lack homologs in databases and remain functionally unannotated [39].	Limits functional interpretation of ecogenomic signatures, as many habitat-associated genes are of unknown function.	Traditional databases (pVOGs/InterProScan) achieve <20% annotation sensitivity for these "dark matter" genes [39].
Prophage Detection	Integrated prophages in bacterial genomes are challenging to identify and precisely extract, leading to incomplete virome data [60] [61].	Results in an incomplete catalog of temperate phages, skewing understanding of their ecological role and habitat associations.	Over 10% of a host's genome can consist of prophages [61]. Tools like DEPhT offer precise extraction compared to other methods [60].

Core Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Noise Filtering for Sequencing Count Data

This protocol utilizes noisyR, a comprehensive noise-filtering pipeline, to assess and remove technical noise from count matrices derived from bulk or single-cell RNA-seq, enhancing the signal for downstream ecogenomic analysis [58].

Key Research Reagents & Solutions:

• Input Data: An un-normalized count matrix (e.g., from featureCounts) or alignment data (BAM files) [58].
• Software: noisyR package (R).
• Computational Environment: R statistical environment.

Methodology:

• Data Input: Load the un-normalized expression count matrix into the noisyR environment. The matrix should have genes as rows and samples/replicates as columns.
• Noise Assessment: Execute the core noisyR function to quantify technical variation. The algorithm evaluates the consistency of signal distribution across replicates and samples by measuring expression correlation across subsets of genes, considering all abundance levels [58].
• Threshold Determination: noisyR calculates sample-specific signal-to-noise thresholds in a data-driven manner, identifying genes whose variation is characteristic of technical noise rather than biological signal [58].
• Filtered Matrix Generation: The pipeline outputs a filtered expression matrix where genes identified as "noisy" are excluded. This refined matrix is then used for downstream differential expression or network inference analyses.
• Downstream Analysis: Proceed with standard ecological analyses (e.g., differential abundance analysis with edgeR or DESeq2, enrichment analysis with g:profiler) using the filtered matrix to achieve more convergent and biologically meaningful results [58].

Protocol: Phage Genome Assembly and Annotation

A robust workflow for assembling and annotating phage genomes from short-read sequencing data, forming the foundation for accurate comparative ecogenomics.

Key Research Reagents & Solutions:

• Sequencing Data: Illumina paired-end reads (150 bp). Note: Transposon-based library prep (e.g., NexteraXT) prevents terminal sequencing [62].
• Quality Control: FastQC (quality assessment), Trimmomatic or trim_galore (adapter/quality trimming) [62] [39].
• Genome Assembly: SPAdes (with --only-assembler flag) [62] [39].
• Termini Determination: PhageTerm (not compatible with transposon-based libraries) [62] [39].
• Gene Annotation: DNAMaster (incorporates Glimmer, GeneMark), Aragorn (tRNA prediction), Starterator (start codon comparison) [60].

Methodology:

• Quality Control & Subsampling:
  • Assess raw read quality using FastQC.
  • Trim adapters and low-quality bases using Trimmomatic.
  • For very high coverage (>1000x), subsample reads to ~50-100x coverage to avoid assembly complications using Seqtk [62].
• Genome Assembly:
  • Assemble the quality-controlled reads using SPAdes with the --only-assembler flag.
  • Assess assembly quality; the output contigs.fasta should ideally be a single contig for a pure phage isolate [62].
• Termini Validation:
  • If the library preparation method is compatible, use PhageTerm on the aligned BAM files to determine the packaging mechanism and validate genome ends [62] [39].
• Structural Annotation:
  • Use DNAMaster (or Prodigal) to predict Open Reading Frames (ORFs).
  • Use Aragorn to identify tRNA genes.
  • Manual Curation: Manually inspect and correct automated gene calls, as ~10% may be missed or mis-annotated. Use Starterator to compare start codon selection across related phages [60].
• Functional Annotation & Ecogenomic Profiling:
  • Annotate gene functions using pVOGs, InterProScan, and HHpred.
  • To identify ecogenomic signatures, calculate the cumulative relative abundance of homologs to your phage's genes in metagenomic datasets from different habitats, as demonstrated with phage Ï•B124-14 [1].

Phage Genome Analysis Workflow

A curated collection of key databases and software tools crucial for overcoming technical noise in bacteriophage genomics.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Phage Genomics

Resource Name	Type	Function in Ecogenomic Research
noisyR [58]	R Package	Data-driven noise filtering for sequencing count matrices to enhance biological signal.
SPAdes [62] [39]	Assembler	Genome assembler optimized for small viral genomes; recommended for phage isolate assembly.
PhageTerm [62] [39]	Software	Determines phage genome termini and packaging mechanism from sequencing data.
DNAMaster [60]	Annotation Platform	Integrates gene callers (Glimmer, GeneMark) for genome annotation, facilitating manual curation.
DEPhT [60]	Software	Precisely identifies and extracts prophage sequences from bacterial genomes.
PhagesDB [60]	Database	Centralized repository for Actinobacteriophage genomes and related analysis tools.
Phamerator [60]	Software	Visualizes and compares genomes, highlighting gene homology and genomic mosaicism.

Advanced Methodologies for Specific Challenges

Protocol: Resolving Repetitive Regions with Hybrid Sequencing

For phages with complex genomic architectures involving long repetitive elements, a hybrid sequencing approach is recommended.

Methodology:

• Platform Selection: Combine Illumina short-reads (for high accuracy) with Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) or PacBio long-reads (for continuity across repeats) [39].
• Library Preparation: Avoid transposon-based kits if termini determination is critical. Use amplification-free protocols where possible to reduce GC bias [62] [59].
• Hybrid Assembly: Use assemblers like Unicycler or perform a hybrid assembly pipeline (e.g., using SPAdes with long reads) to generate a complete, high-fidelity genome [62].
• Polishing: Polish the long-read assembly with the highly accurate short-reads using tools like NextPolish to correct indel errors common in long-read technologies [39].

Protocol: Ecogenomic Signature Identification in Metagenomes

This protocol describes a method to identify and quantify the habitat-associated signal of a specific phage in metagenomic data.

Methodology:

• Reference Selection: Select a query phage genome of known ecological origin (e.g., gut-associated Ï•B124-14) [1].
• Data Collection: Gather whole-community or viral metagenomic datasets from target and control habitats (e.g., human gut, ocean, soil) [1].
• Homology Search: For each metagenome, perform a tBLASTn search using the encoded proteins (ORFs) of the query phage as a reference.
• Quantification: Calculate the cumulative relative abundance of sequences with similarity to the query phage's ORFs in each metagenome.
• Statistical Discrimination: Compare the abundance profiles across habitats. A significant enrichment in the target habitat (e.g., human gut) confirms an ecogenomic signature, which can be used to segregate metagenomes according to environmental origin [1].

{Ecogenomic Signature Identification}

The exponential growth of viral metagenomics has unveiled a universe of bacteriophage diversity, yet a critical challenge remains: linking these phages to their bacterial hosts and specific habitats [63]. This linkage is paramount for advancing phage therapy, microbial source tracking, and our fundamental understanding of ecosystem dynamics. While numerous in silico host prediction tools have been developed, individual methods possess distinct strengths and limitations, making them susceptible to false positives or restricted predictions when used in isolation [63] [64]. Consequently, integrative approaches, which combine multiple bioinformatic methods and data types into a single, consolidated prediction, have emerged as the most promising path forward [63]. This application note outlines robust protocols for implementing these integrative strategies, framed within the context of exploiting ecogenomic signatures—habitat-specific genetic patterns embedded within phage genomes [1] [32].

Core Methodologies for Host and Habitat Prediction

A multifaceted approach is essential for robust prediction. The methods below can be used individually but achieve highest confidence when combined.

Table 1: Key In Silico Phage-Host Prediction Methods

Method Category	Underlying Principle	Example Tools	Key Strengths	Common Limitations
Genetic Homology	Detects sequence similarity between phage and host genomes (e.g., shared genes, CRISPR spacers).	BLAST, PHISDetector	High specificity when hits are found; can identify novel hosts via prophage regions.	Limited to hosts with known sequence data; misses divergent relationships.
Sequence Composition	Compares genomic signatures like oligonucleotide (k-mer) frequency or GC content.	VirHostMatcher, WIsH, PHP	Alignment-free; can predict hosts without shared genes.	Can be misled by horizontal gene transfer; performance varies.
Machine & Deep Learning	Uses models trained on genomic and proteomic features to predict interaction outcomes.	DeepPBI-KG, PredPHI, PhageHost	Capable of strain-level prediction; integrates complex, high-dimensional data.	Requires large, high-quality training datasets; model interpretability can be low.
Ecogenomic Profiling	Assesses abundance of phage gene homologs across habitat-specific metagenomes.	Custom workflows using metagenomic data	Directly links phages to environmental origin; excellent for habitat prediction.	Requires extensive metagenomic dataset; less precise for exact host species.

Machine Learning for Strain-Level Specificity

Recent advances have demonstrated the power of machine learning (ML) for predicting phage-host interactions, even at the strain level. For instance, a model leveraging protein-protein interactions (PPI) as a key feature achieved prediction accuracies of 78% to 94% for Salmonella and Escherichia coli phages [30]. Another deep learning tool, DeepPBI-KG, which focuses on key genes and proteins involved in interactions, achieved an average Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.93 for individual strains on an independent test set, outperforming existing tools [65]. These models move beyond taxonomic generalization to address the critical influence of genetic diversity within a bacterial species on phage susceptibility.

Ecogenomic Signatures for Habitat Tracking

The concept of ecogenomic signatures is based on the premise that phages co-evolve with their bacterial hosts in a specific habitat, leading to a quantifiable signal in the relative abundance of their genes across different environments [1]. A landmark study on the gut-associated phage ɸB124-14 demonstrated that homologs of its encoded proteins were significantly enriched in human gut viromes compared to environmental metagenomes [1] [32]. This signature was sufficiently powerful to segregate metagenomes by environmental origin and distinguish simulated human faecal pollution in environmental samples, highlighting its utility for Microbial Source Tracking (MST) [1].

Integrated Experimental and Computational Protocol

The following protocol describes a comprehensive workflow for robust host and habitat prediction, from sample preparation to final validation.

Sample Processing, Sequencing, and Genome Assembly

• Sample Collection: Collect environmental or clinical samples (water, sediment, saliva, etc.) in sterile containers. Flash-freeze in liquid nitrogen and store at -80°C.
• Viral Enrichment and DNA Extraction: Separate viral particles from cells and debris using sequential filtration (e.g., 0.22 µm filters) and concentration via ultrafiltration or polyethylene glycol precipitation. Extract viral nucleic acids using dedicated kits (e.g., Norgen Phage DNA Isolation Kit) [30].
• Sequencing and Assembly: Prepare libraries (e.g., with Nextera XT kit) and sequence on an Illumina, PacBio, or Oxford Nanopore platform [30] [10]. Process raw reads:
  • Quality Control: Use Fastp [30] or FastQC [10] to assess read quality, trim adapters, and remove low-quality bases.
  • Genome Assembly: Perform de novo assembly of high-quality reads using tools like Unicycler for complete genomes or metaSPAdes for metagenomic data [30].
• Phage Genome Identification: Identify virus-like contigs from assembled metagenomic data using VirSorter2 [28] and VIBRANT [64]. Apply quality control to remove potential mobile genetic elements and human sequence contaminants.

In Silico Host Prediction via an Integrative Framework

• Multi-Tool Host Prediction: Submit curated phage genomes to at least three complementary prediction tools. A recommended combination includes:
  • iPHoP: A comprehensive tool that integrates multiple evidence types [66].
  • HostG: An alignment-free tool based on genomic features.
  • CRISPR-based Predictors: Use tools like CrisprOpenDB to search for spacer matches in bacterial genomes [66].
• Consensus Prediction: Compare the results from all tools. A host prediction is considered high-confidence if it is supported by multiple independent methods (e.g., at least two out of three tools agree at the genus or species level) [64].

Ecogenomic Habitat Profiling

• Reference Database Construction: Compile a diverse set of metagenomes from target habitats (e.g., human gut, oral, ocean, soil) from public repositories like NCBI SRA.
• Sequence Similarity Search: Use BLASTX or DIAMOND to query all open reading frames (ORFs) of the target phage genome against a database of the translated metagenomic sequences.
• Calculate Cumulative Relative Abundance: For each metagenome, calculate the cumulative relative abundance of all sequences with significant similarity to the phage's ORFs, normalized by metagenome size [1].
• Statistical Analysis and Visualization: Use statistical tests (e.g., ANOVA) to determine if the phage's ecogenomic signature is significantly enriched in a specific habitat compared to others. Visualize the results using boxplots or principal coordinate analysis to segregate metagenomes by origin [1].

Experimental Host Range Validation

Computational predictions require empirical validation.

• Culture Conditions: Grow candidate bacterial host strains in appropriate liquid media (e.g., TSB, LB) to mid-log phase (~1x10^8 CFU/mL) [30].
• Quantitative Host Range Assay:
  • In a 96-well plate, mix diluted bacteria (final concentration ~1x10^6 CFU/mL) with the phage (final concentration ~2x10^8 PFU/mL) to achieve a high Multiplicity of Infection (MOI).
  • Incubate with continuous shaking in a microplate reader, monitoring optical density (OD600) every 10 minutes for 6-12 hours.
  • Calculate growth inhibition as the percentage reduction in the area under the growth curve compared to a phage-free control. Classify isolates with >15% inhibition as "sensitive" [30].
• Plaque Assay: Spot 10 µL of high-titer phage lysate onto a soft agar lawn of the candidate host. After overnight incubation, observe for formation of clear zones (plaques) or lysis halos, confirming lytic activity [30].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Phage-Host Prediction

Item	Function/Description	Example/Reference
PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit	Extracts high-quality microbial DNA from complex environmental samples like sediment and water for 16S rRNA sequencing and host analysis.	[64]
Phage DNA Isolation Kit	Specifically designed for purifying viral DNA from concentrated phage lysates for genome sequencing.	Norgen Biotek [30]
Nextera XT DNA Library Prep Kit	Prepares sequencing-ready libraries from fragmented phage genomic DNA for Illumina platforms.	Illumina [30]
VirSorter2 & VIBRANT	Software tools for identifying and characterizing viral sequences from metagenomic assemblies.	[64] [28]
iPHoP	A comprehensive bioinformatic platform that integrates multiple methods for high-throughput phage host prediction.	[66]
CheckV	Assesses the quality and completeness of viral genomes recovered from metagenomes, identifying potential contamination.	[30] [28]
Oral Phage Database (OPD)	A specialized database of 189,859 oral phage genomes for comparative analysis and habitat reference.	[28]

Integrated Data Analysis Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for integrating multiple data sources and methods to achieve robust host and habitat prediction.

Concluding Remarks

The future of phage host and habitat prediction lies not in seeking a single perfect tool, but in the strategic integration of multiple computational and experimental lines of evidence. By combining homology-based, composition-based, and machine-learning methods with ecogenomic profiling—and validating predictions with rigorous experiments—researchers can achieve a level of robustness and resolution unattainable by any single method alone. These integrative approaches are foundational for turning vast genomic datasets into actionable biological insights, accelerating progress in phage therapy, environmental monitoring, and microbial ecology.

Benchmarks and Biomarkers: Validating Signatures Across Health and Disease

The human virome, comprising eukaryotic viruses and bacteriophages, is an integral component of the human metagenome whose dynamics are increasingly linked to health and disease states [67]. The core premise of this application note is that disease-associated dysbiosis provides a powerful validation model for discovering and understanding ecogenomic signatures—habitat-specific genetic patterns embedded in viral genomes [1] [32]. In inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and disorders of the female reproductive tract (FRT), the virome undergoes predictable, quantifiable shifts away from a healthy, homeostatic balance. These shifts are not merely secondary effects but can play active roles in pathogenesis, for instance, through predator-prey dynamics with bacterial hosts or direct immune modulation [68] [69]. The analysis of these virome alterations provides a robust real-world framework for validating the concept that bacteriophage genomes carry diagnostic signals reflective of the underlying microbial ecosystem's health status.

Meta-analysis of current literature reveals distinct, disease-specific alterations in virome composition and diversity. The following tables consolidate key quantitative findings across two major body sites: the gastrointestinal tract and the female lower reproductive tract.

Table 1: Virome Alterations in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD)

Disease State	Key Virome Alteration	Quantitative Change/Prevalence	References
Crohn's Disease (CD)	Expansion of Caudovirales bacteriophages	Significant increase in richness and abundance	[68]
Ulcerative Colitis (UC)	Expansion of Caudovirales bacteriophages	Significant increase in richness and abundance	[68]
IBD (CD & UC)	Inverse correlation in abundance	Disparate ratios of Caudovirales vs. Microviridae	[68]
IBD	Disease specificity	Virome profiles are disease- and cohort-specific	[68]

Table 2: Virome Composition in the Female Lower Reproductive Tract (FRT)

Study Context	Most Prevalent Viral Families (Eukaryotic)	Most Prevalent Viral Families (Prokaryotic - Phages)	References
Across 34 Studies (Health & Disease)	Papillomaviridae (97%), Anelloviridae (55.9%), Orthoherpesviridae (47%)	Siphoviridae (41%), Myoviridae (38%), Podoviridae (29.4%)	[69]
Healthy Women (Sub-analysis of 14 Studies)	Papillomaviridae (78.6%), Anelloviridae (42.9%), Orthoherpesviridae (42.9%)	Siphoviridae (42.9%)	[69]
Vaginal Dysbiosis (e.g., BV)	N/A	Two distinct bacteriophage community groups: Low-diversity (correlates with Lactobacillus) and High-diversity (correlates with Gardnerella, Prevotella, etc.)	[69]

Experimental Protocols for Virome Analysis

A critical prerequisite for a valid meta-analysis is the standardization of methodologies. The following protocol details the consensus workflow for virome metagenomics from sample collection to data analysis.

Protocol 1: Metagenomic Sequencing of the Enteric Virome from Stool Samples

Objective: To isolate, purify, and sequence the DNA virome from human stool samples for metagenomic analysis in dysbiosis studies.

Materials & Reagents:

• Stool transport kits (e.g., OMNIgene•GUT)
• Nuclease-free PBS (Phosphate Buffered Saline)
• Surfactant (e.g., Glycine)
• Benzonase Nuclease
• DNase I (RNase-free)
• Filtration units (0.22 µm and 0.45 µm pore size)
• Ultracentrifuge and swinging-bucket rotors
• DNA extraction kits (e.g., silica membrane-based or magnetic bead-based)
• Library preparation kits (e.g., Illumina compatible)
• Next-generation sequencing platform (e.g., Illumina, Ion Torrent)

Procedure:

• Sample Collection & Storage: Collect fresh stool samples from patients and matched household controls. Immediately aliquot and freeze at -80°C to preserve nucleic acid integrity.
• Virus-Like Particle (VLP) Purification: a. Clarification: Resuspend ~1-2g of stool in nuclease-free PBS, vortex thoroughly, and centrifuge at 10,000 x g for 10 minutes at 4°C to remove large debris and bacteria. b. Filtration: Pass the supernatant sequentially through 0.45 µm and 0.22 µm filters to remove remaining bacterial cells and small particles. c. Nuclease Treatment: Treat the filtrate with Benzonase and DNase I (e.g., 1 U/µL each) for 1-2 hours at 37°C to degrade free-floating nucleic acids not protected within viral capsids. d. Concentration (Optional): Concentrate VLPs using ultrafiltration centrifugal devices or by ultracentrifugation (e.g., 150,000 x g for 3 hours) to pellet the virions.
• Nucleic Acid Extraction: Extract total nucleic acid (DNA and/or RNA) from the purified VLP preparation using a commercial kit. For DNA virome analysis, proceed with DNA. For complete virome analysis, include an RNA extraction and reverse transcription step.
• Library Preparation & Sequencing: Use a commercial library prep kit to construct sequencing libraries from the extracted DNA. Sequence on an appropriate high-throughput platform (e.g., Illumina for high-depth, short-read sequencing).
• Bioinformatic Analysis: a. Quality Control & Host Depletion: Trim adapter sequences and low-quality bases from raw sequencing reads. Align reads to the human reference genome and remove matching sequences (host depletion). b. Taxonomic Assignment: De novo assemble quality-filtered reads into contigs. Classify contigs and unassembled reads against curated viral databases (e.g., NCBI Viral RefSeq, IMG/VR) using BLAST-like tools or k-mer based classifiers. c. Diversity & Abundance Analysis: Calculate ecological metrics such as richness (number of taxa) and diversity (accounting for richness and evenness) for comparative analysis between healthy and dysbiotic states.

Analytical & Visualization Workflow for Ecogenomic Signatures

Once a virome profile is obtained, the next critical step is to analyze it for the presence of diagnostic ecogenomic signatures, a process heavily reliant on specialized bioinformatic workflows.

Table 3: The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Software for Virome Analysis

Item Name	Category	Function/Application
Benzonase Nuclease	Laboratory Reagent	Degrades free nucleic acids not protected within viral capsids during VLP purification, crucial for reducing non-viral background.
Silica Membrane/Magnetic Bead Kits	DNA/RNA Extraction Kit	For high-quality total nucleic acid extraction from complex VLP preparations.
Illumina Sequencing Platform	Sequencing Technology	Provides the high-depth, short-read sequencing data required for comprehensive virome characterization.
PhiB124-14 (Bacteroides phage)	Reference Phage Genome	A model gut-associated phage used as a probe to identify human gut-specific ecogenomic signatures in metagenomic data [1] [32].
Random Forest (RF) / xGBoost	Machine Learning Model	Supervised learning algorithms used to build predictive models from high-dimensional microbiome/virome data for disease classification [70].
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations)	Explainable AI (xAI) Tool	Interprets complex ML model outputs, identifying and ranking the contribution of specific viral taxa to the prediction [70].

Application: Microbial Source Tracking (MST) as a Validation Use Case

The concept of ecogenomic signatures finds immediate practical application in microbial source tracking (MST), which serves as a powerful validation model for the principles discussed. The gut-associated bacteriophage ϕB124-14, which infects specific strains of Bacteroides fragilis, encodes a strong human gut-specific ecogenomic signature [1] [32]. Analysis shows that homologs of its genes have a significantly higher cumulative relative abundance in human gut viromes compared to those from other environments (e.g., bovine, porcine, or aquatic viromes). This signature is not a general property of all phage genomes, as control phages from marine (ɸSYN5) or plant rhizosphere (ɸKS10) environments show distinct or no habitat-associated enrichment patterns [1]. This signature is sufficiently discriminatory to accurately segregate metagenomes according to their environmental origin and can identify simulated human faecal contamination in environmental water samples, demonstrating its utility as a validated biomarker for water quality monitoring and public health protection.

Ecogenomic signatures—patterns in oligonucleotide composition embedded within phage genomes—provide powerful insights into viral ecology, evolution, and host adaptation. This application note details standardized protocols for extracting and contrasting these signatures from bacteriophages across diverse habitats, including the human gut, aquatic systems, and terrestrial environments. We present quantitative frameworks for calculating genomic signature distances, experimental workflows for life cycle prediction, and bioinformatic tools for large-scale virome analysis. Designed for researchers and drug development professionals, these methodologies facilitate the decoding of phage habitat-specific signals for applications in microbial source tracking, phage therapy candidate selection, and microbiome dysbiosis detection.

Bacteriophages, the most abundant biological entities on Earth, exhibit immense genetic diversity and play critical roles in regulating bacterial communities, facilitating horizontal gene transfer, and influencing global ecosystems [71] [72]. The concept of ecogenomic signatures refers to the characteristic patterns of oligonucleotide frequencies (genomic signatures) that reflect a phage's co-evolutionary history with its host and adaptation to specific environmental habitats [16]. These signatures are increasingly recognized as diagnostic tools for predicting phage life cycles, host ranges, and ecological functions, with significant implications for understanding microbial ecology and developing phage-based technologies [71] [16].

The genomic composition of phages evolves to match the molecular characteristics of their bacterial hosts, a process termed "amelioration" [71] [72]. This co-evolution results in measurable similarities in oligonucleotide usage between phages and their hosts, providing a basis for computational predictions of phage-host relationships and ecological traits. This application note provides a comprehensive framework for the identification, analysis, and interpretation of ecogenomic signatures to contrast phages from different habitats.

Quantitative Framework: Ecogenomic Signature Metrics

The analysis of ecogenomic signatures relies on quantitative measures of genomic similarity and distance. The following metrics are fundamental to comparative ecogenomics.

Genomic Signature Distance Calculation

The genomic signature distance quantifies the dissimilarity between the oligonucleotide composition of a phage and a potential host. The Euclidean distance based on tetranucleotide (k=4) relative frequencies is a widely used measure [71] [72].

D_genomic = √[ Σ ( f_{i, phage} - f_{i, host} )² ]

Where f_{i, phage} and f_{i, host} are the relative frequencies of the i-th tetranucleotide in the phage and host genome, respectively.

Habitat Association Index

The Habitat Association Index evaluates the enrichment of a phage's gene homologs within metagenomes from a specific habitat compared to others, indicating habitat specificity [16].

HAI = ( C_habitat / N_habitat ) / ( Σ C_other / Σ N_other )

Where C_habitat is the cumulative abundance of sequences similar to the phage's ORFs in a target habitat metagenome, and N_habitat is the total number of sequences in that metagenome.

Table 1: Representative Genomic Signature Distances and Habitat Associations

Phage or vOTU	Predicted Host / Habitat	Genomic Signature Distance	Life Cycle Prediction	Habitat Association Index (HAI)
λ-like phages (Group I) [72]	Escherichia coli	Short distance (~0.05-0.15)	Temperate (Lysogenic)	N/A
T4 super-group (Group IV) [72]	Escherichia coli	Intermediate distance	Lytic	N/A
φB124-14 [16]	Human gut (Bacteroides fragilis)	N/A	N/A	~3.5 (Human gut virome vs. Environmental viromes)
φSYN5 [16]	Marine (Cyanobacteria)	N/A	N/A	>2.0 (Marine viromes vs. Gut viromes)
Hot spring phage-host pairs [71]	Hot spring biofilm	Short alignment-free distance	Lysogenic	N/A
crAss-like phages [73]	Human gut (Bacteroidetes)	Short distance to hosts	Primarily lytic [71]	Strongly enriched in human gut

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Computational Prediction of Phage Life Cycle Using Genomic Signatures

Principle: Lysogenic (temperate) phages demonstrate significantly shorter genomic signature distances to their hosts than lytic phages due to longer-term co-evolution and genomic integration [71] [72]. This protocol uses k-mer frequency analysis to calculate this distance.

Materials:

• Hardware: Standard computer workstation.
• Software: Programming environment for bioinformatics (e.g., Python with Biopython, R).
• Input Data: Phage and putative host genome sequences in FASTA format.

Procedure:

• Data Acquisition: Obtain complete genome sequences for the phage of interest and potential bacterial hosts from databases such as NCBI RefSeq or PhagesDB [60].
• Oligonucleotide Frequency Profiling:
  • For each genome (phage and host), compute the relative frequency of all possible tetranucleotides (4-mers).
  • Normalize each frequency by the total number of tetranucleotides in the genome to account for genome size variation.
• Distance Calculation:
  • For each phage-host pair, calculate the Euclidean distance between their normalized tetranucleotide frequency vectors using the formula provided in Section 2.1.
• Life Cycle Prediction:
  • Compare the calculated distance to established thresholds. A shorter distance suggests a lysogenic life cycle, while a longer distance suggests a lytic cycle [71] [72].
• Validation (Optional): Confirm predictions by screening the phage genome for known lysogeny-related genes (e.g., integrase, repressor) using annotation tools like DNAMaster or Pharokka [60].

Protocol 2: Identification of Habitat-Specific Phages via Metagenomic Read Mapping

Principle: Phages that are endemic to a specific habitat, such as the human gut, will have their genes represented at a higher relative abundance in metagenomes derived from that habitat compared to others [16]. This protocol quantifies this enrichment.

Materials:

• Hardware: High-performance computing cluster for large dataset handling.
• Software: Metagenomic read mapping tools (e.g., BWA-MEM, minimap2), sequence analysis toolkit (e.g., BBTools, CheckV [73]).
• Input Data: A curated genome of the phage of interest (e.g., φB124-14 for human gut) and multiple metagenomic datasets from different habitats.

Procedure:

• Phage Genome Curation: Assemble a high-quality reference genome for the target phage from sequencing data. Assess completeness and contamination with tools like CheckV [73].
• Metagenome Selection: Obtain whole-community or viral metagenomes (viromes) from at least two contrasting habitats (e.g., human gut vs. marine water).
• Read Mapping and Abundance Calculation:
  • Map metagenomic reads from each sample to the reference phage genome using a sensitive aligner (e.g., BWA-MEM).
  • Calculate the cumulative relative abundance of mapped reads. This is often done by summing the coverage of all open reading frames (ORFs) in the phage genome and normalizing by the total number of reads in the metagenome.
• Calculate Habitat Association Index (HAI):
  • Compute the HAI as described in Section 2.2 to quantitatively compare the phage's representation across habitats.
• Statistical Analysis:
  • Perform statistical tests (e.g., Mann-Whitney U test) to confirm that the phage's relative abundance is significantly higher in the target habitat. A phage like φB124-14 shows a strong, significant enrichment in human gut viromes [16].

Protocol 3: Machine Learning for Strain-Specific Interaction Prediction

Principle: Strain-specific phage-host interactions can be predicted using machine learning models trained on genomic features and experimental host-range data. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) predictions serve as a powerful feature [30].

Materials:

• Data: Genome sequences of phages and bacterial strains, experimentally determined host-range data (binary sensitive/resistant phenotypes).
• Software: Python/R with ML libraries (e.g., scikit-learn), HMMER for domain searches, PPIDM database.

Procedure:

• Feature Generation:
  • Annotate protein domains in all phage and bacterial genomes using HMMER against the PFAM database.
  • Predict PPIs by comparing domain pairs against a reference PPI database (e.g., PPIDM), assigning an interaction quality score [30].
• Model Training:
  • Use the PPI scores and other genomic features (e.g., k-mer counts) as input features for a machine learning classifier (e.g., Random Forest, XGBoost).
  • Train the model using the experimental host-range data as labels.
• Model Validation:
  • Validate model performance using cross-validation, reporting accuracy, precision, and recall. Models using PPI features have achieved accuracy rates of 78-94% in predicting strain-level interactions [30].

Table 2: Key Bioinformatics Tools for Phage Ecogenomics

Resource / Tool	Function	Access / OS	Key Application
DNAMaster [60] [74]	Comprehensive phage genome annotation	Windows / Virtual Machine	Manual curation of gene calls and functional annotation.
Phamerator [60] [74]	Comparative genomics & visualization (Phamily grouping)	Web-based	Visualizing genome mosaicism and comparing gene content across phages.
PhagesDB [60]	Actinobacteriophage genome database & resources	Web-based	Repository for genome sequences, data, and analysis tools for actinophages.
DEPhT [60]	Precise identification and extraction of prophages	Linux, Mac	Discovering and analyzing integrated prophages in bacterial genomes.
PhaMMseqs [60]	Clustering genes into phamilies (phams)	Linux, Mac, Windows	Assessing gene sharing and evolutionary relationships.
CheckV [73]	Quality assessment of viral genomes	Command-line	Evaluating completeness and contamination of phage genomes from metagenomes.

Visualization of Habitat-Specific Ecogenomic Signals

The analysis of habitat-specific signals can be conceptualized as a workflow that moves from sample collection to ecological insight. The following diagram summarizes the process of detecting and validating an ecogenomic signature.

Discussion and Future Directions

The protocols outlined herein provide a standardized approach for deciphering the ecogenomic signatures of bacteriophages. The ability to predict life cycle and host range from sequence data alone is a significant advancement, particularly for the vast majority of phages that remain uncultured [71]. The correlation between virome structure and host health or environmental status underscores the diagnostic potential of these signatures [2] [73].

Future developments in this field will likely involve the integration of more complex machine learning models, leveraging larger and more diverse datasets that include holo-transcriptomic information to capture dynamically active phage-host interactions [10]. Furthermore, the expanding ecosystem of bioinformatic tools, such as those developed by the SEA-PHAGES community, will continue to lower the barrier for researchers to conduct sophisticated phage genomics [60]. As population-level cohorts with deep phenotyping become more common, the resolution of ecogenomic signatures will sharpen, strengthening their utility in both fundamental research and applied biotechnology, from designing targeted phage therapies to monitoring environmental health.

The human gut virome, predominantly composed of bacteriophages (phages), exhibits two defining and seemingly contradictory characteristics: high interindividual variation and significant intraindividual persistence [75]. This duality presents both a challenge and an opportunity for developing ecogenomic signatures—habitat-associated genetic patterns embedded within phage genomes that can distinguish microbial ecosystems [1]. The inherent individuality of the virome often confounds cross-cohort comparisons and obscures disease signals in metagenomic studies [75] [76]. However, the longitudinal stability of an individual's viral community suggests that a personalized, stable phage "fingerprint" exists beneath the nucleotide-level diversity. This Application Note details a framework and corresponding protocols for quantitatively assessing this signature stability. We propose that moving beyond viral contigs to adopt a functionally relevant classification—Predicted Phage Host Families (PHFs)—can effectively reduce interindividual ecological distances while preserving and highlighting intraindividual persistence, thereby enabling more robust ecogenomic analyses [75].

The following tables consolidate quantitative findings from foundational studies, providing a benchmark for interpreting signature stability.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Classification Units on Virome Stability

Classification Unit	Intra-individual Stability (Longitudinal)	Inter-individual Distance	Key Supporting Evidence
Viral Contigs (vOTUs)	Low	High	High individuality confounds disease signal detection [75]
Viral Clusters (e.g., vConTACT2)	Variable	Variable	Risk of splitting single viral genomes across clusters [75]
Predicted Phage Host Families (PHFs)	Improved	Reduced	Significantly reduces intra- and interindividual ecological distances; improves longitudinal stability in 10 healthy individuals [75]

Table 2: Virome Diversity Shifts in Dysbiotic States

Diversity Metric	Change in Dysbiosis (vs. Healthy)	Consistency Across Studies	Implication for Signature Stability
Alpha Diversity (Richness/Evenness)	Inconsistent (58% decrease, 42% increase) [2]	Low (71% of datasets showed no significant change) [2]	Unreliable as a standalone stability metric
Beta Diversity (Composition)	Significant change in 69% of studies [2]	High	A more consistent signature of ecosystem disturbance
Bacteriome-Virome Diversity Correlation	Relationship breaks down (r² = 0.118 in dysbiosis vs. 0.380 in health) [2]	High	Decoupling of bacterial and viral diversity indicates instability

Core Protocol: Assessing Signature Stability via Predicted Phage Host Families

This protocol provides a step-by-step methodology for evaluating virome signature stability by leveraging PHFs to reduce interindividual variation while quantifying intraindividual persistence.

Stage 1: Metagenomic Data Pre-processing and Viral Sequence Identification

Objective: To generate high-quality viral contigs from metagenomic sequencing data.

Materials & Reagents:

• Fecal Samples: Collected fresh and stored at -70°C until processing [75].
• DNA Extraction Kit: QIAGEN PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit [75].
• Computing Infrastructure: High-performance computing cluster.
• Bioinformatics Tools: KneadData (v0.12.0), Trimmomatic (v.0.39), Bowtie2 (v.2.4.2), MegaHIT (v.1.2.9) [76].

Procedure:

• DNA Extraction and Sequencing: Perform DNA extraction from fecal samples according to the manufacturer's protocol. Prepare libraries and sequence using an Illumina NovaSeq or MGI DNBSEQ-T7 platform to generate 2 × 150 bp paired-end reads [75] [76].
• Quality Control and Host Read Removal:
  • Use KneadData and Trimmomatic to trim adapters and remove low-quality bases (Phred score < 20).
  • Align quality-filtered reads to a human reference genome (e.g., NCBI37) using Bowtie2. Retain reads for which both paired ends fail to align for subsequent assembly [76].
• Metagenomic Assembly and Viral Identification:
  • Assemble the cleaned reads into contigs using MegaHIT with default parameters.
  • Retain contigs with a length > 1 kb for downstream analysis [75].
  • Identify viral sequences from the assembled contigs using a tool like VAMB (v.4.1.3) followed by PHAMB (v.1.0.1) for binning, or directly with CheckV (v1.0.1) in "endtoend" mode to identify viral sequences and assess their completeness [76].

Stage 2: Viral Clustering and Host Prediction

Objective: To group viral sequences into species-level units and predict their bacterial hosts.

Materials & Reagents:

• Reference Database: iPHoP database (integrated with the tool) [75].
• Software: BLAST+ (v2.14.1), iPHoP (v.1.3.3), CheckV genome clustering tools (anicalc.py, aniclust.py) [75] [76].

Procedure:

• Generate Viral Operational Taxonomic Units (vOTUs):
  • Perform an all-vs-all BLASTn of the viral contigs.
  • Calculate Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) and alignment fraction (AF) using anicalc.py.
  • Cluster viral genomes into vOTUs at the species level using aniclust.py with MIUVIG-recommended parameters (-min_ani 95 -min_tcov 85) [76].
• Predict Phage Host Families (PHFs):
  • Use iPHoP with default parameters to predict the bacterial hosts for each vOTU.
  • Import the results into R (v.4.2.2) or Python for analysis.
  • Aggregate vOTUs based on their predicted host at the family level to create the PHF units, as this taxonomic rank has been validated to show high concordance with experimental host assignments (e.g., Hi-C proximity ligation) [75].

Stage 3: Ecological Distance and Stability Quantification

Objective: To compute and compare intra-individual persistence and inter-individual variation.

Materials & Reagents:

• Statistical Environment: R (v.4.2.2) with packages such as phyloseq (v.1.42) for community analysis [75].
• Longitudinal Data: Metagenomic samples collected from the same individuals over time (e.g., quarterly for one year) [75] [77].

Procedure:

• Construct Abundance Tables: Create relative abundance tables for both the vOTUs and the derived PHFs.
• Calculate Ecological Distances:
  • Compute Bray-Curtis dissimilarity matrices for all sample pairs.
  • Inter-individual Distance: For each time point, calculate the average Bray-Curtis dissimilarity between all pairs of different individuals.
  • Intra-individual Distance (Persistence): For each individual with longitudinal sampling, calculate the average Bray-Curtis dissimilarity between all pairs of their different time points.
• Statistical Comparison:
  • Use permutation tests (e.g., vegan::adonis in R) to determine if the intra-individual distances are significantly lower than the inter-individual distances, indicating temporal stability.
  • Compare the distributions of inter- and intra-individual distances between the vOTU-based and PHF-based analyses. A successful application of PHFs will show a significant reduction in inter-individual variation while maintaining or reducing intra-individual variation, thereby increasing the signal-to-noise ratio [75].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical flow and key decision points in the signature stability assessment protocol.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Tools for Virome Signature Analysis

Item Name	Function/Application	Specific Example/Product
DNA Extraction Kit	Isolation of high-quality total DNA from complex samples (e.g., stool) for metagenomic sequencing.	QIAGEN PowerFecal Pro DNA Kit [75] [76]
Host Prediction Tool	Bioinformatic prediction of bacteriophage hosts from sequence data, enabling PHF classification.	iPHoP (v.1.3.3) [75]
Viral Genome Completeness Tool	Assessment of the quality and completeness of metagenome-assembled viral genomes.	CheckV (v1.0.1) [76]
Sequence Clustering Scripts	Clustering viral sequences into vOTUs based on ANI/AF, defining species-level units.	CheckV's anicalc.py & aniclust.py [76]
Ecological Analysis Package	Statistical analysis and visualization of microbiome/virome community data, including distance calculations.	R package phyloseq (v.1.42) [75]

The quest to define ecogenomic signatures—habitat-specific genetic patterns diagnostic of underlying microbiomes—has expanded from bacterial genomes to the viruses that infect them: bacteriophages (phages) [1]. The phageome is now recognized as a crucial component of gut ecosystem health, acting as a dynamic modulator of bacterial community structure and function [78]. Understanding the relationship between bacterial and phage diversity is fundamental to decoding these signatures.

A pivotal meta-analysis reveals that the statistical relationship between bacterial (bacteriome) and viral (virome) α-diversity is significantly stronger in healthy microbiomes than in disturbed states [2]. This correlation breakdown during dysbiosis provides a potentially powerful, generalizable ecogenomic signature for diagnosing and understanding microbiome disturbance, irrespective of the specific disease context.

Key Quantitative Findings

The following table summarizes the core quantitative findings from the systematic review and meta-analysis that forms the basis of this application note [2].

Table 1: Summary of Key Meta-Analysis Findings on Virome Dysbiosis Signatures

Metric	Number of Studies/Datasets	Key Finding	Implication
Virome α-Diversity Change	69 studies	28 (41%) reported significant changes, but with variable direction (increase or decrease) [2].	α-diversity alone is an inconsistent and unreliable signature of dysbiosis.
Virome α-Diversity Response Ratio	38 datasets (from 30 studies)	22 (58%) showed a decrease (Ratio <1), 16 (42%) showed an increase (Ratio >1); 71% of CIs overlapped with 1 (no change) [2].	The direction of α-diversity change is highly system-specific and non-significant in most cases.
Virome β-Diversity Change	68 studies	47 (69%) reported a significant change in viral community composition [2].	Shifting virome composition is a consistent and robust signature of dysbiosis.
Viral Taxa Enrichment	70 studies	62 (89%) reported significant enrichment of system-specific viral taxa [2].	Specific phage taxa can serve as precise biomarkers for specific diseased states.
Bacteriome-Virome α-Diversity Correlation (Healthy)	Correlation analysis	Mean r² = 0.380 (95% CI 0.597–0.163) [2].	Bacterial diversity is a strong predictor of phage diversity in healthy states.
Bacteriome-Virome α-Diversity Correlation (Dysbiosis)	Correlation analysis	Mean r² = 0.118 (95% CI 0.223–0.012); sign test p = 4.9 × 10⁻¹⁰ [2].	The predictive relationship between bacterial and phage diversity breaks down during dysbiosis.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Virome Isolation and Sequencing from Fecal Samples

This protocol details the methodology for isolating virus-like particles (VLPs) and preparing them for metagenomic sequencing, as derived from the foundational studies included in the meta-analysis [2].

1. Reagents & Materials:

• Suspension Buffer: Phosphate-Buffered Saline (PBS), pH 7.4, filter-sterilized (0.22 µm).
• Filtration Units: 0.45 µm and 0.22 µm pore size low-protein binding PVDF filters.
• Density Gradient Media: OptiPrep or Sucrose.
• Benzonase Nuclease: For digesting free nucleic acids from broken cells.
• DNase I: For digesting external, unpackaged DNA.
• Lysis Buffer: containing Proteinase K and SDS.
• Nucleic Acid Extraction Kit: Phenol-chloroform or commercial kits for post-dnase DNA extraction.
• Ultracentrifuge and Fixed-Angle Rotor.

2. Step-by-Step Procedure: 1. Homogenization: Resuspend 1-2 grams of fecal material in 10-15 mL of chilled PBS. Vortex thoroughly and centrifugate at low speed (e.g., 5,000 x g for 10 min at 4°C) to remove large debris. 2. Sequential Filtration: Pass the supernatant sequentially through 0.45 µm and 0.22 µm filters to remove bacterial cells and other particulates. 3. Nuclease Treatment: Treat the filtrate with Benzonase (e.g., 1 U/µL) and DNase I (e.g., 1 U/µL) for 1-2 hours at 37°C to degrade nucleic acids not protected within a viral capsid. 4. VLP Concentration (Ultracentrifugation): * Option A (Pelleting): Ultracentrifuge the nuclease-treated filtrate at ~150,000 x g for 3 hours at 4°C. Carefully discard the supernatant and resuspend the invisible VLP pellet in 100-200 µL of PBS. * Option B (Density Gradient): Layer the filtrate on top of a pre-formed OptiPrep density gradient (e.g., 5-40%). Ultracentrifuge at 100,000 x g for 2-3 hours. Collect the VLP-containing band. 5. Viral DNA Extraction: To the concentrated VLPs, add lysis buffer and Proteinase K. Incubate at 56°C for 1-2 hours. Extract nucleic acids using a phenol-chloroform protocol or a commercial kit. Elute DNA in nuclease-free water. 6. Library Preparation & Sequencing: Quantify DNA using a fluorescence-based assay (e.g., Qubit). Prepare metagenomic sequencing libraries using a kit designed for low-input DNA (e.g., Illumina Nextera XT). Sequence on an appropriate platform (e.g., Illumina MiSeq/HiSeq).

Protocol 2: Computational Analysis of Virome and Bacteriome Diversity

This protocol outlines the bioinformatic workflow for processing sequence data to calculate α-diversity and β-diversity metrics for correlation analysis.

1. Software & Resources:

• Quality Control: FastQC, Trimmomatic.
• Host Read Removal: Bowtie2, BWA.
• Metagenomic Assemblers: MEGAHIT, SPAdes.
• Gene Calling & Clustering: Prodigal, CD-HIT.
• Taxonomic Profiling: BLAST+, DIAMOND, VPF, VIPTree.
• Diversity Analysis: QIIME 2, mothur, custom R scripts.
• Statistical Analysis: R with vegan, ggplot2 packages.

2. Step-by-Step Procedure: 1. Quality Control & Trimming: Use FastQC for quality assessment. Trim adapter sequences and low-quality bases using Trimmomatic. 2. Host DNA Depletion: Align reads to the host genome (e.g., human, mouse) and a database of bacterial genomes. Discard all aligning reads to enrich for viral sequences. 3. Virome Analysis: * Assembly: Assemble the quality-filtered, host-depleted reads into contigs using MEGAHIT. * Viral Contig Identification: Identify viral contigs by comparing them to viral protein families (e.g., using VPF) or by generating protein clusters and analyzing them with VIPTree. * Contig Abundance: Map quality-controlled reads back to the viral contigs to generate an abundance table (contig × sample). 4. Bacteriome Analysis: Take the same raw reads and align them to a curated 16S rRNA gene database (for 16S data) or a bacterial genome database (for shotgun data) to generate a bacterial abundance table. 5. Diversity Calculation: * α-Diversity: Calculate diversity indices (e.g., Shannon, Simpson, Richness) for both the viral contig abundance table and the bacterial abundance table in each sample using QIIME 2 or the R vegan package. * β-Diversity: Calculate distance matrices (e.g., Bray-Curtis, Jaccard, Weighted Unifrac) for both virome and bacteriome to assess community composition differences. 6. Correlation & Statistical Testing: * Perform linear or non-linear regression between bacterial and viral α-diversity metrics (e.g., Shannon Index) for the "Healthy" and "Dysbiosis" sample groups separately. * Calculate the coefficient of determination (R²) for each group. * Statistically compare the correlation strengths (e.g., using Fisher's Z-transformation) between the two groups. * Visualize β-diversity shifts using Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA).

Visualizing the Workflow and Ecological Model

The following diagram, generated using Graphviz, illustrates the integrated experimental and computational workflow for analyzing bacteriome-virome correlations.

Diagram 1: Workflow for Bacteriome-Virome Correlation Analysis

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual ecological model of the correlation breakdown during the shift from a healthy to a dysbiotic state.

Diagram 2: Ecological Model of Phage-Bacteria Correlation Shift

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for Phage Ecogenomics

Item Name	Function/Application	Specific Example/Note
0.22 µm PVDF Filters	Sterile filtration of samples to remove bacterial cells and obtain a VLP-enriched filtrate [2].	Essential for virome isolation. Low-protein binding is critical to prevent phage adhesion.
Benzonase Nuclease	Digests nucleic acids external to viral capsids (from lysed cells), enriching for encapsidated viral DNA [2].	Differentiated from DNase I by its ability to digest all forms of DNA and RNA.
OptiPrep Density Medium	Forms gradients for the purification of VLPs via ultracentrifugation, separating them from soluble contaminants [2].	Provides a high-resolution, iso-osmotic method for VLP concentration.
Viral Protein Families (VPF)	A database of protein profiles used for the identification of viral sequences in metagenomic assemblies [2].	More sensitive for detecting divergent phages than simple BLAST against nucleotide databases.
CrAssphage & Microviridae Markers	Specific viral taxa that are stable members of the healthy human gut phageome; useful as controls or for probe design [78].	Their stability makes them potential biomarkers for a "core" healthy phageome [78].
Ï•B124-14 Phage Genome	A model gut phage infecting Bacteroides fragilis; its genome encodes a demonstrable gut-associated ecogenomic signature [1].	Can be used as a positive control or reference genome in assays designed to detect human gut-specific phage signals.

Application Note: Decoding Ecogenomic Signatures for Therapeutic Phage Selection

Core Concept and Definition

Ecogenomic signatures represent distinct, identifiable patterns within bacteriophage genomes that correlate with critical therapeutic properties, including host range specificity, interaction with bacterial defense systems, and immunogenic potential in human hosts. These signatures serve as predictive biomarkers for selecting and engineering phages with enhanced therapeutic efficacy [79] [80]. The primary signatures of therapeutic relevance include receptor binding protein (RBP) sequences, bacterial defense system counter-genes (e.g., anti-CRISPR proteins), and specific sequence motifs like CpG patterns that influence human immune recognition via Toll-like receptor 9 (TLR9) [80] [81]. Analyzing these signatures allows for a shift from empirical phage selection to a predictive, rational design framework for phage therapy.

Key Signature Types and Their Therapeutic Implications

Table 1: Key Ecogenomic Signatures and Their Therapeutic Relevance

Signature Type	Genomic Features	Therapeutic Impact	Detection Method
Host Range Determinants	Receptor Binding Protein (RBP) sequences, tail fiber proteins [81]	Determines the spectrum of bacterial strains a phage can infect and lyse [79]	Whole-genome sequencing, machine learning algorithms [81]
Bacterial Defense Counter-Measures	Anti-CRISPR (Acr) genes, anti-restriction modification genes [79]	Enables phage to overcome bacterial innate immune systems, preventing therapeutic failure [79]	BLAST-based homology search, hidden Markov models
Immunomodulatory Motifs	CpG dinucleotide frequency and distribution [80]	Influences activation of human TLR9, potentially triggering pro-inflammatory or immunoevasive responses [80]	K-mer analysis, motif scanning
Life Cycle & Safety	Absence of intergrase, repressor, and toxin genes [82]	Ensures obligately lytic (virulent) cycle, preventing lysogeny and toxin production [82]	Bioinformatics pipelines using virulence factor databases (e.g., VFDB)

Protocol: A Workflow for Signature-Driven Phage Cocktail Design

This protocol outlines a systematic approach for designing broad-spectrum phage-antibiotic cocktails based on the concept of Complementarity Groups (CGs) and receptor usage, which overcomes the limitations of narrow phage host ranges and prevents resistance emergence [83].

Stage 1: In Vitro Determination of Phage Complementarity Groups (CGs)

Objective: To empirically group phages based on shared bacterial receptors, such that resistance to one phage confers cross-resistance to all phages within the same group [83].

Materials:

• Bacterial Strain: A well-characterized model strain (e.g., Pseudomonas aeruginosa PA14).
• Phage Library: A collection of candidate therapeutic phages.
• Growth Media: Suitable broth and agar for the bacterial strain.
• Equipment: Spectrophotometer (for OD600 measurement), multi-well plates, incubator.

Procedure:

• Primary Susceptibility Screening: For each phage, challenge the bacterial strain at a high multiplicity of infection (MOI=100). Monitor bacterial growth (OD600) over 24-30 hours. Calculate a Suppression Index: the percentage of growth inhibition caused by the phage [83].
• Resistance Induction: Islect bacterial cultures that show regrowth after initial suppression in Step 1. These represent populations with emergent phage resistance.
• Cross-Resistance Profiling: Re-challenge each resistant bacterial population with every other phage in the library. Calculate a Resistance Index for each phage pair: the percentage of bacterial growth upon re-challenge [83].
• Define Complementarity Groups (CGs): Construct a cross-resistance matrix. Phages that cluster together, where resistance to one leads to high-level resistance to others, form a single Complementarity Group. These phages likely use the same primary bacterial receptor [83].

Stage 2: Cocktail Formulation and Validation

Objective: To combine phages from different CGs into a single cocktail, ensuring broad coverage and delayed resistance.

Procedure:

• Cocktail Assembly: Select at least one phage from each identified Complementarity Group. This ensures the cocktail targets multiple, non-redundant bacterial receptors [83].
• Synergy with Antibiotics: Identify antibiotic classes that show characteristic interactions with the phage CGs. Integrate a compatible antibiotic into the final cocktail to create a potent phage-antibiotic combination [83].
• Broad-Spectrum Validation: Validate the efficacy of the formulated cocktail against a large panel of clinical isolates (e.g., ≥150 strains) to confirm a broad spectrum of activity, typically ≥96% coverage [83].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the key experimental and computational stages of this protocol:

Advanced Methods: Integrating AI and Holo-Transcriptomics

AI-Guided Host Range Prediction

Machine learning (ML) models can predict strain-level phage-host infectivity from bacterial genome sequences, accelerating phage matching. The predictive features are often the bacterial surface structures targeted by phages, such as capsular (K) serotype and lipopolysaccharide (O) antigen [81].

Protocol: Building a Phage-Host Infectivity Predictor

• Feature Engineering: From a database of bacterial genomes, extract features using specialized tools. For Klebsiella and E. coli, tools like Kaptive (for capsular types) and ECtyper (for LPS O-types) are used to generate feature vectors [81].
• Model Training: Train a classifier (e.g., Random Forest, XGBoost) using a Phage-Bacteria Infection Network (PBIN) as the ground truth. The model learns the association between bacterial surface features and susceptibility to specific phages [81].
• Prediction: For a new clinical isolate, sequence its genome, extract the relevant surface features, and input them into the trained model to receive a prediction of susceptible phages [81].

Holo-Transcriptomic Analysis of Active Infections

Holo-transcriptomics captures the entire transcriptome of a sample, including host, bacterial, and phage RNA, providing a dynamic view of active infections and phage-bacteria interactions in situ [10].

Procedure:

• Sample Processing: Collect infected tissue or bacterial cultures. Extract total RNA.
• Host RNA Depletion: Use probes to remove host (e.g., human) rRNA and mRNA, enriching for microbial and viral transcripts.
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Prepare sequencing libraries from the enriched RNA and perform high-throughput sequencing (e.g., Illumina) [10].
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Map reads to reference genomes or assemble them de novo to identify transcriptionally active phages and bacteria.
  • Quantify gene expression to understand functional responses during phage infection.
  • Correlate the activity of specific phage signatures (e.g., Acr genes) with the expression of bacterial defense systems (e.g., CRISPR-Cas) [10].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Signature-Based Phage Therapy

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Example / Source
Phage Genome Databases	Provides reference sequences for comparative genomics and signature discovery.	PhageScope, IMG/VR, NCBI Virus [10]
Virulence Factor Databases (VFDB)	Bioinformatics screening to exclude phages carrying toxin or virulence genes.	Virulence Factors Database [82]
Adsorption Rate Calculator	Online tool to model phage-bacteria interaction kinetics and optimize MOI.	adsorptions.phage-therapy.org [84]
Machine Learning Classifiers	AI models for predicting phage-host range from bacterial genomic features.	Models for Klebsiella spp. and Escherichia spp. [81]
Defined Bacterial Mutant Libraries	To experimentally validate predicted phage receptors (e.g., flagella, pili, LPS).	KEIO collection (E. coli), PA14 transposon mutant library (P. aeruginosa) [83]
Holo-Transcriptomics Analysis Pipeline	For analyzing host-microbe-phage transcriptional dynamics from RNA-seq data.	Custom pipelines with host depletion, assembly, and functional annotation [10]

Conclusion

Ecogenomic signatures embedded within bacteriophage genomes provide a powerful and versatile lens through which to view, diagnose, and manipulate microbial ecosystems. The synthesis of evidence confirms that these signatures are not merely taxonomic curiosities but are robust, habitat-associated biomarkers with demonstrable utility in microbial source tracking and as sensitive indicators of microbiome dysbiosis. The breakdown of the correlation between bacterial and phage diversity during disturbance offers a particularly promising diagnostic signature. Looking forward, the integration of advanced genomic and holo-transcriptomic data with sophisticated bioinformatic pipelines will be crucial for overcoming current host prediction challenges. The future of this field lies in translating these ecological insights into clinical applications, including the rational design of phage cocktails for targeting resistant pathogens and the development of non-invasive phage-based diagnostic tools for monitoring human health and disease.

References

• 1. Resolution of habitat-associated ecogenomic signatures in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41396-017-0015-7]
• 2. Evaluation of bacteriophages as a signature of microbiome ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666524725001247]
• 3. Phage Annotation Guide: Guidelines for Assembly and High ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8785237/]
• 4. Effective data visualization strategies in untargeted ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/np/d4np00039k]
• 5. Productive visualization of high-throughput sequencing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-98889-7]
• 6. Ten simple rules for developing visualization tools in genomics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9648702/]
• 7. PHASTER [https://phaster.ca/]
• 8. Advanced Strategies in Phage Research: Innovations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12388022/]
• 9. The arms race in bacteria-phage interaction - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12568517/]
• 10. Genomic insights into bacteriophages: a new frontier in AMR ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12302716/]
• 11. an adaptive fusion-based LLM for predicting phage-host ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12488635/]
• 12. How We Built the First AI-Generated Genomes [https://arcinstitute.org/news/hie-king-first-synthetic-phage]
• 13. Quantitative Imaging of Bacteriophage Amplification for ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2022.853048/full]
• 14. The Human Gut Phage Community and Its Implications for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5490818/]
• 15. Metagenomics Unveils Viral Biodiversity [https://virologyresearchservices.com/2025/10/28/metagenomics-unveils-viral-biodiversity/]
• 16. Resolution of habitat-associated ecogenomic signatures in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5864186/]
• 17. Phage quest: a beginner's guide to explore viral diversity in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12406692/]
• 18. Ecogenomics and genome landscapes of marine ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej201094]
• 19. Genomic and Ecogenomic Characterization of Proteus ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2019.01783/full]
• 20. Metagenomic investigation reveals bacteriophage-mediated ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10581182/]
• 21. The impact of phage treatment on bacterial ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-48434-5]
• 22. Comparative (Meta)genomic Analysis and Ecological Profiling ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0035053]
• 23. Comparative (Meta)genomic Analysis and Ecological ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3338817/]
• 24. Genome Characterization of a Novel Wastewater ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2020.583378/full]
• 25. Genome signature-based dissection of human gut ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3420]
• 26. Current and future directions in bacteriophage research for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76427-5]
• 27. Phages As A Pharmaceutical New EMA Guidance On ... [https://www.clinicalleader.com/doc/phages-as-a-pharmaceutical-new-ema-guidance-on-antimicrobial-drug-development-0001]
• 28. Integrating metagenomics and cultivation unveils oral ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-025-00773-z]
• 29. Engineering bacteriophages through deep mining of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12007582/]
• 30. A machine learning approach to predict strain-specific ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-22075-2]
• 31. PCRBIO Research Grant USA [https://pcrbio.com/research-grant-usa/]
• 32. Resolution of habitat-associated ecogenomic signatures in ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29259289/]
• 33. Exploring the transcriptional landscape of phage–host ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10884466/]
• 34. Hi-C metagenome sequencing reveals soil phage–host ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-42967-z]
• 35. Transcriptomic and Metabolomics Profiling of Phage–Host ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00548/full]
• 36. Temporal transcriptomics uncover dynamic interactions ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2025.1668341/full]
• 37. Planning bioinformatics workflows using an expert system [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5860174/]
• 38. Ultraconserved bacteriophage genome sequence ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-44370-0]
• 39. Phage Genome Sequencing: Methods, Challenges, and ... [https://www.cd-genomics.com/resource-phage-genome-sequencing-guide.html]
• 40. Benefits and Challenges of Applying Bacteriophage ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11205630/]
• 41. Bacteriophages in Biological Wastewater Treatment Systems [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/microbiology/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2021.730071/full]
• 42. SNV-FEAST: microbial source tracking with single nucleotide ... [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-023-02927-8]
• 43. Diverse defense systems and prophages in human ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211124725013130]
• 44. Engineered bacteriophages for therapeutic and diagnostic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12519544/]
• 45. Phage therapy as a revitalized weapon for treating clinical ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12540056/]
• 46. Computational approaches for virus host prediction [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.00349v1]
• 47. Regulation of phage therapy medicinal products [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12605122/]
• 48. Modest functional diversity decline and pronounced ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12036129/]
• 49. Phage diversity mirrors bacterial strain diversity in the ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-64706-2]
• 50. Beyond Basic Diversity Estimates—Analytical Tools for ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/10/10/1961]
• 51. The Life Cycle Transitions of Temperate Phages [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9502458/]
• 52. 21.2B: The Lytic and Lysogenic Cycles of Bacteriophages [https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/General_Biology_(Boundless)/21%3A_Viruses/21.02%3A_Virus_Infections_and_Hosts/21.2B%3A_The_Lytic_and_Lysogenic_Cycles_of_Bacteriophages]
• 53. The Role of Quorum Sensing in Phage Lifecycle Decision [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11945551/]
• 54. Lysogenic Cycle - Definition, Steps, and Diagram [https://www.sciencefacts.net/lysogenic-cycle.html]
• 55. High-resolution studies of lysis–lysogeny decision-making ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6416446/]
• 56. Lytic vs Lysogenic Cycles of Bacteriophage [https://www.technologynetworks.com/immunology/articles/lytic-vs-lysogenic-understanding-bacteriophage-life-cycles-308094]
• 57. Comparative analysis of immune responses to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168170225000887]
• 58. noisyR: enhancing biological signal in sequencing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8373073/]
• 59. Characterizing and measuring bias in sequence data [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2013-14-5-r51]
• 60. A Bioinformatic Ecosystem for Bacteriophage Genomics [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11359507/]
• 61. Genomic analysis of prophages in 44 clinical strains of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12066637/]
• 62. Phage Genome Annotation: Where to Begin and End - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9041514/]
• 63. Global overview and major challenges of host prediction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1879625721000572]
• 64. Phage-Host Prediction Using a Computational Tool ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9862649/]
• 65. DeepPBI-KG: a deep learning method for the prediction of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11440089/]
• 66. 2.9. Phage Host Prediction [https://bio-protocol.org/exchange/minidetail?id=16552480&type=30]
• 67. Exploring the Human Virome: Composition, Dynamics, and Implications for Health and Disease - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38006423/]
• 68. Disease-specific Alterations in the Enteric Virome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4312520/]
• 69. Viruses in the female lower reproductive tract: a systematic descriptive review of metagenomic investigations | npj Biofilms and Microbiomes [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41522-024-00613-6]
• 70. AI-Powered Microbiome Insights into IBD and CRC [https://www.mdpi.com/2036-7422/16/3/34]
• 71. Inference of the Life Cycle of Environmental Phages from ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10222151/]
• 72. The use of genomic signature distance between ... [https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-7-163]
• 73. Extensive gut virome variation and its associations with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-32832-w]
• 74. SEA-PHAGES | Software [https://seaphages.org/software/]
• 75. Improving gut virome comparisons using predicted phage ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12090736/]
• 76. The genetic diversity and populational specificity of the human ... [https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-025-02185-9]
• 77. Longitudinal cervicovaginal bacteriome and virome ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63158-y]
• 78. Role of bacteriophages in shaping gut microbial community [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11340752/]
• 79. Engineered Bacteriophage Therapeutics - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8084836/]
• 80. The Immunogenic Signatures in Bacteriophage Genomes and ... [https://biology.sdsu.edu/the-immunogenic-signatures-in-bacteriophage-genomes-and-the-gut-virome/]
• 81. Optimizing phage therapy with artificial intelligence [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2025.1611857/full]
• 82. Re-evaluating what makes a phage unsuitable for therapy [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44259-025-00117-z]
• 83. A blueprint for broadly effective bacteriophage-antibiotic ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-53994-9]
• 84. Automating Predictive Phage Therapy Pharmacology - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10525195/]