A Note on Extending Taylor’s Power Law for Characterizing Human
Microbial Communities: Inspiration from Comparative Studies on
the Distribution Patterns of Insects and Galaxies, and as a Case
Study for Medical Ecology and Personalized Medicine
Zhanshan (Sam) Ma
Computational Biology and Medical Ecology Laboratory
State Key Laboratory of Genetic Resources and Evolution
Kunming Institute of Zoology
Chinese Academy of Sciences, P. R. China
ma@vandals.uidaho.edu
very useful for analyzing the distribution patterns of
human microbes within the human body. Finally, I suggest
that the parameters of the power law model built at
community level, especially when associated with
community metadata (or environmental covariates) and
when time series data from longitudinal studies are utilized,
can reveal important dynamic properties of human
microbiome such as community stability, which can be
invaluable in investigating etiology of some diseases
associated with human microbial communities. Overall, I
hope that the approach to human microbial community
with the power law offers an example that ecological
theories can play an important role in the emerging
medical ecology, which aims at studying the ecology of
human microbiome and its implications to human
diseases and health, as well as in personalized medicine.

ABSTRACT—Many natural patterns, such as the
distributions of blood particles in a blood sample, proteins
on cell surfaces, biological populations in their habitat,
galaxies in the universe, the sequence of human genes,
and the fitness in evolutionary computing, have been
found to follow power law (e.g., Kendal 2004, Illian et al.
2008, Venter 2001, Ma 2012). Taylor’s power law (Taylor
1961: Nature, vol. 189:732–735.) is well recognized as one
of the fundamental models in population ecology, thanks
to its wide applicability in describing the spatial
distribution patterns of biological populations. A
fundamental property of biological populations, which
Taylor’s power law reveals, is the near universal
heterogeneity (also known as aggregation or nonrandomness) of population abundance distribution in
habitat. Obviously, the heterogeneity also exists at the
community level, where not only the distributions of
population abundances but also the proportions of the
species composition in the community are often
heterogeneous or non-random. Indeed, community
heterogeneity is simply a reciprocal term of community
evenness, the major dimension what community diversity
tries to measure. Nevertheless, existing community
diversity indexes such as Shannon index and Simpson index
can only measure “local” or “static” diversity in the sense
that they are computed for each habitat at a specific time
point, but the indexes alone do not reflect the diversity
changes across habitats or over time. This inadequacy is
particularly problematic if the research objective is to
study the dynamics of community diversity, which is critical
for understanding the possible mechanisms that maintain
the community diversity and stability. In this note, I
propose to extend the application scope of Taylor’s power
law to the studies of human microbial communities,
specifically, the community heterogeneity at both
population (single species) and community (multiple
species) levels. I further suggested that population
dispersion models such as Taylor (1980, Nature: 286, 5355), which is known to generate population distribution
patterns consistent with the power law, should also be

Keywords: Power Law, Human Microbiome, Human
Microbial Communities, Medical Ecology, Personalized
Medicine, Point Process Statistics, Metagenomics.

BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Maurer (1999) pointed out two possibilities for the lack of
generalizability in the study of community ecology. First,
generalizations may be impossible due to the extreme
complexity of ecological world. Second, patterns do not
exist at the scale of the local community where the
observation is made. Perhaps a third possibility can be
added to this list: that the tool for detecting the patterns may
be unsuitable at the research scale. While little may be done
with respect to the first possibility, ecologists can strive to
avoid the second and third possibilities by carefully
choosing a right scale level and developing powerful
approaches that are suitable for the chosen scale. In this
note, I propose to extend the application scope of Taylor’s
power law (Taylor 1961, 1977, 1984, 2007) from
population scale (level) to community scale (level) in order
to obtain an appropriate and powerful quantitative approach
for characterizing the microbial communities. The
inspiration comes from a phenomenon in population
1

Scott 1952, Neyman 1958). Even more inspiring is that the
studies on the distribution patterns of insects and microbes
in their habitat, as well as the studies on the distribution of
galaxies in the universe, performed by Neyman and other
scientists, evolved similarly in terms of the research
approaches developed in astronomy and biology,
respectively. In both astronomy and biology, three
mathematical approaches with slightly different names were
advanced; they are (i) frequency distribution—fitting the
occurrence frequency data of subjects (galaxies or insects)
per sampling unit to a probability distribution such as
Neyman distribution (Neyman 1939) and negative binomial
distribution (NBD); (ii) aggregation index (also known as
dispersion index)—using some statistics to measure the
aggregation (dispersion) degree of galaxies or insect
populations; (iii) power law modeling.

ecology where Taylor’s power law has been found to
describe the spatial distribution patterns of biological
populations in their habitat remarkably well. What Taylor’s
power law captures at the population scale is essentially the
heterogeneity of population abundance distribution in space
and/or time, and heterogeneity is certainly a fundamental
property at community level (scale). Therefore, an
interesting question is: can Taylor’s power law play a
similar role at the community level?
Taylor (1961) discovered that the Power Law model
[Equation (1)] fits population spatial distribution data
almost ubiquitously well from bacteria, plants, to mammals,
V = aM b ,
(1)
where M and V are population mean (density or abundance)
and variance, respectively, and a and b are parameters.
According to Taylor (1961, 1984): b>1 corresponds to
aggregated distribution (Fig. 1c) b=1 to random distribution
and (Fig. 1b) b<1 to regular distribution (Fig. 1a).

While Taylor’s power law [Equation (1)] describes the
distribution patterns of biological populations, the form of
power law for describing the distribution of galaxies takes a
slightly different form:
s

⎛r ⎞
1 + g (r ) = ⎜ 0 ⎟
(2)
⎝r⎠
where g(r) is the so-termed pair correlation function, s and
r0 are parameters. According to Illian et al. (2008), this
power law model [Equation (2)] was proposed by Totsuji &
Kihara (1969) to simplify Neyman et al’s (Neyman &Scott
1952, 1958, Neyman et al. 1953) computation and to relieve
the statistical difficulties Neyman et al (1953) encountered.
Neyman et al. (1953) statistical difficulty was that they
obtained different model parameters for different galaxy
catalogues (files of coordinates of galaxies); therefore, their
model was a probability distribution model that is a
superposition of groups of galaxies of varying size,
including super clusters. In fact, in biology, the discovery
and application of Taylor’s power law played a similar role
in the study of the distribution of biological populations,
especially in the study of insects (Taylor 1961, 1984). In
entomology, from 1920’s to 1950’s, several probability
distributions including negative binomial, Neyman, Thomas
Double Poisson, Polya distributions, had been developed to
fit the frequency data of insect population distribution. A
practical problem with the probability distribution approach
in entomology was that for each data set of population
distribution, there is a set of parameters, even for the same
probability distribution model, not to mention the
parameters from different probability models. A then wellaccepted solution was to find the common-K of the negative
binomial distribution fitted to different data sets, hoping
that the common-K to synthesize the information from
multiple samples and to represent the species-specific
characteristic of the biological species under investigation.
Later, it was found that common-K is a dubious index for
characterizing population spatial patterns and could not
assume the role hoped for by entomologists (Taylor et al.
1979, Perry et al. 1986). In a series of studies (Taylor 1961,
Taylor & Taylor 1977, Taylor et al. 1978, 1979, 1984,
1986), Taylor and his colleagues confirmed the wide
applicability of Taylor’s (1961) power law [Equation (1)] in
describing the ‘fat tails’ of the distribution of abundance of

Fig. 1. Three Distribution Patterns of Biological Populations:
(a): Regular, (b) Random, and (c) Aggregated.

Taylor's power-law accurately depicts the scaling
relationship that describes the ‘fat tails’ of the distribution
of abundance of nearly all organisms, and it has been found
to hold at multiple scale levels of population ecology.
Taylor’s power law is one form of the power law that is
found to underlie many natural processes such as the
distribution of galaxies in the universe, blood cells in a
blood sample. In addition, the three patterns displayed in
Figure 1 are considered as typical patterns of point process,
which is studied in a branch of spatial statistics, i.e, point
process statistics.
The point process and power law have been studied in
many fields of science; for example, in astronomy, both
spatial random fields (e.g., the density fields, the velocity
fields) and spatial point patterns (e.g., the position of
galaxies) have been studied extensively (Illian et al. 2008).
Astronomers had observed that matters in the universe is
distributed in aggregation (clusters) on small scales,
although, theoretically, the cosmological principle Einstein
assumed in 1917 considered that the universe is isotropic
and homogenous on large scale.
It is inspiring to note that Jerzy Neyman (1894-1981), a
distinguished mathematical statistician from the University
of California at Berkeley, studied the spatial distribution
patterns of insects, bacteria, and galaxies, apparently with
similar statistical approaches. Perhaps his study on galaxies
distribution was inspired by his experience in studying
bacteria and insects since his work in biology (Neyman
1939) was earlier than his work in astronomy (Neyman &
2

nearly all organisms across multiple scales in both space
and time; they also demonstrated the rarity of random
distribution of biological populations. They further found
that the parameter (exponent) b of Taylor’s power law
ranges from 1 to 2 for most species (hundreds of aphids,
moths, and birds in Great Britain) they investigated.

reached. Ma (1988, 1991) studied the relationship between
aggregation degree and population density and proposed the
concept of population aggregation critical density (PACD).
PACD can be computed with the following equation:
⎛ ln(a) ⎞
⎟⎟
(5)
m0 = exp⎜⎜
⎝ (1 − b) ⎠
where a & b are parameters of Taylor’s power law
[Equation (1)]. Based on PACD and the notion that
population aggregation is density-dependent, Ma (1988,
1991) reinterpreted Taylor’s power law, which consists of a
set of rules (which are based on the relationship among,
population density, m0, a, b, rather than b along as in the
original Taylor’s power law) for determining the spatial
distribution patterns of biological populations.

Back to astronomy, Totsuji & Kihara (1969) obtained
r0=15.3x106 light years and s=1.8. According to Illian et al
(2008), today the power law of the pair correlation function
g(r) is generally accepted in astronomy (Martinez & Saar
2002), and modern estimates of the exponent (s) range from
1.7 to 1.8. The range of s [Equation (2)] is surprisingly
similar to the range of b-value [Equation (10)] in biology
(between 1 and 2) as Taylor et al discovered (Taylor 1986).
The interpretation of the power law in astronomy is that
there are no characteristic scales (Illian et al. 2008), which
is a fundamental property of scale-free network. In a scalefree network, the degree distribution P(k) of network nodes
(k) is found to manifestly departure from Poisson
distribution predicted by random network theory and
instead follows power law (Albert & Bararasi 1999,
Newman & Barabasi et al. 2006, Barabasi 2009):
P(k ) ∝ k −λ .
(3)
It is well-known that the study of scale-free networks
initiated by Albert & Bararasi (1999) and others in the
1990s is part of the still explosively growing network
analysis studies in various disciplines towards a new
discipline of network science (Albert & Bararasi 1999,
Barabasi 2009). Obviously, the power laws Taylor (1961)
and Totsuji & Kihara (1969) discovered in the 1960s are
simply a manifestation of power law in the distributions of
organism and galaxies, respectively.
Nevertheless, I
believe that there is a need to investigate the earlier
discovered power laws (Taylor 1961, Totsuji & Kihara
1969) in the context of current network science since recent
advances have produced some powerful mathematical
methods and computational tools to analyze the
mechanisms underlying power law relationships. It is noted
that there is a practical difficulty to build network topology,
as adopted in the current studies on scale free networks,
with existing ecological data at the population level. But
this difficult is largely gone at the community level, which
explains the existing extensive studies on food web network
in community ecology.

In astronomy, power law is built with inter-point distance,
and in entomology, power law is built with population
density. Nevertheless, in entomology, distance has indeed
been utilized in modeling insect dispersion patterns. It is
generally agreed upon that insect dispersions generate
distribution patterns that follow power law. For example,
Taylor (1979, 1980) proposed a series of insect dispersion
models, which relate the distance (x) from dispersion center
with population density (N). Taylor found that the most
general form of insect dispersion model was
N = exp[a + bx c + d ln( x)],
(6)
where a, b, c, & d are model parameters. I suggest that
similar models to equation (6) should also be useful for
studying human microbiome.
From above brief comparative review on the studies in both
astronomy and biology, two points seem clear: (i) The
power laws in astronomy and biology are isomorphic and
they capture essentially the same or similar mechanisms
underlying the distributions of galaxies and insects,
respectively; (ii) Although in biology Taylor’s power law
has been applied only to the study of population distribution
patterns, in the studies on the distribution of galaxies in the
universe, there was not a similar limit, that is, power law
has been applied to study the distribution of various
galaxies, which are more similar to the community concept
in biology. Therefore, it seems natural to investigate the
applicability of Taylor’s power law at the community scale
in biology.
Furthermore, it is my opinion, there are at least three
incentives to pursue the extending of power law for
characterizing human microbial community: (i) The current
surge of interests in studying human microbial communities
initiated by US-NIH’s HMP (Human Microbiome Project),
fueled by the low-cost and high throughput new generation
of sequencing technology, has generated unprecedented
amount of data on human microbial communities. Given
that each individual subject carries a microbiome consisting
of multiple microbial communities (gut, skin, vaginal, oral,
nasal, etc), even for a project that only investigates one type
of microbial habitat (e.g., gut), there are multiple
communities to be analyzed as long as there are repetitions
of subjects (which are a must to conduct any statistical
analysis) in a study. Then, one must compare and hopefully

There are also parallel studies in astronomy and biology
regarding some kind of threshold values of aggregation
changes. In astronomy, r0 is such a threshold value, which
is equal to 15.3x106 light years and is a threshold value
termed minimum inter-point or hardcore distance. In
biology, Taylor (1981) proposed a Δ - model that tried to
explain the mechanism of Taylor’s power law, among other
objectives. The model is with the following form:
⎡⎛ R ⎞ s ⎛ R ⎞t ⎤
Δ = ε ⎢⎜ 0 ⎟ − ⎜ 0 ⎟ ⎥
(4)
⎢⎣⎝ R ⎠ ⎝ R ⎠ ⎥⎦
where Δ is a displacement (movement) of an animal, R is
the separation between animal individuals, ε , s, t are
parameters, R0 is a threshold across which an equilibrium is
3

synthesize the community diversity information from many
communities. Existing diversity indexes borrowed from
macro ecology are weak or even lack the capability for
synthesizing the information from multiple communities,
except for simple statistical comparisons of the values of a
diversity index. In addition, it is difficult to study the
dynamics of community diversities with the existing
diversity indexes. Power law can overcome these
limitations of existing diversity indexes, as it has been
demonstrated at the population level in biology and in
astronomy. (ii) Taylor’s power law essentially measures
variability and heterogeneity, which exist at both population
and community levels. Existing diversity indexes such as
Shannon index, Simpson index, essentially measures the
same properties (evenness and heterogeneity are simply
reciprocal terms), but do not possess the capability to
synthesize information from multiple communities.
Therefore, even purely acting as a diversity index, power
law should be superior to many of the existing diversity
indexes. (iii) Power law parameters for the microbial
community of a human individual have the potential to
become a personalized (individualized) metric related to
diseases and health, which can be invaluable for designing
and implementing personalized medicine schemes for
diseases associated with human microbial communities,
since the values of power law parameters should be
individual-dependent, perhaps more like finger printing. In
other words, power-law approach to human microbial
communities potentially offers a promising case study for
medical-ecology-supported personalized medicine.

Bioinformatics processing of the
metagenomic sequence data, which
generates species abundance table of
gene reads (Table 1 & 2).

PCR processing of the samples &
Sequencing of the 16s-RNA Gene.

Recruit volunteers & taking human
microbiome samples for either crosssectional or longitudinal study of a
cohort of individual subjects.
Figure 2. Pipeline of the metagenomic study of human
microbiome.
Table 1. Assumed abundance table of 16sRNA gene reads of
various bacterial species in human microbial communities
generated from a typical cross-sectional study of 100 individual
human subjects (numbered from #400 to #499).
Species-N
Subject
Species-1 Species-2 … …
N=500, Reads
Number
Reads
Reads
#400
100
1200
0
#401
200
800
1000
…
…
…
…
#499
1000
100
50
Table 2. Assumed abundance table of 16sRNA gene reads of
various bacterial species in human microbial communities
generated from a typical longitudinal study of 100 individual
st
st
human subjects (#400—#499) from January 1 to December 1 .
Species-N
SpeciesSpeciesSubject
Date
…
1 Reads
2 Reads
Number
… N=500,Reads
#400
Jan 1
100
1200
… 0
…
…
…
…
… 1000
…
Dec 1
500
2000
… 10
#499
Jan 1
200
1000
… 10
…
…
…
…
… …
…
Dec 1
700
900
… 0

A PROPOSAL FOR THE EXTENSIONS OF
TAYLOR’S POWER LAW
Figure 2 shows a typical flow of metagenomic study of
human microbiome. The product of the sequencingbioinformatics pipeline is usually a species abundance table
of gene reads in the format of Table (1) or Table (2) for
cross-sectional experiments or longitudinal study,
respectively. Table (1) contains the assumed gene reads
data of 100 individual subjects from a cross-sectional study,
i.e., each individual subject is sampled only once. In Table
(1), there would be abundance data of S=500 bacterial
species from 100 samples, which represent 100 microbial
communities. Table (2) contains the assumed gene reads
data of 100 individuals from a longitudinal study, sampled
from January 1st to December 1st, say every 10 days. Then
36 samples for each individual subject would have been
taken, and totally 3600 samples (100x36) or 3600 microbial
communities to be analyzed.

Table 3. Assumed abundance data of abundance distribution at
different locations of human vagina, with reference to a study
conducted by Kim et al. (2009)
Upper 1/3 Middle 1/3
Lower 1/3
Outer
Species
Abundance of
Species 1

100

900

1500

2000

20

1600

100

70

…
Abundance of
Species n

In the study of human microbiome, it is also possible to get
the abundance data at different locations in an organ, e.g.,
population abundance of bacterial species at different
locations of human vagina (e.g., Kim et al. 2009). It is then
possible to apply the dispersion models such as [Equation
(6)] to describe the location-dependent abundance
distribution. Table (3) shows an assumed data set with
human vaginal microbial community as an example.

With the assumed data formats displayed in Table (1) and
(2), for cross-sectional and longitudinal studies,
respectively, I envision five ways in which Taylor’s power
law models can be built to characterize the properties of
human microbial communities such as community diversity
and stability.
From a pure statistic perspective, building Taylor’s power
law model is a two-step process. The first step is to
4

compute the pairs of mean [Mi] and variance [Vi] from the
abundance data (which is in matrix form), and the second
step is to fit the model, which can be as simple as
performing a simple linear regression in the following form:
ln(V ) = ln(a ) + b ln( M ).
(7)
More complex algorithms to directly fit Taylor’s power law
[Equation (1)] are available in the literature [e.g.,
Marquardt’s algorithm, see Ma (1990, 1992)], but the
simple linear regression usually suffices.

individual subjects, as well as “synthesized” information
across N bacterial species. To some extent, these power law
parameters are similar to a “common” aggregation index of
N bacterial species, since the term aggregation largely
means skewed variation in the study of the spatial
distribution of population abundance, and the term
“common” again refers to some kind of “synthesis” of
information from many (N) bacterial species, similar to the
usage of term “common” in the common-K of negative
binomial distribution as mentioned previously.

It is noted that, when referring to the parameters of Taylor’s
power law, b is the most informative biologically and a is
the least informative since a is mainly influenced by
sampling schemes. Parameter m0, i.e., PACD (population
aggregation critical density), offers insights on the dynamic
relationship between aggregation degree and population
density in population ecology, but its biological
significance should be investigated further when the power
law is extended to community scale.

In summary, when Taylor’s power law is applied to crosssectional studies of human microbial communities, it may
offer insights on “common” diversity measure of microbial
communities for (across) multiple subjects, and “common”
aggregation measure for (across) multiple bacterial species.

The Applications to Longitudinal Studies
Obviously, cross-sectional data format is a special case of
longitudinal data format, i.e., a cross-sectional snapshot of
the longitudinal data at a fixed time. Another way to
examine the same data is to replace the time-series
observations for each subject with their mean, and then the
whole dataset of a longitudinal study is turned into a crosssectional dataset. The above discussed two applications of
Taylor’s power law to cross-sectional data can be applied to
the converted (taking the mean of time-series observations)
longitudinal data in the same manner. However, as it will
become clear from the following discussion, that the power
law models built from longitudinal data, even after
conversion, should reflect some dynamic properties of
microbial communities. I classify this “mean-conversion”
(i.e., using the means of time-series observations) based
application of Taylor’s power law as the third approach to
apply the power law for characterizing human microbial
communities.

The Applications to Cross-sectional Studies
For a cross-sectional study, two ways for applying Taylor’s
power [Equation (1)] law should be possible: one approach
is to compute pairs of the mean (M) and variance (V) across
columns (one pair for each row) and another one is to
compute M & V across rows (one pair for each column).
With the first way, the mean (Mi) and variance (Vi) reflect
the average abundance and variability of all bacterial
species detected in the communities, respectively. There is
a pair of mean (Mi) and variance (Vi) for the community of
each subject, and totally S pairs of M and V, that is,
i=1,2,…S, where S is the number of subjects recruited in the
study. The second step is simply to build a regression
model with S pairs of means and variances based on
Equation (7), and any statistical software would be able to
perform the task. In the assumed case of Table (1), S would
be 100 subjects, numbered from 400 to 499. The power
law parameters obtained in this application manner would
reflect the abundance variability of various bacterial species
across S subjects. In other words, the parameters are
determined by the variability of N bacterial species, and
furthermore, the variability information among S subjects is
also synthesized. To some extent, the parameters of
Taylor’s power law obtained in this type of application are
similar to a “common” diversity index that synthesizes the
diversity information of many subjects, similar to the
common-K of the negative binomial distribution in the
literature of the spatial distribution pattern of insect
population (Taylor et al. 1979, Perry et al. 1986), but
without the deficiency of the common-K.

A next immediate question is, whether the longitudinal
datasets can be used to fit Taylor’s power law directly,
without using the “mean-conversion” transformation. The
answer should be a sound yes. First, the longitudinal data
in the format of Table 2 can be used to fit Taylor’s power
law without combing time-series observations into mean
values, by simply treat time-series observations as
repetitions (repeated observations) of the subjects. I expect
that the results from this approach may be similar to the
above discussed “mean-conversion”-based analysis, but
further investigation with real world metagenomic data
should be performed to find out the difference, if there is
any. Nevertheless, I believe that the most interesting and
also the valuable applications of Taylor’s power law to
analyze longitudinal data should be performed on the
individual-based as discussed below. In the following
proposed application scheme, the dataset of each individual
is used to build the power law model separately. This
should be quite natural since all the time-series observations
for each individual subject belong to the same microbial
community. In other words, each individual carries a
microbial community at a specific habitat (e.g., gut).
Therefore, from community ecology perspective,
individual-based power-law modeling is truly at the

In contrast, the second approach of applying Taylor’s
power law to cross-sectional study computes Mj & Vj across
rows, where j=1, 2, … N species, i.e., a pair of Mj and Vj
for each bacterial species, and totally N pairs of Mj and Vj.
The follow step would be to obtain the parameters of
Taylor’s power law model by a simple linear regression
analysis with the N pairs of data [Equation (7)]. The power
law parameters obtained in this application manner reflect
the variability of bacterial species abundance among
5

community scale, and the previously discussed applications
of the power law are more about meta-communities.

In summary, when Taylor’s power law is applied to
longitudinal studies of human microbial communities, it
may offer insights on the stability of the community
diversity over time series, and on the stability of “common”
species aggregation.

Characterizing the stability of community diversity over
time with Taylor’s power law
As stated previously, the dataset used for performing
Taylor’s power law analysis is individual based, that is, we
apply the power law to characterize a single dynamic
community, or various snapshots of the same community.
For example, for the subject #400 in Table 2, we get an
abundance dataset consisting of 12x3=36 rows (3
observations per month for 12 months) of the observations
of N=500 bacterial species. Obviously, we can perform the
same power law analysis to each of the subjects (S=100 in
Table 2).

It is further noted that the power law modeling of human
microbial communities when applied to longitudinal studies
generates a set of power law parameters for each individual
subject, which characterizes the dynamic properties of
species aggregation and community diversity, or the
stability of microbial community. This kind of insights can
be invaluable for design and implementing medicalecology-supported personalized medicine, as being argued
in the next section.

When Taylor’s power law is applied to the dataset of an
individual subject, there are also two ways that the
application can be done, depending on how mean (M) and
variance (V) are computed. In both kinds of applications,
the computational procedures for building the power law
model are actually the same as those used for the previously
discussed modeling with cross-sectional data. Similar to the
case of cross-sectional data, the computation of mean (M)
and variance (V) can be cross-columns or cross-rows,
corresponding to two ways Taylor’s power law are applied
for analyzing individual-based datasets.

The Application of Dispersion Models
The dispersion models such as Equation (6) proposed by
Taylor (1979, 1980) can be used to describe location
dependent population abundance data of bacterial species
such as assumed in Table (3). It may be necessary to
develop new dispersion models for human microbiome,
other than directly applying Taylor’s (1979, 1980) models,
since unlike Taylor’s power law, the existing dispersion
models in literature are empirical and lack the necessary
generality.

PERSPECTIVES: A CASE STUDY FOR
MEDICAL ECOLOGY AND PERSONALIZED
MEDICINE

For example, with the assumed datasets displayed in Table
2, for subject #400, crossing 500 columns (corresponding to
N=500 bacterial species), we can compute 36 pairs (12
months, each month with 3 samples) of mean (M) and
variance (V). The 36 pairs of mean-variance data can be
used to fit Taylor’s power law [Equation (7)]. Since each
pair of the mean and variance reflects the heterogeneity
(diversity) of the community at each time point, the
parameters of the power law then should reflect the
dynamic property of the community diversity over time
series. In other words, the power law model built with cross
time-series mean-variance pairs should reveal the stability
of community diversity over time. I classify the Taylor’s
power built in this manner the fourth type of power law
modeling of microbial community with a mission to reveal
the stability of community diversity over time.

According to the website: www.medicalecology.org/, which
is maintained by Dr. Dickson Despommier and Dr. Steven
Chen of Columbia University, the term Medical Ecology
was first coined by eminent microbiologist Rene Dubos,
who believed that natural world could offer many of our
needs if explored fully. Dubos was apparently inspired by
events such as the discoveries of penicillin and gramicidin
(his own discovery), in which soil microbes played a
critical role, as well as the treatment of malaria with quinine.
Recent redefinition of medical ecology has much broader
meanings. For example, www.medicalecology.org/ stated
that “Medical Ecology is an emerging science that defines
those aspects of the environment that have a direct bearing
on human health. The concept of ecosystem functions and
services helps to describe global processes that contribute
to our well-being, helping to cleanse the air we breathe, the
water we drink, and the food we eat. Environmental
degradation often leads to alterations in these aspects,
leading to various states of ill health.”

Characterizing the stability of “common” species
aggregation with Taylor’s power law
The mean/variance pairs can also be computed across rows
for each subject. For example, for subject#400, we can
compute one pair of mean and variance for each bacterial
species across all of the 36 time-series observations; we can
obtain as many as 500 pairs of the mean-variance values,
i.e., each species with one pair. The 500 pairs of meanvariance data can then be fitted to the power law [Eq. (7)].
Since each pair of the mean and variance computed across
time series reflect the dynamic aggregation of each species,
the power law model built in this way should represent
aggregation dynamics common to all 500 species in the
community. The term “common” species aggregation
stability (i.e., the stability of aggregation common to all
species is obtained with this type of power law modeling.

In the post-HGP (Human Genomic Project) and HMP
(Human Microbiome Project) era, it is high time to expand
the scope of medical ecology again. It is my opinion that the
study of the relationship between human microbiome and
human host as well as its implications to human health and
diseases should be considered as a core component of
newly expanded medical ecology. I further believe that the
emerging medical ecology is at the stage when medical
genetics was emerging in the 1960s, and it should
ultimately assume a similar role in medicine as today’s
6

medical genetics assumes. In the following discussion, I
temporarily ignore the existing aspects of medical ecology;
instead, I focus exclusively on the human-microbiomecentered medical ecology.

likely and important fields. It is widely recognized that
ecology, evolution and behavior are three interwoven
disciplines. Therefore, in Figure 4, I pick three research
fields, each of which focuses on one of the three disciplines.
These fields are: (i) applications and extensions of
ecological theories from macro-ecology; (ii) evolution of
symbiosis, cooperation and mutualism of “human
microbiome/host” relationships, especially the role of
human immune system; (iii) communication behavior of
human microbiome and the communication between
microbiome and host. Of course, this list of three is far
from complete, and it is largely an impromptu attempt to
present a glimpse of the research topics of emerging
medical ecology. I will discuss the details of these topics in
a separate paper.

One may wonder if it is really necessary to redefine medical
ecology rather than putting the related research topics in the
context of some more familiar disciplines, such as
microbial ecology, clinical microbiology, bioinformatics,
and/or eco-informatics. In my opinion, no existing scientific
disciplines can accommodate all of the interesting research
themes that are waiting for medical ecology to embrace.
Furthermore, to advance medical ecology, there will be
some new theories and techniques to emerge, and these new
theories and techniques need the umbrella of a redefined
medical ecology. Figure 3 is a diagram showing the
relationship between redefined medical ecology and its core
parent fields, as well as its supporting and supported fields.
In Figure 3, medical ecology is depicted as a crossdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary subject with “native
parents” of medicine, ecology, and microbiology. Its
advances are directly dependent on various -omics research
(in particular metagenomics), computational biology,
bioinformatics, system biology and system ecology, etc. It
is my belief that medical ecology should become a
foundation of personalized medicine, and that personalized
medicine is likely to be the biggest beneficiary of research
in medical ecology.

Finally, I argue that the application of Taylor’s power law
for characterizing human microbial communities can serve
as a case study of medical ecology and personalized
medicine for the following reasons: (i) According to Figure
4, the study falls into the first category of the research
topics of medical ecology, i.e., the application of ecological
theories, mostly from macro-ecology. Taylor’s power law is
one of a countable few laws in population ecology of
animals and plants. (ii) As explained previously, the power
law parameters, when obtained from longitudinal studies of
human microbial communities, capture individual-specific
and dynamic properties (community diversity and species
aggregation) of an individual’s microbial community. It
should be possible to establish functional relationship
between the individual-specific power law parameters and
the metadata covariates that reflect the health/illness states
of an individual. Understanding this kind of functional
relationship can offer deep insights for practicing
personalized medicine, especially for those diseases that are
associated with human microbiome.

Personalized Medicine & Public Health
Key Supported Fields by Medical Ecology

Medical
Science

Ecological
Science

(i) Ecology Focus: Applying and extending existing macroecological theories; create new ecological theories and
discover new laws specific to human microbiome.
(ii) Evolution Focus: Study the evolution of humanmicrobiome symbiosis (mutualism, cooperation),
especially the role of human immune system, as well as
the possible phase transitions between healthy, subhealthy and disease states of human body.
(iii) Behavior focus: Study the communication behavior of
human microbiome system, e.g., quorum sensing,
communication with host, especially with immune system.

Medical
Ecology
Medical
Microbiology

Bioinformatics and Computational Biology;
Omics: Genomics, Metagenomics, Proteomics,

Ecology

Metabolomics, Transcriptomics, Personal Genomics,
Pharmacogenomics, Pharmacomicrobiomics etc;

Evolution

Behavior

Network
Science …

Human Microbiome / Host Ecosystem

System Biology and System Ecology

Key Supporting Fields of Medical Ecology

Suggested Focal Fields of Medical Ecology

Figure 3. Emerging Human-Microbiome-Centered Medical
Ecology, its parents, supporting and supported fields.

Figure 4. Suggested focal fields of Medical Ecology

In fact, scholars have already explored the application of
Taylor’s power law in epidemiology and evolutionary
ecology of parasites (Morand & Krasnov 2008). For
example, Morand & Krasnov (2008) suggested a possible

Research in medical ecology should develop some unique
fields and theories in the near future. Obviously, predicting
them is not an easy task, but here I try to identify three
7

Morand, S. and B. Krasnov. 2008. Why apply ecological laws to
epidemiology? Trends in Parasitology, 24(7):304-309

link between host defense against parasite and the value of
the parameter b of Taylor’s power law (when applied to
measure the aggregation of parasite populations). In
personalized medicine, frailty analysis can be an effective
statistical modeling approach (Ma et al. 2011), where the
distribution of frailty (disease risk) can follow the PVF
(power variance function) distributions. PVF is a family of
probability distributions and is different from Taylor’s
power law. But in this distribution family, the variance and
mean do satisfy power law function (which is the
mathematical essence of Taylor’s power law). It will be
interesting to investigate the underlying biomedical process
that may lead to the PVF frailty distribution. In a separate
front, investigating the existence and maintenance of scalefree networks (of which power law is a fundamental
property) in human microbiome should also be an important
endeavor. Putting power law analysis in the context of
network science (e.g., Bascompte 2007, Ings 2009,
Barabasi 2009) should produce synergetic advances in
applying power law to the study of human microbiome and
medical ecology.

Newman, M, Barabasi, AL, Watts, DJ. (eds). 2006. The Structure and
Dynamics of Networks. Princeton University Press. 583pp.
Neyman, J. 1939. On a new class of 'contagious' distributions, applicable
in entomology and bacteriology. Annals of Math. Stat., vol. 10, pp. 35-57.
Neyman, J., and Scott, E.L. (1952) A theory for the spatial distribution of
galaxis. Astrophys. J. 116, 144–163.
Neyman, J., Scott, E. L., and Shane, C. D. 1953. On the spatial distribution
of galaxies: a specific model. Astrophys. J., 117-92-133.
Neyman, J., and Scott, E.L. 1958. Statisical approach to problems of
cosmology (with discussion). J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 20, 1–43.
Taylor, L. R. 1961. Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature 189:732–
735.
Taylor, L. R., and R. A. J. Taylor. 1977. Aggregation, migration and
population mechanics. Nature 265:415–421.
Taylor, L. R., I. P. Woiwod and J. N. Perry. 1978. The DensityDependence of Spatial Behaviour and the Rarity of Randomness. Journal
of Animal Ecology, Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 383-406

REFERENCE
Barabasi, AL, Albert, A. 1999. Emergence of scaling in random networks.
Science 286, 509-512

Taylor, L. R. I. P. Woiwod and J. N. Perry. 1979. The Negative Binomial
as a Dynamic Ecological Model for Aggregation, and the Density
Dependence of k. Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 48, No. 1:pp. 289-304

Barabasi, AL. 2009. Scale-free networks: a decade and beyond. Science,
325:412-413.

Taylor, L. R. 1984. Assessing and interpreting the spatial distribution of
insect populations. Annual Review of Entomology, 29, 321-357.

Bascompte, J. 2007. Networks in ecology. Basic and Applied Ecology,
8:485-490.

Taylor, L. R. 1986. Synoptic dynamics, migration and the Rothamsted
Insect Survey. Journal of Animal Ecology 55:1–38.

Illian, J. A. Penttinen, H. Stoyan, and D. Stoyan. 2008. Statistical Analysis
and Modeling of Spatial Point Patterns. Wiley.

Taylor, R. A. J. 1978. The relationship between density and distance of
dispersing insects. Ecological Entomology, 3, 63-70.

Ings, T. C. et al. 2009. Review: Ecological networks – beyond food webs.
J. Animal Ecology, 78(1): 253–269, January 2009.

Taylor, R. A. J. 1980. A family of regression equations describing the
density distribution of dispersing organisms. Nature, London, 286,53-55.

Kendal, W. S. 2004. Taylor’s ecological power law as a consequence of
scale invariant exponential dispersion models. Ecological Complexity.
1:193–209

Taylor, R. A. J. 1981. The behavioural basis of redistribution. I. The Deltamodel concept. Journal of Animal Ecology, 50:573–586
Taylor, R. A. J. 2007. Obituary: Roy (L. R.) Taylor (1924–2007). Journal
of Animal Ecology. 76, 630–631

Kim, T. K. et al. 2009. Heterogeneity of Vaginal Microbial Communities
within Individuals. J. Clin. Microbiol. vol. 47 no. 4 1181-1189

Totsuji, H., and Kihara, T. (1969) The correlation function for the
distribution of galaxies. Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan 21, 221–229.

Ma, Z. S. 1988. Revised Taylor’s Power Law and population aggregation
critical density, in: Proceedings of Annual National Conference of the
Entomological Society China. 1988, Nanjing, China (in Chinese), 1988.

Perry, J. N. & L. R. Taylor. 1986. Stability of Real Interacting Populations
in Space and Time: Implications, Alternatives and the Negative Binomial
kc quick view. Journal of Animal Ecology, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 1053-1068

Ma, Z. S. 1990. Fitting Taylor’s power law model with Marquardt’s
algorithm, J. Beijing Forestry University. 12(1):49-54

Venter, J.C., Adams, M.D., Myers, E.W., Li, P.W., Mural, R.J., Sutton, G.G., Smith, H.O., Yandell, M.,
Evans, C.A., Holt, R.A., Gocayne, J.D., Amanatides, P., Ballew, R.M., Huson, D.H., Wortman, J.R., Zhang,
Q., Kodira, C.D., Zheng, X.H., Chen, L., Skupski, M., Subramanian, G., Thomas, P.D., Zhang, J., Gabor
Miklos, G.L., Nelson, C., Broder, S., Clark, A.G., Nadeau, J., McKusick, V.A., Zinder, N., Levine, A.J.,
Roberts, R.J., Simon, M., Slayman, C., Hunkapiller, M., Bolanos, R., Delcher, A., Dew, I., Fasulo, D.,
Flanigan, M., Florea, L., Halpern, A., Hannenhalli, S., Kravitz, S., Levy, S., Mobarry, C., Reinert, K.,
Remington, K., Abu-Threideh, J., Beasley, E., Biddick, K., Bonazzi, V., Brandon, R., Cargill, M.,
Chandramouliswaran, I., Charlab, R., Chaturvedi, K., Deng, Z., Francesco, V.D., Dunn, P., Eilbeck, K.,
Evangelista, C., Gabrielian, A.E., Gan, W., Ge, W., Gong, F., Gu, Z., Guan, P., Heiman, T.J., Higgins, M.E.,
Ji, R.-R., Ke, Z., Ketchum, K.A., Lai, Z., Lei, Y., Li, Z., Li, J., Liang, Y., Lin, X., Lu, F., Merkulov, G.V.,
Milshina, N., Moore, H.M., Naik, A.K., Narayan, V.A., Neelam, B., Nusskern, D., Rusch, D.B., Salzberg, S.,
Shao, W., Shue, B., Sun, J., Wang, Z.Y., Wang, A., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wei, M.-H., Wides, R., Xiao, C.,
Yan, C., Yao, A., Ye, J., Zhan, M., Zhang, W., Zhang, H., Zhao, Q., Zheng, L., Zhong, F., Zhong, W., Zhu,
S.C., Zhao, S., Gilbert, D., Baumhueter, S., Spier, G., Carter, C., Cravchik, A., Woodage, T., Ali, F., An, H.,
Awe, A., Baldwin, D., Baden, H., Barnstead, M., Barrow, I., Beeson, K., Busam, D., Carver, A., Center, A.,
Cheng, M.L., Curry, L., Danaher, S., Davenport, L., Desilets, R., Dietz, S., Dodson, K., Doup, L., Ferriera, S.,
Garg, N., Gluecksmann, A., Hart, B., Haynes, J., Haynes, C., Heiner, C., Hladun, S., Hostin, D., Houck, J.,
Howland, T., Ibegwam, C., Johnson, J., Kalush, F., Kline, L., Koduru, S., Love, A., Mann, F., May, D.,
McCawley, S., McIntosh, T., McMullen, I., Moy, M., Moy, L., Murphy, B., Nelson, K., Pfannkoch, C.,
Pratts, E., Puri, V., Qureshi, H., Reardon, M., Rodriguez, R., Rogers, Y.-H., Romblad, D., Ruhfel, B., Scott,
R., Sitter, C., Smallwood, M., Stewart, E., Strong, R., Suh, E., Thomas, R., Tint, N.N., Tse, S., Vech, C.,
Wang, G., Wetter, J., Williams, S., Williams, M., Windsor, S., Winn-Deen, E., Wolfe, K., Zaveri, J., Zaveri,
K., Abril, J.F., Guigo, R., Campbell, M.J., Sjolander, K.V., Karlak, B., Kejariwal, A., Mi, H., Lazareva, B.,
Hatton, T., Narechania, A., 2001. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291,

Ma, Z. S. 1991. Further interpreted Taylor’s Power Law and population
aggregation critical density, Trans. Ecol. Soc. China (1991) 284–288.
Ma, Z. S. 1992. Optimization of nonlinear ecological models with the
accelerated simplex algorithm. J. of Biomathematics, 7(2):160-167.
Ma, Z. S., A. Zaid, L. J. Forney. 2011. Caring about trees in the forest:
incorporating frailty in risk analysis for personalized medicine.
Personalized Medicine, 8(6):681-688.
Ma, Z. S. 2012. Chaotic populations in genetic algorithms. J. Applied Soft
Computing. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2012.03.001
Martínez, V.J., and Saar, E. 2002. Statistics of the Galaxy Distribution.
Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL.

1304–1351.

Maurer, B. A. 1999. Untangling Ecological Complexity. The University of
Chicago Press.
8

