DOCSLIB.ORG

Genetics of Human Gut Microbiome Composition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Genetics of Human Gut Microbiome Composition bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.26.173724; this version posted June 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. Genetics of human gut microbiome composition Authors: Alexander Kurilshikov1,†, Carolina Medina-Gomez2,3,†, Rodrigo Bacigalupe4,5,†, Djawad Radjabzadeh2,†, Jun Wang4,5,6,†, Ayse Demirkan1,7§, Caroline I. Le Roy8,§, Juan Antonio 5 Raygoza Garay9,10,§, Casey T. Finnicum11,§, Xingrong Liu12,§, Daria V. Zhernakova1,§, Marc Jan Bonder1,§, Tue H. Hansen13, Fabian Frost14, Malte C. Rühlemann15, Williams Turpin9,10, Jee- Young Moon16, Han-Na Kim17,18, Kreete Lüll19, Elad Barkan20, Shiraz A. Shah21, Myriam Fornage22,23, Joanna Szopinska-Tokov24, Zachary D. Wallen25, Dmitrii Borisevich13, Lars Agreus26, Anna Andreasson27, Corinna Bang15, Larbi Bedrani9, Jordana T. Bell8, Hans 10 Bisgaard21, Michael Boehnke28, Dorret I. Boomsma29, Robert D. Burk16,30,31, Annique Claringbould1, Kenneth Croitoru9,10, Gareth E. Davies11,29, Cornelia M. van Duijn32,33, Liesbeth Duijts3,34, Gwen Falony4,5, Jingyuan Fu1,35, Adriaan van der Graaf1, Torben Hansen13, Georg Homuth36, David A. Hughes37,38, Richard G. Ijzerman39, Matthew A. Jackson7,40, Vincent W.V. Jaddoe3,32, Marie Joossens4,5, Torben Jørgensen41, Daniel Keszthelyi42,43, Rob Knight44,45,46, 15 Markku Laakso47, Matthias Laudes48, Lenore J. Launer49, Wolfgang Lieb50, Aldons J. Lusis51,52, Ad A.M. Masclee42,43, Henriette A. Moll34, Zlatan Mujagic42,43, Qi Qibin16, Daphna Rothschild20, Hocheol Shin53,54, Søren J. Sørensen55, Claire J. Steves8, Jonathan Thorsen21, Nicholas J. Timpson37,38, Raul Y. Tito4,5, Sara Vieira-Silva4,5, Uwe Völker36, Henry Völzke56, Urmo Võsa1, Kaitlin H. Wade37,38, Susanna Walter57,58, Kyoko Watanabe59, Stefan Weiss36, Frank U. Weiss14, 20 Omer Weissbrod60, Harm-Jan Westra1, Gonneke Willemsen29, Haydeh Payami25, Daisy M.A.E. Jonkers42,43, Alejandro Arias Vasquez24,61, Eco J.C. de Geus29,62, Katie A. Meyer63,64, Jakob Stokholm21, Eran Segal20, Elin Org19, Cisca Wijmenga1, Hyung-Lae Kim65, Robert C. Kaplan16,66, Tim D. Spector8, Andre G. Uitterlinden2,3,32, Fernando Rivadeneira2,3, Andre Franke15, Markus M. Lerch14, Lude Franke1, Serena Sanna1,67, Mauro D'Amato12,68,69,70, Oluf 25 Pedersen13, Andrew D. Paterson71, Robert Kraaij2,‡, Jeroen Raes4,5,‡, Alexandra Zhernakova1,‡,* Affiliations: 1Department of Genetics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands 2Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the 30 Netherlands 3The Generation R Study, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands 4Department of Microbiology and Immunology, Rega Instituut, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium 5Center for Microbiology, VIB, Leuven, Belgium 6Institute of Microbiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China 35 7Section of Statistical Multi-Omics, Department of Clinical & Experimental Medicine, School of Biosciences & Medicine, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK 8Department of Twin Research & Genetic Epidemiology, King's College London, London, UK 9Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada 10Division of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto, Canada 40 11Avera Institute of Human Genetics, Avera McKennan Hospital & University Health Center, Sioux Falls, USA 12Center for Molecular Medicine and Unit of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Medicine Solna, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden 1 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.26.173724; this version posted June 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 13Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 14Department of Medicine A, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany 15Institute of Clinical Molecular Biology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany 5 16Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA 17Medical Research Institute, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 18Department of Clinical Research Design and Evaluation, SAIHST, Sungkyunkwan University, 10 Seoul, Republic of Korea 19Estonian Genome Centre, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia 20Department of Computer Science and Cell Biology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel 21COPSAC, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev-Gentofte, Copenhagen, Denmark 15 22Institute of Molecular Medicine McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA 23Human Genetics Center School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, USA 24Department of Psychiatry, Radboudumc, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and Behaviour, 20 Nijmegen, the Netherlands 25Department of Neurology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, USA 26Division of Family Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden 27Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden 25 28Department of Biostatistics and Center for Statistical Genetics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, USA 29Biological Psychology, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 30Department of Pediatrics, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, USA 31Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, 30 USA 32Department of Epidemiology, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands 33Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 34Department of Pediatrics, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands 35 35Department of Pediatrics, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands 36Department of Functional Genomics, Interfaculty Institute for Genetics and Functional Genomics, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany 37MRC Integrative Epidemiology Unit, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK 40 38Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, Bristol, UK 39Department of Endocrinology, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 40Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK 41Centre for Clinical Research and Disease Prevention, Bispebjerg/Frederiksberg Hospital, 45 Capital Region of Copenhagen and Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 2 bioRxiv preprint doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.06.26.173724; this version posted June 28, 2020. The copyright holder for this preprint (which was not certified by peer review) is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under aCC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 International license. 42Division of Gastroenterology-Hepatology, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, the Netherlands 43NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands 5 44Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, USA 45Center for Microbiome Innovation, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, USA 46Center for Microbiome Innovation and department of Bioengeering, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, USA 47Institute of Clinical Medicine, Internal Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Kuopio, 10 Finland 48Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany 49Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Science, National Institute on Aging, Bethesda, USA 15 50Institute of Epidemiology, Kiel University, Kiel, Germany 51Department of Human Genetics, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA 52Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angles, USA 53Department of Family Medicine, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 20 54Center for Cohort Studies, Total Healthcare Center, Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea 55Department of Biology, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark 56Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany 57Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, University of Linköping, Linköping, Sweden 25 58Department of gastroenterology, County Council of Östergötland, Linköping, Sweden 59Department of Complex Trait Genetics, Center for Neurogenomics and Cognitive Research, Neuroscience Campus Amsterdam, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 60School of Public Health, Harvard University, Boston, USA 61Department of Human Genetics, Radboudumc, Donders Institute for Brain, Cognition and 30 Behaviour, Nijmegen, the Netherlands 62Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, Amsterdam, the Netherlands 63Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, USA 64Nutrition Research Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Kannapolis,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fatty Acid Diets: Regulation of Gut Microbiota Composition and Obesity and Its Related Metabolic Dysbiosis
    International Journal of Molecular Sciences Review Fatty Acid Diets: Regulation of Gut Microbiota Composition and Obesity and Its Related Metabolic Dysbiosis David Johane Machate 1, Priscila Silva Figueiredo 2 , Gabriela Marcelino 2 , Rita de Cássia Avellaneda Guimarães 2,*, Priscila Aiko Hiane 2 , Danielle Bogo 2, Verônica Assalin Zorgetto Pinheiro 2, Lincoln Carlos Silva de Oliveira 3 and Arnildo Pott 1 1 Graduate Program in Biotechnology and Biodiversity in the Central-West Region of Brazil, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande 79079-900, Brazil; [email protected] (D.J.M.); [email protected] (A.P.) 2 Graduate Program in Health and Development in the Central-West Region of Brazil, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande 79079-900, Brazil; pri.fi[email protected] (P.S.F.); [email protected] (G.M.); [email protected] (P.A.H.); [email protected] (D.B.); [email protected] (V.A.Z.P.) 3 Chemistry Institute, Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, Campo Grande 79079-900, Brazil; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +55-67-3345-7416 Received: 9 March 2020; Accepted: 27 March 2020; Published: 8 June 2020 Abstract: Long-term high-fat dietary intake plays a crucial role in the composition of gut microbiota in animal models and human subjects, which affect directly short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) production and host health. This review aims to highlight the interplay of fatty acid (FA) intake and gut microbiota composition and its interaction with hosts in health promotion and obesity prevention and its related metabolic dysbiosis.
    [Show full text]
  • A Survey of Carbon Fixation Pathways Through a Quantitative Lens
    Journal of Experimental Botany, Vol. 63, No. 6, pp. 2325–2342, 2012 doi:10.1093/jxb/err417 Advance Access publication 26 December, 2011 REVIEW PAPER A survey of carbon fixation pathways through a quantitative lens Arren Bar-Even, Elad Noor and Ron Milo* Department of Plant Sciences, The Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot 76100, Israel * To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] Received 15 August 2011; Revised 4 November 2011; Accepted 8 November 2011 Downloaded from Abstract While the reductive pentose phosphate cycle is responsible for the fixation of most of the carbon in the biosphere, it http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/ has several natural substitutes. In fact, due to the characterization of three new carbon fixation pathways in the last decade, the diversity of known metabolic solutions for autotrophic growth has doubled. In this review, the different pathways are analysed and compared according to various criteria, trying to connect each of the different metabolic alternatives to suitable environments or metabolic goals. The different roles of carbon fixation are discussed; in addition to sustaining autotrophic growth it can also be used for energy conservation and as an electron sink for the recycling of reduced electron carriers. Our main focus in this review is on thermodynamic and kinetic aspects, including thermodynamically challenging reactions, the ATP requirement of each pathway, energetic constraints on carbon fixation, and factors that are expected to limit the rate of the pathways. Finally, possible metabolic structures at Weizmann Institute of Science on July 3, 2016 of yet unknown carbon fixation pathways are suggested and discussed.
    [Show full text]
  • MICRO-ORGANISMS and RUMINANT DIGESTION: STATE of KNOWLEDGE, TRENDS and FUTURE PROSPECTS Chris Mcsweeney1 and Rod Mackie2
    BACKGROUND STUDY PAPER NO. 61 September 2012 E Organización Food and Organisation des Продовольственная и cельскохозяйственная de las Agriculture Nations Unies Naciones Unidas Organization pour организация para la of the l'alimentation Объединенных Alimentación y la United Nations et l'agriculture Наций Agricultura COMMISSION ON GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURE MICRO-ORGANISMS AND RUMINANT DIGESTION: STATE OF KNOWLEDGE, TRENDS AND FUTURE PROSPECTS Chris McSweeney1 and Rod Mackie2 The content of this document is entirely the responsibility of the authors, and does not necessarily represent the views of the FAO or its Members. 1 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Livestock Industries, 306 Carmody Road, St Lucia Qld 4067, Australia. 2 University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, United States of America. This document is printed in limited numbers to minimize the environmental impact of FAO's processes and contribute to climate neutrality. Delegates and observers are kindly requested to bring their copies to meetings and to avoid asking for additional copies. Most FAO meeting documents are available on the Internet at www.fao.org ME992 BACKGROUND STUDY PAPER NO.61 2 Table of Contents Pages I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5 II INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 7 Scope of the Study ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Xylella Fastidiosa Biologia I Epidemiologia
    Xylella fastidiosa Biologia i epidemiologia Emili Montesinos Seguí Catedràtic de Producció Vegetal (Patologia Vegetal) Universitat de Girona [email protected] www.youtube.com/watch?v=sur5VzJslcM Xylella fastidiosa, un patogen que no és nou Newton B. Pierce (1890s, USA) Agrobacterium tumefaciens Chlamydiae Proteobacteria Bartonella bacilliformis Campylobacter coli Bartonella henselae CDC Chlamydophila psittaci Campylobacter fetus Bartonella quintana Bacteroides fragilis CDC Brucella melitensis Bacteroidetes Chlamydophila pneumoniae Campylobacter hyointestinalis Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron Campylobacter jejuni CDC Brucella melitensis biovar Abortus CDC Chlamydia trachomatis Capnocytophaga canimorus Campylobacter lari CDC Brucella melitensis biovar Canis Chryseobacterium meningosepticum Parachlamydia acanthamoebae Campylobacter upsaliensis CDC Brucella melitensis biovar Suis Helicobacter pylori Candidatus Liberibacter africanus CDC Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus Borrelia burgdorferi Epsilon Borrelia hermsii CDC Anaplasma phagocytophilum Borrelia recurrentis Alpha CDC Ehrlichia canis Spirochetes Borrelia turicatae CDC Ehrlichia chaffeensis Eikenella corrodens Leptospira interrogans CDC Ehrlichia ewingii CDC CDC Neisseria gonorrhoeae Treponema pallidum Ehrlichia ruminantium CDC Neisseria meningitidis CDC Neorickettsia sennetsu Spirillum minus Orientia tsutsugamushi Fusobacterium necrophorum Beta Fusobacteria CDC Bordetella pertussis Rickettsia conorii Streptobacillus moniliformis Burkholderia cepacia Rickettsia
    [Show full text]
  • Taxonomic Studies of Two Species of Peptococci and Inhibition of Peptostreptococcus Anaerobius by Sodium Polyanethol Sulfonate;
    ,Taxonomic Studies of Two Species of Peptococci and Inhibition of Peptostreptococcus anaerobius by Sodium Polyanethol Sulfonate; by Susan Emily Holt West1, \\ ! Thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Microbiology (Anaerobe Laboratory) APPROVED: •r• /' ., ~ T. £. Wilkins, Chairman _,.-,--------------- L. V. Holdeman E. R. Stout April, 1977 Blacksburg, Virginia ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Initial thanks are due Tracy D. Wilkins for serving as chairman of my thesis committee. To Lillian V. Holdeman of my committee I am especially grateful, both for her many specific suggestions concerning this thesis, and also for the general training I have recieved from her, and for the attitude toward research that I believe I have learned from her. Ernest R. Stout, also a member of the committee, has fulfilled his duties conscientiously and has provided much encouragement and support. I owe special thanks to , who initially stimulated my interest in bacteriology many years ago, and who has continued to show interest in the progress of my career. Several other scientists have been helpful: of the Anaerobe Laboratory determined the percent guanine plus cytosine content of the deoxyribonucleic acid of the type strain of Peptococcus niger; of the Becton-Dickinson Company first suggested the direction of our research on sodium polyanethol sulfonate inhibition of anaerobic cocci; and of the Institut fur Klinische Mikrobiologie und Infektionshygiene der Universitat Erlangen-NUrnberg, West Germany, very kindly sent cultures of Escherichia coli C and Serratia marcescens SM 29. of the Department ·of Foreign Languages, VPI & SU, provided translations of the German texts of several papers that were significant in the Peptococcus anaerobius project.
    [Show full text]
  • International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes
    2019, volume 69, issue 1A, pages S1–S111 International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes Prokaryotic Code (2008 Revision) Charles T. Parker1, Brian J. Tindall2 and George M. Garrity3 (Editors) 1NamesforLife, LLC (East Lansing, Michigan, United States) 2Leibniz-Institut DSMZ-Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH (Braunschweig, Germany) 3Michigan State University (East Lansing, Michigan, United States) Corresponding Author: George M. Garrity ([email protected]) Table of Contents 1. Foreword to the First Edition S1–S1 2. Preface to the First Edition S2–S2 3. Preface to the 1975 Edition S3–S4 4. Preface to the 1990 Edition S5–S6 5. Preface to the Current Edition S7–S8 6. Memorial to Professor R. E. Buchanan S9–S12 7. Chapter 1. General Considerations S13–S14 8. Chapter 2. Principles S15–S16 9. Chapter 3. Rules of Nomenclature with Recommendations S17–S40 10. Chapter 4. Advisory Notes S41–S42 11. References S43–S44 12. Appendix 1. Codes of Nomenclature S45–S48 13. Appendix 2. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names S49–S49 14. Appendix 3. Published Sources for Names of Prokaryotic, Algal, Protozoal, Fungal, and Viral Taxa S50–S51 15. Appendix 4. Conserved and Rejected Names of Prokaryotic Taxa S52–S57 16. Appendix 5. Opinions Relating to the Nomenclature of Prokaryotes S58–S77 17. Appendix 6. Published Sources for Recommended Minimal Descriptions S78–S78 18. Appendix 7. Publication of a New Name S79–S80 19. Appendix 8. Preparation of a Request for an Opinion S81–S81 20. Appendix 9. Orthography S82–S89 21. Appendix 10. Infrasubspecific Subdivisions S90–S91 22. Appendix 11. The Provisional Status of Candidatus S92–S93 23.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role of Oral Microbiota in Intra-Oral Halitosis
    Journal of Clinical Medicine Review The Role of Oral Microbiota in Intra-Oral Halitosis Katarzyna Hampelska 1,2, Marcelina Maria Jaworska 1 , Zuzanna Łucja Babalska 3 and Tomasz M. Karpi ´nski 3,* 1 Department of Genetics and Pharmaceutical Microbiology, Pozna´nUniversity of Medical Sciences, Swi˛ecickiego4,´ 60-781 Pozna´n,Poland; [email protected] (K.H.); rufi[email protected] (M.M.J.) 2 Central Microbiology Laboratory, H. Swi˛ecickiClinical´ Hospital, Pozna´nUniversity of Medical Sciences, Przybyszewskiego 49, 60-355 Pozna´n,Poland 3 Chair and Department of Medical Microbiology, Pozna´nUniversity of Medical Sciences, Wieniawskiego 3, 61-712 Pozna´n,Poland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-61-854-6138 Received: 27 June 2020; Accepted: 31 July 2020; Published: 2 August 2020 Abstract: Halitosis is a common ailment concerning 15% to 60% of the human population. Halitosis can be divided into extra-oral halitosis (EOH) and intra-oral halitosis (IOH). The IOH is formed by volatile compounds, which are produced mainly by anaerobic bacteria. To these odorous substances belong volatile sulfur compounds (VSCs), aromatic compounds, amines, short-chain fatty or organic acids, alcohols, aliphatic compounds, aldehydes, and ketones. The most important VSCs are hydrogen sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, dimethyl disulfide, and methyl mercaptan. VSCs can be toxic for human cells even at low concentrations. The oral bacteria most related to halitosis are Actinomyces spp., Bacteroides spp., Dialister spp., Eubacterium spp., Fusobacterium spp., Leptotrichia spp., Peptostreptococcus spp., Porphyromonas spp., Prevotella spp., Selenomonas spp., Solobacterium spp., Tannerella forsythia, and Veillonella spp. Most bacteria that cause halitosis are responsible for periodontitis, but they can also affect the development of oral and digestive tract cancers.
    [Show full text]
  • Sex- and Age-Specific Variation of Gut Microbiota in Brandt's Voles
    Sex- and age-specific variation of gut microbiota in Brandt's voles Xiaoming Xu1,2 and Zhibin Zhang1,2 1 State Key Laboratory of Integrated Management of Pest Insects and Rodents, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, Beijing, China 2 CAS Center for Excellence in Biotic Interactions, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, Beijing, China ABSTRACT Background. Gut microbiota plays a key role in the survival and reproduction of wild animals which rely on microbiota to break down plant compounds for nutrients. As compared to laboratory animals, wild animals face much more threat of environmental changes (e.g. food shortages and risk of infection). Therefore, studying the gut microbiota of wild animals can help us better understand the mechanisms animals use to adapt to their environment. Methods. We collected the feces of Brandt's voles in the grassland, of three age groups (juvenile, adult and old), in both sexes. We studied the gut microbiota by 16S rRNA sequencing. Results. The main members of gut microbiota in Brandt's voles were Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria. As voles get older, the proportion of Firmicutes increased gradually, and the proportion of Bacteroides decreased gradually. The diversity of the microbiota of juveniles is lower, seems like there is still a lot of space for colonization, and there are large variations in the composition of the microbiome between individuals. In adulthood, the gut microbiota tends to be stable, and the diversity is highest. In adult, the abundances of Christensenellaceae and Peptococcus of female were significantly higher than male voles. Conclusions. The gut microbiota of Brandt's vole was influenced by sex and age, probably due to growth needs and hormone levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Impact on Differential Composition of Gut Microbiota In
    microorganisms Article Environmental Impact on Differential Composition of Gut Microbiota in Indoor Chickens in Commercial Production and Outdoor, Backyard Chickens Zuzana Seidlerova, Tereza Kubasova, Marcela Faldynova, Magdalena Crhanova, Daniela Karasova, Vladimir Babak and Ivan Rychlik * Veterinary Research Institute, 62100 Brno, Czech Republic; [email protected] (Z.S.); [email protected] (T.K.); [email protected] (M.F.); [email protected] (M.C.); [email protected] (D.K.); [email protected] (V.B.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +420-533331201 Received: 8 April 2020; Accepted: 18 May 2020; Published: 20 May 2020 Abstract: In this study, we compared the caecal microbiota composition of egg-laying hens from commercial production that are kept indoors throughout their whole life with microbiota of hens kept outdoors. The microbiota of outdoor hens consisted of lower numbers of bacterial species than the microbiota of indoor hens. At the phylum level, microbiota of outdoor hens was enriched for Bacteroidetes (62.41 4.47% of total microbiota in outdoor hens and 52.01 6.27% in indoor ± ± hens) and Proteobacteria (9.33 4.99% in outdoor and 5.47 2.24% in indoor hens). On the other ± ± hand, Firmicutes were more abundant in the microbiota of indoor hens (33.28 5.11% in indoor ± and 20.66 4.41% in outdoor hens). Horizontally transferrable antibiotic resistance genes tetO, ± tet(32), tet(44), and tetW were also less abundant in the microbiota of outdoor hens than indoor hens. A comparison of the microbiota composition at the genus and species levels pointed toward isolates specifically adapted to the two extreme environments.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Intestinal Microbiota on Growth and Feed Efficiency
    microorganisms Review Impact of Intestinal Microbiota on Growth and Feed Efficiency in Pigs: A Review Gillian E. Gardiner 1,* , Barbara U. Metzler-Zebeli 2 and Peadar G. Lawlor 3 1 Department of Science, Waterford Institute of Technology, X91 K0EK Co. Waterford, Ireland 2 Unit Nutritional Physiology, Institute of Physiology, Pathophysiology and Biophysics, Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, 1210 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 3 Teagasc, Pig Development Department, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, P61 C996 Co. Cork, Ireland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +353-51-302-626 Received: 2 October 2020; Accepted: 25 November 2020; Published: 28 November 2020 Abstract: This review summarises the evidence for a link between the porcine intestinal microbiota and growth and feed efficiency (FE), and suggests microbiota-targeted strategies to improve productivity. However, there are challenges in identifying reliable microbial predictors of host phenotype; environmental factors impact the microbe–host interplay, sequential differences along the intestine result in segment-specific FE- and growth-associated taxa/functionality, and it is often difficult to distinguish cause and effect. However, bacterial taxa involved in nutrient processing and energy harvest, and those with anti-inflammatory effects, are consistently linked with improved productivity. In particular, evidence is emerging for an association of Treponema and methanogens such as Methanobrevibacter in the small and large intestines and Lactobacillus in the large intestine with a leaner phenotype and/or improved FE. Bacterial carbohydrate and/or lipid metabolism pathways are also generally enriched in the large intestine of leaner pigs and/or those with better growth/FE.
    [Show full text]
  • Bank on Microbiome to Keep the Body Healthy
    Journal of Nutrition & Food Sciences Review Article Bank on Microbiome to keep the Body Healthy Arvind Diwan*, Sanjay Harke Department of Biosciences and Technology, MGM University, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India ABSTRACT Generally our human body contains large number of bacteria, viruses and fungi and they are collectively known as the microbiome community. While some bacteria are associated with disease, others are actually very important for strengthening of our immune system, proper functioning of the body organs including heart, maintenance of body weight and many other aspects of health. Trillions of these microbes exist in our body system particularly in the intestines and skin. Most of the microbes are associated in the large intestine in the form of a pocket called the cecum, and they are referred to as the gut microbiome. Although many different types of microbes are present in our body, however most of the studies have been carried on bacterial composition of the digestive gut system. In fact, there are several reports that the human body contains more number of bacterial cells than the actual human cell counts. It has been estimated that roughly 40 trillion bacterial cells are present in our body whereas human cells counts are around 30 trillion. Scientists all over the world have reported about 1,000 species of bacteria in the human gut microbiome, and each of them plays a different role in the body. Most of them are extremely important for maintaining our body health, while few species may be harmful in creating some serious diseases. Altogether, these microbes may weigh as much as 2-5 pounds (1-2 kg), which is roughly the weight of our brain.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommendations for Anti-Microbial Use for Secondary Infections in Patients with COVID-19 Rapid Review
    COVID-19 Scientific Advisory Group Rapid Response Report Key Research Question: Antimicrobial utilization in COVID-19 patients for suspected coinfection or superinfection: 1. What is the evidence for the use of antibacterial therapy upon admission for patients with respiratory symptoms who have suspected or confirmed COVID-19? 2. What is the incidence and etiology of bacterial or fungal superinfection later in the course of COVID-19? Context • Multiple jurisdictions are creating COVID-19 care pathways for patients in various care settings, many of which involve antibacterial therapy. • This review was requested to assess current data on the incidence of co-infections at presentation or bacterial or fungal superinfection that may influence guideline creation. • Literature on hospitalized patients with other viral respiratory tract infections suggests high rates of antimicrobial use without obvious benefit. Key Messages from the Evidence Summary • Infections with bacterial or fungal co-pathogens associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) are not well described, with existing data mostly found in case series with both incomplete reporting, and a lack of microbiologic testing in COVID-19 patients. Co-pathogens have been described in approximately 8% of patients with COVID-19, more commonly in those who are severely ill and in those who die. Most co-pathogens isolated appear to be related to superinfection events in the later stages of illness rather than initial co-infection, as a small autopsy series of critically ill SARS-CoV-2 patients suggested superimposed bacterial bronchopneumonia was not uncommon. • There is significant and widespread antibiotic use in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported in the literature despite the lack of reported evidence of initial co-infections and superinfections.
    [Show full text]