| Literature DB >> 23607879 |
Meghan B Azad1, Theodore Konya2, Heather Maughan3, David S Guttman3, Catherine J Field4, Malcolm R Sears5, Allan B Becker6, James A Scott2, Anita L Kozyrskyj7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated that early-life exposure to pets or siblings affords protection against allergic disease; these associations are commonly attributed to the "hygiene hypothesis". Recently, low diversity of the infant gut microbiota has also been linked to allergic disease. In this study, we characterize the infant gut microbiota in relation to pets and siblings.Entities:
Keywords: Allergic disease; Atopy; Environmental exposures; Gut microbiome; Gut microbiota; Hygiene hypothesis; Infants; Microflora hypothesis; Pets; Siblings
Year: 2013 PMID: 23607879 PMCID: PMC3655107 DOI: 10.1186/1710-1492-9-15
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Allergy Asthma Clin Immunol ISSN: 1710-1484 Impact factor: 3.406
Characteristics of study subjects
| N (%): | | | | | | |
| Gender; male | 12 | (50.0) | 6 | (40.0) | 7 | (53.9) |
| Caesarean Delivery | 6 | (25.0) | 3 | (20.0) | 3 | (23.1) |
| Breastfed | 15 | (62.5) | 8 | (53.3) | 9 | (69.2) |
| Maternal Atopy | 9 | (37.5) | 6 | (40.0) | 6 | (46.2) |
| Siblings | 13 | (54.2) | 6 | (40.0) | - | - |
| Pets | 15 | (62.5) | - | - | 6 | (46.2) |
| Infant antibiotics | 3 | (12.5) | 2 | (15.4) | 1 | (8.3) |
| Maternal PS Education | 18 | (75.0) | 13 | (86.7) | 9 | (69.2) |
| Mean (SD): | | | | | | |
| Birth Weight; g | 3441 | (493) | 3453 | (551) | 3455 | (357) |
| Gestational Age; wks | 39.2 | (1.6) | 39.3 | (1.4) | 39.5 | (1.2) |
SD, standard deviation; PS, post-secondary. Comparisons by chi-squared test / Fisher's exact test, or t-test; no statistically significant differences observed.
Figure 1Fecal microbiota composition for 24 infants (mean age 4 months) according to the presence of household pets and siblings. A) Relative abundance of dominant bacterial families; each column represents one infant. B) Selected differentially abundant families according to pets and siblings; bars indicate means. Relative abundance determined by 16S rRNA sequencing; comparisons conducted with Metastats (see Methods and Table 2).
Relative abundance of dominant bacterial taxa in infant stool, according to household pets and siblings
| | Mean | (SD) | n = 11 | n = 13 | | n = 9 | n = 15 | | n = 12 | n = 12 | | n = 17 | n = 7 | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Bifidobacteriaceae | 39.6 | (33.4) | 40.9 | 38.6 | - | 58.8 | 28.1 | 0.03 | 46.7 | 32.6 | - | 48.0 | 19.3 | 0.03 |
| | 39.6 | (33.4) | 40.9 | 38.6 | - | 58.8 | 28.1 | 0.03 | 46.7 | 32.6 | - | 48.0 | 19.3 | 0.02 |
| Coriobacteriaceae | 1.4 | (3.3) | 0.3 | 2.3 | 0.07 | 2.2 | 0.9 | - | 2.0 | 0.8 | - | 1.7 | 0.6 | - |
| | 0.5 | (1.0) | 0.3 | 0.6 | - | 0.7 | 0.3 | - | 0.8 | 0.1 | 0.01 | 0.4 | 0.6 | - |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Bacteroidaceae | 0.8 | (1.5) | 0.8 | 0.8 | - | 1.2 | 0.5 | - | 0.9 | 0.7 | - | 0.9 | 0.5 | - |
| | 0.8 | (1.5) | 0.8 | 0.8 | - | 1.2 | 0.5 | - | 0.9 | 0.7 | - | 0.9 | 0.5 | - |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Clostridiaceae | 2.6 | (7.2) | 1.7 | 3.4 | - | 0.3 | 4.0 | 0.02 | 0.8 | 4.4 | - | 2.9 | 2.0 | - |
| | 2.6 | (7.2) | 1.7 | 3.4 | - | 0.3 | 4.0 | 0.02 | 0.8 | 4.4 | - | 2.9 | 2.0 | - |
| Enterococcaceae | 1.5 | (2.2) | 1.7 | 1.3 | - | 0.9 | 1.8 | - | 0.7 | 2.3 | 0.09 | 1.6 | 1.1 | - |
| | 1.5 | (2.2) | 1.7 | 1.3 | - | 0.9 | 1.8 | - | 0.7 | 2.3 | 0.08 | 1.6 | 1.1 | - |
| Erysipelotrichaceae | 5.2 | (8.7) | 5.4 | 5.1 | - | 2.4 | 7.0 | - | 4.4 | 6.1 | - | 3.7 | 9.0 | - |
| Lachnospiraceae | 22.0 | (22.0) | 26.0 | 18.6 | - | 17.6 | 24.6 | - | 25.7 | 18.2 | - | 16.6 | 35.1 | 0.14 |
| | 3.0 | (7.6) | 5.4 | 0.9 | - | 0.6 | 4.4 | - | 0.7 | 5.2 | - | 0.9 | 8.1 | - |
| | 0.8 | (2.6) | 0.7 | 1.0 | - | 0.0 | 1.3 | 0.01 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 0.12 | 0.2 | 2.3 | - |
| Peptostreptococcaceae | 1.2 | (2.0) | 2.3 | 0.3 | 0.02 | 0.1 | 1.9 | 0.007 | 0.6 | 1.9 | 0.14 | 0.7 | 2.4 | 0.08 |
| Ruminococcaceae | 0.6 | (1.1) | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.12 | 0.4 | 0.7 | - | 0.4 | 0.8 | - | 0.6 | 0.5 | - |
| Streptococcaceae | 5.7 | (11.8) | 2.5 | 8.4 | - | 3.3 | 7.1 | - | 3.0 | 8.4 | - | 4.9 | 7.6 | - |
| | 5.7 | (11.8) | 2.5 | 8.3 | - | 3.3 | 7.1 | - | 2.9 | 8.4 | - | 4.9 | 7.6 | - |
| Veillonellaceae | 4.7 | (6.9) | 5.2 | 4.3 | - | 1.2 | 6.8 | 0.02 | 1.6 | 7.8 | 0.02 | 3.4 | 7.7 | - |
| | 4.6 | (6.9) | 5.0 | 4.3 | - | 1.2 | 6.7 | 0.02 | 1.6 | 7.6 | 0.03 | 3.4 | 7.7 | - |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Verrucomicrobiaceae | 0.6 | (2.2) | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.06 | 0.4 | 0.7 | - | 0.3 | 0.9 | - | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.01 |
| | 0.6 | (2.2) | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.06 | 0.4 | 0.7 | - | 0.3 | 0.9 | - | 0.8 | 0.0 | 0.01 |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| Enterobacteriaceae | 11.8 | (11.1) | 9.6 | 13.7 | - | 10.7 | 12.5 | - | 12.5 | 11.2 | - | 11.8 | 11.9 | - |
| | 10.5 | (11.5) | 8.8 | 11.9 | - | 10.4 | 10.5 | - | 12.3 | 8.7 | - | 10.4 | 10.7 | - |
| Pasteurellaceae | 0.2 | (0.8) | 0.1 | 0.3 | - | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.09 | 0.1 | 0.4 | - | 0.2 | 0.2 | - |
| | 0.2 | (0.8) | 0.1 | 0.3 | - | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.09 | 0.1 | 0.4 | - | 0.2 | 0.2 | - |
SD, standard deviation. Differential abundance test conducted using Metastats algorithm. P-values >0.15 not shown. Taxa were excluded from this analysis if they did not exceed 1% relative abundance in at least 1 sample, or were not present in at least 3 infants.
Figure 2Richness and diversity of infant fecal microbiota according to the presence of household pets and siblings. Richness (Chao1 estimator) and diversity (Shannon Index) were calculated from 16S rRNA sequencing data (see Methods and Table 3).
Infant fecal microbiota richness and diversity according to household pets and siblings
| 24 | 12 | (4.5) | | 1.38 | (0.5) | | |
| No | 9 | 10.3 | (5.3) | 0.21 | 1.16 | (0.59) | 0.12 |
| Yes | 15 | 13.0 | (4.6) | | 1.51 | (0.46) | |
| No | 11 | 13.5 | (4.5) | 0.16 | 1.50 | (0.54) | 0.34 |
| Yes | 13 | 10.7 | (5.1) | 1.29 | (0.52) | ||
SD, standard deviation. Comparison by unpaired, 2-sided t-test.
Figure 3Model for the possible influence of pets and siblings on infant gut microbiota and subsequent development of atopic disease. Household pets (D, dogs; C, cats) and siblings increase infant exposure to environmental microbes, promoting enrichment for distinct combinations of organisms within the gut microbiota; overall richness and diversity are also impacted. Despite favoring different microbiota profiles, the net effect of both pets and siblings is to promote healthy immune system development and protect against atopic disease. Further research is required to characterize the underlying biological mechanisms.