| Literature DB >> 25461615 |
Dora I A Pereira1, Mohamad F Aslam, David M Frazer, Annemarie Schmidt, Gemma E Walton, Anne L McCartney, Glenn R Gibson, Greg J Anderson, Jonathan J Powell.
Abstract
Alterations in the gut microbiota have been recently linked to oral iron. We conducted two feeding studies including an initial diet-induced iron-depletion period followed by supplementation with nanoparticulate tartrate-modified ferrihydrite (Nano Fe(III): considered bioavailable to host but not bacteria) or soluble ferrous sulfate (FeSO4: considered bioavailable to both host and bacteria). We applied denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and fluorescence in situ hybridization for study-1 and 454-pyrosequencing of fecal 16S rRNA in study-2. In study-1, the within-community microbial diversity increased with FeSO4 (P = 0.0009) but not with Nano Fe(III) supplementation. This was confirmed in study-2, where we also showed that iron depletion at weaning imprinted significantly lower within- and between-community microbial diversity compared to mice weaned onto the iron-sufficient reference diet (P < 0.0001). Subsequent supplementation with FeSO4 partially restored the within-community diversity (P = 0.006 in relation to the continuously iron-depleted group) but not the between-community diversity, whereas Nano Fe(III) had no effect. We conclude that (1) dietary iron depletion at weaning imprints low diversity in the microbiota that is not, subsequently, easily recovered; (2) in the absence of gastrointestinal disease iron supplementation does not negatively impact the microbiota; and (3) Nano Fe(III) is less available to the gut microbiota.Entities:
Keywords: Iron supplementation; microbiome; microbiota; nanoparticles; oral iron
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25461615 PMCID: PMC4335973 DOI: 10.1002/mbo3.213
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiologyopen ISSN: 2045-8827 Impact factor: 3.139
Figure 1Design of animal studies. (A) feeding study in Fe-deficient Sprague–Dawley rats (Powell et al. 2014). (B) feeding study in Fe-deficient C57BL/6J mice (Aslam et al. 2014). The reference iron-replete group was fed the regular Fe-sufficient diet (i.e., modified AIN-93G purified rodent diet (Aslam et al. 2014), which contains ferric citrate as the iron source) for the entire duration of the study.
Figure 2Dendrogram generated from DGGE profiles obtained from fecal samples of iron-deficient rats post Fe-depletion (day 25, n = 16) and 14 days following supplementation of the diet with either ferrous sulfate (FeSO4; n = 8) or tartrate-modified ferrihydrite (Nano Fe; n = 8) (day 39). Scale bar, percent similarity of profiles. Similarity coefficient used was Dice (with tolerance 1% and tolerance change 3%). Cluster matrix used was unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA). DGGE, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis.
Diversity data and indices computed from DGGE fingerprints of gut bacterial communities in iron-deficient rats on diets supplemented with two different Fe sources for 14 days
| Group | Number of DGGE bands | Shannon diversity index ( | Shannon evenness index ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| FeSO4, | |||
| After Fe-depletion (day 25) | 33 (6) | 3.4 (0.2) | 0.986 (0.003) |
| After Fe-repletion | 54 (8) | 3.9 (0.2) | 0.992 (0.003) |
| | 0.0008 | 0.0009 | 0.004 |
| Nano Fe(III), | |||
| After Fe-depletion (day 25) | 42 (7) | 3.7 (0.2) | 0.992 (0.003) |
| After Fe-repletion | 49 (5) | 3.9 (0.1) | 0.994 (0.001) |
| | ns | ns | ns |
Values are mean (SD). DGGE, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis; FeSO4, ferrous sulfate; Nano Fe(III), nanoparticulate tartrate-modified ferrihydrite; ns, not statistically significant (P < 0.05 was considered significant).
and ; where S is the total number of different DGGE bands per sample and pi, is the proportional abundance of each band (i.e., the relative intensity of each band = intensity of each band divided by the total intensity of the bands obtained per sample) (Hariri et al. 1990; Godden and Bajorath 2000).
Fe-repletion period corresponding to the diets supplemented with either FeSO4 or Nano Fe(III).
Within-group analysis performed using paired two-tailed t-tests for comparison between day 25 and day 39 in each group.
Effect of dietary supplementation with different iron forms during 14 days upon population levels of marker bacteria as assessed by FISH
| Group | Bacteria group | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total bacteria |
| Bifido |
| DSV | Lactob-enteroc |
| SFB | |
| Fe-deficient | ||||||||
| Day 25 | 9.5 (0.6) | 8.9 (0.3) | 7.7 (0.6) | 6.6 (0.6) | 7.0 (0.3) | 8.4 (0.2) | 6.8 (1.0) | 7.0 (0.8) |
| Day 39 | 9.6 (0.7) | 9.1 (0.4) | 7.1 (0.6) | 6.8 (0.7) | 6.0 (0.2) | 8.5 (0.6) | 6.5 (0.8) | 6.9 (0.6) |
| ns | ns | ns | ns | <0.0001 | ns | ns | ns | |
| FeSO4 | ||||||||
| Day 25 | 9.6 (0.4) | 9.0 (0.4) | 7.6 (0.4) | 6.4 (0.6) | 6.7 (0.6) | 8.4 (0.3) | 6.8 (0.7) | 6.6 (0.6) |
| Day 39 | 9.4 (0.4) | 8.8 (0.4) | 7.3 (0.5) | 6.8 (0.7) | 6.0 (0.4) | 8.4 (0.2) | 7.2 (0.8) | 6.7 (0.8) |
| ns | ns | ns | ns | 0.008 | ns | ns | ns | |
| Fh | ||||||||
| Day 25 | 9.5 (0.4) | 8.8 (0.3) | 7.6 (0.6) | 6.2 (0.5) | 6.8 (0.7) | 8.3 (0.4) | 6.4 (0.4) | 6.4 (0.7) |
| Day 39 | 9.3 (0.4) | 8.6 (0.6) | 7.3 (0.5) | 7.0 (0.6) | 6.1 (0.3) | 8.3 (0.4) | 6.5 (0.4) | 6.6 (0.5) |
| ns | ns | ns | 0.008 | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
| Nano Fe(III) | ||||||||
| Day 25 | 9.4 (0.4) | 8.9 (0.4) | 7.9 (0.6) | 6.0 (0.4) | 5.82 (0.07) | 8.1 (0.3) | 7.8 (0.6) | 6.3 (0.6) |
| Day 39 | 9.4 (0.3) | 8.9 (0.2) | 7.2 (0.8) | 6.4 (0.9) | 6.1 (0.5) | 8.1 (0.2) | 7.6 (1.0) | 6.3 (0.5) |
| ns | ns | 0.04 | ns | ns | ns | ns | ns | |
Values are mean counts (SD) of marker bacteria (Bacteria numbers are expressed as log10 counts/g wet feces for positively hybridized cells after in situ hybridization with group-specific probes or the universal probes for total bacteria (i.e., Eub388 I, II, and III).), n = 8 per group. In all groups, day 25 corresponds to after the Fe-depletion period, that is, following 25 days of iron-depletion with the Fe-deficient diet. For each group, day 39 corresponds to after the Fe-repletion period, that is, following 14 days on the Fe-deficient diet supplemented with each of the Fe materials; animals in the Fe-deficient group remained on the Fe-deficient diet throughout. FeSO4, ferrous sulfate; Fh, unmodified ferrihydrite; Nano Fe(III), nanoparticulate tartrate-modified ferrihydrite; FISH, fluorescence in situ hybridization; SD, standard deviation; Bifido, Bifidobacterium; DSV, Desulfovibrio; lactob-enteroc, Lactobacillus/Enterococcus; SFB, segmented filamentous bacteria or Candidatus Savagella; ns, not statistically significant (P < 0.05 was considered significant).
The majority of data passed the D' Agostino and Pearson normality test, and therefore within-group comparisons (i.e., day 25 versus day 39 for each diet group) were performed using paired two-tailed t-tests with pairwise exclusion of missing values. For the few data that did not fit the normal distribution criteria, within-group comparisons were done with the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test.Between-group comparisons (i.e., comparing the different diet groups at each timepoint) were done with one-way ANOVA with the Tukey's multiple comparisons test (for Gaussian distributed data) or with the Kruskal–Wallis test with the Dunn's multiple comparison test (non-Gaussian distributed data). The only significant difference for comparisons between-groups for day 25 or day 39 was found for Roseburia at day 25 between Fh and Nano Fe(III), P = 0.003 (multiplicity-adjusted value).
Desulfovibrio numbers were very close to the detection limit of FISH (<106) for these groups. Desulfovibrio was not detectable in four of the samples in the Fh group on day 39 and in six of the samples in the Nano Fe(III) group on day 25.
Diversity data and indices computed from 454-pyrosequencing data of gut bacterial communities in mice on diets supplemented with different Fe sources for 28 days
| Group | Number of sequences | Richness ( | Shannon diversity index ( | Shannon evenness index ( | Good's coverage (ESC %) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Fe-depletion | |||||
| @ weaning (day 0), | 3889 (746) | 35 (4)x | 2.4 (0.2)x | 0.67 (0.06) | 92 (2) |
| After Fe-depletion (day 28), | 3592 (893) | 27 (4)y | 2.1 (0.2)y | 0.63 (0.06) | 93 (2) |
| Fe-sufficient (reference, day 28), | 3439 (611) | 37 (4)x | 2.4 (0.2)x | 0.66 (0.05) | 91 (2) |
| Effect of Fe-repletion | |||||
| Fe-sufficient (reference) | |||||
| Day 28, | 3439 (611) | 37 (4) | 2.4 (0.2) | 0.66 (0.05) | 91 (2) |
| Day 42, | 3519 (1166) | 34 (2) | 2.3 (0.2) | 0.66 (0.04) | 91 (2) |
| Day 56, | 2613 (446)x | 43 (10) | 2.6 (0.2)x | 0.70 (0.04)x | 87 (2)x |
| Fe-deficient (FD) | |||||
| Day 28, | 3284 (717)a | 25 (3)a | 2.0 (0.2) | 0.63 (0.06) | 92 (3) |
| Day 42, | 4057 (730)a | 31 (3)b | 1.8 (0.4) | 0.51 (0.09) | 94 (1) |
| Day 56, | 6506 (1494)b,y | 33 (3)b | 1.7 (0.3)y | 0.47 (0.09)y | 95 (2)y |
| FeSO4 | |||||
| Day 28, | 3734 (443) | 29 (4) | 2.1 (0.2) | 0.61 (0.05) | 94 (2) |
| Day 42, | 3853 (309) | 25 (4) | 2.0 (0.1) | 0.64 (0.02) | 93.7 (0.5) |
| Day 56, | 3407 (1505)xz | 32 (3) | 2.1 (0.2)z | 0.62 (0.05)x | 89 (4)x |
| Nano Fe(III) | |||||
| Day 28, | 3767 (1116) | 28 (4) | 2.1 (0.3)a | 0.64 (0.08)a | 93 (3) |
| Day 42, | 5036 (1460) | 31 (7) | 2.0 (0.3)a | 0.59 (0.06)a | 94 (1) |
| Day 56, | 4777 (911)yz | 32 (9) | 1.6 (0.1)b,y | 0.47 (0.04)b,y | 94 (1)y |
Mice underwent an initial period of 28 days of dietary-induced Fe-depletion (i.e., weaning to study day 28), followed by 28 days of Fe-repletion (i.e., study day 28 to study day 56) with the Fe-deficient diet supplemented with FeSO4 or nano Fe(III) as per study outline in Figure1B. Data for the control Fe-deficient group (i.e., the group that remained on the Fe-deficient diet throughout) and the Fe-sufficient reference group (i.e., iron-replete mice) are also shown. Values are mean (SD). OTU, operational taxonomic unit; ESC, estimated sample coverage; d, day; FeSO4, ferrous sulfate; Nano Fe(III), nanoparticulate tartrate-modified ferrihydrite.
, and ; where S, is the total number of unique OTUs within each sample; n1, is the number of single copy OTU within each sample; N, is the total number of sequences, and pi, is the proportional abundance of each unique OTU within each sample (Hariri et al. 1990; Godden and Bajorath 2000; Claesson et al. 2010).
a,bWhere statistical significance was established, means in a column within each group without a common superscripts letter differ: within-group comparisons (i.e., comparing the different timepoints for each diet group) were performed using one-way repeated-measures ANOVA, with the Greenhouse–Geisser correction for nonsphericity and the Tukey's multiple comparisons test with pairwise exclusion of missing data. P < 0.05 was considered significant (multiplicity adjusted).
x,y,zBetween-group comparisons (i.e., comparing the different diet groups) at the end of the study (day 56) or comparing the effect of Fe-depletion (day 0 versus day 28) was carried out with ordinary one-way ANOVA with the Tukey's multiple comparison test: where statistical significance was established, means without a common superscripts letter differ. P < 0.05 was considered significant (multiplicity adjusted).
Figure 3Fecal microbiota of mice before (weaning, day 0) and after 28 days of dietary-induced Fe-depletion (day 28). (A) Data shown as mean percentage of sequences for the most abundant bacteria genus as determined by 454-pyrosequencing. TM7, candidate division TM7 (Hugenholtz et al. 2001). Data for the Fe-sufficient reference group (i.e., mice that were iron replete throughout) are also shown. (B) Data shown as mean (±SEM) for the proportions of each genus for which there were statistically significant alterations 28 days post-weaning onto the Fe-deficient diet (n = 17) in comparison with mice of the same age weaned onto the reference Fe-sufficient diet (n = 5). (C and D) Age-related statistically significant changes for the proportions of each genus (mean ± SEM) in the (C) Fe-sufficient reference group (n = 5) and the (D) Fe-depleted group (n = 17). *P ≤ 0.04; **P ≤ 0.005; ***P ≤ 0.0009; ****P < 0.0001 using unpaired t-tests. Prevotellaceae refers to unclassified members of this family at the genus level.
Figure 4Fecal microbial diversity of mice on diets supplemented with Nano Fe(III) or FeSO4 during 28 days. Data shown as mean percentage of sequences determined by 454-pyrosequencing for each diet group at each time-point during the 28 days Fe-repletion period (i.e., study day 28 to study day 56) for: (A) phylum, (B) 98% most predominant genus and (C) 98% most predominant bacterial species. TM7, candidate division TM7 (Hugenholtz et al. 2001); FeSO4, ferrous sulfate; Nano Fe(III), tartrate-modified ferrihydrite. Prevotellaceae refers to unclassified members of this family at the genus level. Score plot of the principal component analysis of variance based on the normalized abundance of each bacterial genus (D) and species (E). Percentage variance values accounted for by the two first components (PC1 and PC2) are reported in parenthesis. The different diet groups as defined in Figure1B are color coded in black (Fe-sufficient reference diet throughout), gray (Fe-deficient diet throughout), blue (FeSO4-supplemented diet), and red (Nano Fe(III)-supplemented diet).
Figure 5Changes in representative bacterial species of the fecal microbiota of mice following 28 days of diets supplemented with Nano Fe(III) or FeSO4. Data shown as mean (SEM) percentage of sequences determined by 454-pyrosequencing for each bacterial species for which there were statistically significant alterations at the end of the Fe-repletion period. Data for the Fe-sufficient reference group (i.e., mice fed the regular Fe-sufficient diet throughout the study period) and the Fe-deficient control group (i.e., mice maintained on the Fe-deficient diet throughout the study) are shown at the same timepoint (study day 56). Numbers in each diet group are as follows: n = 5, Fe-sufficient reference group (black); n = 6, Fe-deficient control group (gray); n = 4, FeSO4 group (blue); n = 8, Nano Fe(III) group (red). Between-group comparisons (i.e., comparisons between the four different diets at day 56) were done with repeated-measures two-way ANOVA with the Tukey's multiple comparison test. *P ≤ 0.04; **P ≤ 0.007; ***P ≤ 0.0009; ****P < 0.0001 (all multiplicity-adjusted P-values).