| Literature DB >> 27502158 |
Mehrbod Estaki1, Jason Pither1, Peter Baumeister2, Jonathan P Little2, Sandeep K Gill1, Sanjoy Ghosh1, Zahra Ahmadi-Vand1, Katelyn R Marsden2, Deanna L Gibson3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Reduced microbial diversity in human intestines has been implicated in various conditions such as diabetes, colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. The role of physical fitness in the context of human intestinal microbiota is currently not known. We used high-throughput sequencing to analyze fecal microbiota of 39 healthy participants with similar age, BMI, and diets but with varying cardiorespiratory fitness levels. Fecal short-chain fatty acids were analyzed using gas chromatography.Entities:
Keywords: Butyrate; Community diversity; Dysbiosis; Exercise; Intestinal microbiota; Metagenome; Microbial ecology; Physical activity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27502158 PMCID: PMC4976518 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-016-0189-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Summary of group characteristics and dietary intake
| LOW ( | AVG ( | HI ( | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) | Mean (SD) | Median (IQR) | |
| Age (years) | 25.5 (3.3) | 25.5 (23–27.8) | 24.3 (3.7) | 24.5 (21.8–26) | 26.2 (5.5) | 28 (21–31) |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 25.5 (3.9) | 24.9 (23.2–27.8) | 23.5 (.5) | 23.4 (22.1–23.8) | 22.8 (1.5) | 22.4 (21.9–24) |
| VO2peak | 33 (4.8)* | 33.3 (30.7–26.3) | 41.9 (4.3)* | 41.2 (38.5–44.2) | 54.8 (5.6)* | 52.4 (51.3–60.9) |
| Dietary components | ||||||
| Energy (kcal) | 2477.5 (1168.4) | 2119.5 (1537.2–3565) | 2230 (605.4) | 2092 (1793–2561) | 2458.3 (668.3) | 2647 (2060–2714) |
| Protein (g) | 128.7 (88.5) | 104.8 (55.4–182.7) | 110.2 (53.7) | 90 (80–134.6) | 111.2 (49.7) | 97.5 (84–127.2) |
| Carbohydrate (g) | 278.9 (97.5) | 294.7 (201.7–347.6) | 245.2 (90.4) | 245.2 (182.1–275.2) | 276.9 (80.2) | 268.5 (248.3–310.8) |
| Fat (g) | 95.4 (61.9) | 74.1 (46.5–121.3) | 95.8 (29.1) | 85.6 (78.4–113.6) | 105.3 (41.1) | 111.9 (84.2–131.30) |
| Saturated fat (g) | 37.7 (30) | 25.2 (16.9–62.2) | 32 (29.1) | 31.2 (26.5–34.5) | 31.6 (14.7) | 32.6 (21.2–36) |
| MUFA (g) | 30.7 (19.9) | 27.6 (14.1–36.9) | 35 (14.4) | 34.9 (27.6–40.8) | 38.6 (16.5) | 36.4 (28.5–46.9) |
| PUFA (g) | 15 (6.8) | 15.1 (9.3–20) | 20.2 (11.7) | 17.9 (11.1–26.7) | 23.3 (10.7) | 22.6 (15.4–28.2) |
| Trans fat (mg) | 730 (960) | 358 (28.5–89.3) | 580 (440) | 552 (243.7–896.8) | 500 (530) | 407 (87–501) |
| Omega 3 (mg) | 2260 (1470) | 1958 (−1166–3068) | 2990 (2320) | 1958 (1307–4779) | 3110 (3600) | 1535 (1200–1942) |
| Omega 6 (mg) | 1790 (3320) | 418 (28.8–1624) | 1010 (1040) | 438 (283.3–1672) | 3820 (4250) | 2477 (198–4951) |
| Sugar (g) | 96.7 (59.1) | 68.9 (54.8–134.2) | 83.2 (43.9) | 80.2 (67–95.5) | 103.6 (38.4) | 97.4 (81.7–121.7) |
| Fiber (g) | 28.4 (11.7) | 22.5 (20.2–34.7) | 31.3 (30.2) | 23.2 (17.3–29.4) | 36.5 (20.2) | 28.8 (24.2–40.2) |
| Cholesterol (mg) | 358 (348.7) | 263.6 (59.4–453.4) | 346.5 (194.6) | 288.6 (196.1–466.1) | 443.1 (269.3) | 442.6 (186.3–638.6) |
| Butyrate (mg) | 470 (740) | 212.5 (39.8–578) | 690 (690) | 573.5 (283.5–929) | 480 (470) | 366 (194–518) |
As described fully under the methods section, dietary components amongst groups were compared by PERMANOVA, BMI comparison utilized Kruskal-Wallis test, while VO2peak and age were compared using a 1-way ANOVA test
BMI body mass index, MUFA monounsaturated fatty acid, PUFA polyunsaturated fatty acid, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range
*A significant (P < 0.01) pairwise difference amongst the other two groups using a Bonferroni alpha correction procedure
Fig. 1Dietary patterns amongst fitness groups. Scores of the two first components of the PCA of dietary data for all 39 subjects are presented. Each circle represents one participant, colored based on their CRF fitness levels. A lack of distinct clustering amongst groups suggests comparable dietary patterns amongst groups
Multiple regression summary table of species richness data
| Variables | Unstandardized coefficients | Standardized coefficients |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | Std. error | Beta | |||
| VO2peak | 5.36 | 2.47 | 0.37 | 2.17 | 0.037* |
| Relative fat intake | 432.46 | 250.10 | 0.26 | 1.72 | 0.094 |
| Sex♂ | 24.70 | 51.23 | 0.08 | 7.54 | 0.63 |
Result of multiple regression test showing VO2peak as the only significant variable in predicting species richness (SR). The B coefficient represents the amount of change in SR along its 95 % confidence intervals per unit change of VO2peak (ml/kg/min). The standardized coefficients show VO2peak as the strongest variable to influence SR variability. Model adjusted R 2 = 0.20. P value = 0.01
*Statistical significance
Fig. 2Correlation between VO2peak and species richness (SR). Result of a multiple regression model showing a significant association between VO2peak and SR when holding all other variables constant. Shaded area represent 95 % confidence intervals
Identified known taxa across fitness groups
| LOW | AVG | HI | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Phylum | 14 | 12 | 11 | 14 |
| Class | 28 | 23 | 23 | 31 |
| Order | 44 | 38 | 41 | 52 |
| Family | 76 | 73 | 79 | 92 |
| Genus | 153 | 152 | 173 | 207 |
Summary of the number of identified taxa across all participants as categorized based on their VO2peak levels
Fig. 3Beta diversity amongst fitness groups. PCoA plot of genus abundance data based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity measure shows no clear clustering when grouped according to CRF levels
Fig. 4Bacterial abundance RDA correlation biplots constrained by selected explanatory variables. The sites and explanatory variables (a) and genera (b) plots are presented separately for clarity; however, they are derived from the same RDA model, note the difference in axes scales. RDA1 and RDA2 which explain over 10 % of total variation in beta diversity are plotted. The global model’s P value was calculated using the Monte Carlo Permutation Procedure (MCPP). In plot A, subjects are color coded according to their CRF levels for illustrative purposes only as groupings were not included in the model. Black circles represent centroids for the categorical variable sex
Fig. 5RDA correlation biplots of predicted metagenomics functions constrained by selected explanatory variables. The sites and explanatory variables (a) and genera (b) plots are presented separately for clarity; however, they are derived from the same RDA model, note the difference in axes scales. RDA1 and RDA2 which explain over 13 % of the total variation in data are plotted. The global model’s P value was calculated using the Monte Carlo Permutation Procedure (MCPP). In plot A, subjects are color coded according to their CRF for illustrative purposes only as groupings were not included in the model. Black circles represent centroids for the categorical variable sex
Fig. 6Correlation between VO2peak and fatty acid biosynthesis. Spearman correlation plot showing a positive relationship between VO2peak and the functional category “fatty acid biosynthesis.” rho Spearman’s correlation coefficient
Fig. 7RDA correlation triplot of SCFA abundance data constrained by selected explanatory variables. RDA1 and RDA2 which explain over 29 % of the total variation in SCFA data are plotted. Subjects are color coded according to their CRF for illustrative purposes only as groupings were not included in the model. Black circles represent centroids for the categorical variable sex. The global model’s P value was calculated using the Monte Carlo Permutation Procedure (MCPP)