| Literature DB >> 29152318 |
Ida N Kieler1, Shamrulazhar Shamzir Kamal2, Anne D Vitger1, Dennis S Nielsen2, Charlotte Lauridsen3, Charlotte R Bjornvad1.
Abstract
Obese dogs seem to have a different gut microbiome (GM) composition compared to lean dogs, and in humans, GM composition may negatively impact the ability to lose weight in some individuals. The purpose of this study was to investigate the interaction between exercise, weight-loss and the composition of GM in dogs. Eighteen obese pet dogs were recruited for a 12-week weight-loss intervention. All dogs were fed restrictively with a commercial high-protein/high-fibre dry diet, and eight of these dogs were enrolled in an exercise program in addition to the diet intervention. Faecal samples were collected and the dogs were weighed at week 0, week 6 and week 12. GM composition was determined using MiSeq-based tag-encoded 16S rRNA gene high-throughput amplicon sequencing, and concentrations of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) by gas-liquid chromatography. Total weight loss, food allowance and GM were not changed by exercise inclusion. However, Megamonas abundance negatively correlated with weight loss rate and Ruminococcaceae relative abundance was lower at 12 weeks in dogs with a faster weight loss rate (≥1% per week) compared with slower weight loss rate (<1% per week) independent of exercise. Acetic and propionic acid concentrations decreased in the dogs with a faster weight loss rate. Members of Megamonas and Ruminococcaceae produce acetic and propionic acids and we therefore interpret that having a GM that favour SCFA production may negatively affect weight loss rate in dogs. Weight loss rate in dogs may be related to the composition of the GM and its production of metabolites.Entities:
Keywords: Canine; faecal; intestinal; microbiome; obesity; overweight; short chain fatty acids
Year: 2017 PMID: 29152318 PMCID: PMC5677773 DOI: 10.1002/vms3.80
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Vet Med Sci ISSN: 2053-1095
The three most significant differences in gut microbiota (GM), as relative abundance OTUs at genus level, comparing the three time points week 0–6, week, 0–12 and week 6–12, in dogs (n = 11) during a 12 week weight loss trial (data was analysed using ANOVA, P < 0.05, in bold, was considered a significant change)
| Bacterial genus |
| False discovery rate q‐value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GM change | Week 0–6 |
|
| 0.56 |
|
|
| 0.42 | ||
|
|
| 0.44 | ||
| Week 0–12 |
|
| 0.48 | |
|
|
| 0.36 | ||
|
|
| 0.48 | ||
| Week 6–12 |
| 0.14 | 5.46 | |
|
| 0.16 | 3.20 | ||
| Unknown (Erysipelotrichaceae spp.) | 0.20 | 2.72 |
if unknown genus, (family).
The three most significant differences comparing the gut microbiota (GM), as relative abundance OTUs at genus level, between fast weight loss rate (≥1% of body weight per week) and slow weight loss rate (<1.0% bodyweight per week) dogs at three time points, week 0, week 6 and week 12, from dogs (n = 11) during a 12 week weight loss trial (data was analysed using ANOVA, P < 0.05, in bold, was considered a significant change)
| Bacterial genus |
| False discovery rate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GM | Week 0 |
| 0.14 | 4.76 |
|
| 0.16 | 2.71 | ||
| Unknown (Ruminococcaceae spp.) | 0.19 | 2.14 | ||
| Week 6 |
| 0.06 | 2.49 | |
|
| 0.07 | 1.36 | ||
| Unknown (Clostridiaceae spp.) | 0.09 | 1.32 | ||
| Week 12 | Unknown (Ruminococcaceae spp.) |
| 0.92 |
if unknown genus, (family).
Group (exercise and diet (FD) or diet only (DO)), breed, age, sex and neutering (female entire (FE), female neutered (FN), male entire (ME) and male neutered (MN)), body composition and weight loss rate, for dogs (n = 12) undergoing a 12‐week weight loss intervention including groups
| Group | Breed | Age, years | Sex and neutering | BCS 1–9 week 0/week 12 | BF% week 0/week 12 | WL rate week 0–6 (%/week) | WL rate week 6–12 (%/week) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FD | Labrador retriever | 8.2 | FE | 7/6 | 51/43 | 6 | 7 |
| FD | Labrador retriever | 7.0 | FN | 7/5 | 46/37 | 3.6 | 9.2 |
| DO | Basset Griffon Vendeen | 6.7 | FE | 7/7 | 61/57 | 5.1 | 7 |
| FD | Berner Sennen | 5.6 | FN | 8/7 | 67/53 | 8.5 | 7.5 |
| DO | Labrador retriever | 6.2 | MN | 8/8 | 55/51 | 3.6 | 4.6 |
| FD | Australian Shepherd | 10.0 | FN | 7/6 | 53/45 | 4.9 | 12.2 |
| FD | Australian Shepherd | 3.0 | FN | 7/7 | 53/46 | 2.9 | 9.5 |
| DO | Nova Scotia Duck Tolling Retriever | 8.9 | FN | 8/7 | 52/43 | 10.2 | 6 |
| DO | Mixed breed | 5.5 | FN | 8/6 | 50/41 | 11.3 | 6.5 |
| DO | Labrador retriever | 3.6 | ME | 6/5 | 35/30 | 9.1 | 1.3 |
| DO | Labrador retriever | 8.5 | MN | 7/6 | 51/45 | 4.2 | 5.7 |
| FD | Mixed breed | 6.9 | FN | 7/6 | 55/43 | 6.9 | 6.1 |
Body Condition Score (BCS) on a scale from 1 to 9, and body fat percentage (BF%) from week 0 and 12, previously included in Vitger et al. (2016). Weekly weight loss in percentage of body weight from week 0 to week 6 (WL rate week 0–6), weekly weight loss in percentage of body weight from week 6 to end of trial (WL rate week 6–12).
Figure 1Correlation between the change in the Megamonas genus between week 0 and week 6 (y‐axis) and the weight loss rate in percentage per week (x‐axis), in dogs (n = 8) undergoing a 12 week weight loss trial.
Faecal short chain fatty acid levels (mean ± SD) in week 0 and 6 in dogs (n = 12) undergoing a 12 week weight loss trial, comparing dogs with a fast (≥1% of body weight per week) and slow (<1.0% bodyweight per week) weight loss rate
| SCFA | Fast | Slow |
| 95% CI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Faecal SCFA | Week 0 | Acetic acid | 70.2 ± 27.4 | 64.7 ± 22.3 | 0.75 | −40.1 to 29.1 |
| Propionic acid | 44.0 ± 21.4 | 28.2 ± 10.2 | 0.22 | −39.5 to 7.99 | ||
| Isobutyric acid | 1.01 ± 0.56 | 0.81 ± 0.7 | 0.65 | −1.05 to 0.65 | ||
| n‐Butyric acid | 10.6 ± 4.1 | 9.8 ± 2.1 | 0.68 | −5.38 to 3.88 | ||
| Iso‐valeric acid | 0.74 ± 0.42 | 0.62 ± 0.6 | 0.71 | −0.81 to 0.55 | ||
| n‐Valeric acid | 0.28 ± 0.23 | 0.29 ± 0.29 | 0.97 | −0.35 to 0.36 | ||
| DL‐Lactic acid | 0.41 ± 1.0 | 0.00 ± 0 | 0.34 | −1.44 to 0.62 | ||
| Succinic acid | 13.1 ± 19.6 | 11.4 ± 25.4 | 0.89 | −32.4 to 29.0 | ||
| Week 6 | Acetic acid | 54.3 ± 2.9 | 71.5 ± 15.9 |
| 0.48 to 33.8 | |
| Propionic acid | 23.2 ± 4.0 | 32.7 ± 7.78 |
| 0.43 to 18.5 | ||
| Isobutyric acid | 1.3 ± 0.49 | 1.22 ± 0.76 | 0.77 | −1.05 to 0.81 | ||
| n‐Butyric acid | 8.2 ± 1.4 | 10.5 ± 3.78 | 0.24 | −1.89 to 6.45 | ||
| Iso‐valeric acid | 1.2 ± 0.57 | 1.03 ± 0.63 | 0.57 | −1.06 to 0.68 | ||
| n‐Valeric acid | 0.19 ± 0.17 | 1.13 ± 1.83 | 0.10 | −0.96 to 2.83 | ||
| Succinic acid | 1.3 ± 4.0 | 1.31 ± 2.93 | 0.85 | −5.60 to 4.64 | ||
Data was analysed using ANOVA, and reported as mean ± SD, P < 0.05, in bold, was considered a significant change).
Adjusted P‐value.