| Literature DB >> 30301893 |
Nhan T Ho1, Fan Li2, Kathleen A Lee-Sarwar3,4, Hein M Tun5,6, Bryan P Brown7,8,9, Pia S Pannaraj10, Jeffrey M Bender10, Meghan B Azad11, Amanda L Thompson12, Scott T Weiss4, M Andrea Azcarate-Peril13,14, Augusto A Litonjua15, Anita L Kozyrskyj5, Heather B Jaspan8,9, Grace M Aldrovandi2, Louise Kuhn16.
Abstract
Previous studies on the differences in gut microbiota between exclusively breastfed (EBF) and non-EBF infants have provided highly variable results. Here we perform a meta-analysis of seven microbiome studies (1825 stool samples from 684 infants) to compare the gut microbiota of non-EBF and EBF infants across populations. In the first 6 months of life, gut bacterial diversity, microbiota age, relative abundances of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, and predicted microbial pathways related to carbohydrate metabolism are consistently higher in non-EBF than in EBF infants, whereas relative abundances of pathways related to lipid metabolism, vitamin metabolism, and detoxification are lower. Variation in predicted microbial pathways associated with non-EBF infants is larger among infants born by Caesarian section than among those vaginally delivered. Longer duration of exclusive breastfeeding is associated with reduced diarrhea-related gut microbiota dysbiosis. Furthermore, differences in gut microbiota between EBF and non-EBF infants persist after 6 months of age. Our findings elucidate some mechanisms of short and long-term benefits of exclusive breastfeeding across different populations.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30301893 PMCID: PMC6177445 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06473-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Commun ISSN: 2041-1723 Impact factor: 14.919
Fig. 1Effects of non-EBF vs. EBF on gut microbial diversity in infants ≤6 months of age. a Gut microbial alpha diversity (standardized Shannon index) by breastfeeding status by infant age at stool sample collection from each included studies. Fitted lines and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were from generalized additive mixed models (GAMM). b The difference in gut microbial alpha diversity (standardized Shannon index) between non-EBF and EBF infants ≤6 months of age from each study and the pooled effect across seven included studies (meta-analysis) with 95% CI. c The trend effect of gut microbial alpha diversity (standardized Shannon index) across EBF, non-EBF, and non-BF infants ≤6 months of age from each study and the pooled effect across five included studies (meta-analysis) with 95% CI. Data from Haiti and South Africa studies were not included as there was no non-BF group. In each study, to roughly test for trends across breastfeeding categories, breastfeeding was coded as a continuous variable (EBF = 1, non-EBF = 2, and non-BF = 3). d Pooled estimates and 95% CI for the difference in (standardized) gut microbial alpha diversity (four common alpha diversity indexes) between non-EBF and EBF infants ≤6 months of age. e Pooled estimates and 95% CI for the trend effect of (standardized) gut microbial alpha diversity (four common alpha diversity indexes) across EBF, non-EBF, and non-BF infants ≤6 months of age. Estimates for diversity difference or trend and corresponding standard errors from each study were from linear mixed-effect models (longitudinal data) or linear models (non-longitudinal data) and were adjusted for infant age at sample collection. Pooled estimates of standardized diversity difference or trend and their 95% CI were from random-effects meta-analysis models based on the adjusted estimates and corresponding standard errors of all included studies. Pooled estimates with false discovery rate (FDR)-adjusted pooled p-values < 0.1 are shown as triangles. EBF exclusive breastfeeding, non-EBF non-exclusive breastfeeding, non-BF non-breastfeeding, USA United States of America, CA California, FL Florida, MA Massachusetts, MO Missouri, NC North Carolina, DD diversity difference, SE standard error, PD_whole_tree phylogenetic diversity whole tree
Fig. 2Effects of non-EBF vs. EBF on gut microbiota age in infants ≤6 months of age. a Gut (standardized) microbiota age of infants ≤6 months of age by breastfeeding status by age of infants at stool sample collection from each of seven included studies. Fitted lines and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were from generalized additive mixed models (GAMM). b The difference in gut (standardized) microbiota age between non-exclusively breastfed (non-EBF) and EBF infants ≤6 months of age from each study and the pooled effect across seven included studies (meta-analysis) with 95% CI. c The trend of gut (standardized) microbiota age across EBF, non-EBF, and non-BF infants ≤6 months of age from each study and the pooled effect across five included studies (meta-analysis) with 95% CI. The Haiti and South Africa studies were not included, as there was no non-BF group in these two studies. In each study, to test for trend across breastfeeding categories, breastfeeding was coded as a continuous variable in the model (EBF = 1, non-EBF = 2, and non-BF = 3). Estimates for (standardized) microbiota age difference or trend and corresponding standard error from each study were from linear mixed-effect models (for longitudinal data) or linear models (for non-longitudinal data) and were adjusted for age of infants at sample collection. EBF exclusive breastfeeding, non-EBF non-exclusive breastfeeding, non-BF no breastfeeding, USA United States of America, CA California, FL Florida, MA Massachusetts, MO Missouri, NC North Carolina, MD microbiota age difference, SE standard error
Fig. 3Effects of non-EBF vs. EBF on gut bacterial taxa abundances in infants ≤6 months of age. a Gut bacterial phyla: heatmap of log(odds ratio) (log[OR]) of relative abundances of all gut bacterial phyla between non-EBF and EBF infants for each study and forest plot of pooled estimates across all seven studies with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). b Gut bacterial families: heatmap of log(OR) of relative abundances of all gut bacterial families between non-EBF and EBF infants for each study and forest plot of pooled estimates across all seven studies with 95% CI. All log(OR) estimates of each bacterial taxa from each study were from generalized additive models for location scale and shape (GAMLSS) with zero-inflated beta family (BEZI) and were adjusted for age of infants at sample collection. Pooled log(OR) estimates and 95% CI (forest plot) were from random-effects meta-analysis models based on the adjusted log(OR) estimates and corresponding standard errors of all included studies. Pooled log(OR) estimates with pooled p-values < 0.05 are in red, and those with false discovery rate (FDR)-adjusted pooled p-values < 0.1 are shown as triangles. Missing (unavailable) values are in white. EBF exclusive breastfeeding, non-EBF non-exclusive breastfeeding, OR odds ratio, USA United States of America, CA California, FL Florida, MA Massachusetts, MO Missouri, NC North Carolina
Fig. 4Effects of non-EBF vs. EBF on gut bacterial pathway abundances in infants ≤6 months of age. a Meta-analysis of all infants in all seven included studies: heatmap of log(odds ratio) (log[OR]) of relative abundances of gut microbial KEGG pathways at level 3 between non-EBF and EBF infants for each study and forest plot of pooled estimates of all seven studies with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). b Meta-analysis of vaginally born infants in four studies: heatmap of log(OR) of relative abundances of gut microbial KEGG pathways at level 3 between non-EBF and EBF infants for each study and forest plot of pooled estimates of four studies with 95% CI. Only four studies with available birth mode information (Canada, Haiti, USA [CA–MA–MO] and USA [CA–FL]) are included. c Meta-analysis of C-section born infants in four studies: heatmap of log(OR) of relative abundances of gut microbial KEGG pathways at level 3 between non-EBF and EBF infants for each study and forest plot of pooled estimates of four studies with 95% CI. Only four studies with available birth mode information (Canada, Haiti, USA (CA–MA–MO) and USA (CA–FL)) are included. All log(OR) estimates of each pathway from each study were from generalized additive models for location scale and shape (GAMLSS) with zero-inflated beta family (BEZI) and were adjusted for age of infants at sample collection. Pooled log(OR) estimates and 95% CI (forest plot) were from random-effects meta-analysis models based on the adjusted log(OR) estimates and corresponding standard errors of all included studies. Pooled log(OR) estimates with pooled p-values < 0.05 are in red and those with false discovery rate (FDR)-adjusted pooled p-values < 0.1 are shown as triangles. Only pathways with FDR-adjusted pooled p-value < 0.1 are shown. EBF exclusive breastfeeding, non-EBF non-exclusive breastfeeding, KEGG Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes, OR odds ratio, USA United States of America, CA California, FL Florida, MA Massachusetts, MO Missouri, NC North Carolina
Fig. 5The continued effects of EBF on the infant gut microbiota up to 2 years of age. Data from Bangladesh study only. a The impact of duration of EBF (shorter than 2 months vs. longer than 2 months from birth) on gut microbiota age. b The impact of duration of EBF on gut bacterial family composition. c The effects of diarrhea (vs. no diarrhea) around the time of stool sample collection on gut microbiota age in infants with duration of EBF shorter than 2 months vs. longer than 2 months from birth. d The effects of diarrhea (vs. no diarrhea) around the time of stool sample collection on gut microbial diversity (Shannon index) in infants with duration of EBF shorter than 2 months vs. longer than 2 months from birth. e The effects of diarrhea (vs. no diarrhea) around the time of stool sample collection on gut bacterial taxa composition at the family level in infants with duration of EBF shorter than 2 months vs. longer than 2 months from birth. f The effects of diarrhea (vs. no diarrhea) around the time of stool sample collection on gut bacterial taxa composition at the family level in infants receiving no breastfeeding at the time of diarrhea vs. infants receiving breastfeeding at the time of diarrhea. Number of infants n = 50 (duration of EBF ≤ 2 months n = 30, duration of EBF > 2 months n = 20). Number of samples 0–2 years of age ns = 996 (duration of EBF ≤ 2 months ns = 580, duration of EBF > 2 months ns = 416). Number of samples 6 months to 2 years of age ns = 674 (duration of EBF ≤ 2 months ns = 378 [diarrhea ns = 29, no diarrhea ns = 349]; duration of EBF > 2 months ns = 296 [diarrhea ns = 19, no diarrhea ns = 277]; with breastfeeding ns = 616 [diarrhea ns = 45, no diarrhea ns = 571]; without breastfeeding ns = 44 [diarrhea ns = 2, no diarrhea ns = 42]). Fitted lines and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were from generalized additive mixed models (GAMM). Gray dashed lines demarcate time periods tested. Black stars indicate statistical significance. EBF exclusive breastfeeding, BF breastfeeding
Summary of the included studies
| Data origin, study population (reference) | Study design, sample size (≤6 months of age) | Breastfeeding categories, definition, and number of samples ( | Region of 16S rRNA genes/sequence platform |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bangladesh (Subramanian et al. 2014)[ | Longitudinal monthly stool sample collection during the first 2 years after birth of 50 healthy Bangladeshi children (25 singletons, 11 twin pairs, and one set of triplets). Number of samples ≤6 months of age: 322 | Three categories: (1) EBF: fed breast milk without formula or solid food ( | V4 /Illumina MiSeq |
| Canada (Azad et al. 2015)[ | One-time sample collection of 167 infants around 3 months of life (a subset of the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) national population-based birth cohort). Number of samples ≤ 6 months of age: 167 | Three categories: (1) EBF: fed breast milk without formula or solid food ( | V4/Illumina MiSeq |
| Haiti (Bender et al. 2016)[ | One-time stool sample collection of 48 HIV-negative infants with age varied from 0 to 6 months whose mothers were HIV negative ( | Two categories: (1) exclusive breastfeeding (EBF): fed only breast milk ( | V4 /Illumina MiSeq |
| South Africa (Wood et al. 2018)[ | Longitudinal stool sample collection of 72 healthy infants of HIV-negative mothers at birth, 6, and 14 weeks. Number of samples ≤ 6 months of age: 143 | Two categories: (1) EBF: fed breast milk exclusively, except for prescribed medicine ( | V4 /Illumina MiSeq |
| USA (California and Florida) (Pannaraj et al. 2017)[ | Longitudinal stool sample collection of 113 healthy full-term infants at 0–7 days, 8–30 days, 31–90 days, and 91–180 days. Number of samples ≤ 6 months of age: 230 | Three categories: (1) EBF: fed only breast milk ( | V4 /Illumina MiSeq |
| USA (Massachusetts, Missouri, and California) (Sordillo et al. 2017)[ | One-time stool sample collection of 228 infants at age 3 to 6 months who were enrolled in Vitamin D Antenatal Asthma Reduction Trial (VDAART), a clinical trial of vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy to prevent asthma and allergies in offspring. Number of samples ≤ 6 months of age: 220 | Three categories: (1) EBF: fed breast milk without formula or solid food ( | V3–V5/pyrosequencing (Roche 454 Titanium) |
| USA (North Carolina) (Thompson et al. 2015)[ | Longitudinal stool sample collection of six healthy full-term infants with varied age. Number of samples ≤ 6 months of age: 21 | Three categories: (1) EBF: fed breastmilk without formula or solid food ( | V1–2/Roche GS FLX Titanium |
aStudies with three breastfeeding categories (exclusive breastfeeding (EBF), non-exclusive breastfeeding (non-EBF), non-breastfeeding (non-BF)) used for trend tests across three categories
bStudies with available birth mode information used for meta-analysis stratified by birth mode
cStudies with available infant sex information used for the analyses adjusting for infant age and sex
dThis study contains data from 6 months to 2 years of age, which were used for the analysis from 6 months to 2 years of age. Data from this study were downloaded from the authors’ website: https://gordonlab.wustl.edu/Subramanian_6_14/Nature_2014_Processed_16S_rRNA_datasets.html. Data from six other studies were obtained directly from the investigators.
Additional summaries of these included studies are in Supplementary Table 13