| Literature DB >> 31640566 |
Casey T Finnicum1, Jeffrey J Beck2, Conor V Dolan3,4, Christel Davis2, Gonneke Willemsen3,4, Erik A Ehli2, Dorret I Boomsma2,3,4, Gareth E Davies2,4, Eco J C de Geus3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The gut microbiota composition is known to be influenced by a myriad of factors including the host genetic profile and a number of environmental influences. Here, we focus on the environmental influence of cohabitation on the gut microbiota as well as whether these environmentally influenced microorganisms are associated with cardiometabolic and inflammatory burden. We perform this by investigating the gut microbiota composition of various groups of related individuals including cohabitating monozygotic (MZ) twin pairs, non-cohabitating MZ twin pairs and spouse pairs.Entities:
Keywords: Cohabitation; Gut microbiota; Twin genetics
Year: 2019 PMID: 31640566 PMCID: PMC6805388 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-019-1602-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Alpha diversity correlations between the different groups of individuals with varying degrees of relatedness
Fig. 2Boxplot of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity corresponding to the various relatedness groups
Genera and families identified as having a significant intraclass correlation coefficient (Bonferroni corrected p-value < 0.05)
| Cohabitating MZ | Non-Cohabitating MZ | Spouse | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genus | Firmicutes_unclassified* | Firmicutes_unclassified* | Barnesiella |
| Senegalimassilia | Intestinimonas | Porphyromonadaceae_unclassified | |
| Bacteria_unclassified | Dialister | Paraprevotella | |
| Veillonella | Akkermansia | ||
| Romboutsia | Terrisporobacter | ||
| Olsenella | Anaerostipes | ||
| Enterobacteriaceae_unclassified | |||
| Erysipelotrichaceae_unclassified | |||
| Flavonifractor | |||
| Family | Firmicutes_unclassified* | Firmicutes_unclassified* | Firmicutes_unclassified* |
| Bacteria_unclassified | Verrucomicrobiaceae | Porphyromonadaceae | |
| Enterobacteriaceae | Peptostreptococcaceae | ||
| Peptostreptococcaceae | Ruminococcaceae | ||
| Ruminococcaceae |
* indicates same unclassified taxon
Fig. 3Difference in the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) from the cohabitating and non-cohabitating twin pairs. Bars are labeled with the phylum classification of the species level OTU (0.03 cutoff). Bars that extend to the left indicate a larger intraclass correlation coefficient in the non-cohabitating MZ pairs for that particular OTU (Non-cohab. ICC > Cohab. ICC), whereas bars extending to the right indicate a larger intraclass correlation coefficient in the cohabitating MZ pairs relative to the non-cohabitating MZ pairs (Cohab. ICC > Non-cohab.)
Fig. 4Difference in the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) from the spouse pairs and the randomly generated spouse pairs. Bars are labeled with the phylum classification of the species level OTU (0.03 cutoff). Bars that extend to the left indicate a larger intraclass correlation coefficient in the unrelated spouse pairs for that particular OTU, whereas bars extending to the right indicate a larger intraclass correlation coefficient in the actual pairs relative to the unrelated spouse pairs
Percentage of species level OTUs within a phylum that have a greater ICC value in the cohabitating MZ twins relative to the non-cohabitating twins. Phylum classification was based on the consensus taxonomic classification of the OTU
| Phylum of OTU | # of OTUs | PERCENTAGe Cohab ICC > Non-Cohab ICC |
|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria | 10 | 80% |
| Unclassified bacteria | 4 | 75% |
| Bacteroidetes | 26 | 61.5% |
| Firmicutes | 182 | 54.4% |
| Proteobacteria | 9 | 55.6% |
| Verrucomicrobia | 1 | 0% |