| Literature DB >> 32011017 |
Emma Kortekangas1, Arox W Kamng'ona2,3, Yue-Mei Fan1, Yin Bun Cheung4, Ulla Ashorn1, Andrew Matchado3,5, Basho Poelman1, Kenneth Maleta5, Kathryn G Dewey6, Per Ashorn1,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gut microbiota composition is associated with child health, but the effect of the environment on microbiota composition is not well understood. Few studies have been conducted in low-income settings where childhood malnutrition is common and possibly related to microbiota composition.Entities:
Keywords: child health; environment; gut microbiota; seasons; socio-economic factors
Year: 2020 PMID: 32011017 PMCID: PMC7154550 DOI: 10.1111/ppe.12623
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol ISSN: 0269-5022 Impact factor: 3.980
Figure 1Participant flow
Characteristics of included and excluded study participants
| Characteristic | Included | Excluded |
|---|---|---|
| Participants, n | 673 | 206 |
| Maternal age at enrolment, years | 25 (20;29) | 23 (19;28) |
| Maternal education completed, years | 3 (0;6) | 4 (2;8) |
| Positive malaria RDT of the mother at enrolment | 23% | 23% |
| Gestational age at birth, weeks | 39.6 (38.1;40.6) | 39.4 (37.4; 40.6) |
| LAZ at birth | −1.0 (1.1) | −1.4 (1.2) |
| Length at birth | 49.7 (2.3) | 49.2 (2.3) |
| LAZ at 18 mo | −1.7 (1.1) | −2.2 (1.8) |
| Length at 18 mo | 76.9 (3.0) | 75.5 (5.8) |
| Household assets Z‐score | −0.1 (1.0) | 0.4 (1.2) |
| Ownership of any chicken | 55% | 46% |
| Ownership of any goats | 29% | 24% |
| Ownership of any cows | 5% | 1% |
| Source of drinking water is borehole, well, river, or lake (vs piped) | 86% | 68% |
| Type of sanitary facility is none or regular pit latrine (vs ventilation improved pit latrine or water closet) | 90% | 89% |
Values are in mean or median (standard deviation or interquartile range) or percentages. P‐values are obtained from Mann‐Whitney test or t test (continuous variables) or chi‐square test (proportions).
Abbreviations: LAZ, length‐for‐age Z‐score; RDT, rapid diagnostic test.
Figure 2Genera and OTUs with highest relative abundances as percentage of all reads at 18 and 30 mo [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]
The association between environmental exposure variables and the study participants’ microbiota diversity and maturity at 18 mo
| Association between exposure and outcome variable | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Exposure variables | MAZ score | Shannon index | |
| Regression coefficient (95% confidence interval) | Regression coefficient (95% confidence interval) | ||
| Household assets Z‐score below median | −0.1 (−0.5, 0.3) | 0.0 (−0.1, 0.1) | |
| Ownership of any chicken | −0.1 (−0.4, 0.2) | 0.0 (−0.1, 0.1) | |
| Ownership of any goats | −0.2 (−0.5, 0.2) | −0.2 (−0.3, −0.0) | |
| Ownership of any cows | −0.1 (−0.8, 0.6) | −0.0 (−0.2, 0.2) | |
| Source of drinking water is borehole, well, river, or lake (vs piped) | −0.0 (−0.5, 0.5) | −0.1 (−0.3, 0.1) | |
| Type of sanitary facility is none or regular pit latrine (vs ventilation improved pit latrine or water closet) | −0.1 (−0.6, 0.5) | −0.0 (−0.2, 0.2) | |
| Antibiotics use above median | −0.2 (−0.5, 0.2) | −0.1 (−0.2, 0.0) | |
| Education level of the mother below median | 0.4 (0.0, 0.7) | 0.2 (0.1, 0.3) | |
| Age of the mother in years | 0.0 (−0.0, 0.0) | 0.0 (−0.0, 0.0) | |
| Marital status of the mother is single, divorced, or widowed | −0.2 (−0.7, 0.3) | 0.1 (−0.1, 0.3) | |
| Mother HIV positive | 0.3 (−0.2, 0.8) | 0.0 (−0.1, 0.2) | |
| Male sex of child | 0.2 (−0.1, 0.5) | 0.0 (−0.1, 0.1) | |
| Delivered by caesarean section | −0.2 (−0.8, 0.5) | 0.0 (−0.2, 0.2) | |
| Season | Rainy | 0.0 (Reference) | 0.0 (Reference) |
| Cold dry | 0.2 (−0.2, 0.7) | 0.1 (−0.1, 0.2) | |
| Hot dry | −0.3 (−0.7, 0.2) | −0.1 (−0.2, 0.1) | |
Results from multivariable analysis.
Abbreviation: MAZ score, microbiota‐for‐age Z‐score.
Adjusted for listed exposure variables, exact age, sample processing pool, and sequencing depth.
Figure 3Differences in OTU abundances at 30 mo between samples collected in the dry and cold season and samples collected in the dry and hot or rainy seasons. Results from zero‐inflated negative binominal model adjusted for other environmental predictor variables and covariates. The dots represent OTUs arranged according to ln fold change (lnFC) in OTU abundance between samples collected in different seasons and the corresponding fdr‐corrected P‐values. Positive lnFC values represent OTUs that are less abundant in samples collected in the dry and cold season compared with the dry and hot and rainy seasons. Differences in OTUs in orange and blue above the solid line were significant at level q = 0.05 [Colour figure can be viewed at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com]