| Literature DB >> 33129264 |
O H Oduaran1,2, F B Tamburini3, V Sahibdeen4, R Brewster5, F X Gómez-Olivé6,7, K Kahn6,7, S A Norris8,9, S M Tollman6,7, R Twine6, A N Wade6, R G Wagner6,7, Z Lombard4, A S Bhatt3,5,10, S Hazelhurst11,12.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comparisons of traditional hunter-gatherers and pre-agricultural communities in Africa with urban and suburban Western North American and European cohorts have clearly shown that diet, lifestyle and environment are associated with gut microbiome composition. Yet, little is known about the gut microbiome composition of most communities in the very diverse African continent. South Africa comprises a richly diverse ethnolinguistic population that is experiencing an ongoing epidemiological transition and concurrent spike in the prevalence of obesity, largely attributed to a shift towards more Westernized diets and increasingly inactive lifestyle practices. To characterize the microbiome of African adults living in more mainstream lifestyle settings and investigate associations between the microbiome and obesity, we conducted a pilot study, designed collaboratively with community leaders, in two South African cohorts representative of urban and transitioning rural populations. As the rate of overweight and obesity is particularly high in women, we collected single time-point stool samples from 170 HIV-negative women (51 at Soweto; 119 at Bushbuckridge), performed 16S rRNA gene sequencing on these samples and compared the data to concurrently collected anthropometric data.Entities:
Keywords: 16S; African microbiome; Epidemiological transition; Obesity; South African microbiome; Transitional microbiome
Year: 2020 PMID: 33129264 PMCID: PMC7603784 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-020-02017-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Age and BMI distribution of cohorts
| Mean ± SD | Median | Range | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bushbuckridge | 55.50 ± 7.77 | 55 | 43 - 72 |
| Soweto | 54.10 ± 5.86 | 54 | 43 - 64 |
| Bushbuckridge | 32.6 ± 7.95 | 31.17 | 21.23 - 58.97 |
| Soweto | 36.05 ± 9.23 | 36.52 | 20.43 - 58.62 |
Fig. 1Rarefaction curve of sampled data. This figure shows all 170 of the sampled across the Bushbuckridge and Soweto cohorts
Distribution of taxonomic classification of filtered ASVs in sampled South African pilot dataset
| Taxa Level | Classified ASVs | Associated Taxa | % Unclassified ASVs |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kingdom | 1,688 | 2 | 0.00% |
| Phylum | 1,668 | 14 | 1.18% |
| Class | 1,638 | 25 | 2.96% |
| Order | 1,628 | 30 | 3.55% |
| Family | 1,444 | 54 | 14.45% |
| Genus | 1,114 | 124 | 34.00% |
| Species | 161 | 111 | 90.46% |
Fig. 2Boxplots of Shannon and Chao1 alpha diversity measure estimates. Alpha diversity comparisons of lean and obese samples: (a) cohort-wide and (b) site-specific. Overall study cohort differences are shown in (c). ‘*’ indicates a statistically significant difference as measured by the Wilcoxon rank sum test with a p-value of < 0.05
Fig. 3Beta diversity PCoA plots with Bray-Curtis dissimilarity measure. Combined Bushbuckridge and Soweto datasets indicating differences in (a) Cohort-wide and (b) Lean vs obese categories. Site-specific lean and obese sampled data in (c) Bushbuckridge and (d) Soweto. Inset p-values resulted from PERMANOVA analysis between compared groups
Alpha and beta diversity significance of compared groups. Alpha diversity p-values were calculated with pairwise Wilcoxon rank sum test. Bray-Curtis diversity p-values were calculated with PERMANOVA
| Sample Distribution | Group Comparisons | Shannon | Chao1 | Bray-Curtis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bushbuckridge and Soweto | Lean vs Obese | 0.72 | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Bushbuckridge and Soweto | Lean vs Lean | 0.69 | 0.72 | 0.01 |
| Bushbuckridge and Soweto | Obese vs Obese | 0.01 | < 0.001 | 0.001 |
| All samples | Bushbuckridge vs Soweto | 0.01 | < 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bushbuckridge | Lean vs Obese | 0.85 | 0.001 | 0.02 |
| Soweto | Lean vs Obese | 0.45 | 0.33 | 0.84 |
Fig. 4Taxonomic profiles of the gut microbiome of the sampled South African dataset. Phylum level relative abundance values are depicted in the boxplots in (a) Combined Bushbuckridge and Soweto cohorts, (b) Bushbuckridge and (c) Soweto. The corresponding genera abundance levels are depicted in d, e and f respectively. ‘*’ indicates a statistically significant difference as measured by the Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test with a p-value of < 0.05
Fig. 5Differential abundance comparison volcano plots of ASVs significantly abundant in Soweto (SWT) vs Bushbuckridge (BBR) in (a) Combined dataset, (b) Lean samples and (c) Obese samples. ASVs significantly abundant in obese (OB) vs lean (LN) samples are shown in (d) Combined dataset, (e) Bushbuckridge and (f) Soweto. The horizontal dashed line indicates a threshold of Benjamini-Hochberg-adjusted p < 0.1
Marker taxa analysis. Comparisons between the South African (RSA) cohorts data and benchmarked data sets from the curatedMetagenomicData (cMD). (a) cMD Western (W) data vs RSA data and (b) cMD non-Western (NW) data vs RSA data. The Kruskal-Wallis (KW) rank sum test was used in the calculation of the p-values
| 0.543 | 0.030 | 4.409 | 2.20E-16 | |
| 0.116 | 0.003 | 5.085 | 6.30E-01 | |
| 0.015 | 0.043 | -4.139 | 3.09E-16 | |
| 0.049 | 0.033 | -0.552 | 1.39E-01 | |
| 0.056 | 0.012 | 0.251 | 9.39E-01 | |
| 0.040 | 0.118 | -2.789 | 2.20E-16 | |
| 0.268 | 0.384 | -1.183 | 1.08E-08 | |
| 0.043 | 0.050 | -0.719 | 7.21E-05 | |
| 0.543 | 0.760 | -4.685 | 1.02E-03 | |
| 0.116 | 0.001 | 1.638 | 5.18E-01 | |
| 0.015 | 0.097 | -1.159 | 2.20E-16 | |
| 0.049 | 0.001 | 4.481 | 6.28E-14 | |
| 0.056 | 0.001 | 3.227 | 9.20E-03 | |
| 0.040 | 0.008 | 3.917 | 3.59E-03 | |
| 0.268 | 0.020 | 4.243 | 2.20E-16 | |
| 0.043 | 0.006 | 3.091 | 2.20E-16 | |
Fig. 6Variance Importance Plot resulting from the Random Forest analysis of proposed Western and non-Western marker taxa abundances in the subsampled curatedMetagenomicData (cMD). Comparisons between the study data (RSA) with (a) Western cMD, and (b) non-Western cMD. c Western versus non-Western cMD comparison
Group comparisons evaluated in this study
| Groups | Targeted Evaluation | Sample Data (No. of Samples) |
|---|---|---|
| Bushbuckridge | Overall site differences | All samples - lean, overweight and obese (167) |
| Bushbuckridge | Compositional differences in the lean category between sites | Bushbuckridge and Soweto lean samples only (30) |
| Bushbuckridge | Compositional differences in the obese category between sites | Bushbuckridge and Soweto obese samples only (106) |
| Lean | Cohort-wide BMI compositional categorical differences | Bushbuckridge and Soweto lean and obese samples only (136) |
| Lean | Site-specific BMI compositional categorical differences | Bushbuckridge lean and obese samples only (87) |
| Lean | Site-specific BMI compositional categorical differences | SWT lean and obese samples only (49) |