| Literature DB >> 33898919 |
Lilian Lopez Leyva1, Emmanuel Gonzalez2, Chen Li1, Tamara Ajeeb1, Noel W Solomons3, Luis B Agellon1, Marilyn E Scott4, Kristine G Koski1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human milk contains a diverse community of bacteria that are modified by maternal factors, but whether these or other factors are similar in developing countries has not been explored. Our objective was to determine whether the milk microbiota was modified by maternal age, BMI, parity, lactation stage, subclinical mastitis (SCM), and breastfeeding practices in the first 6 mo of lactation in an indigenous population from Guatemala.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA sequencing; Mam-Mayan; exclusive breastfeeding; indigenous; microbial diversity; milk microbiota; predominant breastfeeding
Year: 2021 PMID: 33898919 PMCID: PMC8053399 DOI: 10.1093/cdn/nzab013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Dev Nutr ISSN: 2475-2991
Characteristics of the indigenous population of Mam-Mayan mothers (n = 86)
| Maternal factors | Mean ± SD or % |
|---|---|
|
| 23.3 ± 3.2 |
| Healthy weight (18.5–24.9), % | 78 |
| Overweight (>25), % | 22 |
|
| |
| Early 5–46 d, % | 45 |
| Early, x̅ days | 20.2 ± 10.6 |
| Established 4–6 mo, % | 55 |
| Established, x̅ days | 144.1 ± 20.1 |
|
| |
| Primiparous, % | 48 |
| Multiparous, % | 52 |
|
| 23.5 ± 6.4 |
| Adolescent ≤19, % | 23 |
| Adult >19, % | 77 |
|
| |
| Yes Na/K >0.6, % | 12 |
| No Na/K ≤0.6, % | 88 |
|
| |
| Exclusive and predominant, % | 86 |
| Mixed, % | 14 |
FIGURE 1A) Human milk microbiota diversity based on pooled samples from all mothers, illustrated as relative abundance along major taxonomic levels. Total counts for each taxonomic unit are specified between parentheses (in million). Only taxonomic units with a total count >100,000 are accounted for in the legends. B) Major clades including weighted nodes (genera >100,000 counts) as analyzed in the human milk microbiota. The 9 most abundant genera are identified.
FIGURE 2Distance-based redundancy analysis (db-RDA or CAP) ordination representations (Bray distance) for A) maternal age; B) maternal BMI; C) parity; D) stage of lactation; E) Infant feeding practices; and F) SCM. Significant clustering of groups was found for maternal BMI, parity, and stage of lactation (ANOVA), P <0.05. EBF, exclusive breastfeeding; PBF, predominant breastfeeding; SCM, subclinical mastitis.
FIGURE 3Differential abundance plots for each maternal factor: A) maternal age (adult versus adolescent); B) maternal BMI (healthy weight versus overweight); C) parity (primiparous versus multiparous); D) stage of lactation (early versus established); E) breastfeeding practices (exclusively/predominant breastfeeding versus mixed feeding); and F) SCM (yes or no). Each plot shows fold change for the differentially abundant taxonomic units (group size fixed to a minimum of 10 and effect size to a fold change of 5). Error bars represent the SE on the estimated fold change. EBF, exclusive breastfeeding; PBF, predominant breastfeeding; SCM, subclinical mastitis.
Comparative summary of differentially abundant bacterial genera by maternal factors and infant feeding practices
| Adult mothers | Healthy BMI | Multiparous >1 childbirth | Early lactation | EBF:PBF | Non-SCM | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria | ||||||
| Actinobacteria; Actinomycetales; Dietziaceae; | — | ↑ | — | — | — | — |
| Actinobacteria; Actinomycetales; Micrococcaceae; | ↑ | — | — | — | ↑ | ↑ |
| Actinobacteria; Corynebacteriales; Corynebacteriaceae; | — | — | — | — | ↑ | — |
| Actinobacteria; Micrococcineae; Microbacteriaceae; | — | — | — | — | ↑ | ↑ |
| Firmicutes | ||||||
| Bacilli; Lactobacillales; Lactobacillaceae; | — | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ |
| Bacilli; Lactobacillales; Leuconostocaceae | — | — | ↑ | — | — | ↑ |
| Bacilli; Lactobacillales; Streptococcaceae; | — | — | ↑ | — | ↑ | ↑ |
| Bacilli; Lactobacillales; Streptococcaceae; | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | ↑ | — | — |
| Fusobacteria | ||||||
| Fusobacteria; Fusobacterales; Fusobacteriaceae; | — | — | — | ↓ | ↓ | — |
| Proteobacteria | ||||||
| Alphaproteobacteria; Caulobacterales; Caulobacteraceae; | — | — | — | — | ↑ | — |
| Alphaproteobacteria; Rhizobiales; Bradyrhizobiaceae; | ↓ | — | — | — | ↑ | — |
| Alphaproteobacteria; Rhizobiales; Bradyrhizobiaceae; | — | — | — | — | — | ↑ |
| Alphaproteobacteria; Rhodobacterales; Rhodobacteraceae; | — | — | — | — | ↑ | — |
| Alphaproteobacteria; Rhodospirillales; Acetobacteraceae; | ↓ | ↓ | ↓ | — | — | — |
| Alphaproteobacteria; Sphingomonadales; Sphingomonadaceae; | — | ↑ | — | — | — | — |
| Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Comamonadaceae; | — | ↑ | ↓ | ↓ | — | — |
| Betaproteobacteria; Neisseriales; Neisseriaceae; | ↑ | — | — | — | ↑ | — |
| Gammaproteobacteria; Enterobacteriales; Enterobacteriaceae; | — | — | ↓ | — | — | ↑ |
Group size fixed to a minimum of 10 and effect size to a fold change of 5. Each arrow reflects the higher or lower differential abundance in comparison to the contrasting group (adults versus adolescents, healthy BMI versus overweight, multiparous versus primiparous, early lactation versus established lactation, exclusive and predominant breastfeeding versus mixed feeding and Non-SCM versus SCM). The symbol (—) represents ''not found''.
FIGURE 4Comparison at genera level by lactation stage and breastfeeding practices. Centroide crosses represent the shift of each group and their distinct cluster. Early lactation clusters differently than established; predominant and mixed feeding cluster higher on the y-axis scale than exclusive breastfeeding.