| Literature DB >> 34078289 |
Lucas Moitinho-Silva1,2, Michelle Wegener3, Burkhard Weisser3, Corinna Bang4,5, Andre Franke1, Sandra May1, Florian Schrinner1, Awais Akhtar1, Teide J Boysen1, Eva Schaeffer6, Clint Hansen6, Timo Schmidt6, Malte C Rühlemann1, Matthias Hübenthal2, Philipp Rausch1, Mustafa T Kondakci3, Walter Maetzler6, Stephan Weidinger2, Matthias Laudes7, Philip Süß7, Dominik Schulte7, Ralf Junker8, Felix Sommer1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Human well-being has been linked to the composition and functional capacity of the intestinal microbiota. As regular exercise is known to improve human health, it is not surprising that exercise was previously described to positively modulate the gut microbiota, too. However, most previous studies mainly focused on either elite athletes or animal models. Thus, we conducted a randomised intervention study that focused on the effects of different types of training (endurance and strength) in previously physically inactive, healthy adults in comparison to controls that did not perform regular exercise. Overall study duration was ten weeks including six weeks of intervention period. In addition to 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing of longitudinally sampled faecal material of participants (six time points), detailed body composition measurements and analysis of blood samples (at baseline and after the intervention) were performed to obtain overall physiological changes within the intervention period. Activity tracker devices (wrist-band wearables) provided activity status and sleeping patterns of participants as well as exercise intensity and heart measurements.Entities:
Keywords: Exercise; Gut microbiota; Human health; Intervention; Physiology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34078289 PMCID: PMC8170780 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-021-02214-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 3.605
Fig. 1Graphical summary of study design and participants’ behaviour. a Number of included participants of the different groups are shown in parentheses. b Exercise intervention duration and sampling timepoints are shown. Activity tracker data (24 hours/7 days) were obtained from GARMIN® wristband devices. c Participants’ average daily steps, d summed hours at > 85 % age-predicted maximum heart rate (APHRM) and e average sleeping hours are represented. P-values for comparisons between groups are shown
Fig. 2Body measures and blood profile change before and after the exercise intervention period. Within-group changes in a body measures and b blood profiles were tested separately. Direction changes were similar for all groups for the measures shown. Adjusted P values of significant results (P < 0.05) are shown for each group in the upper left diagram corners for After versus Before comparison. Hip circ. = Hip circumference; PWC = physical working capacity 170 test; BDNF = brain-derived neurotrophic factor; Lymphocyte = lymphocyte counts x109/l; MCHC = mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration
Fig. 3Participant’s dietary habits. Dietary components or participants were summarized using principal component analysis (a, PCA). Each plotted number represent the dietary pattern of the stool sampling date summarized into two dimensions. Dietary information refers to the precedent week of the sampling day. Participants’ data are connected by line. Two scenarios were modelled to test for (i) within group differences in averages before and during the exercise intervention period (solid line) and to test for (ii) within group differences in averages after the exercise intervention (dashed lines). These models were applied to PC1 to test for the effect of days (β coefficient) on the general dietary habit of participants (b and c). Solid and dashed lines refer to the two model scenarios. Intake of meat cold cuts was increased in participants of strength group during intervention period (d)
Fig. 4Changes in the gut microbiome over time of different groups. Alpha diversity estimation of richness (a, Chao1) and diversity (b, Inverse Simpson - InvSimp) are shown. Two scenarios were modelled to test for (i) within group differences in averages before and during the exercise intervention period (solid line) and to test for (ii) within group differences in averages after the exercise intervention (dashed lines). Vertical lines indicate the beginning and end of the exercise intervention interval. P values of significant results (P < 0.05) are shown. c Nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) was used to visualize beta-diversity, i.e. samples’ Bray-Curtis dissimilarities. Numbers represent sampling days. The stress of the NMDS plots was 0.28, indicating a poor goodness of fit
Fig. 5Comparison of gut microbiome in physically inactive participants vs. elite athletes. a Alpha diversity estimation of richness (Chao1) and diversity (InvSimp) are shown. b Nonmetric multidimensional scaling was used to visualize beta-diversity, i.e. samples’ Bray-Curtis dissimilarities. The stress of the NMDS plots was 0.26, indicating a poor goodness of fit. Marginal boxplots were added to visualize distribution of samples along axis. c ASVs found to be statistically more abundant in physically inactive participants or in elite athletes (adjusted P values < 0.05). Names of the bacteria genera are shown. Phascolarctobacterium and Ruminococcaceae (ASV classified to the family level) were abbreviated. A regression line was fit to illustrate the direction of change. d DNA concentration from Veillonella bacteria were quantified by qPCR using microbial DNA extracted from stool. No statistically significant difference was found for Veillonella between physically inactive participants and elite athletes
Baseline demographics and anthropometric data of the study participants
| Group | n | Sex (%m/%f) | Age | Weight (kg) | BMI | PWCa (km/h) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 11 | 36/64 | 33.4 ± 7.9 | 78.7 ± 18.2 | 26.9 ± 5.6 | 8.5 ± 1.7 |
| Endurance | 13 | 23/77 | 31.4 ± 8.3 | 68 ± 10 | 23.1 ± 3.2 | 9 ± 1.7 |
| Strength | 12 | 50/50 | 29.9 ± 7.9 | 85.6 ± 25.7 | 26.3 ± 6.6 | 9.4 ± 1.6 |
| Elite | 13 | 38/62 | 30 ± 9.9 | - | - | 166.8 ± 159.9 |
Average (∅) values are shown and standard deviation is depicted as ±
a Physical working capacity 170 test