Literature DB >> 35654895

Synchrony and idiosyncrasy in the gut microbiome of wild baboons.

Johannes R Björk1, Mauna R Dasari2, Kim Roche3, Laura Grieneisen4, Trevor J Gould4, Jean-Christophe Grenier5,6, Vania Yotova5, Neil Gottel7, David Jansen2, Laurence R Gesquiere8, Jacob B Gordon8, Niki H Learn9, Tim L Wango10,11, Raphael S Mututua10, J Kinyua Warutere10, Long'ida Siodi10, Sayan Mukherjee3, Luis B Barreiro12, Susan C Alberts8,13,14, Jack A Gilbert7, Jenny Tung8,13,14,15, Ran Blekhman4,16, Elizabeth A Archie17.   

Abstract

Human gut microbial dynamics are highly individualized, making it challenging to link microbiota to health and to design universal microbiome therapies. This individuality is typically attributed to variation in host genetics, diets, environments and medications but it could also emerge from fundamental ecological forces that shape microbiota more generally. Here, we leverage extensive gut microbial time series from wild baboons-hosts who experience little interindividual dietary and environmental heterogeneity-to test whether gut microbial dynamics are synchronized across hosts or largely idiosyncratic. Despite their shared lifestyles, baboon microbiota were only weakly synchronized. The strongest synchrony occurred among baboons living in the same social group, probably because group members range over the same habitat and simultaneously encounter the same sources of food and water. However, this synchrony was modest compared to each host's personalized dynamics. In support, host-specific factors, especially host identity, explained, on average, more than three times the deviance in longitudinal dynamics compared to factors shared with social group members and ten times the deviance of factors shared across the host population. These results contribute to mounting evidence that highly idiosyncratic gut microbiomes are not an artefact of modern human environments and that synchronizing forces in the gut microbiome (for example, shared environments, diets and microbial dispersal) are not strong enough to overwhelm key drivers of microbiome personalization, such as host genetics, priority effects, horizontal gene transfer and functional redundancy.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35654895      PMCID: PMC9271586          DOI: 10.1038/s41559-022-01773-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol        ISSN: 2397-334X            Impact factor:   19.100


  50 in total

1.  Microbiomes as Metacommunities: Understanding Host-Associated Microbes through Metacommunity Ecology.

Authors:  Elizabeth Theresa Miller; Richard Svanbäck; Brendan J M Bohannan
Journal:  Trends Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-09-25       Impact factor: 17.712

Review 2.  Timescales of gut microbiome dynamics.

Authors:  Brandon H Schlomann; Raghuveer Parthasarathy
Journal:  Curr Opin Microbiol       Date:  2019-11-02       Impact factor: 7.934

3.  Socially transmitted gut microbiota protect bumble bees against an intestinal parasite.

Authors:  Hauke Koch; Paul Schmid-Hempel
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2011-11-14       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  The application of ecological theory toward an understanding of the human microbiome.

Authors:  Elizabeth K Costello; Keaton Stagaman; Les Dethlefsen; Brendan J M Bohannan; David A Relman
Journal:  Science       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Coordinated change at the colony level in fruit bat fur microbiomes through time.

Authors:  Oren Kolodny; Maya Weinberg; Leah Reshef; Lee Harten; Abraham Hefetz; Uri Gophna; Marcus W Feldman; Yossi Yovel
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 15.460

6.  Universality of human microbial dynamics.

Authors:  Amir Bashan; Travis E Gibson; Jonathan Friedman; Vincent J Carey; Scott T Weiss; Elizabeth L Hohmann; Yang-Yu Liu
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2016-06-09       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  Neutrality in the Metaorganism.

Authors:  Michael Sieber; Lucía Pita; Nancy Weiland-Bräuer; Philipp Dirksen; Jun Wang; Benedikt Mortzfeld; Sören Franzenburg; Ruth A Schmitz; John F Baines; Sebastian Fraune; Ute Hentschel; Hinrich Schulenburg; Thomas C G Bosch; Arne Traulsen
Journal:  PLoS Biol       Date:  2019-06-19       Impact factor: 8.029

8.  Cohabitation is associated with a greater resemblance in gut microbiota which can impact cardiometabolic and inflammatory risk.

Authors:  Casey T Finnicum; Jeffrey J Beck; Conor V Dolan; Christel Davis; Gonneke Willemsen; Erik A Ehli; Dorret I Boomsma; Gareth E Davies; Eco J C de Geus
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 3.605

9.  Vertical transmission of sponge microbiota is inconsistent and unfaithful.

Authors:  Johannes R Björk; Cristina Díez-Vives; Carmen Astudillo-García; Elizabeth A Archie; José M Montoya
Journal:  Nat Ecol Evol       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 15.460

10.  Environmental responses, not species interactions, determine synchrony of dominant species in semiarid grasslands.

Authors:  Andrew T Tredennick; Claire de Mazancourt; Michel Loreau; Peter B Adler
Journal:  Ecology       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 5.499

View more
  1 in total

1.  Gut microbiota individuality is contingent on temporal scale and age in wild meerkats.

Authors:  Alice Risely; Dominik W Schmid; Nadine Müller-Klein; Kerstin Wilhelm; Tim H Clutton-Brock; Marta B Manser; Simone Sommer
Journal:  Proc Biol Sci       Date:  2022-08-17       Impact factor: 5.530

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.