4.6 Article

Gut Microbial Protein Expression in Response to Dietary Patterns in a Controlled Feeding Study: A Metaproteomic Approach

Journal

MICROORGANISMS
Volume 8, Issue 3, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8030379

Keywords

Microbiome; proteomics; dietary intervention; SCFA; fatty acid metabolism; dysbiosis; mucin-degrading enzymes

Categories

Funding

  1. NIH/NCI [R01 CA192222, U54 CA116847, P30 CA015704, R01 CA211892]
  2. NIH [P41 GM103533]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Although the gut microbiome has been associated with dietary patterns linked to health, microbial metabolism is not well characterized. This ancillary study was a proof of principle analysis for a novel application of metaproteomics to study microbial protein expression in a controlled dietary intervention. We measured the response of the microbiome to diet in a randomized crossover dietary intervention of a whole-grain, low glycemic load diet (WG) and a refined-grain, high glycemic load diet (RG). Total proteins in stools from 9 participants at the end of each diet period (n = 18) were analyzed by LC MS/MS and proteins were identified using the Human Microbiome Project (HMP) human gut microbiome database and UniProt human protein databases. T-tests, controlling for false discovery rate (FDR) <10%, were used to compare the Gene Ontology (GO) biological processes and bacterial enzymes between the two interventions. Using shotgun proteomics, more than 53,000 unique peptides were identified including microbial (89%) and human peptides (11%). Forty-eight bacterial enzymes were statistically different between the diets, including those implicated in SCFA production and degradation of fatty acids. Enzymes associated with degradation of human mucin were significantly enriched in the RG diet. These results illustrate that the metaproteomic approach is a valuable tool to study the microbial metabolism of diets that may influence host health.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available