4.8 Article

Stochastic changes over time and not founder effects drive cage effects in microbial community assembly in a mouse model

期刊

ISME JOURNAL
卷 7, 期 11, 页码 2116-2125

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/ismej.2013.106

关键词

cage; time; succession; microbiome; mixed linear models

资金

  1. UNC University Cancer Research Fund
  2. Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America fellowship
  3. [R01 DK73338]
  4. [R01 DK47700]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Maternal transmission and cage effects are powerful confounding factors in microbiome studies. To assess the consequences of cage microenvironment on the mouse gut microbiome, two groups of germ-free (GF) wild-type (WT) mice, one gavaged with a microbiota harvested from adult WT mice and another allowed to acquire the microbiome from the cage microenvironment, were monitored using Illumina 16S rRNA sequencing over a period of 8 weeks. Our results revealed that cage effects in WT mice moved from GF to specific pathogen free (SPF) conditions take several weeks to develop and are not eliminated by the initial gavage treatment. Initial gavage influenced, but did not eliminate a successional pattern in which Proteobacteria became less abundant over time. An analysis in which 16S rRNA sequences are mapped to the closest sequenced whole genome suggests that the functional potential of microbial genomes changes significantly over time shifting from an emphasis on pathogenesis and motility early in community assembly to metabolic processes at later time points. Functionally, mice allowed to naturally acquire a microbial community from their cage, but not mice gavaged with a common biome, exhibit a cage effect in Dextran Sulfate Sodium-induced inflammation. Our results argue that while there are long-term effects of the founding community, these effects are mitigated by cage microenvironment and successional community assembly over time, which must both be explicitly considered in the interpretation of microbiome mouse experiments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据