4.5 Article

Limited microbiome differences in captive and semi-wild primate populations consuming similar diets

期刊

FEMS MICROBIOLOGY ECOLOGY
卷 98, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiac098

关键词

captivity; diet; microbiome; primate

资金

  1. National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) [8-P40 OD012217-25]
  2. Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP) of the National Institutes of Health
  3. NIMH [R01-MH096875, R01-MH089484, R01-MH118203]
  4. CD Fund
  5. Emch Fund
  6. ORIP-NIH [U42OD0211458]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gut microbial communities are influenced by various factors, such as diet and environment. This study found that hosts in different environments can have different gut microbiomes, even with a shared diet, although the differences observed were relatively small. This suggests that sharing the same diet may limit the usual influence of environmental microbes on gut microbiota.
Gut microbial communities are shaped by a myriad of extrinsic factors, including diet and the environment. Although distinct human populations consistently exhibit different gut microbiome compositions, variation in diet and environmental factors are almost always coupled, making it difficult to disentangle their relative contributions to shaping the gut microbiota. Data from discrete animal populations with similar diets can help reduce confounds. Here, we assessed the gut microbiota of free-ranging and captive rhesus macaques with at least 80% diet similarity to test the hypothesis that hosts in difference environments will have different gut microbiomes despite a shared diet. Although we found that location was a significant predictor of gut microbial composition, the magnitude of observed differences was relatively small. These patterns suggest that a shared diet may limit the typical influence of environmental microbial exposure on the gut microbiota. Sharing the same diet limits the usual influence of environmental microbial exposure on the gut microbiota.

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

4.5
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