4.6 Article

Behavioral response to fiber feedingis cohort-dependent and associated with gut microbiota composition in mice

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 359, 期 -, 页码 731-736

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.09.012

关键词

Gut microbiota; Learning; Memory; Fiber; Cohort; Reproducibility

资金

  1. Center for Nutrition, Learning and Memory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent data has supported a role for the gut microbiota in improving cognition and shaping behavior. Here, we assessed whether pectin, a soluble, fermentable fiber, could enhance learning and memory in mice. Two cohorts of young male C57B1/6 J mice, C1 (n = 20) and C2 (n = 20), were obtained from Jackson Laboratory and randomized to semi-purified AIN-93 M diets containing 5% pectin (n = 10) or cellulose (n = 10). After 16 weeks, learning and memory was assessed by Morris Water Maze (MWM) and microbiota composition was analyzed by 16S rRNA sequencing. Despite identical treatment, we observed differences in learning and memory abilities between cohorts, along with distinct microbiotas. In C1, pectin-fed mice spent a higher percentage of time in the target quadrant at the 24-h probe trial of the MWM versus cellulose-fed mice; in C2, no effect of pectin was observed. In both cohorts, UniFrac distance revealed significant differences in gut microbial communities between cellulose-fed and pectin-fed mice. UniFrac analysis also revealed significantly different bacterial communities between cohorts. Further analysis demonstrated that the microbial genera Oscillospira, Bilophila, and Peptostreptococcoceae were more abundant in C1 versus C2, and positively associated with distance from the platform during the 24-h probe test. These data support previous findings that differences in the gut microbiota may play a role in host response to a dietary intervention and could partly explain irreproducibility in psychological and behavioral experiments. Further research is needed to determine if a causal relationship exists.

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

4.6
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