4.8 Article

Rethinking gut microbiome residency and the Enterobacteriaceae in healthy human adults

Journal

ISME JOURNAL
Volume 13, Issue 9, Pages 2306-2318

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41396-019-0435-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Office of Research and Economic Development at Montana State University
  2. Undergraduate Research Program at Montana State University
  3. National Institute of Health (National Institute of General Medical Sciences) [P20GM103474]
  4. Kopriva Graduate Student Fellowship at Montana State University
  5. United States Department of Agriculture Hatch Project [1009600]
  6. National Institutes of Health (National Institute of General Medical Sciences and the National Cancer Institute) [R01CA215784]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Longitudinal human gut microbiome datasets generated using community-level, sequence-based approaches often report a sub-set of long-lived resident taxa that rarely, if ever, are lost. This result contrasts with population-level turnover of resident clones on the order of months to years. We hypothesized that the disconnect between these results is due to a relative lack of simultaneous discrimination of the human gut microbiome at both the community and population-levels. Here, we present results of a small, longitudinal cohort study (n = 8 participants) of healthy human adults that identifies static and dynamic members of the gut microbiome at the clone level based on cultivation/genetic discrimination and at the operational taxonomic unit/amplified sequence variant levels based on 16S rRNA sequencing. We provide evidence that there is little stability within resident clonal populations of the common gut microbiome bacterial family, Enterobacteriaceae. Given that clones can vary substantially in genome content and that evolutionary processes operate on the population level, these results question the biological relevance of apparent stability at higher taxonomic levels.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available