4.8 Article

Geographic differences in gut microbiota composition impact susceptibility to enteric infection

期刊

CELL REPORTS
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2021.109457

关键词

-

资金

  1. Gates Foundation [OPP1161064]
  2. Cornell University's Presidential Postdoctoral Fellowship program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large-scale studies of human gut microbiomes have shown broad differences in composition across geographically distinct populations, which may lead to varying levels of resistance to specific diseases. Experimenting with microbiome samples from donors representing different countries, researchers observed geographic differences in susceptibility of mice to specific bacterial infections. Further findings suggest that cohabitation of susceptible and resistant mice can enhance immunity to bacterial infections.
Large-scale studies of human gut microbiomes have revealed broad differences in composition across geographically distinct populations. Yet, studies examining impacts of microbiome composition on various health outcomes typically focus on single populations, posing the question of whether compositional differences between populations translate into differences in susceptibility. Using germ-free mice humanized with microbiome samples from 30 donors representing three countries, we observe robust differences in susceptibility to Citrobacter rodentium, a model for enteropathogenic Escherichia coli infections, according to geographic origin. We do not see similar responses to Listeria monocytogenes infections. We further find that cohousing the most susceptible and most resistant mice confers protection from C. rodentium infection. This work underscores the importance of increasing global participation in microbiome studies related to health outcomes. Diverse cohorts are needed to identify both population-specific responses to specific microbiome interventions and to achieve broader-reaching biological conclusions that generalize across populations.

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