4.6 Article

Molecular Characterization and Meta-Analysis of Gut Microbial Communities Illustrate Enrichment of Prevotella and Megasphaera in Indian Subjects

期刊

FRONTIERS IN MICROBIOLOGY
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00660

关键词

Indian subjects; 16S rRNA amplicon; qPCR; Prevotella and Megasphaera

资金

  1. Department of Biotechnology, Government of India [BT/PR10054/NDB/52/94/2007]
  2. University Grant Commission (UGC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gut microbiome has varied impact on the wellbeing of humans. It is influenced by different factors such as age, dietary habits, socio-economic status, geographic location, and genetic makeup of individuals. For devising microbiome-based therapies, it is crucial to identify population specific features of the gut microbiome. Indian population is one of the most ethnically, culturally, and geographically diverse, but the gut microbiome features remain largely unknown. The present study describes gut microbial communities of healthy Indian subjects and compares it with the microbiota from other populations. Based on large differences in alpha diversity indices, abundance of 11 bacterial phyla and individual specific OTUs, we report inter-individual variations in gut microbial communities of these subjects. While the gut microbiome of Indians is different from that of Americans, it shared high similarity to individuals from the Indian subcontinent i.e., Bangladeshi. Distinctive feature of Indian gut microbiota is the predominance of genus Prevotella and Megasphaera. Further, when compared with other non-human primates, it appears that Indians share more OTUs with omnivorous mammals. Our metagenomic imputation indicates higher potential for glycan biosynthesis and xenobiotic metabolism in these subjects. Our study indicates urgent need of identification of population specific microbiome biomarkers of Indian subpopulations to have more holistic view of the Indian gut microbiome and its health implications.

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