4.6 Article

Impact of demographics on human gut microbial diversity in a US Midwest population

期刊

PEERJ
卷 4, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PEERJ INC
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.1514

关键词

Microbiome; Target population; Effect size; Demographics; Microbial diversity

资金

  1. Center for Individualized Medicine at the Mayo Clinic
  2. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [1R01CA179243]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The clinical utility of microbiome biomarkers depends on the reliable and reproducible nature of comparative results. Underappreciation of the variation associated with common demographic, health, and behavioral factors may confound associations of interest and generate false positives. Here, we present the Midwestern Reference Panel (MWRP), a resource for comparative gut microbiome studies conducted in the Midwestern United States. We analyzed the relationships between demographic and health behavior-related factors and the microbiota in this cohort, and estimated their effect sizes. Most variables investigated were associated with the gut microbiota. Specifically, body mass index (BMI), race, sex, and alcohol use were significantly associated with microbial beta-diversity (P < 0.05, unweighted UniFrac). BMI, race and alcohol use were also significantly associated with microbial a-diversity (P < 0.05, species richness). Tobacco use showed a trend toward association with the microbiota (P < 0.1, unweighted UniFrac). The effect sizes of the associations, as quantified by adjusted R-2 values based on unweighted UniFrac distances, were small (< 1% for all variables), indicating that these factors explain only a small percentage of overall microbiota variability. Nevertheless, the significant associations between these variables and the gut microbiota suggest that they could still be potential confounders in comparative studies and that controlling for these variables in study design, which is the main objective of the MWRP, is important for increasing reproducibility in comparative microbiome studies.

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