Comparative gut microbiome research through the lens of ecology: theoretical considerations and best practices.

IF 11 1区 生物学 Q1 BIOLOGY Biological Reviews Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1111/brv.13161
Samuel Degregori, Xiaolin Wang, Akhil Kommala, Noah Schulhof, Sadaf Moradi, Allison MacDonald, Kaitlin Eblen, Sophia Jukovich, Emma Smith, Emily Kelleher, Kota Suzuki, Zoey Hall, Rob Knight, Katherine Ryan Amato
{"title":"Comparative gut microbiome research through the lens of ecology: theoretical considerations and best practices.","authors":"Samuel Degregori, Xiaolin Wang, Akhil Kommala, Noah Schulhof, Sadaf Moradi, Allison MacDonald, Kaitlin Eblen, Sophia Jukovich, Emma Smith, Emily Kelleher, Kota Suzuki, Zoey Hall, Rob Knight, Katherine Ryan Amato","doi":"10.1111/brv.13161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Comparative approaches in animal gut microbiome research have revealed patterns of phylosymbiosis, dietary and physiological convergences, and environment-host interactions. However, most large-scale comparative studies, especially those that are highly cited, have focused on mammals, and efforts to integrate comparative approaches with existing ecological frameworks are lacking. While mammals serve as useful model organisms, developing generalised principles of how animal gut microbiomes are shaped and how these microbiomes interact bidirectionally with host ecology and evolution requires a more complete sampling of the animal kingdom. Here, we provide an overview of what past comparative studies have taught us about the gut microbiome, and how community ecology theory may help resolve certain contradictions in comparative gut microbiome research. We explore whether certain hypotheses are supported across clades, and how the disproportionate focus on mammals has introduced potential bias into gut microbiome theory. We then introduce a methodological solution by which public gut microbiome data of understudied hosts can be compiled and analysed in a comparative context. Our aggregation and analysis of 179 studies shows that generating data sets with rich host diversity is possible with public data and that key gut microbes associated with mammals are widespread across the animal kingdom. We also show the effects that sample size and taxonomic rank have on comparative gut microbiome studies and that results of multivariate analyses can vary significantly with these two parameters. While challenges remain in developing a universal model of the animal gut microbiome, we show that existing ecological frameworks can help bring us one step closer to integrating the gut microbiome into animal ecology and evolution.</p>","PeriodicalId":133,"journal":{"name":"Biological Reviews","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biological Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.13161","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Comparative approaches in animal gut microbiome research have revealed patterns of phylosymbiosis, dietary and physiological convergences, and environment-host interactions. However, most large-scale comparative studies, especially those that are highly cited, have focused on mammals, and efforts to integrate comparative approaches with existing ecological frameworks are lacking. While mammals serve as useful model organisms, developing generalised principles of how animal gut microbiomes are shaped and how these microbiomes interact bidirectionally with host ecology and evolution requires a more complete sampling of the animal kingdom. Here, we provide an overview of what past comparative studies have taught us about the gut microbiome, and how community ecology theory may help resolve certain contradictions in comparative gut microbiome research. We explore whether certain hypotheses are supported across clades, and how the disproportionate focus on mammals has introduced potential bias into gut microbiome theory. We then introduce a methodological solution by which public gut microbiome data of understudied hosts can be compiled and analysed in a comparative context. Our aggregation and analysis of 179 studies shows that generating data sets with rich host diversity is possible with public data and that key gut microbes associated with mammals are widespread across the animal kingdom. We also show the effects that sample size and taxonomic rank have on comparative gut microbiome studies and that results of multivariate analyses can vary significantly with these two parameters. While challenges remain in developing a universal model of the animal gut microbiome, we show that existing ecological frameworks can help bring us one step closer to integrating the gut microbiome into animal ecology and evolution.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过生态学视角进行肠道微生物组比较研究:理论考虑和最佳实践。
动物肠道微生物组研究中的比较方法揭示了系统共生、饮食和生理趋同以及环境-宿主相互作用的模式。然而,大多数大规模的比较研究,特别是那些引用率很高的研究,都集中在哺乳动物身上,缺乏将比较方法与现有生态框架相结合的努力。虽然哺乳动物可以作为有用的模式生物,但要制定动物肠道微生物组如何形成以及这些微生物组如何与宿主生态学和进化双向互动的普遍原则,还需要对动物王国进行更全面的取样。在这里,我们概述了过去的比较研究给我们带来的有关肠道微生物组的启示,以及群落生态学理论如何帮助解决肠道微生物组比较研究中的某些矛盾。我们探讨了某些假说是否在各支系中都得到了支持,以及对哺乳动物的过度关注如何给肠道微生物组理论带来了潜在的偏见。然后,我们介绍了一种方法论解决方案,通过这种方法可以在比较的背景下汇编和分析未被充分研究的宿主的公共肠道微生物组数据。我们对 179 项研究的汇总和分析表明,利用公共数据可以生成具有丰富宿主多样性的数据集,而且与哺乳动物相关的关键肠道微生物在整个动物界都很普遍。我们还展示了样本大小和分类等级对比较肠道微生物组研究的影响,以及多元分析的结果会因这两项参数的不同而有很大差异。尽管在开发动物肠道微生物组通用模型方面仍然存在挑战,但我们表明,现有的生态学框架可以帮助我们更进一步地将肠道微生物组纳入动物生态学和进化中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Biological Reviews
Biological Reviews 生物-生物学
CiteScore
21.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
99
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Biological Reviews is a scientific journal that covers a wide range of topics in the biological sciences. It publishes several review articles per issue, which are aimed at both non-specialist biologists and researchers in the field. The articles are scholarly and include extensive bibliographies. Authors are instructed to be aware of the diverse readership and write their articles accordingly. The reviews in Biological Reviews serve as comprehensive introductions to specific fields, presenting the current state of the art and highlighting gaps in knowledge. Each article can be up to 20,000 words long and includes an abstract, a thorough introduction, and a statement of conclusions. The journal focuses on publishing synthetic reviews, which are based on existing literature and address important biological questions. These reviews are interesting to a broad readership and are timely, often related to fast-moving fields or new discoveries. A key aspect of a synthetic review is that it goes beyond simply compiling information and instead analyzes the collected data to create a new theoretical or conceptual framework that can significantly impact the field. Biological Reviews is abstracted and indexed in various databases, including Abstracts on Hygiene & Communicable Diseases, Academic Search, AgBiotech News & Information, AgBiotechNet, AGRICOLA Database, GeoRef, Global Health, SCOPUS, Weed Abstracts, and Reaction Citation Index, among others.
期刊最新文献
Towards ecosystem-based techniques for tipping point detection. Bringing together but staying apart: decisive differences in animal and fungal mitochondrial inner membrane fusion. Testosterone mediates life-history trade-offs in female mammals. Zooming in the plastisphere: the ecological interface for phytoplankton-plastic interactions in aquatic ecosystems. Archaeocytes in sponges: simple cells of complicated fate.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1