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.
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.