Peer Reviewed Jounal Articles on the Human Microbiome
Nat Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2020 February 26.
Published in final edited course as:
PMCID: PMC7043356
NIHMSID: NIHMS1006252
Current agreement of the human microbiome
Jack Gilbert
1.The Microbiome Heart, Department of Surgery, Academy of Chicago, Chicago, IL, 60637
two.Bioscience Division, Argonne National Laboratory, Lemont, IL, 60439
three.The Marine Biological Laboratory, Forest Hole, MA, 02543
Martin J. Blaser
4.New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, NY 10016.
J. Gregory Caporaso
five.Pathogen and Microbiome Institute, Northern Arizona Academy, 1350 S Knoles Bulldoze, Flagstaff, AZ 86011..
Janet Jansson
6.Globe and Biological Sciences Directorate, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA 99354
Susan V. Lynch
7.Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143..
Rob Knight
eight.Section of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
9.Department of Information science & Engineering, Jacobs School of Engineering science, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
x.Center for Microbiome Innovation, Academy of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093
Abstruse
Our understanding of the link between the human microbiome and affliction, including obesity, inflammatory bowel illness, arthritis and autism, is rapidly expanding. Improvements in the throughput and accuracy of Dna sequencing of the genomes of microbial communities associated with human samples, complemented by assay of transcriptomes, proteomes, metabolomes and immunomes, and mechanistic experiments in model systems, accept vastly improved our power to understand the construction and function of the microbiome in both diseased and healthy states. However, many challenges remain. In this Review, we focus on studies in humans to describe these challenges, and propose strategies that leverage existing cognition to move rapidly from correlation to causation, and ultimately to translation.
Introduction
The microbial cells that colonize the man body, including in mucosal and skin environments, are at least as abundant as our somatic cells1, and certainly contain far more genes than our human genome (Box 1). An estimated 500–one thousand species of leaner exist in the human trunk at any one time2, although the number of unique genotypes (sub-species) could be orders of magnitude greater than this3. Each bacterial strain has a genome containing thousands of genes, offer substantially more genetic diversity and hence flexibility than the human genome. However, different people harbour radically different collections of microbes with substantially varying densities even among conserved taxa, and we understand little about what leads to and what regulates this variation. Chiefly, nosotros do not nonetheless sympathize how the variation within a person over time, or between dissimilar people, influences wellness, the preservation of health, or the onset and progression of illness. Even so, we do know that changes in the microbiome, and microbial metabolome and their interaction with the immune, endocrine, and nervous organization are correlated with a wide array of illnesses, ranging from inflammatory bowel disease 4–6 to cancer7 to major depressive disorder viii,9.
Homo microbiome investigations have now reached a disquisitional inflection point. We are transitioning from description and investigation to agreement mechanism, and developing novel clinical interventions based on this understanding10. These advances take as well created a surge in translational research, resulting in substantial private investment non only in bookish research, but as well in the private sector, including so-chosen "Big Pharma". This drive toward clinical microbiome studies is supported by a revolution in personalized medicine, in which, for example, the decline in cost of cancer genome sequencing is allowing the rapid identification of the precise treatment regimen that volition lead to a positive outcome in an individual patient, for example, with colorectal cancer11. Our ability to rapidly and reproducibly characterize the microbiome, like cancer genomics, offers an opportunity to develop fundamentally new diagnostic biomarkers and therapeutics.
Here we present the current state of knowledge linking the microbiome to homo disease. We have focused on human studies when possible, but besides highlight select mouse studies when human studies are non bachelor. This is to provide a platform from which to explore the future of practical clinical microbiome inquiry.
We will strategize on how to progress from the correlative and biomarker studies towards studies that will reveal the underlying mechanisms and opportunities for new preventive and therapeutic modalities.
Factors influencing the human microbiome
To alter the microbiome deliberately for preventive or therapeutic purposes, or use it to understand a item medical condition, we must outset empathise the factors that influence its limerick. We have reviewed many of these factors in detail recentlyten,12, and then we provide only a brief summary hither.
Homo genetics and immune interactions in early on evolution
The composition of the human microbiome is unique in each individual, and the differences amidst individuals are large compared to the typical biochemical differences inside a person over time13,14. Identical twins are barely more similar to ane another in microbial limerick and structure than are not-identical twins15, at least over the range of environmental factors captured in studies to date, suggesting that the consequence of the homo genome is limited, and that almost of microbial community associates may be determined by ecology factors. Early underpowered studies suggested that monozygotic twins were no more than similar in terms of their overall gut microbiota than dizygotic twins16–18, although larger cohort sizes bear witness a modest but statistically significant effect of genetics on microbiome composition in twins with sure taxa being identified as highly heritable, such as Christensenella 15. However, one way to rationalize this is that the number of bacteria that are able to successfully colonize humans is express. Colonizing initially germ-gratis mice with various environmental samples demonstrates that very few bacteria present in the environment tin survive in the mouse gut, and those that practise are chop-chop displaced past human- or mouse-derived leaner on exposure19 Furthermore, man immune responses shape responses to changes in the microbiome and are involved in shaping the microbiome itself20.
Virtually human immunological studies regrettably nonetheless lack a microbiome component, that volition exist essential to untangling the human relationship between the immune response and microbial colonisation and stability. The mammalian allowed arrangement has a complex and dynamic bidirectional relationship with the microbiome. Although, recent human being accomplice studies suggest that near of the variability in homo allowed response to stimulation derives from the genome, at least 10% of this immune response variability derives direct from interactions associated with the microbiome21.
The large majority of microbiome colonization occurs in the early on years of life. This topic has been reviewed extensively22,23. During and before long afterwards nascence, newborns are exposed to maternal and environmental microbes initiating gut microbiome establishment24. Inside the first yr of life, an estimated x13 to 10fourteen microbes/ml comprising 500–chiliad species colonize the gastrointestinal tract25. After weaning, the gut microbiota becomes firmly established, leading to a lifelong microbiome signature in healthy individuals26.
Body site
When the microbiomes of large cohorts of people at a given torso site are compared, individuals fit on a continuum of microbial diversity within a human being population, rather than clustering into discrete groups27,28. During human development, the human being microbiome follows trunk site-specific trajectories, so that each body site develops a specific biogeography (Figure i). The skin, for example, shows dramatic variation in microbiome composition and structure across different sites29. The physical and topographical characteristics of skin play a significant role in shaping the microbial customs similarity between sites30. These factors also play a role in shaping the individuality of the microbiome, and then that each person develops a unique microbial signature on their skin, irrespective of the differences between skin sites31. Similarly, although prolonged concrete oral interaction between humans influences microbial community composition over time32, the oral microbiome still maintains a relatively unique composition in each person33. Longitudinal characterization of the human gut microbiome has shown that the adult microbiota remain relatively stable and unique to each person, compared to the drastic alter over the outset three years of life31,34.
The human microbiome is highly personalized. Understanding the relevance of the differing microbiota between individuals is confounded by the uniqueness of an individuals' microbiome. The dissimilar colours in the pie charts represent different species.
However, the microbiome is a living ecosystem, and consequently undergoes fluctuations in the growth rate and survival of each of its constituents. For example, changes in nutrition can profoundly bear on the gut microbial customs structure35,36, and vigorous cleaning can temporarily alter the peel microbiome. However, in both cases the original microbiota and structure re-emerge when the original atmospheric condition resume37. Transit time of food through the gut besides influences the types of microbes which tin proliferate within the gut, with rapid transit time selecting for functions associated with biofilm formation or rapid cell division38,39. Defining a microbiota based on the relative affluence of its members may therefore provide only a express view of the microbial assemblage, and integrating more information virtually the function of each gene and genome in the context of the ecosystem and the host will provide increasingly important insights. Human being microbiome variability makes blanket stratification difficult for particular affliction states, although it is possible to identify biomarkers for some conditions [Box ii].
The vaginal microbiome has a similar degree of stability to the skin microbiome, and unlike the gut, classifying the vaginal microbiome into detached states during disease has been possible. The vaginal microbiota of asymptomatic women tend to exist dominated past individual species of Lactobacillus and diverse additional anaerobic taxaxl. The Lactobacilli are believed to benefit the host past lowering vaginal pH through fermentation end-products, thereby reducing the likelihood of allochthonous microbial colonization or pathogen invasion. Microbial variation within an private adult female does occur over days to weeks41, although menstruation and pregnancy appear to event in a similar microbiome in different groups of women42. Diseases such equally bacterial vaginosis result in disruption of the 'normal' vaginal ecosystem function, but also event in a highly similar microbial profile between women, thereby providing a generalized biomarker of disease43.
Diet
Nutrition has been studied extensively in relation to the gut microbiome44, but less so with respect to other microbiomes at other sites beyond the body. Modulating nutrition is an platonic opportunity for depression-risk, culturally and psychologically acceptable intervention to alter the microbiome. Therefore, this avenue of research could yield novel therapeutic strategies through targeted dietary interventions should gut microbiota be shown to be causative for certain diseases. Prove to appointment suggests that long-term diet has very large furnishings on gut microbiome limerick45 although a sufficiently extreme curt-term dietary change can cause people to resemble one another within days35. Fascinatingly, the effects of the same dietary ingredient on blood glucose measurements can vary in different people, an effect mediated by the microbiome46. Although we know that the microbiome can influence leptin concentrations in humans, and hence influence appetite47, an open question is whether the microbiome can influence dietary preferences, which could pb to positive feedback loops when these dietary changes in plough alter the microbiome.
Antibiotics
The consequence of antibiotics on all microbiomes is expected to be large compared to other factors, and preliminary studies have been performed to determine the touch48. The gut microbiome in adults appears not to be resilient to repeated antibiotic administration49. The same antibody appears to affect detail microbes differently depending on the residuum of the microbiomel, possibly due to different growth phases, metabolic states, or contextual microbial network in which the microorganisms notice themselves. An specially interesting surface area of research is the increasing show that antibiotics in early life have a profound consequence of the gut microbiome that can result in the later development of obesity51, asthma, inflammatory bowel disease and other disorders.
Lifestyle
Lifestyle is besides thought to have a strong influence on microbiome limerick. Cohabitation with pets, such as dogs, has a statistically significant clan with the microbiome. In ane written report, the skin microbiome of couples living together has a closer resemblance if the couple has a dog, but, intriguingly, a modest child did not provide the same trend, and so couples with a kid just no dog were not significantly more similar to 1 some other than couples without a kid52. Pet buying and exposure to livestock have been associated with decreased risk of asthma53. Interrupting this exposure in infants from human populations with a known ancestral history of interaction with animals has been shown to lead to a substantial increment in atopy, especially asthma54. If these results plough out to be caused by the microbiome, rather than simply correlative, they advise potential new therapeutic strategies for affliction intervention could come from microbial exposure focused on immune activation.
Other lifestyle traits have been shown to correlate with the limerick of the microbiota. For example, exercise appears to influence the construction of the microbiome through reducing inflammation, with subtle changes in the microbial community limerick correlated with changes in cytokine profiles55. Slumber deprivation correlates with changes in the gut microbiome, with a greater ratio of Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes and elevated affluence of Coriobacteriaceae and Erysipelotrichaceae associated with sleep loss56. Stress increases intestinal permeability, and is correlated with changes in Bacteroidetes and Actinobacteria, with corresponding shifts in metabolite concentrations and inflammatory markers57.
Occupation has primarily been assumed to influence the microbiome via exposure to unlike environments and place of residence. For case, farmers have a different microbiome than city workers58. However, very few microbiome studies take isolated occupation as a variable influencing composition. For example, the oral microbiota of sailors is significantly altered by their occupational activities, so that after 120 days at sea, they show a five-fold reduction in alpha diversity and an increase Streptococcus 59. Similarly, sexual intercourse in heterosexual couples leads to an increased similarity of the penile and vaginal microbiota between sexual partners, which could potentially change sexual illness environmental in the participants; at that place is emerging show that microbiome differences might affect transmission of STIs (Sexually Transmitted Infections)60. Finally, couples who physically interact accept a more similar microbiota than people who share the aforementioned living quarters but practise not physically interact14, indicating that physical interaction influence microbial sharing and hence microbiome similarity, highlighting the effects of social interaction on the microbiome.
Dynamics of the human microbiome
Man interaction with the surround, including with other people, creates the potential for specific microbial taxa to either act as an immune-stimulant that influences the microbiome through, for example, inflammation, or to act as a source for leaner, fungi, and viruses that tin can colonize the homo torso. The identification of bacterial taxa in the gut that change fauna hormonal regulation, leading to obesity in mice61, suggests that such events may alter our physiology. The composition of the gut microbiome itself is influenced past circadian rhythm, and which also then affect host circadian cycles (Effigy ii). Disruption of the microbial diurnal cycle can pb to disruption in host cyclic rhythms, which can specifically alter hormone regulation in mice 62. The human being microbiome demonstrates enormous plasticity, while too beingness extremely robust on longer timescales and to larger types of variation31,34,35, but experiments in mouse models have shown some of the ways in which it tin be re-shaped.
The dynamics of the human microbiome. The human being microbiome has been shown to be highly dynamic. A) Taking a "representative" sample of a human being microbiome at whatsoever given site is challenging because while the microbiome is known to settle later nascency (greenish line), the composition can vary both over brusk term and long term timescales (orange line and blue line respectively). B) The outcome of the rate of change of the varying species on the ability to take a representative sample equally indicated by the black line is shown.
This apparent dichotomy between dynamism and robustness of the microbiome at first glance seems difficult to resolve, until the ecological dynamics of the system are considered. All ecosystems undergo variation in species population density and assemblage diversity, just with differing magnitudes at different temporal scales. This variation includes contest among microbial taxa and shifting metabolic relationships, compounded and influenced by the state of the immune system, changing dietary patterns, and a constant exposure to bacteria from family and environment. Longitudinal characterization of the host microbiome and its sources is therefore essential to capture dynamic variance within an individual, and to decide the degree to which the system demonstrates anticipated successional traits63.
The plasticity vs. stability dichotomy of the man microbiome is evident over a flow of days, as was illustrated in the first dense time series analysis of the man microbiome 31 and confirmed in afterwards ones 34. In that study, two subjects provided daily samples of their oral, skin and faecal microbiota, one for six months and the other for fifteen months. The results illustrated that at the sequencing depth studied only a tiny fraction of bacterial taxa were found to be consistently nowadays across all (or even about) samples in an individual host. For the skin sites (the left and right palm) there were no species detected in all samples, while in the gut and the oral cavity, about 5% of the species were divers as belonging to a stable temporal core microbiome. Notwithstanding each person still maintained a personalized microbiome. The degree of personalization of the man microbiome vastly exceeds the host genome, which is over 99.five% identical betwixt individuals, suggesting that just 0.5% of the genome is unique to an individual. However, based on current observations, 2 individuals can show no overlap in microbial species in their microbiome. This degree of personalization is so high that it may fifty-fifty take forensic applications64.
While nosotros are at present used to thinking almost the composition of the human microbiome being personalized, it has also been shown that the rate of change of the human microbiome composition is personalized65. In that study, over an approximately 3-calendar month flow, 85 college age adults donated weekly microbiome samples from gut, skin, and oral sites. Over this timeframe, the microbiome composition remained almost constant in some individuals, while that in other individuals abundances changed rapidly. These differing rates of temporal variability were identified at all of the torso sites that were profiled (the palm of the dominant hand, the forehead, the tongue, and faeces), and the rate of change was not correlated across the dissimilar sites. On boilerplate, skin sites changed most rapidly, followed by the gut, and then oral (this pattern matches the relative sizes of the stable temporal core microbiome observed in the long-term survey mentioned above31). 1 potential reason for the dynamics in skin is that there are many species at depression abundance. None of the information collected nearly the host correlated with the differing rates of modify in the microbiome, so information technology was not possible to determine the underlying crusade of these differences. However, ane interesting observation was that individuals who self-reported taking antibiotics during (or in the week preceding) the sampling period did not change their microbiome composition more than quickly than subjects who did not report taking antibiotics. The absence of a departure may reflect that a one-calendar week time frame does not fully capture the effects of recent or even lifetime antibiotic use. Notwithstanding, on a per individual ground, in this study, reported antibody usage was typically associated with the largest alter in an individual'southward microbiome overall.
While almost studies acquaintance microbiome composition with host disease state, and likelihood of response to a handling, at to the lowest degree one recent study suggests that the charge per unit of change of the microbiome may itself be a clinical characteristic66, as too was observed in a mouse model of juvenile diabetes 67. The charge per unit of change of the vaginal microbiome differed across women with bacterial vaginosis, and was predictive of the subtype of bacterial vaginosis affecting the women. That ascertainment, paired with data indicating that individuals differ in the rate of modify of their gut, pare, and oral microbiomes, suggests that characterizing temporal variability may be an important role of characterizing an individual'south microbiome.
Understanding traits such every bit variance in microbiome dynamics in individuals, and whether that relates to patterns of succession will simplify agreement of causal relationships between species and disease, and the interpretation of correlations amidst taxonomic groups68. Past prospectively assessing the microbiomes of patients undergoing different procedures, we can determine the charge per unit of change, and potentially the rate of recovery of the microbiome, if it is altered by the procedure or past the affliction land that led to the procedure. Doing this in a homo population will provide the statistical power to chronicle these measurements to remission of clinical symptoms. Examining the sources that shape the microbiome is primal to determining this variance.
Bayesian statistics can also be used to map the relative contribution of a specific source to the human microbiome over fourth dimension69, or to create artificial neural networks of provisional dependencies that can be used to capture predictive characteristics of a microbial networklxx,71. Using these methods, the dynamic nature of the human microbiome or metabolome both within an individual and within a population of individuals tin can exist captured. One time gathered, the data can exist harnessed to provide a predictive signature or feature biomarker for a given physiological, immunological or neurological condition. The application of machine learning algorithms take besides proven to be valuable in identifying highly predictive characteristics of a microbial signature to map forensic relationships between humans and their built environments14.
Towards Mechanistic Studies of the Microbiome
Mechanistic studies of the microbiome are typically difficult to perform in humans, in function considering of tremendous genetic and lifestyle heterogeneity, and there are ethical issues associated with colonizing human subjects with microbes that are hypothesized to cause disease. Therefore, near of what we know currently stems from experiments in animal models. Nevertheless, recent studies that complement observations in humans with interventions in animal models have produced striking new insight into the microbial origins of affliction that cannot be acquired from human being studies alone.
The importance of strain-level resolution for microbiome studies
The field of host-pathogen interactions has long relied on culturing strains of pathogens including clinical isolates, and transferring these pathogens to isolated cells, tissues, or whole animals to perform intervention studies. Many components of the microbiome have been inaccessible to such techniques considering the relevant organisms cannot be cultured, although recent advances profoundly expand the repertoire of the organisms that tin be grown from the human being gut72 so this barrier may exist temporary. However, the culturable component of the microbiome can nonetheless exist extraordinarily useful, even if incomplete. For example, a recent report in which 53 strains of bacteria were isolated from the homo gut and used to monocolonize previously germ-costless mice revealed large differences in immunomodulatory backdrop of these leaner, including closely related strains that affected production of cytokines such as IL10, IL17a, IL22, and interferon gamma with some promoting and others inhibiting production73. These results underscore the demand to characterize microbial activity at the strain level, not only at the college taxonomic levels that are typically provided past amplicon profiling, and will probably reveal important links betwixt the microbiome and disease when extended to more than complex communities.
Identifying disease - relevant strains from population studies
Population-based microbiome studies complemented with mechanistic experimental work in mice can use microbial associations with phenotype in humans to identify bacteria or compounds that so can be tested in intervention studies to reveal causal pathways. For example, a study of heritability of unlike taxa within the gut microbiome in twins in the United kingdom revealed that one specific taxon, Christensenella, was highly heritable and associated with low BMI in this populationxv. Strains from this genus were cultured in the lab, so transplanted into germ-free mice, resulting in decreased weight gain in these mice when compared to transplantation from an obese human, which would normally induce weight gain (as described above).
Similarly, in a comparative report of different human populations in Finland, Russia and Estonia, which differ dramatically in the incidence of early-onset autoimmune diseases, Bacteroides sp. were peculiarly common in the gut microbiomes of Finnish and Estonian children, in whom the incidence of the diseases were lowest, and were hypothesized to provide virtually of the LPS (lipopolysaccharide; a mutual marker of bacterial infection in the bloodstream) exposure in those populations. In dissimilarity, the Russian children had high levels of E. coli. in their microbiomes. Tests of the upshot injections of LPS from E. coli and B. dorei showed that the former, but non the latter, protected mice with a genetic defect from developing autoantibodies and diabetes symptoms, providing a potential explanation for the consequences of the different early on-life microbiomes on evolution of autoimmune disease in humans74. A similar strategy was used to explain differences in asthma development between Amish and Hutterite children in the U.s.. Dust extracts from houses from each population, shown to differ in their microbiome content, were tested in a mouse model of asthma development that examines sensitivity to ovalbumin. The tests indicated that the dust from Amish merely not Hutterite homes protected against asthma development54, which was attributed to differences in the bacterial content of the dust. These strategies are broadly applicable to many other situations in which differential exposure to ecology bacteria may play a role in affliction etiology.
Identifying biomarkers in microbiome studies
Some studies are now performing these types of mechanistic experiments in humans direct. In one striking example, examining 500 European-ancestry individuals in the netherlands, the authors tested the ability of the individual's blood to produce cytokines subsequently several antigen challenges, and then paired these with data about their gut metagenome. The data suggest that the yeast Candida albicans had an especially large influence on the host'south TNF-blastoff response21. This study also associated pathways active in bacteria such as palmitoleic acid metabolism with lower systemic inflammatory response; adding palmitoleic acrid in challenge with C. albicans to an individual's claret resulted in lower TNF-alpha, simply unchanged IFN-gamma responses, as predicted from the association data. These types of studies are peculiarly useful in conjunction with humans with naturally occurring genetic knockouts or variant alleles. These human being genetic variants may enable microbially induced disease states that tin can exist tested in mice with comparable null or variant genetic changes, as has been shown for Parkinson's Affliction.73
Characterizing microbial biomarkers has great potential for precision medicine, and is therefore a relatively simple way of translating microbiome inquiry into clinical practice. For example, from groundbreaking animal studies, we know that bacterial probiotics (alive leaner deliberately introduced to the animal to produce a therapeutic outcome) can be used to enhance immune checkpoint blockade therapy for melanoma patients75. Studying the microbiomes of melanoma patients prior to immune checkpoint occludent therapy has identified microorganisms in the gut to be biomarkers for diagnosis that can predict whether patients are at chance of developing checkpoint-blockade-induced colitis76.
These prospective studies are extremely important for linking microbial community construction, function, and metabolic products to health outcomes. Studies of the microbiome equally infants develop are also central in this area, and many ongoing investigations, such equally the NIH Common Core program Environmental Influences on Kid Health Outcomes (ECHO: https://www.nih.gov/echo), at present provide the infrastructure to sequence healthy, susceptible and diseased participants to examine how lifestyle and ecology experiences shape the development of immune, endocrine and neurological weather. Although cross-sectional single fourth dimension point studies of nascence cohorts provide intriguing statistical associations77, longitudinal prospective studies complemented by mechanistic experiments in animate being models are required to establish whether a certain microbiome causes disease.
Futurity studies: developing translational potential
There remains much that we do not empathise well-nigh the man microbiome. The sources of bacteria that colonize an infant include the female parent and other caregivers (fifty-fifty 1-day-old pre-term infants take unique microbiomes that differ from each other and from the mother simply possibly derived from their mothers78), and human genetics shapes microbiome-allowed interaction. Given these observations, why do monozygotic twins growing up in the same household develop microbiomes that are barely more similar than those of dizygotic twins? The function of exogenous immune stimulation in shaping the colonization efficiency of dissimilar strains must exist investigated in more detail. Beast models have produced intriguing findings, but prospective longitudinal studies in human infants are required to amend empathize how human being genetics influence the developing microbiome. These longitudinal investigations will besides assist u.s.a. to sympathize the implication of ecological dynamics of the microbiome in health and disease. Microbiome stability (resistance to modify) and resilience (render to the initial state following perturbation) are essential but poorly understood ecological characteristics that can be quantified through longitudinal studies by series drove of Dna sequence data from the microbiome, perhaps complemented by metabolite and gene expression profiling. For example, performing weekly microbiome profiling of participants earlier, during and later surgery could help identify whether (and which) microbiome ecological dynamics are linked to response to surgery, complications, and recovery. Similarly, understanding the resistance and resilience of the microbiome to antibiotics requires larger-scale longitudinal studies of diverse cohorts (Figure 3). This is especially relevant in babyhood, when the microbiome is in flux and may be less resistant, just more resilient to these stresses.
Towards further understanding and developing therapies from microbiome information. The iterative cycle of analysis, interpretation and translational intervention that facilitate moving microbiome research out of correlative observation and into therapeutic treatments is shown.
As we motility forward with transforming microbiome research from a descriptive to causal, and finally translational scientific discipline, the power to define biomarkers that tin can stratify patient populations inside a disease land represents 'low-hanging fruit' (Box two). Of form, the effort required to take advantage of these biomarkers is considerable. Clinical studies that recruit big and representative patient populations to examine the response to a new drug or therapeutic intervention should definitely consider the opportunity to collect data on both immune function and the microbiome. These additional variables may lead to new non-invasive diagnostic platforms. In the future, information technology may be possible to asking a stool or vaginal sample, or even an saliva sample (which has been shown to yield effective microbial biomarkers for diseases not centered on the mouth such every bit rheumatoid arthritis79 (Box 2)) from a patient prior to a surgical intervention. Then, along with their genome and medical history, scientists could make a more accurate prediction about the likelihood of successful outcome and/or of complications for each proposed intervention. This boosted information, if presented in a sufficiently clear format, would substantially aid clinicians past providing new data layers that enrich the decision-making process. To realize this vision, we must better empathise the factors that influence the microbiome of a healthy individual, and how the microbiome is reshaped during unlike health and disease states.
Concluding Remarks
Microbiome analysis, and so-called Microbiome Wide Association Studies (MWAS)ten, are revolutionizing clinical investigations by providing greater patient stratification and new biomarkers of disease. We are poised to brand swell advances in patient care over the next decade as we amend our ability to characterize and dispense the microbiome and its metabolism. The omics tools available to perform this characterization have been developed independently, but now there is an ongoing concerted endeavor80,81 to amend standardize and integrate methods and data resources to ameliorate our ability to understand microbial dynamics in human being systems. Systems microbiome medicine approaches are chop-chop finding their way into clinical investigations, and this is producing a need to integrate traditional clinical statistics and epidemiology with microbial ecological statistics and theory. While these 2 concepts are non mutually exclusive, they are often treated as such; a new breed of data scientist is required equally early on-career clinician-scientists develop their new skills in this speedily expanding field. This in turn increases the likelihood that patient cohort studies will be integrated with animal investigations that enable more accurate estimation of observed host-microbiome traits.
It is a brave new world, where ecologists and data scientists are being integrated into clinical departments, but this prototype shift is a necessary precondition to realize the potential of microbiome-informed and microbiome-based medicine. The societal demand for improved medical interventions and preventive strategies is driving a sea-change in both the clinical and commercial globe. The onus is on the basic and clinical translational research community to ensure that our experimental designs are robust and can deliver on the promises of this field. Just as important are the technical advances that must occur to ensure that nosotros accept the tools to derive the data to test our hypotheses. The microbial ecology community came together in 2015–2016 to support the proposal for a National Microbiome Initiative, which was in turn supported by the U.s. President's Office of Science and Technology Policy82; i of the key outcomes of this effort was the identification of gaps in our technologies that would demand to be filled to realize the full potential of microbiome science83. Nosotros have a long way to go, simply with each new investigation we are moving closer to the realization of more than constructive diagnosis, handling, and preventive modalities to improve human wellness and fight illness.
Acknowledgements
Many of the studies described hither in our laboratories were supported by the NIH, NSF, DOE, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. We give thanks numerous members of our laboratories for constructive criticism on drafts of this article.
References
1. Sender R, Fuchs Southward. & Milo R. Are Nosotros Actually Vastly Outnumbered? Revisiting the Ratio of Bacterial to Host Cells in Humans. Prison cell 164, 337–340 (2016). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Locey KJ & Lennon JT Scaling laws predict global microbial variety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 113, 5970–5975 (2016). [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Frank DN et al. Molecular-phylogenetic characterization of microbial community imbalances in man inflammatory bowel diseases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 104, 13780–13785 (2007). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
five. Gevers D. et al. The treatment-naive microbiome in new-onset Crohn'southward affliction. Prison cell Host Microbe 15, 382–392 (2014). [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
vi. Ni J. et al. A role for bacterial urease in gut dysbiosis and Crohn's disease. Sci. Transl. Med ix, (2017). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Kostic Advertisement et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum potentiates intestinal tumorigenesis and modulates the tumor-immune microenvironment. Cell Host Microbe 14, 207–215 (2013). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Jiang H. et al. Altered fecal microbiota composition in patients with major depressive disorder. Brain. Behav. Immun 48, 186–194 (2015). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Zheng P. et al. Gut microbiome remodeling induces depressive-like behaviors through a pathway mediated past the host'southward metabolism. Mol. Psychiatry 21, 786–796 (2016). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Gilbert JA et al. Microbiome-wide association studies link dynamic microbial consortia to affliction. Nature 535, 94–103 (2016). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Punt CJA, Koopman Chiliad. & Vermeulen Fifty. From tumour heterogeneity to advances in precision treatment of colorectal cancer. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol 14, 235–246 (2017). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Debelius J. et al. Tiny microbes, enormous impacts: what matters in gut microbiome studies? Genome Biol. 17, 217 (2016). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xiii. Integrative HMP (iHMP) Research Network Consortium. The Integrative Human Microbiome Project: dynamic analysis of microbiome-host omics profiles during periods of homo wellness and disease. Jail cell Host Microbe 16, 276–289 (2014). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xiv. Lax Southward. et al. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science 345, 1048–1052 (2014). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Ridaura VK et al. Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice. Science 341, 1241214 (2013). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Turnbaugh PJ et al. Organismal, genetic, and transcriptional variation in the deeply sequenced gut microbiomes of identical twins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A 107, 7503–7508 (2010). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19. Seedorf H. et al. Bacteria from diverse habitats colonize and compete in the mouse gut. Cell 159, 253–266 (2014). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20. Karczewski J, Poniedziałek B, Adamski Z. & Rzymski P. The effects of the microbiota on the host immune system. Autoimmunity 47, 494–504 (2014). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
21. Schirmer 1000. et al. Linking the Human Gut Microbiome to Inflammatory Cytokine Production Capacity. Cell 167, 1897 (2016). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22. Lozupone CA, Stombaugh JI, Gordon JI, Jansson JK & Knight R. Diverseness, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature 489, 220–230 (2012). [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23. O'Toole PW Changes in the intestinal microbiota from adulthood through to onetime age. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Off. Publ. Eur. Soc. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis 18 Suppl 4, 44–46 (2012). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24. Koenig JE et al. Succession of microbial consortia in the developing babe gut microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. Due south. A 108 Suppl 1, 4578–4585 (2011). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25. Weng M. & Walker WA The office of gut microbiota in programming the immune phenotype. J. Dev. Orig. Health Dis 4, 203–214 (2013). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26. Maynard CL, Elson CO, Hatton RD & Weaver CT Reciprocal interactions of the intestinal microbiota and allowed system. Nature 489, 231–241 (2012). [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28. Jeffery IB, Claesson MJ, O'Toole PW & Shanahan F. Categorization of the gut microbiota: enterotypes or gradients? Nat. Rev. Microbiol 10, 591–592 (2012). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xxx. Grice EA et al. Topographical and temporal multifariousness of the human peel microbiome. Science 324, 1190–1192 (2009). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Lazarevic 5, Whiteson K, Hernandez D, François P. & Schrenzel J. Study of inter- and intra-individual variations in the salivary microbiota. BMC Genomics eleven, 523 (2010). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34. David LA et al. Host lifestyle affects human being microbiota on daily timescales. Genome Biol. xv, R89 (2014). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35. David LA et al. Nutrition rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature 505, 559–563 (2014). [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36. Maier Television et al. Affect of Dietary Resistant Starch on the Man Gut Microbiome, Metaproteome, and Metabolome. mBio eight, e01343–17 (2017). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37. Hannigan GD et al. The human pare double-stranded Dna virome: topographical and temporal diversity, genetic enrichment, and dynamic associations with the host microbiome. mBio 6, e01578–01515 (2015). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38. Vandeputte D. et al. Quantitative microbiome profiling links gut community variation to microbial load. Nature 551, 507–511 (2017). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39. Vandeputte D. et al. Stool consistency is strongly associated with gut microbiota richness and composition, enterotypes and bacterial growth rates. Gut 65, 57–62 (2016). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
xl. Ma B, Forney LJ & Ravel J. Vaginal microbiome: rethinking health and disease. Annu. Rev. Microbiol 66, 371–389 (2012). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41. Ravel J. et al. Daily temporal dynamics of vaginal microbiota before, during and after episodes of bacterial vaginosis. Microbiome 1, 29 (2013). [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42. Romero R. et al. The composition and stability of the vaginal microbiota of normal pregnant women is different from that of non-pregnant women. Microbiome 2, 4 (2014). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43. Xiao B. et al. Predictive value of the composition of the vaginal microbiota in bacterial vaginosis, a dynamic study to place recurrence-related flora. Sci. Rep 6, 26674 (2016). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44. Albenberg LG & Wu GD Diet and the intestinal microbiome: associations, functions, and implications for health and affliction. Gastroenterology 146, 1564–1572 (2014). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45. Wu GD et al. Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Scientific discipline 334, 105–108 (2011). [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46. Zeevi D. et al. Personalized Diet by Prediction of Glycemic Responses. Prison cell 163, 1079–1094 (2015). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47. Zhang C. et al. Dietary Modulation of Gut Microbiota Contributes to Alleviation of Both Genetic and Simple Obesity in Children. EBioMedicine 2, 968–984 (2015). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48. Modi SR, Collins JJ & Relman DA Antibiotics and the gut microbiota. J. Clin. Invest 124, 4212–4218 (2014). [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49. Dethlefsen L. & Relman DA Incomplete recovery and individualized responses of the human distal gut microbiota to repeated antibiotic perturbation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. South. A 108 Suppl 1, 4554–4561 (2011). [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
l. Maurice CF, Haiser HJ & Turnbaugh PJ Xenobiotics shape the physiology and factor expression of the active homo gut microbiome. Cell 152, 39–50 (2013). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51. Trasande L. et al. Baby antibiotic exposures and early-life torso mass. Int. J. Obes 2005 37, 16–23 (2013). [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52. Vocal SJ et al. Cohabiting family members share microbiota with 1 another and with their dogs. eLife 2, e00458 (2013). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53. von Mutius E. The microbial surroundings and its influence on asthma prevention in early life. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol 137, 680–689 (2016). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54. Stein MM et al. Innate Immunity and Asthma Risk in Amish and Hutterite Subcontract Children. Northward. Engl. J. Med 375, 411–421 (2016). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55. Cook MD et al. Exercise and gut immune function: show of alterations in colon allowed jail cell homeostasis and microbiome characteristics with exercise grooming. Immunol. Prison cell Biol 94, 158–163 (2016). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Benedict C. et al. Gut microbiota and glucometabolic alterations in response to recurrent fractional sleep deprivation in normal-weight young individuals. Mol. Metab 5, 1175–1186 (2016). [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57. Karl JP et al. Changes in abdominal microbiota composition and metabolism coincide with increased intestinal permeability in immature adults under prolonged physiological stress. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol 312, G559–G571 (2017). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Ying S. et al. The Influence of Age and Gender on Skin-Associated Microbial Communities in Urban and Rural Human Populations. PloS One 10, e0141842 (2015). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59. Zheng W. et al. Metagenomic sequencing reveals contradistinct metabolic pathways in the oral microbiota of sailors during a long body of water voyage. Sci. Rep five, 9131 (2015). [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60. Zozaya Thou. et al. Bacterial communities in penile skin, male person urethra, and vaginas of heterosexual couples with and without bacterial vaginosis. Microbiome 4, (2016). [PMC complimentary commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Fei N. & Zhao 50. An opportunistic pathogen isolated from the gut of an obese human causes obesity in germfree mice. ISME J. 7, 880–884 (2013). [PMC gratuitous commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
62. Leone Five. et al. Effects of Diurnal Variation of Gut Microbes and High-Fat Feeding on Host Circadian Clock Function and Metabolism. Jail cell Host Microbe 17, 681–689 (2015). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63. Knight R. et al. Unlocking the potential of metagenomics through replicated experimental design. Nat. Biotechnol thirty, 513–520 (2012). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64. Fierer N. et al. Forensic identification using peel bacterial communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. South. A 107, 6477–6481 (2010). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65. Flores GE et al. Temporal variability is a personalized feature of the human microbiome. Genome Biol. 15, 531 (2014). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
66. Gajer P. et al. Temporal dynamics of the human vaginal microbiota. Sci. Transl. Med 4, 132ra52 (2012). [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67. Livanos AE et al. Antibiotic-mediated gut microbiome perturbation accelerates development of type ane diabetes in mice. Nat. Microbiol 1, 16140 (2016). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
68. Sugihara Thou. et al. Detecting Causality in Complex Ecosystems. Science 338, 496–500 (2012). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
69. Knights D. et al. Bayesian community-wide civilisation-independent microbial source tracking. Nat. Methods viii, 761–763 (2011). [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
lxx. Larsen PE, Field D. & Gilbert JA Predicting bacterial community assemblages using an artificial neural network arroyo. Nat. Methods ix, 621–625 (2012). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71. Larsen PE & Dai Y. Metabolome of human gut microbiome is predictive of host dysbiosis. GigaScience 4, 42 (2015). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72. Browne HP et al. Culturing of 'unculturable' human being microbiota reveals novel taxa and extensive sporulation. Nature 533, 543–546 (2016). [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73. Geva-Zatorsky N. et al. Mining the Human Gut Microbiota for Immunomodulatory Organisms. Cell 168, 928–943.e11 (2017). [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74. Vatanen T. et al. Variation in Microbiome LPS Immunogenicity Contributes to Autoimmunity in Humans. Cell 165, 842–853 (2016). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75. Sivan A. et al. Commensal Bifidobacterium promotes antitumor amnesty and facilitates anti-PD-L1 efficacy. Science 350, 1084–1089 (2015). [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
76. Dubin Grand. et al. Intestinal microbiome analyses place melanoma patients at run a risk for checkpoint-occludent-induced colitis. Nat. Commun vii, 10391 (2016). [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77. Mueller NT et al. Does vaginal delivery mitigate or strengthen the intergenerational clan of overweight and obesity? Findings from the Boston Birth Cohort . Int. J. Obes 2005 41, 497–501 (2017). [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78. Raveh-Sadka T. et al. Gut bacteria are rarely shared past co-hospitalized premature infants, regardless of necrotizing enterocolitis development. eLife 4, (2015). [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
79. Zhang X. et al. The oral and gut microbiomes are perturbed in rheumatoid arthritis and partly normalized after treatment. Nat. Med 21, 895–905 (2015). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80. Sinha R. et al. Cess of variation in microbial community amplicon sequencing by the Microbiome Quality Control (MBQC) project consortium. Nat. Biotechnol 35, 1077–1086 (2017). [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
81. Costea PI et al. Towards standards for human fecal sample processing in metagenomic studies. Nat. Biotechnol 35, 1069–1076 (2017). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82. Alivisatos AP et al. A unified initiative to harness World's microbiomes. Science 350, 507–508 (2015). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
83. Biteen JS et al. Tools for the Microbiome: Nano and Beyond. ACS Nano 10, 6–37 (2016). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
84. Luckey TD Introduction to intestinal microecology. Am. J. Clin. Nutr 25, 1292–1294 (1972). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
85. Rosner JL Ten Times More Microbial Cells than Torso Cells in Humans? Microbe Mag. 9, 47–47 (2014). [Google Scholar]
86. Reyes A. et al. Viruses in the faecal microbiota of monozygotic twins and their mothers. Nature 466, 334–338 (2010). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
87. Qin J. et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established past metagenomic sequencing. Nature 464, 59–65 (2010). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
88. Weingarden A. et al. Dynamic changes in short- and long-term bacterial composition post-obit fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. Microbiome 3, 10 (2015). [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
89. Kassam Z, Lee CH, Yuan Y. & Chase RH Fecal microbiota transplantation for Clostridium difficile infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am. J. Gastroenterol 108, 500–508 (2013). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
ninety. Knights D, Parfrey LW, Zaneveld J, Lozupone C. & Knight R. Homo-associated microbial signatures: examining their predictive value. Cell Host Microbe ten, 292–296 (2011). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
91. Walters WA, Xu Z. & Knight R. Meta-analyses of homo gut microbes associated with obesity and IBD. FEBS Lett. 588, 4223–4233 (2014). [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
92. Sze MA & Schloss PD Looking for a Point in the Racket: Revisiting Obesity and the Microbiome. mBio 7, (2016). [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
93. Sahin Thousand. & Sur M. Genes, circuits, and precision therapies for autism and related neurodevelopmental disorders. Scientific discipline 350, (2015). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
94. McDonald D. et al. Towards big-cohort comparative studies to define the factors influencing the gut microbial community construction of ASD patients. Microb. Ecol. Wellness Dis 26, 26555 (2015). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
95. Kang D-W et al. Reduced Incidence of Prevotella and Other Fermenters in Abdominal Microflora of Autistic Children. PLoS ONE viii, e68322 (2013). [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
96. Hsiao EY et al. Microbiota Modulate Behavioral and Physiological Abnormalities Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Prison cell 155, 1451–1463 (2013). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
97. Kang D-W et al. Microbiota Transfer Therapy alters gut ecosystem and improves gastrointestinal and autism symptoms: an open-label study. Microbiome v, x (2017). [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
98. Snijders AM et al. Influence of early life exposure, host genetics and nutrition on the mouse gut microbiome and metabolome. Nat. Microbiol ii, 16221 (2016). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
99. Knights D. et al. Complex host genetics influence the microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease. Genome Med. 6, 107 (2014). [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
100. Halfvarson J. et al. Dynamics of the human gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease. Nat. Microbiol 2, 17004 (2017). [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
101. Uusitalo U. et al. Clan of Early Exposure of Probiotics and Islet Autoimmunity in the TEDDY Written report. JAMA Pediatr. 170, twenty–28 (2016). [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
102. Blaser MJ The theory of disappearing microbiota and the epidemics of chronic diseases. Nat. Rev. Immunol 17, 461–463 (2017). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
103. Arrieta M-C et al. Early on infancy microbial and metabolic alterations bear upon take chances of babyhood asthma. Sci. Transl. Med 7, 307ra152 (2015). [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7043356/
0 Response to "Peer Reviewed Jounal Articles on the Human Microbiome"
Mag-post ng isang Komento