Title |
A Taxonomic Signature of Obesity in the Microbiome? Getting to the Guts of the Matter
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLOS ONE, January 2014
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0084689 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Mariel M. Finucane, Thomas J. Sharpton, Timothy J. Laurent, Katherine S. Pollard |
Abstract |
Obesity is an important and intractable public health problem. In addition to the well-known risk factors of behavior, diet, and genetics, gut microbial communities were recently identified as another possible source of risk and a potential therapeutic target. However, human and animal-model studies have yielded conflicting results about the precise nature of associations between microbiome composition and obesity. In this paper, we use publicly available data from the Human Microbiome Project (HMP) and MetaHIT, both surveys of healthy adults that include obese individuals, plus two smaller studies that specifically examined lean versus obese adults. We find that inter-study variability in the taxonomic composition of stool microbiomes far exceeds differences between lean and obese individuals within studies. Our analyses further reveal a high degree of variability in stool microbiome composition and diversity across individuals. While we confirm the previously published small, but statistically significant, differences in phylum-level taxonomic composition between lean and obese individuals in several cohorts, we find no association between BMI and taxonomic composition of stool microbiomes in the larger HMP and MetaHIT datasets. We explore a range of different statistical techniques and show that this result is robust to the choice of methodology. Differences between studies are likely due to a combination of technical and clinical factors. We conclude that there is no simple taxonomic signature of obesity in the microbiota of the human gut. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 31 | 30% |
United Kingdom | 11 | 11% |
Netherlands | 2 | 2% |
Germany | 2 | 2% |
Spain | 2 | 2% |
Canada | 2 | 2% |
France | 2 | 2% |
Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
Grenada | 1 | <1% |
Other | 6 | 6% |
Unknown | 42 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Scientists | 54 | 53% |
Members of the public | 38 | 37% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 6% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 4 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 12 | 3% |
Canada | 3 | <1% |
Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
France | 1 | <1% |
Germany | 1 | <1% |
Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
South Africa | 1 | <1% |
Sweden | 1 | <1% |
Other | 4 | <1% |
Unknown | 415 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 96 | 22% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 95 | 22% |
Student > Master | 56 | 13% |
Student > Bachelor | 47 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 30 | 7% |
Other | 73 | 17% |
Unknown | 44 | 10% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 143 | 32% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 73 | 17% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 69 | 16% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 23 | 5% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 3% |
Other | 52 | 12% |
Unknown | 69 | 16% |