A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) and humans (<it>Homo sapiens</it>)
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Guinea pig (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) is an important model for human intestinal research. We have characterized the faecal microbiota of 60 guinea pigs using Illumina shotgun metagenomics, and used this data to compile a...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
BMC
2012-09-01
|
| Series: | BMC Genomics |
| Online Access: | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/13/514 |
| _version_ | 1811329275995881472 |
|---|---|
| author | Hildebrand Falk Ebersbach Tine Nielsen Henrik Li Xiaoping Sonne Si Bertalan Marcelo Dimitrov Peter Madsen Lise Qin Junjie Wang Jun Raes Jeroen Kristiansen Karsten Licht Tine |
| author_facet | Hildebrand Falk Ebersbach Tine Nielsen Henrik Li Xiaoping Sonne Si Bertalan Marcelo Dimitrov Peter Madsen Lise Qin Junjie Wang Jun Raes Jeroen Kristiansen Karsten Licht Tine |
| author_sort | Hildebrand Falk |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Guinea pig (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) is an important model for human intestinal research. We have characterized the faecal microbiota of 60 guinea pigs using Illumina shotgun metagenomics, and used this data to compile a gene catalogue of its prevalent microbiota. Subsequently, we compared the guinea pig microbiome to existing human gut metagenome data from the MetaHIT project.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that the bacterial richness obtained for human samples was lower than for guinea pig samples. The intestinal microbiotas of both species were dominated by the two phyla <it>Bacteroidetes</it> and <it>Firmicutes</it>, but at genus level, the majority of identified genera (320 of 376) were differently abundant in the two hosts. For example, the guinea pig contained considerably more of the mucin-degrading <it>Akkermansia</it>, as well as of the methanogenic archaea <it>Methanobrevibacter</it> than found in humans. Most microbiome functional categories were less abundant in guinea pigs than in humans. Exceptions included functional categories possibly reflecting dehydration/rehydration stress in the guinea pig intestine. Finally, we showed that microbiological databases have serious anthropocentric biases, which impacts model organism research.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results lay the foundation for future gastrointestinal research applying guinea pigs as models for humans.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T15:40:56Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-982eeae3f631462fa176e54c6a0c3ba3 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1471-2164 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T15:40:56Z |
| publishDate | 2012-09-01 |
| publisher | BMC |
| record_format | Article |
| series | BMC Genomics |
| spelling | doaj.art-982eeae3f631462fa176e54c6a0c3ba32022-12-22T02:41:09ZengBMCBMC Genomics1471-21642012-09-0113151410.1186/1471-2164-13-514A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) and humans (<it>Homo sapiens</it>)Hildebrand FalkEbersbach TineNielsen HenrikLi XiaopingSonne SiBertalan MarceloDimitrov PeterMadsen LiseQin JunjieWang JunRaes JeroenKristiansen KarstenLicht Tine<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Guinea pig (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) is an important model for human intestinal research. We have characterized the faecal microbiota of 60 guinea pigs using Illumina shotgun metagenomics, and used this data to compile a gene catalogue of its prevalent microbiota. Subsequently, we compared the guinea pig microbiome to existing human gut metagenome data from the MetaHIT project.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that the bacterial richness obtained for human samples was lower than for guinea pig samples. The intestinal microbiotas of both species were dominated by the two phyla <it>Bacteroidetes</it> and <it>Firmicutes</it>, but at genus level, the majority of identified genera (320 of 376) were differently abundant in the two hosts. For example, the guinea pig contained considerably more of the mucin-degrading <it>Akkermansia</it>, as well as of the methanogenic archaea <it>Methanobrevibacter</it> than found in humans. Most microbiome functional categories were less abundant in guinea pigs than in humans. Exceptions included functional categories possibly reflecting dehydration/rehydration stress in the guinea pig intestine. Finally, we showed that microbiological databases have serious anthropocentric biases, which impacts model organism research.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results lay the foundation for future gastrointestinal research applying guinea pigs as models for humans.</p>http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/13/514 |
| spellingShingle | Hildebrand Falk Ebersbach Tine Nielsen Henrik Li Xiaoping Sonne Si Bertalan Marcelo Dimitrov Peter Madsen Lise Qin Junjie Wang Jun Raes Jeroen Kristiansen Karsten Licht Tine A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) and humans (<it>Homo sapiens</it>) BMC Genomics |
| title | A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) and humans (<it>Homo sapiens</it>) |
| title_full | A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) and humans (<it>Homo sapiens</it>) |
| title_fullStr | A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) and humans (<it>Homo sapiens</it>) |
| title_full_unstemmed | A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) and humans (<it>Homo sapiens</it>) |
| title_short | A comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs (<it>Cavia porcellus</it>) and humans (<it>Homo sapiens</it>) |
| title_sort | comparative analysis of the intestinal metagenomes present in guinea pigs it cavia porcellus it and humans it homo sapiens it |
| url | http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/13/514 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT hildebrandfalk acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT ebersbachtine acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT nielsenhenrik acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT lixiaoping acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT sonnesi acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT bertalanmarcelo acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT dimitrovpeter acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT madsenlise acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT qinjunjie acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT wangjun acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT raesjeroen acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT kristiansenkarsten acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT lichttine acomparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT hildebrandfalk comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT ebersbachtine comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT nielsenhenrik comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT lixiaoping comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT sonnesi comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT bertalanmarcelo comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT dimitrovpeter comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT madsenlise comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT qinjunjie comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT wangjun comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT raesjeroen comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT kristiansenkarsten comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit AT lichttine comparativeanalysisoftheintestinalmetagenomespresentinguineapigsitcaviaporcellusitandhumansithomosapiensit |