A wealth of human studies have demonstrated the importance of gut microbiota to health. Research on non-human animal gut microbiota is now increasing, but what insight does it provide? We reviewed 650 publications from this burgeoning field (2009–2016) and determined that animals driving this research were predominantly ‘domestic’ (48.2%), followed by ‘model’ (37.5%), with least studies on ‘wild’ (14.3%) animals. Domestic studies largely experimentally perturbed microbiota (81.8%) and studied mammals (47.9%), often to improve animal productivity. Perturbation was also frequently applied to model animals (87.7%), mainly mammals (88.1%), for forward translation of outcomes to human health. In contrast, wild animals largely characterised natural, unperturbed microbiota (79.6%), particularly in pest or pathogen vectoring insects (42.5%). We used network analyses to compare the research foci of each animal group: ‘diet’ was the main focus in all three, but to different ends: to enhance animal production (domestic), to study non-infectious diseases (model), or to understand microbiota composition (wild). Network metrics quantified model animal studies as the most interdisciplinary, while wild animals incorporated the fewest disciplines. Overall, animal studies, especially model and domestic, cover a broad array of research. Wild animals, however, are the least investigated, but offer under-exploited opportunities to study ‘real-life’ microbiota

Pascoe, E.L.; Hauffe, H.C.; Marchesi, J.R.; Perkins, S.E. (2017). Network analysis of gut microbiota literature: an overview of the research landscape in non-human animal studies. THE ISME JOURNAL, 11: 2644-2651. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.133 handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10449/35998

Network analysis of gut microbiota literature: an overview of the research landscape in non-human animal studies

Pascoe, E. L.
Primo
;
Hauffe, H. C.;Perkins, S. E.
Ultimo
2017-01-01

Abstract

A wealth of human studies have demonstrated the importance of gut microbiota to health. Research on non-human animal gut microbiota is now increasing, but what insight does it provide? We reviewed 650 publications from this burgeoning field (2009–2016) and determined that animals driving this research were predominantly ‘domestic’ (48.2%), followed by ‘model’ (37.5%), with least studies on ‘wild’ (14.3%) animals. Domestic studies largely experimentally perturbed microbiota (81.8%) and studied mammals (47.9%), often to improve animal productivity. Perturbation was also frequently applied to model animals (87.7%), mainly mammals (88.1%), for forward translation of outcomes to human health. In contrast, wild animals largely characterised natural, unperturbed microbiota (79.6%), particularly in pest or pathogen vectoring insects (42.5%). We used network analyses to compare the research foci of each animal group: ‘diet’ was the main focus in all three, but to different ends: to enhance animal production (domestic), to study non-infectious diseases (model), or to understand microbiota composition (wild). Network metrics quantified model animal studies as the most interdisciplinary, while wild animals incorporated the fewest disciplines. Overall, animal studies, especially model and domestic, cover a broad array of research. Wild animals, however, are the least investigated, but offer under-exploited opportunities to study ‘real-life’ microbiota
Microbial ecology
Microbiodiversity
Microbiome
Network theory
Wildlife
Settore BIO/05 - ZOOLOGIA
2017
Pascoe, E.L.; Hauffe, H.C.; Marchesi, J.R.; Perkins, S.E. (2017). Network analysis of gut microbiota literature: an overview of the research landscape in non-human animal studies. THE ISME JOURNAL, 11: 2644-2651. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2017.133 handle: http://hdl.handle.net/10449/35998
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
ismej2017133.pdf

solo utenti autorizzati

Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 890.05 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
890.05 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10449/35998
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 70
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 66
social impact