Complex Carbohydrate Utilization by the Healthy Human Microbiome

Laurentian University, Canada
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 06/2012; 7(6):e28742. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028742
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The various ecological habitats in the human body provide microbes a wide array of nutrient sources and survival challenges. Advances in technology such as DNA sequencing have allowed a deeper perspective into the molecular function of the human microbiota than has been achievable in the past. Here we aimed to examine the enzymes that cleave complex carbohydrates (CAZymes) in the human microbiome in order to determine (i) whether the CAZyme profiles of bacterial genomes are more similar within body sites or bacterial families and (ii) the sugar degradation and utilization capabilities of microbial communities inhabiting various human habitats. Upon examination of 493 bacterial references genomes from 12 human habitats, we found that sugar degradation capabilities of taxa are more similar to others in the same bacterial family than to those inhabiting the same habitat. Yet, the analysis of 520 metagenomic samples from five major body sites show that even when the community composition varies the CAZyme profiles are very similar within a body site, suggesting that the observed functional profile and microbial habitation have adapted to the local carbohydrate composition. When broad sugar utilization was compared within the five major body sites, the gastrointestinal track contained the highest potential for total sugar degradation, while dextran and peptidoglycan degradation were highest in oral and vaginal sites respectively. Our analysis suggests that the carbohydrate composition of each body site has a profound influence and probably constitutes one of the major driving forces that shapes the community composition and therefore the CAZyme profile of the local microbial communities, which in turn reflects the microbiome fitness to a body site.

Download full-text


Available from: Brandi L Cantarel, Jul 30, 2015
  • Source
    • "The human gut harbors the most substantial microbial communities within our bodies, with these communities exhibiting considerable inter-and intra-personal variability (Eckburg et al., 2005; Ley et al., 2006; Qin et al., 2010). Several diseases and disorders have been linked to dysbiosis (imbalance) in these gut communities, and recent studies have sought to identify changes to microbial community structure and function during health and disease (Bäckhed et al., 2004; Cantarel et al., 2012; Claesson et al., 2012; Qin et al., 2012; Hsiao et al., 2013; Gevers et al., 2014). Gut microbial community composition varies less within an individual than among different individuals, suggesting a strong environmental component (Turnbaugh et al., 2006; Qin et al., 2010; Caporaso et al., 2011; The Human Microbiome Project Consortium, 2012; Schloissnig et al., 2013). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The human gut contains dense and diverse microbial communities which have profound influences on human health. Gaining meaningful insights into these communities requires provision of high quality microbial nucleic acids from human fecal samples, as well as an understanding of the sources of variation and their impacts on the experimental model. We present here a systematic analysis of commonly used microbial DNA extraction methods, and identify significant sources of variation. Five extraction methods (Human Microbiome Project protocol, MoBio PowerSoil DNA Isolation Kit, QIAamp DNA Stool Mini Kit, ZR Fecal DNA MiniPrep, phenol:chloroform-based DNA isolation) were evaluated based on the following criteria: DNA yield, quality and integrity, and microbial community structure based on Illumina amplicon sequencing of the V4 region of bacterial and archaeal 16S rRNA genes. Our results indicate that the largest portion of variation within the model was attributed to differences between subjects (biological variation), with a smaller proportion of variation associated with DNA extraction method (technical variation) and intra-subject variation. A comprehensive understanding of the potential impact of technical variation on the human gut microbiota will help limit preventable bias, enabling more accurate diversity estimates.
    Frontiers in Microbiology 03/2015; 6:130. DOI:10.3389/fmicb.2015.00130 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Acetylation of the xylan backbone restricts the hydrolysis of plant poly- and oligosaccharides by hemicellulolytic enzyme preparations to constituent monosaccharides. The positional preferences and deacetylation efficiencies of acetyl esterases from seven different carbohydrate esterase (CE) families towards different acetylated xylopyranosyl units (Xylp) - as present in 4-O-methyl-glucuronic acid (MeGlcA)-substituted xylo-oligosaccharides (AcUXOS) derived from Eucalyptus globulus - were monitored by (1)H NMR, using common conditions for biofuel production (pH 5.0, 50°C). Differences were observed regarding the hydrolysis of 2-O, 3-O, and 2,3-di-O acetylated Xylp and 3-O acetylated Xylp 2-O substituted with MeGlcA. The acetyl esterases tested could be categorized in three groups having activities towards (i) 2-O and 3-O acetylated Xylp, (ii) 2-O, 3-O, and 2,3-di-O acetylated Xylp, and (iii) 2-O, 3-O, and 2,3-di-O acetylated Xylp, as well as 3-O acetylated Xylp 2-O substituted with MeGlcA at the non-reducing end. A high deacetylation efficiency of up to 83% was observed for CE5 and CE1 acetyl esterases. Positional preferences were observed towards 2,3-di-O acetylated Xylp (TeCE1, AnCE5, and OsCE6) or 3-O acetylated Xylp (CtCE4). Different positional preferences, deacetylation efficiencies, and initial deacetylation rates towards 2-O, 3-O, and 2,3-di-O acetylated Xylp and 3-O acetylated Xylp 2-O substituted with MeGlcA were demonstrated for acetyl esterases from different CE families at pH 5.0 and 50°C. The data allow the design of optimal, deacetylating hemicellulolytic enzyme mixtures for the hydrolysis of non-alkaline-pretreated bioenergy feedstocks.
    Biotechnology for Biofuels 12/2015; 8(1):7. DOI:10.1186/s13068-014-0187-6 · 6.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    PLoS Computational Biology 11/2011; 8(6):e1002358. · 4.83 Impact Factor
Show more