Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29669589›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2018

Similarity of the dog and human gut microbiomes in gene content and response to diet.

Luis Pedro Coelho, Jens Roat Kultima, Paul Igor Costea, Coralie Fournier, Yuanlong Pan, Gail Czarnecki-Maulden, Matthew Robert Hayward, Sofia K Forslund, Thomas Sebastian Benedikt Schmidt, Patrick Descombes and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 208 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
208citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

208 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

148 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Luis Pedro CoelhoStructural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9280-7885
Jens Roat KultimaStructural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Paul Igor CosteaStructural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Coralie FournierNestlé Institute of Health Sciences, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Yuanlong PanNestlé Purina Research, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Gail Czarnecki-MauldenNestlé Purina Research, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Matthew Robert HaywardStructural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Sofia K ForslundStructural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Thomas Sebastian Benedikt SchmidtStructural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany.
Patrick DescombesNestlé Institute of Health Sciences, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Janet R JacksonNestlé Purina Research, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Qinghong LiNestlé Purina Research, St. Louis, MO, USA. Qinghong.li@rd.nestle.com.
Peer BorkStructural and Computational Biology Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany. bork@embl.de.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (BE) 686070
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGut microbes influence their hosts in many ways, in particular by modulating the impact of diet. These effects have been studied most extensively in humans and mice. In this work, we used whole genome metagenomics to investigate the relationship between the gut metagenomes of dogs, humans, mice, and pigs.

resultsWe present a dog gut microbiome gene catalog containing 1,247,405 genes (based on 129 metagenomes and a total of 1.9 terabasepairs of sequencing data). Based on this catalog and taxonomic abundance profiling, we show that the dog microbiome is closer to the human microbiome than the microbiome of either pigs or mice. To investigate this similarity in terms of response to dietary changes, we report on a randomized intervention with two diets (high-protein/low-carbohydrate vs. lower protein/higher carbohydrate). We show that diet has a large and reproducible effect on the dog microbiome, independent of breed or sex. Moreover, the responses were in agreement with those observed in previous human studies.

conclusionsWe conclude that findings in dogs may be predictive of human microbiome results. In particular, a novel finding is that overweight or obese dogs experience larger compositional shifts than lean dogs in response to a high-protein diet.

Indexed as

DietGastrointestinal MicrobiomeMetagenomeMetagenomicsMicrobiotaAnimalsDogsFecesHumansMiceObesitySwineDietDog microbiomeHuman microbiomeMetagenomicsMicrobiomeMouse microbiomePig microbiome

Identifiers

PMID29669589
PMCPMC5907387

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.