Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41167241›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of animal ecology2025

Impact of animal socioecology on gut microbial communities: Insights from wild meerkats in the Kalahari.

Krishna Balasubramaniam, Nadine Mueller-Klein, Tim Vink, Timothy H Clutton-Brock, Marta B Manser, Simone Sommer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of animal ecology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Krishna BalasubramaniamSchool of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science & Engineering, Anglia Ruskin University, Cambridge, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2101-0588
Nadine Mueller-KleinInstitute for Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.
Tim VinkKalahari Research Trust, Van Zylsrus, South Africa.
Timothy H Clutton-BrockKalahari Research Trust, Van Zylsrus, South Africa.
Marta B ManserKalahari Research Trust, Van Zylsrus, South Africa.
Simone SommerInstitute for Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5148-8136

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft DFG SO428/15-1H2020 European Research Council 294494H2020 European Research Council 742808Human Frontier Science Program RGP0051/2017
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The social organisation of animals likely shapes the composition, diversity and stability of microbiomes, giving rise to the concept of the 'social microbiome'-microbial communities shared within and across social units, or 'islands', ranging from individuals to entire ecosystems. Understanding the connections and their underlying drivers is crucial for revealing how socioecology influences microbiomes and associated health outcomes. However, empirical assessments are still limited, and the relative influence of social organisation compared to intrinsic (biological) and extrinsic (environmental) factors in shaping microbiomes is particularly unclear. Here, we used a long-term, individual-based study of Kalahari meerkats (Suricata suricatta) to test predictions from the social microbiome concept. We assessed the relative influence of social factors, biological traits and environmental variables on gut microbial communities, while also accounting for the effects of microbial phylogenetic relatedness and within-host associations or co-occurrence independent of phylogeny. Meerkat microbiomes exhibited highly 'nested' and weakly 'modular' structures: individuals with lower diversity hosted amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) that were subsets of the overall community, though some bacterial taxa clustered distinctly among hosts. Microbiomes were more similar within social groups than between them. Group membership strongly influenced the co-occurrence of many beneficial ASVs, as well as a few potentially harmful ones. This effect was stronger than that of kinship, though closer relatives shared more similar microbiomes within some groups. While a range of social, biological and environmental factors influenced bacterial abundance, group membership, individual age and sampling time since sunrise had the most significant impact. ASV-ASV co-occurrence within hosts, independent of phylogeny, also played a major role. In contrast, individual-level social traits (e.g. dominance, immigration), other environmental (e.g. sampling temperature, rainfall, hours since foraging), demographic (sex) and health-related factors (body condition, disease status) had weaker effects on bacterial abundance. We show that gut microbiomes are shaped by a combination of factors, highlighting the importance of separating the effects of social organisation from individual social traits, biological factors, environmental influences and microbe-microbe interactions. By identifying drivers of both beneficial and detrimental bacterial co-occurrence, we provide a foundation for assessing how the social microbiome affects animal health and fitness.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeHerpestidaeSocial BehaviorAnimalsBacteriaFemaleMalePhylogenyanimal socioecologygut microbial communitiesjoint‐species‐distribution model (JSDM)meerkats (Suricata suricatta)microbial co‐occurrence networkssocial microbiome

Identifiers

PMID41167241
PMCPMC12673242

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.