Patterns in Gut Microbiota Similarity Associated with Degree of Sociality among Sex Classes of a Neotropical Primate
Studies of human and domestic animal models indicate that related individuals and those that spend the most time in physical contact typically have more similar gut microbial communities. However, few studies have examined these factors in wild mammals where complex social dynamics and a variety of interacting environmental factors may impact the patterns observed in controlled systems. Here, we explore the effect of host kinship and time spent in social contact on the gut microbiota of wild, black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra). Our results indicate that closely related individuals had less similar gut microbial communities than non-related individuals. However, the effect was small. In contrast, as previously reported in baboons and chimpanzees, individuals that spent more time in contact (0 m) and close proximity (0–1 m) had more similar gut microbial communities. This pattern was driven by adult female-adult female dyads, which generally spend more time in social contact than adult male-adult male dyads or adult male-adult female dyads. Relative abundances of individual microbial genera such as Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Streptococcus were also more similar in individuals that spent more time in contact or close proximity. Overall, our data suggest that even in arboreal primates that live in small social groups and spend a relatively low proportion of their time in physical contact, social interactions are associated with variation in gut microbiota composition. Additionally, these results demonstrate that within a given host species, subgroups of individuals may interact with the gut microbiota differently.
KeywordsGut microbiota Alouatta Kinship Social contact
This work was supported by National Geographic/Waitt Foundation (grant number W139-10 to KRA); the National Science Foundation (Graduate Research Fellowship to KRA, grant number 0935347 to SRL, RMS, BAW, KEN); the L.S.B. Leakey Foundation; the Earth Microbiome Project; the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (Dissertation Travel Grant to KRA); and the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (postdoctoral fellowship to SVB). The authors want to thank the numerous research assistants who provided support in the field and Simone Loss, Greg Humphrey, Grant Gogul, and James Gaffney for help with laboratory work and logistics. Thanks are also due to CONANP, SEMARNAT, and SAGARPA in Mexico, and the CDC in the USA. for permits and logistic support.
Raw sequence data can be obtained from EBI (ERP020586).
- 5.Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, Dominguez-Bello MG, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Baldassano RN, Anokhin AP, Heath AC, Warner B, Reeder J, Kuczynski J, Caporaso JG, Lozupone CA, Lauber C, Clemente JD, Knights D, Knight R, Gordon JI (2012) Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nat 486:222–227Google Scholar
- 6.Schnorr SL, Candela M, Rampelli S, Centanni M, Consolandi C, Basaglia G, Turroni S, Biagi E, Peano C, Severgnini M, Fiori J, Gotti R, De Bellis G, Luiselli D, Brigidi P, Mabulla A, Marlowe F, Henry AG, Crittenden AN (2014) Gut microbiome of Hadza hunter-gatherers. Nat Comm 5:3654. doi: 10.1038/ncomms4654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Amato KR, Leigh SR, Kent A, Mackie RI, Yeoman CJ, Stumpf RM, Wilson BA, Nelson KE, White BA, Garber PA (2015) The gut microbiota appears to compensate for seasonal diet variation in the wild black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra). Microb. Ecol. 69:434–443. doi: 10.1007/s00248-014-0554-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Kisidayova S, Varadyova Z, Pristas P, Piknova M, Nigutova K, Petrzelkova KJ, Profousova I, Schovancova K, Kamler J, Modry D (2009) Effects of high- and low-fiber diets on fecal fermentation and fecal microbial populations of captive chimpanzees. Am. J. Primatol. 71:548–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Benson AK, Kelly SA, Legge R, Ma F, Low SJ, Kim J, Zhang M, Oh PL, Nehrenberg D, Hua K, Kachman SD, Moriyama EN, Walter J, Peterson DA, Pomp D (2010) Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex polygenic trait shaped by multiple environmental and host genetic factors. PNAS 107:18933–18938CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 15.Buhnik-Rosenblau K, Danin-Poleg Y, Kashi Y (2011) Host genetics and gut microbiota. In: Rosenberg E, Gophna U (eds) Beneficial microorganisms in multicellular life forms. Springer, Berlin, pp. 281–295Google Scholar
- 26.Van Belle S, Estrada AE (2006) Demographic features of Alouatta pigra populations in extensive and fragmented forests. In: Estrada AE, Garber PA, Pavelka MS, Luecke L (eds) New perspectives in the study of Mesoamerican primates: distribution, ecology, behavior, and conservation. Springer, New York, pp. 121–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Amato KR, Martinez-Mota R, Righini N, Raguet-Schofield ML, Corcione FP, Marini E, Dominguez-Bello MG, Stumpf RM, White BA, Nelson KE, Knight R, Leigh SR (2016) Phylogenetic and ecological factors impact the gut microbiota of Neotropical primate species. Oecologia 180:717–733CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Amato KR, Leigh SR, Kent A, Mackie RI, Yeoman CJ, Stumpf RM, Wilson BA, Nelson KE, White BA, Garber PA (2014) The role of gut microbes in satisfying the demands of adult female and juvenile wild, black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra). Am. J. Phys. Anthr. 155:652–664. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.2262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Huntley J, Fierer N, Owens SM, Betley J, Fraser L, Bauer M, Gormley N, Gilbert JA, Smith G, Knight R (2012) Ultra-high-throughput microbial community analysis on the Illumina HiSeq and MiSeq platforms. ISME J 6:1621–1624CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 40.Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet for Windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MAGoogle Scholar
- 42.Leamy LJ, Kelly SA, Nietfeldt J, Legge R, Ma F, Hua K, Sinha R, Peterson DA, Walter J, Benson AK, Pomp D (2014) Host genetics and diet, but not immunoglobulin a expression, converge to shape compositional features of the gut microbiome in an advanced intercross population of mice. Genome Biol. 15:552CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 43.Spor A, Koren O, Ley RE (2011) Unraveling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome. Nat Rev 9:279–290Google Scholar
- 47.Boone DR, Garrity GM, Brenner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT (2005) Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. Springer Science and Business Media, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 50.Duncan SH, Hold GH, Barcenilla A, Stewart CS, Flint HJ (2002) Roseburia intestinalis sp. nov., a novel saccharolytic, butyrate-producing bacterium from human faeces. Int J Sys Evol Microbiol 52:1615–1620Google Scholar
- 52.Di Fiore A, Link A, Campbell C (2011) The Atelines: behavioral and socioecological diversity in a new world monkey radiation. In: Campbell C, Fuentes A, MacKinnon KC, Panger M, Bearder SK (eds) Primates in perspective, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 390–416Google Scholar
- 53.Noguera-Julian M, Rocafort M, Guillen Y, Rivera J, Casadella M, Nowak P, Hildebrand F, Zeller G, Parera M, Bellido R, Rodriguez C, Carrillo J, Mothe B, Coll J, Bravo I, Estany C, Herrero C, Saz J, Sirera G, Torrela A, Navarro J, Crespo M, Brander C, Negredo E, Blanco J, Guarner F, Calle ML, Bork P, Sonnerborg A (in press) Gut microbiota linked to sexual preference and HIV infection. EBioMedicineGoogle Scholar