Diversity of the Human Intestinal Microbial Flora
1Division of Infectious Diseases and Geographic Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Room S-169, 300 Pasteur Drive, Stanford CA 94305–5107, USA.
2Department of Microbiology and Immunology, 299 Campus Drive, Room D300, Fairchild Science Building, Stanford CA 94305–5124, USA.
3Section of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, MS 779-820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3A 1R9, Canada.
4Department of Statistics, Sequoia Hall, 390 Serra Mall, Stanford University, Stanford CA 94305, USA.
5The Institute for Genomic Research, 9712 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
6Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, 3801 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304, USA.
*To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: eckburg1/at/stanford.edu (P.B.E.); relman/at/stanford.edu (D.A.R.)
The human endogenous intestinal microflora is an essential “organ” in providing nourishment, regulating epithelial development, and instructing innate immunity; yet, surprisingly, basic features remain poorly described. We examined 13,355 prokaryotic ribosomal RNA gene sequences from multiple colonic mucosal sites and feces of healthy subjects to improve our understanding of gut microbial diversity. A majority of the bacterial sequences corresponded to uncultivated species and novel microorganisms. We discovered significant intersubject variability and differences between stool and mucosa community composition. Characterization of this immensely diverse ecosystem is the first step in elucidating its role in health and disease.
The endogenous gastrointestinal microbial flora plays a fundamentally important role in health and disease, yet this ecosystem remains incompletely characterized and its diversity poorly defined (1). Critical functions of the commensal flora include protection against epithelial cell injury (2), regulation of host fat storage (3), and stimulation of intestinal angiogenesis (4). Because of the insensitivity of cultivation, investigators have begun to explore this ecosystem using molecular fingerprinting methods (5) and sequence analysis of cloned microbial small-subunit ribosomal RNA genes [16S ribosomal DNA (rDNA)] (6-9). However, such studies have been limited by the relative paucity of sequenced gene fragments, the use of fecal biota as a surrogate for the entire gut microflora, and little attention given to potential differences between specific anatomical sites. In addition, variation associated with time, diet, and health status have not been adequately described, nor have the relative importance and contributions of each source (10).
Surface-adherent and luminal microbial populations may be distinct and may fulfill different roles within the ecosystem. For example, the biofilm-like architecture of the mucosal microbiota, in close contact with the underlying gut epithelium, facilitates beneficial functions including nutrient exchange and induction of host innate immunity (11). Fecal samples are often used to investigate the intestinal microflora because they are easily collected. However, the degree to which composition and function of the fecal microflora differ from mucosal microflora remains unclear. We undertook a large-scale comparative analysis of 16S rDNA sequences to characterize better the adherent mucosal and fecal microbial communities and to examine how these microbial communities differed between subjects and between mucosal sites.
Mucosal tissue and fecal samples were obtained from three healthy adult subjects (A, B, and C) who were part of a larger population-based case-control study (table S1) (12). Mucosal samples were obtained during colonoscopy from healthy-appearing sites within the six major subdivisions of the human colon: cecum, ascending colon, transverse colon, descending colon, sigmoid colon, and rectum. Fecal samples were collected from each subject 1 month following colonoscopy (12). We focused on 16S rDNA given its universal distribution among all prokaryotes, the presence of diverse species-specific domains, and its reliability for inferring phylogenetic relationships (13). The 16S rDNA was amplified from samples with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and broad-range bacterial and archaeal primers (12). The 7 samples from subject B and the fecal sample from subject C yielded archaeal products; all 21 samples yielded bacterial products. PCR products were cloned and sequenced bidirectionally, and numerical ecology approaches were applied.
Initially, a phylotype census was performed on each sample (table S2). A total of 11,831 bacterial and 1524 archaeal near-full-length, nonchimeric 16S rDNA sequences were subjected to phylogenetic analysis. Using 99% minimum similarity as the threshold for any pair of sequences in a phylotype (or operational taxonomic unit) as calculated by dissimilarity matrices and the DOTUR program (12), we identified a total of 395 bacterial phylotypes (Fig. 1). In contrast, all 1524 archaeal sequences belonged to a single phylotype (Methanobrevibacter smithii); these archaeal sequences were excluded from further analyses. This remarkable apparent difference in diversity of the two prokaryotic domains in the gut was reminiscent of results from soil and ocean (14).
Of the 395 bacterial phylotypes, 244 (62%) were novel (table S3), and 80% represented sequences from species that have not been cultivated (12). Most of the inferred organisms were members of the Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes phyla (Fig. 1 and fig. S1), which is concordant with other molecular analyses of the gut flora (6, 7, 9). The Firmicutes phylum consisted of 301 phylotypes, 191 of which were novel; most (95%) of the Firmicutes sequences were members of the Clostridia class. We detected a substantial number of Firmicutes related to known butyrate-producing bacteria (2454 sequences, 42 phylotypes) (15, 16), all of which are members of clostridial clusters IV, XIVa, and XVI. We expected prominent representation of this functional group among our healthy control subjects, given its role in the maintenance and protection of the normal colonic epithelium (16). Large variations among the 65 Bacteroidetes phylotypes were noted between subjects (Fig. 1), as described previously (6, 7). B. thetaiotaomicron was detected in each subject and is known to be involved in beneficial functions, including nutrient absorption and epithelial cell maturation and maintenance (17). Relatively few sequences were associated with the Proteobacteria, Actino-bacteria, Fusobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia phyla (fig. S1). The low abundance of Proteobacteria sequences (including Escherichia coli) was not surprising, given that facultative species may represent ~0.1% of the bacteria in the strict anaerobic environment of the colon; this is consistent with previous findings (6, 8, 9). Three sequences from two subjects (represented by ) clustered with unclassified sequences previously identified from mammalian gut samples. These sequences appear to represent a novel lineage, deeply branching from the Cyano-bacteria phylum and chloroplast sequences.
No complex microbial community in nature has been sampled to completion. In addition to its biases and inability to distinguish live from dead organisms, the limited sensitivity of broad-range PCR may hinder detection of rare phylotypes. We used several nonparametric methods to explore the diversity and coverage of our clone libraries. Phylo-type richness estimations suggested that at least 500 phylotypes would be detected with continued sequencing from our samples (≥130, ≥300, and ≥200 phylotypes in subjects A, B, and C) (Fig. 2 and figs. S2 and S3). These estimates must be considered as lower bounds, because both the observed and the estimated richness have increased in parallel with additional sampling effort (Fig. 2 and fig. S3). Coverage was 99.0% over all bacterial clone libraries combined, meaning that one new unique phylotype would be expected for every 100 additional sequenced clones (18).
The microbial community appeared more diverse in subject B than in A or C, based on inspection of the richness and evenness of the clone distribution across the phylogenetic tree (Fig. 1). The Rao diversity coefficient (19), which accounts for both phylotype abundance and dissimilarity, was indeed higher for B than for the other subjects (fig. S7). This pattern was not found with traditional, that is, Shannon and Simpson, diversity indices, which assess only relative phylotype abundance (20). Within each subject, the mucosal samples demonstrated similar diversity profiles, regardless of the index used (fig. S7).
Previous investigations have not rigorously addressed possible differences in the intestinal microflora between subjects, between anatomical sites, or between stool and mucosal communities. We applied techniques that are based on the relative abundance of sequences within communities and the extent of genetic divergence between sequences. We first compared inter- and intrasubject variability using double principal coordinate analysis (DPCoA) (19). The greatest amount of variability was explained by intersubject differences; stool-mucosa differences explained most of the variability remaining in the data (Fig. 3). The relative lack of variation among mucosal sites was further examined. The FST statistic of population genetics (21) was used to compare genetic diversity within each subject; this revealed that the mucosal populations of subjects A and B were significantly distinct compared with the overall mucosal diversity (table S5). However, in both of these subjects, a single mucosal library had a deviant genetic diversity index; exclusion of this library from the analysis led to an insignificant FST statistic in each case (12). Taken as a whole, these results confirmed little genetic variation among subject-specific mucosal libraries.
We then asked whether nonrandom distributions of phylogenetic lineages accounted for any variation among all samples. Using a modification of the phylogenetic (P) test (12, 21), we found that stool and pooled mucosal libraries harbored distinct lineages (P < 0.001) (table S5); however, distinct lineages were not found among the individual mucosal libraries. We sought further anatomic precision in explaining library distinctions using the ∫-LIBSHUFF program (22). We found that mucosal clone libraries were similar to the other mucosal libraries from the same subject, with two exceptions (fig. S6). The library from the ascending colon of subject A was a subset of every other mucosal population from that subject (P values < 0.0017), and the descending colon library from subject B was a subset of the ascending colon library in that subject (P = 0.0005). Such inconsistencies among mucosal subpopulations suggested a pattern of patchiness in the distribution of mucosal bacteria rather than a homogenous gradient along the longitudinal axis of the colon. ∫-LIBSHUFF also revealed that nearly all mucosal libraries from subjects B and C were significantly distinct from the corresponding stool library, whereas each mucosal library from subject A was a subset of the stool library. We postulate that the fecal microbiota represents a combination of shed mucosal bacteria and a separate nonadherent luminal population; however, these data must be interpreted with caution, given the delay between stool and mucosa sampling.
Bacterial diversity within the human colon and feces is greater than previously described, and most of it is novel. Differences between individuals were significantly greater than intrasubject differences, with the exception of variation between stool and adherent mucosal communities. Complicating this picture is our evidence for patchiness and heterogeneity. This patchiness did not display an obvious pattern along the course of the colon but may reflect microanatomic niches. Given that each mucosal sample contained a similar distribution of organisms within higher order taxa (Fig. 1), the variation we observed at the genus or species level may be the result of colonization resistance by the more abundant members within similar functional groups (23). Whether the gut micro-biota undergoes such nonrandom assembly remains unclear.
Ecological statistical approaches reveal previously unrecognized irregularities in the architecture of complex microbial communities. High-resolution spatial, temporal, and functional analyses of the adherent human intestinal microbiota are still needed. In addition, the effects of host genetics and of perturbations such as immunosuppression, antimicrobials, and change in diet have yet to be carefully defined. We anticipate that micro-arrays, single-cell analysis, and metagenomics [e.g., a “Second Human Genome Project” (24)] will complement the approach we have illustrated and hasten our understanding of human-associated microbial ecosystems.
References and Notes
1. Hooper LV, Gordon JI. Science. 2001;292:1115. [PubMed]
2. Rakoff-Nahoum S, Paglino J, Eslami-Varzaneh F, Edberg S, Medzhitov R. Cell. 2004;118:229. [PubMed]
4. Stappenbeck TS, Hooper LV, Gordon JI. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2002;99:15451. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
6. Hayashi H, Sakamoto M, Benno Y. Microbiol. Immunol. 2002;46:535. [PubMed]
7. Hold GL, Pryde SE, Russell VJ, Furrie E, Flint HJ. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2002;39:33.
9. Wang X, Heazlewood SP, Krause DO, Florin TH. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003;95:508. [PubMed]
10. Horner-Devine MC, Carney KM, Bohannan BJM. Proc. R. Soc. London. 2003;271:113.
11. Sonnenburg JL, Angenent LT, Gordon JI. Nat. Immunol. 2004;5:569. [PubMed]
12. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
13. Pace NR. Science. 1997;276:734. [PubMed]
14. Curtis TP, Sloan WT. Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 2004;7:221. [PubMed]
16. Pryde SE, Duncan SH, Hold GL, Stewart CS, Flint HJ. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2002;217:133. [PubMed]
17. Hooper LV, et al. Science. 2001;291:881. [PubMed]
18. Good's coverage estimates were 99.3%, 97.9%, and 98.3% for subjects A, B, and C, respectively.
19. Pavoine S, Dufour AB, Chessel D. J. Theor. Biol. 2004;228:523. [PubMed]
20. Colwell RK. EstimateS, version 7. 2004. http:// viceroy.eeb.uconn.edu/estimates
22. Schloss PD, Larget BR, Handelsman J. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2004;70:5485. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
23. Fargione J, Brown CS, Tilman D. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2003;100:8916. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
24. Relman DA, Falkow S. Trends Microbiol. 2001;9:206. [PubMed]
25. We thank B. Bohannan, M. B. Omary, and S. Holmes (Stanford University) for helpful comments on the manuscript. This research was supported by grants from the NIH (no. AI51259) and Ellison Medical Foundation (D.A.R.), Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada (C.N.B., M.S.), National Science Foundation (E.P.), and Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (S.R.G., K.E.N.). Representatives of novel phylo-types (AY916135 to AY916390) and all other sequences (AY974810 to AY986384) were deposited in GenBank.
Figures and Tables
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
Science. 2001 May 11; 292(5519):1115-8.[Science. 2001]
Cell. 2004 Jul 23; 118(2):229-41.[Cell. 2004]
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Nov 2; 101(44):15718-23.[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004]
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Nov 26; 99(24):15451-5.[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002]
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Jul; 68(7):3401-7.[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002]
Nat Immunol. 2004 Jun; 5(6):569-73.[Nat Immunol. 2004]
Science. 1997 May 2; 276(5313):734-40.[Science. 1997]
Curr Opin Microbiol. 2004 Jun; 7(3):221-6.[Curr Opin Microbiol. 2004]
Microbiol Immunol. 2002; 46(8):535-48.[Microbiol Immunol. 2002]
J Appl Microbiol. 2003; 95(3):508-20.[J Appl Microbiol. 2003]
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000 Apr; 66(4):1654-61.[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000]
FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002 Dec 17; 217(2):133-9.[FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2002]
Science. 2001 Feb 2; 291(5505):881-4.[Science. 2001]
J Theor Biol. 2004 Jun 21; 228(4):523-37.[J Theor Biol. 2004]
J Theor Biol. 2004 Jun 21; 228(4):523-37.[J Theor Biol. 2004]
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Aug; 68(8):3673-82.[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002]
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002 Aug; 68(8):3673-82.[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002]
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004 Sep; 70(9):5485-92.[Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004]
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 22; 100(15):8916-20.[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003]
Trends Microbiol. 2001 May; 9(5):206-8.[Trends Microbiol. 2001]