Skip to main content
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Issues
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Editor's Picks
    • Special Series: Sponsored Minireviews and Video Abstracts
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Novel Systems Biology Techniques
    • Early-Career Systems Microbiology Perspectives
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics
  • About the Journal
    • About mSystems
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • ASM Journals
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
mSystems
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Latest Articles
    • Special Issues
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Editor's Picks
    • Special Series: Sponsored Minireviews and Video Abstracts
    • Archive
  • Topics
    • Applied and Environmental Science
    • Ecological and Evolutionary Science
    • Host-Microbe Biology
    • Molecular Biology and Physiology
    • Novel Systems Biology Techniques
    • Early-Career Systems Microbiology Perspectives
  • For Authors
    • Getting Started
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics
  • About the Journal
    • About mSystems
    • Editor in Chief
    • Board of Editors
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
Commentary | Host-Microbe Biology

Molecular Reconstruction of the Diet in Human Stool Samples

Frank Maixner
Frank Maixner
aEurac Research - Institute for Mummy Studies, Bolzano, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00634-19
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

Understanding dietary effects on the gut microbial composition is one of the key questions in human microbiome research. It is highly important to have reliable dietary data on the stool samples to unambiguously link the microbiome composition to food intake. Often, however, self-reported diet surveys have low accuracy and can be misleading. Thereby, additional molecular biology-based methods could help to revise the diet composition. The article by Reese et al. [A. T. Reese, T. R. Kartzinel, B. L. Petrone, P. J. Turnbaugh, et al., mSystems 4(5):e00458-19, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00458-19] in a recent issue of mSystems describes a DNA metabarcoding strategy targeting chloroplast DNA markers in stool samples from 11 human subjects consuming both controlled and freely selected diets. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of this molecular method in detecting plant remains in the sample compared to the written dietary records. This study displays an important first step in implementing molecular dietary reconstructions in stool microbiome studies which will finally help to increase the accuracy of dietary metadata.

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal or of ASM.

COMMENTARY

Diet is an important external factor influencing the composition of the human gut microbiome. Various studies have shown the effects of dietary changes on gut microbes which can subsequently impact human physiology (1). The experimental setup of these studies often included a major change in individual macronutrients (e.g., high-fiber diet) (2). However, since the macronutrients are rarely consumed in isolation, those human gut microbiome studies must in addition rely on self-reported human diet surveys. This brings human error into play, resulting in inaccurate dietary surveys due to biases associated with human memory (3). Therefore, it would be of utmost importance to include in future diet-microbiome studies further molecular methods that allow an independent dietary reconstruction of the analyzed stool samples.

The idea to molecularly reconstruct diet in stool samples is not new and has already been applied in the field of ecology and ancient DNA research. DNA barcodes targeting both plant (trnL/UAA intron, large subunit of the RuBisCO) (4, 5) and animal (16S ribosomal DNA [rDNA], 12S rDNA, cytochrome b) (4, 6, 7) plastid regions have previously been used to reconstruct the diet, e.g., of wild herbivore (8) and omnivore (9) animals. Furthermore, metabarcodes have been used to analyze the flora and fauna of past and present ecosystems (10, 11). Recently, the last meal of the Iceman, a 5,300-year-old European glacier mummy, has been reconstructed from an ancient stool sample by using an interdisciplinary approach (7). The authors combined classical microscopy with various -omics strategies (genomics, proteomics, lipidomics, metabolomics) including DNA metabarcoding to unambiguously identify the plant and animal remains in the Iceman’s diet.

Resse and colleagues (12) applied in their paper in a recent issue of mSystems a DNA metabarcoding approach targeting the plant marker trnL/UAA intron to characterize the plant diet in stool samples collected from 11 human subjects consuming both controlled and freely selected diets. The study evaluated the efficiency of this molecular method in detecting plant remains in human stool samples by comparing the written dietary records of the patients to the molecular results. The authors observed a high detection rate of plant taxa in the molecular survey compared to the written diet records from controlled settings. Importantly, DNA metabarcoding could distinguish between prepared diets with defined sets of plant ingredients and noninterventional diet compositions. Beside these first promising results, the authors are fully aware of the current limitations of the applied DNA metabarcoding approach. First, the PCR amplification success rate ranged between 50% and 70%. Thus, not all samples could be analyzed. Second, metabarcoding detects plant traces in freely eaten diets that may not reflect the main plant diet but rather ingredients possibly included in processed foods. Third, the metabarcoding approach is always as good as the quality and completeness of the comparative data set. Especially since one future goal should be to apply the approach to more geographically and culturally diverse human populations, I would assume that the comparative marker data sets must be adapted to geographical dietary habits, maybe to plant taxa not yet present in the NCBI sequence depository.

The work by Reese et al. (12) shows that DNA-based dietary analysis holds promise for tracking human plant diet molecularly. Future studies can be extended to other DNA barcodes to also characterize the animal diet in omnivorous studies. As a long-term goal, PCR-independent metagenomic dietary analysis in stool samples could become a routine method that will allow in combination with other -omics technologies (e.g., proteomics, lipidomics) the full reconstruction of human diets. Dietary information obtained by that means combined with gut microbiome compositional data will open new avenues in the understanding of the effects of dietary changes to microbial structure and subsequently to human physiology.

  • Copyright © 2019 Maixner.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Gentile CL,
    2. Weir TL
    . 2018. The gut microbiota at the intersection of diet and human health. Science 362:776–780. doi:10.1126/science.aau5812.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    1. Zhao L,
    2. Zhang F,
    3. Ding X,
    4. Wu G,
    5. Lam YY,
    6. Wang X,
    7. Fu H,
    8. Xue X,
    9. Lu C,
    10. Ma J,
    11. Yu L,
    12. Xu C,
    13. Ren Z,
    14. Xu Y,
    15. Xu S,
    16. Shen H,
    17. Zhu X,
    18. Shi Y,
    19. Shen Q,
    20. Dong W,
    21. Liu R,
    22. Ling Y,
    23. Zeng Y,
    24. Wang X,
    25. Zhang Q,
    26. Wang J,
    27. Wang L,
    28. Wu Y,
    29. Zeng B,
    30. Wei H,
    31. Zhang M,
    32. Peng Y,
    33. Zhang C
    . 2018. Gut bacteria selectively promoted by dietary fibers alleviate type 2 diabetes. Science 359:1151–1156. doi:10.1126/science.aao5774.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Subar AF,
    2. Freedman LS,
    3. Tooze JA,
    4. Kirkpatrick SI,
    5. Boushey C,
    6. Neuhouser ML,
    7. Thompson FE,
    8. Potischman N,
    9. Guenther PM,
    10. Tarasuk V,
    11. Reedy J,
    12. Krebs-Smith SM
    . 2015. Addressing current criticism regarding the value of self-report dietary data. J Nutr 145:2639–2645. doi:10.3945/jn.115.219634.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Poinar HN,
    2. Hofreiter M,
    3. Spaulding WG,
    4. Martin PS,
    5. Stankiewicz BA,
    6. Bland H,
    7. Evershed RP,
    8. Possnert G,
    9. Paabo S
    . 1998. Molecular coproscopy: dung and diet of the extinct ground sloth Nothrotheriops shastensis. Science 281:402–406. doi:10.1126/science.281.5375.402.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    1. Taberlet P,
    2. Coissac E,
    3. Pompanon F,
    4. Gielly L,
    5. Miquel C,
    6. Valentini A,
    7. Vermat T,
    8. Corthier G,
    9. Brochmann C,
    10. Willerslev E
    . 2007. Power and limitations of the chloroplast trn L (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucleic Acids Res 35:e14. doi:10.1093/nar/gkl938.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Burger J,
    2. Schoon R,
    3. Zeike B,
    4. Hummel S,
    5. Herrmann B
    . 2002. Species determination using species-discriminating PCR-RFLP of ancient DNA from prehistoric skeletal remains. Ancient Biomolecules 4:19–23. doi:10.1080/13586120290018491.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Maixner F,
    2. Turaev D,
    3. Cazenave-Gassiot A,
    4. Janko M,
    5. Krause-Kyora B,
    6. Hoopmann MR,
    7. Kusebauch U,
    8. Sartain M,
    9. Guerriero G,
    10. O’Sullivan N,
    11. Teasdale M,
    12. Cipollini G,
    13. Paladin A,
    14. Mattiangeli V,
    15. Samadelli M,
    16. Tecchiati U,
    17. Putzer A,
    18. Palazoglu M,
    19. Meissen J,
    20. Lösch S,
    21. Rausch P,
    22. Baines JF,
    23. Kim BJ,
    24. An H-J,
    25. Gostner P,
    26. Egarter-Vigl E,
    27. Malfertheiner P,
    28. Keller A,
    29. Stark RW,
    30. Wenk M,
    31. Bishop D,
    32. Bradley DG,
    33. Fiehn O,
    34. Engstrand L,
    35. Moritz RL,
    36. Doble P,
    37. Franke A,
    38. Nebel A,
    39. Oeggl K,
    40. Rattei T,
    41. Grimm R,
    42. Zink A
    . 2018. The Iceman’s last meal consisted of fat, wild meat, and cereals. Curr Biol 28:2348–2355.e9. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2018.05.067.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. 8.↵
    1. Kartzinel TR,
    2. Chen PA,
    3. Coverdale TC,
    4. Erickson DL,
    5. Kress WJ,
    6. Kuzmina ML,
    7. Rubenstein DI,
    8. Wang W,
    9. Pringle RM
    . 2015. DNA metabarcoding illuminates dietary niche partitioning by African large herbivores. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112:8019–8024. doi:10.1073/pnas.1503283112.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Robeson MS, II,
    2. Khanipov K,
    3. Golovko G,
    4. Wisely SM,
    5. White MD,
    6. Bodenchuck M,
    7. Smyser TJ,
    8. Fofanov Y,
    9. Fierer N,
    10. Piaggio AJ
    . 2018. Assessing the utility of metabarcoding for diet analyses of the omnivorous wild pig (Sus scrofa). Ecol Evol 8:185–196. doi:10.1002/ece3.3638.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  10. 10.↵
    1. Pringle RM,
    2. Kartzinel TR,
    3. Palmer TM,
    4. Thurman TJ,
    5. Fox-Dobbs K,
    6. Xu CCY,
    7. Hutchinson MC,
    8. Coverdale TC,
    9. Daskin JH,
    10. Evangelista DA,
    11. Gotanda KM,
    12. A Man In 't Veld N,
    13. Wegener JE,
    14. Kolbe JJ,
    15. Schoener TW,
    16. Spiller DA,
    17. Losos JB,
    18. Barrett RDH
    . 2019. Predator-induced collapse of niche structure and species coexistence. Nature 570:58–64. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1264-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. 11.↵
    1. Willerslev E,
    2. Davison J,
    3. Moora M,
    4. Zobel M,
    5. Coissac E,
    6. Edwards ME,
    7. Lorenzen ED,
    8. Vestergård M,
    9. Gussarova G,
    10. Haile J,
    11. Craine J,
    12. Gielly L,
    13. Boessenkool S,
    14. Epp LS,
    15. Pearman PB,
    16. Cheddadi R,
    17. Murray D,
    18. Bråthen KA,
    19. Yoccoz N,
    20. Binney H,
    21. Cruaud C,
    22. Wincker P,
    23. Goslar T,
    24. Alsos IG,
    25. Bellemain E,
    26. Brysting AK,
    27. Elven R,
    28. Sønstebø JH,
    29. Murton J,
    30. Sher A,
    31. Rasmussen M,
    32. Rønn R,
    33. Mourier T,
    34. Cooper A,
    35. Austin J,
    36. Möller P,
    37. Froese D,
    38. Zazula G,
    39. Pompanon F,
    40. Rioux D,
    41. Niderkorn V,
    42. Tikhonov A,
    43. Savvinov G,
    44. Roberts RG,
    45. MacPhee RDE,
    46. Gilbert MTP,
    47. Kjær KH,
    48. Orlando L,
    49. Brochmann C,
    50. Taberlet P
    . 2014. Fifty thousand years of Arctic vegetation and megafaunal diet. Nature 506:47–51. doi:10.1038/nature12921.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  12. 12.↵
    1. Reese AT,
    2. Kartzinel TR,
    3. Petrone BL,
    4. Turnbaugh PJ,
    5. Pringle RM,
    6. David LA
    . 2019. Using DNA metabarcoding to evaluate the plant component of human diets: a proof of concept. mSystems 4(5):e00458-19. doi:10.1128/mSystems.00458-19.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
View Abstract
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
Molecular Reconstruction of the Diet in Human Stool Samples
Frank Maixner
mSystems Nov 2019, 4 (6) e00634-19; DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00634-19

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print
Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this mSystems article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Molecular Reconstruction of the Diet in Human Stool Samples
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from mSystems
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in mSystems.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Molecular Reconstruction of the Diet in Human Stool Samples
Frank Maixner
mSystems Nov 2019, 4 (6) e00634-19; DOI: 10.1128/mSystems.00634-19
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • ABSTRACT
    • COMMENTARY
    • REFERENCES
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

DNA barcodes
diet
microbiome

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About mSystems
  • Author Videos
  • Board of Editors
  • Policies
  • Overleaf Pilot
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Author Warranty
  • Types of Articles
  • Getting Started
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #mSystemsJ

@ASMicrobiology

       

 

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Online ISSN: 2379-5077