The digestive system is home to a complex community of microbes—known as the gut microbiome—that contributes to our health and wellbeing by digesting food, producing essential vitamins, and preventing the growth of harmful bacteria. The recent development of rapid genome sequencing techniques has made it much easier to identify the species of microbes found in the gut microbiome, and how this microbiome's composition varies between individuals.

Studies in humans and other primates suggest that direct contact during social interactions may alter the composition of the gut microbiome in an individual. This could explain why there is a strong association between social interactions and health in humans and other social animals. However, similarities in the gut microbiomes of individuals within a social group could also be due to a shared diet or a common environment. The information collected during long-term studies of wild primates offers an opportunity to analyze and assess the influence of diet, environment and social interaction on the gut microbiome.

Here, Tung et al. studied the gut microbiomes of 48 wild baboons belonging to two different social groups in Amboseli, Kenya. Using a technique called shotgun metagenomic sequencing, they sequenced DNA extracted from samples of feces collected from individual baboons. The sequence data revealed that an individual's social group and social network can predict the species found in its gut microbiome. This remained the case even when other factors—such as diet, kinship, and shared environments—were taken into account.

Tung et al.'s findings suggest that direct physical contact during social interactions may be important in transmitting gut microbiomes between members of the same social group. However, scientists still don't know whether this exchange is good or bad for the health of the baboons. Future work will try to understand whether baboons benefit from acquiring gut microbes from their group members, and if the gut microbes of some social groups are better than others.

Vertebrate intestines are home to thousands of bacterial species that exert profound effects on their hosts: they train the immune system, produce vitamins, help resist pathogens, and contribute substantially to daily energy acquisition (Bergman, 1990; Turnbaugh et al., 2006; Hooper et al., 2012; Bengmark, 2013; Morgan et al., 2013). In humans, inter-individual variation in gut microbiome composition has repeatedly been linked to major health concerns, including obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, and autoimmune disorders (e.g., Turnbaugh et al., 2009; Hooper et al., 2012; Bengmark, 2013; Iida et al., 2013; Koeth et al., 2013; Viaud et al., 2013).

However, despite its importance, large gaps remain in our understanding of the forces that shape gut microbiome composition. Among the least understood but potentially most significant such forces are the effects of host social interactions. From an evolutionary perspective, social effects on the gut microbiome may be an underappreciated consequence of group living, associated with both fitness costs and benefits (Lombardo, 2008; Archie and Theis, 2011; Ezenwa et al., 2012; Montiel-Castro et al., 2013). For example, co-housing in lab mice promotes the transmission of bacterial communities that contribute to inflammatory bowel disease, implicating social relationships in microbiome-associated disease risk (Garrett et al., 2010). In bumblebees, socially transmitted gut bacteria protect against a widespread and virulent gut parasite, suggesting that socially mediated microbial transmission can also confer powerful benefits (Koch and Schmid-Hempel, 2011). If social interactions predict gut microbiome composition in free-living vertebrates as well, this link could help explain the strong association between social interactions and health in highly social species (e.g., Berkman and Syme, 1979; House et al., 1988; Sapolsky, 2004; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010).

A handful of recent studies in humans and other primates provide circumstantial evidence for social effects on the gut microbiome (Degnan et al., 2012; Kinross and Nicholson, 2012; Yatsunenko et al., 2012; Song et al., 2013). For instance, in wild chimpanzees, social group membership predicts the identity and abundance of gut microbes, while kinship, age, and sex do not (Degnan et al., 2012). In humans, shared residence predicts gut microbiome similarity (Kinross and Nicholson, 2012; Yatsunenko et al., 2012; Song et al., 2013). To date, these effects have largely been attributed to shared diets, as members of the same household or social group tend to consume similar foods in similar proportions (Claesson et al., 2011; Kinross and Nicholson, 2012; Yatsunenko et al., 2012). However, social relationships could also shape gut microbiomes more directly, via transmission from shared environments (Lax et al., 2014) or during physical contact.

Differentiating between these mechanisms requires fine-grained data on social interactions, shared environments, and diet. Such complementary data sets are rare, but are frequently collected in long-term primate field studies. Here, we leveraged one such study, on the intensively studied Amboseli baboons of Kenya (Alberts and Altmann, 2012), to test whether social group structure and social interactions within groups predict either the taxonomic or the functional composition of the gut microbiome. Like humans, baboons are highly social, group-living primates. Members of the same social group travel together, consume similar foods, and drink from the same water sources. Within social groups, individuals selectively engage in frequent affiliative grooming interactions, which solidify social bonds and have the potential to mediate bacterial transmission. Within this context, we addressed three central questions. We first asked (i) does social group membership predict gut microbiome composition, as shown for humans and chimpanzees (Degnan et al., 2012; Kinross and Nicholson, 2012; Yatsunenko et al., 2012; Song et al., 2013)? We then asked two novel questions that have not been addressed in prior studies: (ii) within social groups, do rates of social interactions (captured here by grooming-based social networks) predict gut microbiome similarity after accounting for dietary patterns, shared environments, and kinship? And (iii) which bacterial species, with what lifestyle traits, are most likely to be socially transmitted, both between and within social groups?

We generated shotgun metagenomic data for the distal gut using fecal samples from 48 members of two baboon social groups (‘Mica's group’ or ‘Viola's group’; one sample per individual; Supplementary file 1). Together, these individuals represented almost complete sampling (92%) of the adult members of both groups. Fecal samples were collected during a single 1-month timespan to minimize developmental, temporal, and seasonal heterogeneity. During this time, Mica's group and Viola's group exploited adjacent home ranges, with the center of each range separated by just a few kilometers (Figure 1A).

Figure 1 with 5 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Using the program MetaPhlAn 2.0 (Segata et al., 2012), we identified 925 bacterial and archaeal taxa to the species level and quantified their relative abundance (364 ± 150 s.d. species per sample; Figure 1—figure supplement 1; Supplementary files 2, 3; see Supplementary files 3, 4 for parallel results using a de novo assembly approach). We also identified and quantified the relative abundance of 9013 microbial-encoded enzyme orthologs using the HUMAnN pipeline (mean ± SD = 2746 ± 560 KEGG orthologs per sample; Abubucker et al., 2012; Figure 1—figure supplement 3; Supplementary file 5). The taxa we found comprised a typical primate gut microbiota, dominated by the phyla Firmicutes (mean ± SD = 42.2% ± 8.4%), Proteobacteria (13.0% ± 2.8%), Actinobacteria (9.4% ± 4.6%), and Bacteroidetes (7.3% ± 2.4%) (Figure 1—figure supplement 1, 5; Supplementary file 6). In some samples, especially those in Viola's group, we also detected a large contribution from the phylum Spirochaetes, consistent with findings from other primates, ancient humans, and modern-day human hunter-gatherers (De Filippo et al., 2010; Tito et al., 2012; Schnorr et al., 2014).

Grooming networks predicted gut microbiome composition within groups

Despite few detectable differences in diet, unidentified environmental differences between Mica's group and Viola's group could explain the differences in gut microbiome composition we observed. To test whether social contacts per se predicted gut microbiome composition, we turned to fine-grained data on within-group grooming interactions. Grooming is by far the most common form of physical contact in baboons. Importantly, the strength of grooming relationships between pairs of individuals in the same social group varies considerably, despite the fact that all members of a social group travel together and use the same resource base.

To test whether physical contact predicted gut microbiome composition, we constructed grooming networks for each social group, using all grooming interactions observed in the year prior to and during microbiome sampling (Figure 2A,B). We found that, in both groups, closer grooming partners harbored more similar communities of gut bacteria (Mantel test between Bray–Curtis microbiome dissimilarity matrices and social network matrices: Mica's group r = −0.257, p = 3.0 × 10⁻⁴; Viola's group r = −0.173, p = 8.0 × 10⁻⁴; Figure 2C,D). This pattern was not driven by host genetic effects: although female relatives have stronger grooming bonds, controlling for pairwise relatedness still produced strong support for a relationship between grooming and taxonomic composition for Viola's group (partial Mantel test controlling for kinship: r = −0.148, p = 2.0 × 10⁻³), and a consistent trend in Mica's group (partial Mantel test controlling for kinship: r = −0.163, p = 0.060). Interestingly, extending this analysis to the level of enzyme gene orthologs suggested that close grooming partners also have functionally more similar gut microbiomes. Grooming networks predicted variation in within-group enzyme gene ortholog abundance for Mica's group (partial Mantel test controlling for kinship: r = −0.22, p = 0.014), but not Viola's group (partial Mantel test controlling for kinship: r = −0.051, p = 0.166).

Figure 2 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Despite the relative homogeneity of diet within social groups, our results could still be explained by a diet-related mechanism if close grooming partners consumed more similar diets. Alternatively, close social partners might experience similar environmental exposures if they used more similar microenvironments in the group's home range. We tested these possibilities directly, focusing on adult females for whom diet composition and spatial proximity data were routinely collected (N = 11 females in Mica's group and N = 20 females in Viola's group). Grooming network proximity also predicted microbiota composition in this restricted data set (Mantel tests: Mica's group: r = −0.328, p = 9.0 × 10⁻³; Viola's group: r = −0.228, p = 2.6 × 10⁻³), and remained a significant predictor of microbiota composition after accounting for dietary similarity (partial Mantel test controlling for dietary similarity: Mica's group p = 0.020; Viola's group: p = 0.005) and spatial proximity (partial Mantel test controlling for spatial proximity for Mica's group p = 0.039; Viola's group: p = 0.005). Additionally, we found no evidence that close social partners consumed more similar diets (Mantel tests: Mica's group: Mantel r = −0.200, p = 0.080; Viola's group: Mantel r = 0.0942, p = 0.876).

Socially structured bacteria tended to be anaerobic and non-spore-forming

We next investigated which bacterial species were associated with the strong signature of social structure in our data set. To identify these ‘socially structured’ species, we focused on the 327 most prevalent species in our data set (i.e., those found in ≥50% of samples). Using a mixed effects model controlling for age, sex, read depth, and host genetic relatedness, we identified 64 species (19.6%, using a 10% false discovery rate) that were significantly differentially abundant in the two social groups. We performed a complementary analysis, using a test of spatial autocorrelation, to investigate whether close grooming partners exhibited similar bacterial abundances within social groups as well (due to the larger sample size, we performed these tests in Viola's group; see ‘Materials and methods’). Among the same set of 327 prevalent species, we found 51 species (15.6%, 10% false discovery rate) for which proximity within the group's grooming network significantly predicted abundance (Supplementary file 8). Interestingly, 15 species were significantly socially structured both between groups and within social networks—more species than expected by chance (hypergeometric test, p = 0.020).

We next conducted an enrichment analysis to test whether the set of significantly socially structured species contained some taxonomic groups more often than by chance. We found that socially structured species were phylogenetically non-random at both between-group and within social network levels of analysis (Figure 3A,B). Moreover, at both levels of analysis, similar taxonomic groups were significantly enriched for socially structured species (red asterisks on Figure 3), including the phylum Actinobacteria; the families Bifidobacteriaceae, Coriobacteriaceae, and Veillonellaceae; and the genus Bifidobacterium, a group of Gram-negative bacteria that has been linked to beneficial health effects in humans (Servin, 2004; Gronlund et al., 2007; Turroni et al., 2008). The striking similarities between the two levels of analysis suggest that common underlying mechanisms—mediated by direct social contact rather than diet or general physical proximity—account for both between-group differences and grooming network effects within groups.

Figure 3 with 2 supplements see all

Download asset Open asset

Finally, we extended our enrichment analysis to test whether the set of socially structured species was enriched for particular bacterial lifestyles. We reasoned that, if socially structured species depend on direct transmission between baboons, as our data suggest, they should be less likely than other species to persist outside of a host. Thus, we predicted that socially structured species would tend to be anaerobic and unable to produce spores. To test these predictions, we turned to information about bacterial lifestyles available in the Genomes OnLine Database (Pagani et al., 2012), using both species-level (n = 138) and genus-level (n = 299) traits (see ‘Materials and methods’ for trait assignment criteria). We found that socially structured species were consistently enriched (relative to all species or genera tested) for an anaerobic, non-spore forming lifestyle (Figure 3C; hypergeometric tests for socially structured species between groups, species level traits: p = 0.017; socially structured species within group, species level traits: p = 0.067; socially structured species between groups, genus level traits: p = 0.036; socially structured species within group, genus level traits: p = 0.040). For instance, 17% of the species in this analysis differed significantly in abundance between social groups; however 32% of anaerobic and non-spore forming species were significantly socially structured. Notably, no species that were both aerobic and spore-forming were socially structured at the level of social groups or social networks, except for one case in the genus-level analysis.

Taken together, our results provide strong evidence that social interactions directly affect the composition of the gut microbiome in wild baboons. To our knowledge, this study is the first to test whether rates of interaction within cohabiting groups, as opposed to between groups or households, explain variation in the gut microbiome. Specifically, we found that an individual's contacts in a grooming-based social network, as well as its membership in a given social group, were highly predictive of its gut microbiome composition at both the species and genic levels. Unlike prior studies, we were able to exclude kinship, shared diet, and shared environment as the basis for our observations. Our results are thus unique among studies to date in the degree to which they implicate direct, affiliative physical contact as a determinant of gut microbiome composition in natural populations. Our data also provide the first evidence in vertebrates that social effects on the microbiome extend to its functional composition. These findings lend important support to the hypothesis that social interactions play a role in the health-related consequences of variation in gut microbiome composition (e.g., Turnbaugh et al., 2009; Hooper et al., 2012; Bengmark, 2013; Iida et al., 2013; Koeth et al., 2013; Viaud et al., 2013), with potentially important consequences for the evolution of sociality (Lombardo, 2008; Archie and Theis, 2011; Ezenwa et al., 2012; Montiel-Castro et al., 2013).

Thus, our results highlight the importance of socially mediated transmission in shaping gut microbiomes. However, unlike some prior studies in mice and bumblebees (Garrett et al., 2010; Koch and Schmid-Hempel, 2011), baboons are not coprophagic, raising a question about the mechanisms that facilitate gut microbial transfer between social partners. One possibility is that the duration and intimacy of grooming bouts, which include frequent hand-to-mouth contact, may be important in exposing baboons to the gut bacteria of their grooming partners. Furthermore, some grooming bouts, especially those directed from adult males to estrous females, concentrate heavily on the ano-genital region, increasing the probability of fecal-oral transfer. Such close contact may be especially important in the transmission of anaerobic, non-spore-forming species, as these bacteria are not thought to persist for long periods of time outside of a host (Wilson, 2008). However, some relatively hardy bacterial species may also be transmitted via social contact (VanderWaal et al., 2013), and recent modeling efforts suggest that fecal-oral transmission can be highly efficient in socially structured host populations, even when transmission is indirectly mediated through the soil (Nunn et al., 2011).

Interestingly, our observations suggest that social partners not only share more similar sets of gut microbes, but also similar abundances of individual microbial species. One explanation for this pattern is that when bacteria from a host colonize a social partner, they arrive pre-adapted to occupy the available gut microbial niches in their new host (Walter and Ley, 2011). Specifically, because members of a single bacterial species can have markedly different gene contents, a given member of a gut microbial species may perform different functions in different hosts (Walter and Ley, 2011; Costello et al., 2012). However, if social partners transmit bacteria with similar capabilities to each other, these bacteria may serve similar functions in both hosts and thus be found in similar abundances. This hypothesis could be further tested by assessing if bacterial species isolated from social partners tend to represent shared strains that perform similar biological functions.

In humans, affiliative physical contact (e.g., hugging, kissing, holding hands) is common and may provide a similar route through which close social partners transmit gut bacteria. In addition, surfaces in human homes may act as reservoirs for household-specific bacterial communities (Lax et al., 2014), possibly facilitating social transmission through intermediate surfaces. Future work, in both humans and animals, will be important to establishing the relative importance and generality of socially mediated transmission. In particular, population genetic studies have the potential to directly map the genetic structure of microbiome-associated species onto the social structure of host populations to test whether close social partners tend to share genetically more similar bacterial populations than non-partners (e.g., VanderWaal et al., 2013). Fine-grained studies of how gut microbial communities change in social species, before and after perturbations to their social networks, will also be important for understanding the time scales on which social transmission of microbes act. Such efforts would also contribute an important longitudinal perspective. Our power to identify associations between social relationships and microbiome composition in this study was probably facilitated by our sampling scheme, which eliminated the contribution of temporal or seasonal effects. More comprehensive long-term studies will be valuable for placing these effects in context, alongside concomitant changes in season, diet, and resource use.

In humans, variation in the taxonomic and genic composition of the microbiome is increasingly linked to health issues, such as obesity and autoimmune disorders (e.g., Turnbaugh et al., 2009; Hooper et al., 2012; Bengmark, 2013; Koeth et al., 2013). Health and survival in social species (including humans and baboons) are also strongly associated with social relationships (Berkman and Syme, 1979; House et al., 1988; e.g., Sapolsky, 2004; Silk et al., 2009; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2010; Silk et al., 2010; Archie et al., 2014). However, few studies have connected these two observations. By highlighting the strong relationship between microbiome composition and social networks, our findings indicate the importance of further research in this area. One of the most important unanswered questions is whether social network-mediated microbiome sharing produces net fitness benefits or costs for hosts. Previous research on fecal-oral or social network-mediated transmission has focused almost exclusively on pathogens or parasites. Microbiome studies have the potential to broaden this perspective to include species with beneficial effects. Indeed, while we found several socially structured taxa that have been associated with pathogenic effects (e.g., Fusobacterium spp, Campylobacter ureolyticus), we found several other bacteria thought to be beneficial to hosts. For example, members of the phylum Actinobacteria, especially the genus Bifidobacterium, are commonly thought to have probiotic effects in humans due to their role in complex carbohydrate digestion, pathogen inhibition, and vitamin production (Servin, 2004; Gronlund et al., 2007; Turroni et al., 2008). Understanding the balance between social transmission of pathogenic vs commensal or beneficial bacteria thus promises to provide valuable new insight into the link between disease risk and the evolution of sociality.

1. 1. Tung J
   2. Barriero LB
   3. Blekhman R
   4. Archie EA

   (2015) Raw metagenomic sequencing data

   Publicly available at the NCBI Short Read Archive (PRJNA271618).

   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sra/?term=PRJNA271618
2. 1. Tung J
   2. Barriero LB
   3. Blekhman R
   4. Archie EA

   (2015) Data from: Sample information and tables with microbial and genic relative abundance data

   Available at Dryad Digital Repository under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication.

   http://dx.doi.org/10.5061/dryad.8gp03

1. 1. Abubucker S
   2. Segata N
   3. Goll J
   4. Schubert AM
   5. Izard J
   6. Cantarel BL
   7. Rodriguez-Mueller B
   8. Zucker J
   9. Thiagarajan M
   10. Henrissat B
   11. White O
   12. Kelley ST
   13. Methé B
   14. Schloss PD
   15. Gevers D
   16. Mitreva M
   17. Huttenhower C

   (2012) Metabolic reconstruction for metagenomic data and its application to the human microbiome

   PLOS Computational Biology 8:e1002358.

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002358

   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Alberts SC
   2. Altmann J

   (1995) Balancing costs and opportunities: dispersal in male baboons

   American Naturalist 145:279–306.

   https://doi.org/10.1086/285740

   • Google Scholar
3. Book

   1. Alberts SC
   2. Altmann J

   (2012)

   The amboseli baboon research project: themes of continuity and change

   In: Kappeler P, Watts DP, editors. Long-term field studies of primates. Springer Verlag. pp. 261–287.

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Alberts SC
   2. Buchan JC
   3. Altmann J

   (2006) Sexual selection in wild baboons: from mating opportunities to paternity success

   Animal Behaviour 72:1177–1196.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.05.001

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Altmann J

   (1974) Observational study of behavior: sampling methods

   Behaviour 49:227–267.

   https://doi.org/10.1163/156853974X00534

   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Archie EA
   2. Theis KR

   (2011) Animal behavior meets microbial ecology

   Animal Behaviour 82:425–436.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2011.05.029

   • Google Scholar
7. 1. Archie EA
   2. Tung J
   3. Altmann J
   4. Alberts SC

   (2014) Social affiliation matters: both same-sex and opposite-sex relationships predict survival in wild female baboons

   Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 281:20141261.

   https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2014.1261

   • Google Scholar
8. 1. Bengmark S

   (2013) Gut microbiota, immune development and function

   Pharmacological Research 69:87–113.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phrs.2012.09.002

   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Bergman E

   (1990)

   Energy contributions of volatile fatty acids from the gastrointestinal tract in various species

   Physiological Reviews 70:567–590.

   • Google Scholar
10. 1. Berkman LF
    2. Syme SL

    (1979)

    Social networks, host-resistance, and mortality: a 9-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents

    American Journal of Epidemiology 109:186–204.

    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Boisvert S
    2. Raymond F
    3. Godzaridis E
    4. Laviolette F
    5. Corbeil J

    (2012) Ray Meta: scalable de novo metagenome assembly and profiling

    Genome Biology 13:R122.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2012-13-12-r122

    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Buchan JC
    2. Alberts SC
    3. Silk JB
    4. Altmann J

    (2003) True paternal care in a multi-male primate society

    Nature 425:179–181.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature01866

    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Claesson MJ
    2. Cusack S
    3. O'Sullivan O
    4. Greene-Diniz R
    5. de Weerd H
    6. Flannery E
    7. Marchesi JR
    8. Falush D
    9. Dinan T
    10. Fitzgerald G
    11. Stanton C
    12. van Sinderen D
    13. O'Connor M
    14. Harnedy N
    15. O'Connor K
    16. Henry C
    17. O'Mahony D
    18. Fitzgerald AP
    19. Shanahan F
    20. Twomey C
    21. Hill C
    22. Ross RP
    23. O'Toole PW

    (2011) Composition, variability, and temporal stability of the intestinal microbiota of the elderly

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 108:4586–4591.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000097107

    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Costello EK
    2. Stagaman K
    3. Dethlefsen L
    4. Bohannan BJ
    5. Relman DA

    (2012) The application of ecological theory toward an understanding of the human microbiome

    Science 336:1255–1262.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224203

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Davenport ER
    2. Mizrahi-Man O
    3. Michelini K
    4. Barreiro LB
    5. Ober C
    6. Gilad Y

    (2014) Seasonal variation in human gut microbiome composition

    PLOS ONE 9:e90731.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0090731

    • Google Scholar
16. 1. De Filippo C
    2. Cavalieri D
    3. Di Paola M
    4. Ramazzotti M
    5. Poullet JB
    6. Massart S
    7. Collini S
    8. Pieraccini G
    9. Lionetti P

    (2010) Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in children from Europe and rural Africa

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 107:14691–14696.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1005963107

    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Degnan PH
    2. Pusey AE
    3. Lonsdorf EV
    4. Goodall J
    5. Wroblewski EE
    6. Wilson ML
    7. Rudicell RS
    8. Hahn BH
    9. Ochman H

    (2012) Factors associated with the diversification of the gut microbial communities within chimpanzees from Gombe National Park

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 109:13034–13039.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110994109

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. DeSantis TZ
    2. Hugenholtz P
    3. Larsen N
    4. Rojas M
    5. Brodie EL
    6. Keller K
    7. Huber T
    8. Dalevi D
    9. Hu P
    10. Andersen GL

    (2006) Greengenes, a chimera-checked 16S rRNA gene database and workbench compatible with ARB

    Applied and Environmental Microbiology 72:5069–5072.

    https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.03006-05

    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Edgar RC

    (2010) Search and clustering orders of magnitude faster than BLAST

    Bioinformatics 26:2460–2461.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq461

    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Ezenwa VO
    2. Gerardo NM
    3. Inouye DW
    4. Medina M
    5. Xavier JB

    (2012) Animal behavior and the microbiome

    Science 338:198–199.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1227412

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Garrett WS
    2. Gallini CA
    3. Yatsunenko T
    4. Michaud M
    5. DuBois A
    6. Delaney ML
    7. Punit S
    8. Karlsson M
    9. Bry L
    10. Glickman JN
    11. Gordon JI
    12. Onderdonk AB
    13. Glimcher LH

    (2010) Enterobacteriaceae act in concert with the gut microbiota to induce spontaneous and maternally transmitted colitis

    Cell Host & Microbe 8:292–300.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2010.08.004

    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Gronlund MM
    2. Gueimonde M
    3. Laitinen K
    4. Kociubinski G
    5. Grönroos T
    6. Salminen S
    7. Isolauri E

    (2007) Maternal breast-milk and intestinal bifidobacteria guide the compositional development of the Bifidobacterium microbiota in infants at risk of allergic disease

    Clinical and Experimental Allergy 37:1764–1772.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2222.2007.02849.x

    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Holt-Lunstad J
    2. Smith TB
    3. Layton JB

    (2010) Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review

    PLOS Medicine 7:e1000316.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316

    • Google Scholar
24. 1. Hooper LV
    2. Littman DR
    3. Macpherson AJ

    (2012) Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system

    Science 336:1268–1273.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1223490

    • Google Scholar
25. 1. House JS
    2. Landis KR
    3. Umberson D

    (1988) Social relationships and health

    Science 241:540–545.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.3399889

    • Google Scholar
26. 1. Iida N
    2. Dzutsev A
    3. Stewart CA
    4. Smith L
    5. Bouladoux N
    6. Weingarten RA
    7. Molina DA
    8. Salcedo R
    9. Back T
    10. Cramer S
    11. Dai RM
    12. Kiu H
    13. Cardone M
    14. Naik S
    15. Patri AK
    16. Wang E
    17. Marincola FM
    18. Frank KM
    19. Belkaid Y
    20. Trinchieri G
    21. Goldszmid RS

    (2013) Commensal bacteria control cancer response to therapy by modulating the tumor microenvironment

    Science 342:967–970.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240527

    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Kanehisa M
    2. Goto S

    (2000) KEGG: Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes

    Nucleic Acids Research 28:27–30.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.1.27

    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Kanehisa M
    2. Goto S
    3. Sato Y
    4. Kawashima M
    5. Furumichi M
    6. Tanabe M

    (2014) Data, information, knowledge and principle: back to metabolism in KEGG

    Nucleic Acids Research 42:D199–D205.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt1076

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Kinross J
    2. Nicholson JK

    (2012) Gut microbiota: dietary and social modulation of gut microbiota in the elderly

    Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology 9:563–564.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2012.169

    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Koch H
    2. Schmid-Hempel P

    (2011) Socially transmitted gut microbiota protect bumble bees against an intestinal parasite

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 108:19288–19292.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1110474108

    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Koeth RA
    2. Wang Z
    3. Levison BS
    4. Buffa JA
    5. Org E
    6. Sheehy BT
    7. Britt EB
    8. Fu X
    9. Wu Y
    10. Li L
    11. Smith JD
    12. DiDonato JA
    13. Chen J
    14. Li H
    15. Wu GD
    16. Lewis JD
    17. Warrier M
    18. Brown JM
    19. Krauss RM
    20. Tang WH
    21. Bushman FD
    22. Lusis AJ
    23. Hazen SL

    (2013) Intestinal microbiota metabolism of L-carnitine, a nutrient in red meat, promotes atherosclerosis

    Nature Medicine 19:576–585.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3145

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Langmead B
    2. Trapnell C
    3. Pop M
    4. Salzberg SL

    (2009) Ultrafast and memory-efficient alignment of short DNA sequences to the human genome

    Genome Biology 10:R25.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2009-10-3-r25

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Lax S
    2. Smith DP
    3. Hampton-Marcell J
    4. Owens SM
    5. Handley KM
    6. Scott NM
    7. Gibbons SM
    8. Larsen P
    9. Shogan BD
    10. Weiss S
    11. Metcalf JL
    12. Ursell LK
    13. Vázquez-Baeza Y
    14. Van Treuren W
    15. Hasan NA
    16. Gibson MK
    17. Colwell R
    18. Dantas G
    19. Knight R
    20. Gilbert JA

    (2014) Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment

    Science 345:1048–1052.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1254529

    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Lombardo MP

    (2008) Access to mutualistic endosymbiotic microbes: an underappreciated benefit of group living

    Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 62:479–497.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-007-0428-9

    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Montiel-Castro AJ
    2. Gonzalez-Cervantes RM
    3. Bravo-Ruiseco G
    4. Pacheco-Lopez G

    (2013) The microbiota-gut-brain axis: neurobehavioral correlates, health and sociality

    Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience 7:70.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2013.00070

    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Morgan XC
    2. Segata N
    3. Huttenhower C

    (2013) Biodiversity and functional genomics in the human microbiome

    Trends in Genetics 29:51–58.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2012.09.005

    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Morrissey MB
    2. Wilson AJ

    (2010) Pedantics: an R package for pedigree-based genetic simulation and pedigree manipulation, characterization and viewing

    Molecular Ecology Resources 10:711–719.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-0998.2009.02817.x

    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Nunn CL
    2. Thrall PH
    3. Leendertz FH
    4. Boesch C

    (2011) The spread of fecally transmitted parasites in socially-structured populations

    PLOS ONE 6:e21677.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0021677

    • Google Scholar
39. 1. Oksanen J
    2. Blanchet FG
    3. Kindt R
    4. Legendre P
    5. Minchin PR
    6. O'Hara RB
    7. Simpson GL
    8. Solymos P
    9. Stevens MHH
    10. Wagner H

    (2013) vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-10

    vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.0-10, http://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan.

    http://cran.r-project.org/package=vegan

    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Onyango PO
    2. Gesquiere LR
    3. Altmann J
    4. Alberts SC

    (2013) Puberty and dispersal in a wild primate population

    Hormones and Behavior 64:240–249.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.02.014

    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Pagani I
    2. Liolios K
    3. Jansson J
    4. Chen IM
    5. Smirnova T
    6. Nosrat B
    7. Markowitz VM
    8. Kyrpides NC

    (2012) The Genomes OnLine Database (GOLD) v.4: status of genomic and metagenomic projects and their associated metadata

    Nucleic Acids Research 40:D571–D579.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr1100

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Paradis E
    2. Claude J
    3. Strimmer K

    (2004) APE: analyses of Phylogenetics and Evolution in R language

    Bioinformatics 20:289–290.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btg412

    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Rapaport F
    2. Khanin R
    3. Liang Y
    4. Pirun M
    5. Krek A
    6. Zumbo P
    7. Mason CE
    8. Socci ND
    9. Betel D

    (2013) Comprehensive evaluation of differential gene expression analysis methods for RNA-seq data

    Genome Biology 14:R95.

    https://doi.org/10.1186/gb-2013-14-9-r95

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Sapolsky RM

    (2004) Social status and health in humans and other animals

    Annual Review of Anthropology 33:393–418.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.33.070203.144000

    • Google Scholar
45. 1. Schnorr SL
    2. Candela M
    3. Rampelli S
    4. Centanni M
    5. Consolandi C
    6. Basaglia G
    7. Turroni S
    8. Biagi E
    9. Peano C
    10. Severgnini M
    11. Fiori J
    12. Gotti R
    13. De Bellis G
    14. Luiselli D
    15. Brigidi P
    16. Mabulla A
    17. Marlowe F
    18. Henry AG
    19. Crittenden AN

    (2014) Gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter-gatherers

    Nature Communications 5:3654.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4654

    • Google Scholar
46. 1. Segata N
    2. Waldron L
    3. Ballarini A
    4. Narasimhan V
    5. Jousson O
    6. Huttenhower C

    (2012) Metagenomic microbial community profiling using unique clade-specific marker genes

    Nature Methods 9:811–814.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2066

    • Google Scholar
47. 1. Servin AL

    (2004) Antagonistic activities of lactobacilli and bifidobacteria against microbial pathogens

    FEMS Microbiology Reviews 28:405–440.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.femsre.2004.01.003

    • Google Scholar
48. 1. Silk JB
    2. Beehner JC
    3. Bergman TJ
    4. Crockford C
    5. Engh AL
    6. Moscovice LR
    7. Wittig RM
    8. Seyfarth RM
    9. Cheney DL

    (2010) Strong and consistent social bonds enhance the longevity of female baboons

    Current Biology 20:1359–1361.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.05.067

    • Google Scholar
49. 1. Silk JB
    2. Beehner JC
    3. Bergman TJ
    4. Crockford C
    5. Engh AL
    6. Moscovice LR
    7. Wittig RM
    8. Seyfarth RM
    9. Cheney DL

    (2009) The benefits of social capital: close social bonds among female baboons enhance offspring survival

    Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:3099–3104.

    https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2009.0681

    • Google Scholar
50. 1. Song SJ
    2. Lauber C
    3. Costello EK
    4. Lozupone CA
    5. Humphrey G
    6. Berg-Lyons D
    7. Caporaso JG
    8. Knights D
    9. Clemente JC
    10. Nakielny S
    11. Gordon JI
    12. Fierer N
    13. Knight R

    (2013) Cohabiting family members share microbiota with one another and with their dogs

    eLife 2:e00458.

    https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00458

    • Google Scholar
51. 1. Storey JD
    2. Tibshirani R

    (2003) Statistical significance for genomewide studies

    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of USA 100:9440–9445.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1530509100

    • Google Scholar
52. 1. Tito RY
    2. Knights D
    3. Metcalf J
    4. Obregon-Tito AJ
    5. Cleeland L
    6. Najar F
    7. Roe B
    8. Reinhard K
    9. Sobolik K
    10. Belknap S
    11. Foster M
    12. Spicer P
    13. Knight R
    14. Lewis CM Jr

    (2012) Insights from characterizing extinct human gut microbiomes

    PLOS ONE 7:e51146.

    https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0051146

    • Google Scholar
53. 1. Tung J
    2. Barriero LB
    3. Blekhman R
    4. Archie EA

    (2015)

    Data from: sample information and tables with microbial and genic relative abundance data

    10.5061/dryad.8gp03.

    • Google Scholar
54. 1. Turnbaugh PJ
    2. Hamady M
    3. Yatsunenko T
    4. Cantarel BL
    5. Duncan A
    6. Ley RE
    7. Sogin ML
    8. Jones WJ
    9. Roe BA
    10. Affourtit JP
    11. Egholm M
    12. Henrissat B
    13. Heath AC
    14. Knight R
    15. Gordon JI

    (2009) A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins

    Nature 457:480–484.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07540

    • Google Scholar
55. 1. Turnbaugh PJ
    2. Ley RE
    3. Mahowald MA
    4. Magrini V
    5. Mardis ER
    6. Gordon JI

    (2006) An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest

    Nature 444:1027–1031.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05414

    • Google Scholar
56. 1. Turroni F
    2. Ribbera A
    3. Foroni E
    4. van Sinderen D
    5. Ventura M

    (2008) Human gut microbiota and bifidobacteria: from composition to functionality

    Antonie van Leeuwenhoek 94:35–50.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10482-008-9232-4

    • Google Scholar
57. 1. VanderWaal KL
    2. Atwill ER
    3. Isbell LA
    4. McCowan B

    (2013) Linking social and pathogen transmission networks using microbial genetics in giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis)

    The Journal of Animal Ecology 83:406–414.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2656.12137

    • Google Scholar
58. 1. Viaud S
    2. Saccheri F
    3. Mignot G
    4. Yamazaki T
    5. Daillère R
    6. Hannani D
    7. Enot DP
    8. Pfirschke C
    9. Engblom C
    10. Pittet MJ
    11. Schlitzer A
    12. Ginhoux F
    13. Apetoh L
    14. Chachaty E
    15. Woerther PL
    16. Eberl G
    17. Bérard M
    18. Ecobichon C
    19. Clermont D
    20. Bizet C
    21. Gaboriau-Routhiau V
    22. Cerf-Bensussan N
    23. Opolon P
    24. Yessaad N
    25. Vivier E
    26. Ryffel B
    27. Elson CO
    28. Doré J
    29. Kroemer G
    30. Lepage P
    31. Boneca IG
    32. Ghiringhelli F
    33. Zitvogel L

    (2013) The intestinal microbiota modulates the anticancer immune effects of cyclophosphamide

    Science 342:971–976.

    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240537

    • Google Scholar
59. 1. Walter J
    2. Ley R

    (2011) The human gut microbiome: ecology and recent evolutionary changes

    Annual Review of Microbiology 65:411–429.

    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-micro-090110-102830

    • Google Scholar
60. Book

    1. Wilson M

    (2008)

    Bacteriology of humans

    Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.

    • Google Scholar
61. 1. Yatsunenko T
    2. Rey FE
    3. Manary MJ
    4. Trehan I
    5. Dominguez-Bello MG
    6. Contreras M
    7. Magris M
    8. Hidalgo G
    9. Baldassano RN
    10. Anokhin AP
    11. Heath AC
    12. Warner B
    13. Reeder J
    14. Kuczynski J
    15. Caporaso JG
    16. Lozupone CA
    17. Lauber C
    18. Clemente JC
    19. Knights D
    20. Knight R
    21. Gordon JI

    (2012) Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography

    Nature 486:222–227.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11053

    • Google Scholar
62. 1. Zhou X
    2. Stephens M

    (2012) Genome-wide efficient mixed-model analysis for association studies

    Nature Genetics 44:821–824.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.2310

    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Jenny Tung

   1. Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, United States
   2. Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
   3. Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
   4. Duke Population Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, United States

   Contribution

   JT, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   For correspondence

   jt5@duke.edu

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

2. Luis B Barreiro

   Department of Pediatrics, Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Centre, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada

   Contribution

   LBB, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

3. Michael B Burns

   1. Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
   2. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States

   Contribution

   MBB, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

4. Jean-Christophe Grenier

   Department of Pediatrics, Sainte-Justine Hospital Research Centre, University of Montreal, Montreal, Canada

   Contribution

   J-CG, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

5. Josh Lynch

   1. Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
   2. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States

   Contribution

   JL, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

6. Laura E Grieneisen

   Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, United States

   Contribution

   LEG, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

7. Jeanne Altmann

   1. Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
   2. Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, United States

   Contribution

   JA, Acquisition of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

8. Susan C Alberts

   1. Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
   2. Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya

   Contribution

   SCA, Acquisition of data

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

9. Ran Blekhman

   1. Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
   2. Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States

   Contribution

   RB, Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

   Competing interests

   The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

10. Elizabeth A Archie

    1. Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
    2. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, United States

    Contribution

    EAA, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article

    For correspondence

    earchie@nd.edu

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

• 11,341

  views

• 2,160

  downloads

• 368

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.