1. Ecology
  2. Genetics and Genomics
Download icon

Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons

  1. Jenny Tung
  2. Luis B Barreiro
  3. Michael B Burns
  4. Jean-Christophe Grenier
  5. Josh Lynch
  6. Laura E Grieneisen
  7. Jeanne Altmann
  8. Susan C Alberts
  9. Ran Blekhman
  10. Elizabeth A Archie  Is a corresponding author
  1. Duke University, United States
  2. University of Montreal, Canada
  3. University of Minnesota, United States
  4. University of Notre Dame, United States
  5. National Museums of Kenya, Kenya
Research Article
  • Cited 191
  • Views 10,097
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e05224 doi: 10.7554/eLife.05224

Abstract

Social relationships have profound effects on health in humans and other primates, but the mechanisms that explain this relationship are not well understood. Using shotgun metagenomic data from wild baboons, we found that social group membership and social network relationships predicted both the taxonomic structure of the gut microbiome and the structure of genes encoded by gut microbial species. Rates of interaction directly explained variation in the gut microbiome, even after controlling for diet, kinship, and shared environments. They therefore strongly implicate direct physical contact among social partners in the transmission of gut microbial species. We identified 51 socially structured taxa, which were significantly enriched for anaerobic and non-spore-forming lifestyles. Our results argue that social interactions are an important determinant of gut microbiome composition in natural animal populations-a relationship with important ramifications for understanding how social relationships influence health, as well as the evolution of group living.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jenny Tung

    Department of Evolutionary Anthropology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    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
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Michael B Burns

    Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    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
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Josh Lynch

    Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development; Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    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
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Jeanne Altmann

    Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Susan C Alberts

    Department of Biology, Duke University, Durham, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Ran Blekhman

    Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Elizabeth A Archie

    Institute of Primate Research, National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi, Kenya
    For correspondence
    earchie@nd.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Eric Alm, MIT, United States

Publication history

  1. Received: October 17, 2014
  2. Accepted: February 27, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: March 16, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: March 31, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Tung et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 10,097
    Page views
  • 1,813
    Downloads
  • 191
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    Jakob Thyrring, Lloyd S Peck
    Research Article Updated

    Whether global latitudinal diversity gradients exist in rocky intertidal α-diversity and across functional groups remains unknown. Using literature data from 433 intertidal sites, we investigated α-diversity patterns across 155° of latitude, and whether local-scale or global-scale structuring processes control α-diversity. We, furthermore, investigated how the relative composition of functional groups changes with latitude. α-Diversity differed among hemispheres with a mid-latitudinal peak in the north, and a non-significant unimodal pattern in the south, but there was no support for a tropical-to-polar decrease in α-diversity. Although global-scale drivers had no discernible effect, the local-scale drivers significantly affected α-diversity, and our results reveal that latitudinal diversity gradients are outweighed by local processes. In contrast to α-diversity patterns, species richness of three functional groups (predators, grazers, and suspension feeders) declined with latitude, coinciding with an inverse gradient in algae. Polar and tropical intertidal data were sparse, and more sampling is required to improve knowledge of marine biodiversity.

    1. Ecology
    Corey J A Bradshaw et al.
    Research Article

    The causes of Sahul's megafauna extinctions remain uncertain, although several interacting factors were likely responsible. To examine the relative support for hypotheses regarding plausible ecological mechanisms underlying these extinctions, we constructed the first stochastic, age-structured models for 13 extinct megafauna species from five functional/taxonomic groups, as well as eight extant species within these groups for comparison. Perturbing specific demographic rates individually, we tested which species were more demographically susceptible to extinction, and then compared these relative sensitivities to the fossil-derived extinction chronology. Our models show that the macropodiformes were the least demographically susceptible to extinction, followed by carnivores, monotremes, vombatiform herbivores, and large birds. Five of the eight extant species were as or more susceptible than the extinct species. There was no clear relationship between extinction susceptibility and the extinction chronology for any perturbation scenario, while body mass and generation length explained much of the variation in relative risk. Our results reveal that the actual mechanisms leading to the observed extinction chronology were unlikely related to variation in demographic susceptibility per se, but were possibly driven instead by finer-scale variation in climate change and/or human prey choice and relative hunting success.