Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 29;18(6):e0281385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281385

Similar connectivity of gut microbiota and brain activity networks is mediated by animal protein and lipid intake in children from a Mexican indigenous population

Elvia Ramírez-Carrillo 1,2,*,#, Isaac G-Santoyo 1,3,*,#, Oliver López-Corona 4,5,*,#, Olga A Rojas-Ramos 1,6, Luisa I Falcón 7, Osiris Gaona 7, Rosa María de la Fuente Rodríguez 1, Ariatna Hernández Castillo 1, Daniel Cerqueda-García 8, Andrés Sánchez-Quinto 7, Diego Hernández-Muciño 9, Javier Nieto 10
Editor: Nicoletta Righini11
PMCID: PMC10310019  PMID: 37384745

Abstract

The gut microbiota-brain axis is a complex communication network essential for host health. Any long-term disruption can affect higher cognitive functions, or it may even result in several chronic neurological diseases. The type and diversity of nutrients an individual consumes are essential for developing the gut microbiota (GM) and the brain. Hence, dietary patterns might influence networks communication of this axis, especially at the age that both systems go through maturation processes. By implementing Mutual Information and Minimum Spanning Tree (MST); we proposed a novel combination of Machine Learning and Network Theory techniques to study the effect of animal protein and lipid intake on the connectivity of GM and brain cortex activity (BCA) networks in children from 5-to 10 years old from an indigenous community in the southwest of México. Socio-ecological conditions in this nonwestern lifestyle community are very homogeneous among its inhabitants but it shows high individual heterogeneity in the consumption of animal products. Results suggest that MST, the critical backbone of information flow, diminishes under low protein and lipid intake. So, under these nonwestern regimens, deficient animal protein and lipid consumption diets may significantly affect the GM-BCA connectivity in crucial development stages. Finally, MST offers us a metric that unifies biological systems of different nature to evaluate the change in their complexity in the face of environmental pressures or disturbances. Effect of Diet on gut microbiota and brain networks connectivity.

Introduction

The gut microbiota-brain axis is a complex system that integrates endocrine, immunological, and neuronal signals between symbiotic microorganisms, the gut, and the brain [1]. Here, the host’s diet can be a fundamental factor for the functioning of this axis, especially during critical developmental windows for the gut microbiota (GM) and the brain [2, 3]. Maturation of both systems occurs in parallel, and childhood is one of the most dynamic periods of change. Thus, the GM interaction with the host diet during such critical periods has the potential to alter brain-gut signaling profoundly, affect health throughout life, and even increase the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders. For instance, during this age, the ecological dynamic of bacteria that compose the host’ GM reaches a maturity that resembles an adult GM, incrementing total diversity and abundance and establishing strong symbiotic mutualistic relations with their hosts. For the brain, it causes the elimination of the extra synapses, decreasing cortical gray matter levels, and the formation of new neuronal connections producing a phase of high plasticity throughout much of the brain [4]. On the other hand, enhanced nutrition incorporating nutrients of animal origin, such as protein and lipids, during these windows of neurodevelopment might have a lasting effect on behavior and cognition in adulthood. For instance, increasing animal protein intake during the first week after birth may protect preterm children’s brain structural and functional development. In the same way, serial Magnetic Resonance Images from birth show that animal lipid and protein intake during the first few weeks positively predicted larger brain volumes and cognitive outcomes at 18 months [5]. Moreover, certain dietary deficiencies present in animal products during the first two years of life, such as iodine or iron, create adverse cognitive effects that are not reversed by a later adequate diet [6]. Additionally, animal protein-energy malnutrition is responsible for more specific damage to the hippocampus and cortex [7]. Animal lipids, in turn, are essential for synthesizing neuronal membranes, in the construction of several neural structural elements such as myelin, in the production of signaling components, and are solvents of a wide variety of non-polar extracellular and poorly soluble cellular constituents [8]. Beyond these aged-related effects, the two nutrients consumption continue to influence cognition by acting on molecular systems or cellular processes vital for maintaining brain functioning [9].

Similarly, GM is also affected by the host’s consumption of these two nutrients, influencing their taxonomic properties in terms of diversity, abundance, and presence [10, 11]. Nevertheless, the impact of diet or any host ecological pressure on a complex and interactive system like the GM and brain needs to go beyond knowing what bacterial groups are involved [12]. It is not enough to characterize the elements that constitute the systems but also their interactions. Consequently, it requires an ecological approach that considers these interactions in an explicit manner, and Network Theory usually makes this approximation. Here, it is possible to obtain valuable insights about functioning by analyzing the structure of the networks, for example, its connectivity, that ultimately will mediate the way information structure itself, under the interactions coded in the network. For example, in a recent work, it has been suggested that certain behavioral disorders, such as the development and persistence of depression, may be associated with a complex network of communication between macro-and micro-organisms capable of modifying different host’s neurophysiological components [13]. In this sense, to understand the parallelism between brain and GM development and how these biological systems can be affected by environmental pressures imposed by the host (i.e., diet), it is necessary to determine patterns of connectivity and complexity between these systems. For these reasons, in this work, we show a case study that evaluates how animal protein and lipid consumption may impact the bacteria GM and brain cortex connectivity in childhood. To accomplish this, we implemented a novel combination of Machine Learning and Network Theory techniques, which allow us to measure and unify the complexity of two biological systems of different natures; bacteria and neurons.

On the other hand, in terms of this complex systems approach, Network Theory Methods (NTM; one of the main streams in complexity) have become more widespread in neurobiological studies, for example, to determine brain dysfunction mechanisms [1418]. Nevertheless, several network metrics, like node centrality indices, assume different significance on a local or global scale [19, 20]. This discrepancy could be a limitation in measuring complex systems because a good complexity metric needs to be scale invariant. In that respect, Saba and Coworkers [21] advocated using the Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) as a straightforward solution, ensuring accuracy, robustness, and reproducibility that avoid methodological confounding processes that may occur in other NTM.

These advantages are in part due to the way MST takes both topological properties and functional connectivity information into account [2224]. MST is one of the best-studied optimization problems in computer science. The task is to calculate a tree that connects all the vertices of a network (a spanning tree) using only edges so that the total weight is minimum among all possible spanning trees [25]. This kind of Network Theory analysis has been getting much attention recently because it opens a multidisciplinary approach that allows us to analyze several biological components, such as the brain and the GM, simultaneously as complex systems in a straightforward computable way [26], and not merely as a metaphor.

Therefore, we will follow this complex system approach to study whether protein and lipid consumption in children can influence the connectivity of both brain cortex activity (BCA) measured by quantitative electroencephalography (qEEG) and GM determined by 16S rRNA gene high-throughput sequencing. To accomplish this, we have selected an indigenous Mexican community belonging to a pre-Hispanic ethnic group, self-appointed Me’phaa. The Me’phaa people inhabit a small region named “La Montaña Alta” in Guerrero, México. It is one of the more contrasting groups in terms of lifestyle compared with typical westernized urbanized areas [2729]. Due to geographical isolation, social customs, and poverty, subsistence farming provides most of their diet. For example, the recollection of wild edible plants; consumption of some fruits and vegetables cultivated in garden plots; meanwhile, animal-based products are available almost by hunting, consumed during special occasions, and are not part of the daily diet [30]. Hence, these animal nutrients’ consumption is highly limited in this community but shows a relevant inter-individual variation associated with familiar acquisitive capacity [30] Interestingly, this community shows close inter-individual similarities in other factors that may influence BCA and GM, such as the use of allopathic medication, access to health services, economic status, parent and child scholarly, and access to computational and communications technologies [10, 31]. Consequently, this human population offers a unique model that naturally homogenizes these factors in a proper ecological way. Consequently, this human population offers us a unique model that controls these factors in a natural and ecologically valid way. We hypothesize that inter-individual variations in the access to these limiting nutrients would affect children’s GM and BCA networks. Connectivity in GM and BCA networks evaluated by MST would be lower in children with less consumption of animal proteins and lipids.

Materials and methods

Procedures to recruit participants

All procedures for testing, experimental protocols and recruitment were approved by National Autonomous University of Mexico Committee on Research Ethics (FPSI/CE/01/2016), and run in accordance with the ethical principles and guidelines of the Official Mexican Law (NOM-012-SSA3–2012). All parents or caregivers of children participants signed an informed consent. Participant recruitment was done through the Xuajin Me’Phaa non-governmental organization, which is dedicated to the social, environmental and economic development for the indigenous communities of the region (see video from this organization [32]). Xuajin Me’Phaa has extensive experience in community-based fieldwork and has built a close working relationship with the community authorities. The trust and familiarity with the community customs and protocols have previously led to successful academic collaborations (i.e. [3335]). Therefore, Xuajin Me’Phaa served as a liaison between the our research group and the communities, offering mainly two important factors in data collection: the informed consent of community members and participants, and two trained interpreters of Me’Phaa and Spanish language of both sexes. The whole procedure was carried out within their own communities.

Study site and participants

The present study is composed by a sample size of 31 indigenous children between 5–10 years old (12 males and 19 females) who inhabits in two small Me’phaa Communities from “La Montaña Alta” from the state of Guerrero; Plan de Gatica (177049.5552”N99.70,EASL510m) and El Naranjo (179054.0036”N98570,50.9832x201D;W,EASL860m). The distance between the two indigenous communities is almost 30 km, and the socioeconomic and cultural patterns are similar [30, 33]. In order to evaluate sexual differences in participant’s body composition, we obtained standardized basic anthropometric measurements (Table 1). These included weight (i.e. kg) using a bioimpedance digital scale (OMROM-HBF-514C), head and brachial circumference using an ergonomic circumference measuring tape measure (SecaTM 201), and height using a portable leveled stadiometer (HM200P, PortStad) placed on the wall at 2m height.

Table 1. Anthropometric measurements of study participants, reported as mean +/- standard deviation.

Using a Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney test we found no significantly difference for any variable in terms of gender.

Males mean Females
Age 8.08 +/- 1.68 7.89 +/- 1.63
Height (cm) 118.67 +/- 10.22 117.37 +/- 13.09
Weight (Kg) 22.42 +/- 4.05 22.55 +/- 8.38
Head circumference (cm) 50.73 +/- 1.49 50.22 +/- 1.82
Brachial Perimeter (cm) 17.78 +/- 1.44 16.95 +/- 1.47
Protein intake/month (gr/month) 279.46 +/- 68.20 281.99 +/- 136.20
Lipid intake/month (gr/month) 215.47 +/- 50.78 210.39 +/- 90.54

Protein and lipid intake estimation and categorization

To determine the daily frequency of protein and lipid consumption in children participants, we adapted the food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) from the Mexican national health system ENSANUT-2012 (https://ensanut.insp.mx/) with the available food in Me’phaa communities. The ENSANUT uses a probabilistic multistage stratified cluster sampling design to represent different regions of the country. Briefly, every child’s mother (or caregiver)answered the FFQ registering the composition of the child’s diet by counting the number of times the food is consumed per day and week (see Questionaries in S3 File). From this frequency, we calculated an approximate animal lipid and protein consumption in grams per month (i.e., 30 days). We approximated this by summing the monthly reported portions and the grams of protein and lipids each food contributes, according to the Mexican System of Equivalent Foods [36]. Following the record of consumption with international standard, we considered milk, yogurt, pork, beef, chicken, egg, butter, and fish as the main food that contributed to these two macronutrients (S3 File).

In order to compare the connectivity of BCA and GM networks of children (n = 31) with different rates of animal protein and lipid consumption, for subsequent analysis, we divided the daily frequency of these two macronutrients into two categories; Low (L) or High (H) consumption. To accomplish this, we used the mean intake of the total sample to categorize participants into one of these two groups. The L group comprised participants with consumption below the mean obtained, while the H group comprised participants with consumption above the same mean. For the case of protein, we obtained 11 participants in H (mean = 407.48 gr/month, SD = 67.58 gr/month) and 20 participants in L (mean = 211.94 gr/month, SD = 59.25 gr/month), while for lipids we obtained 9 participants in H (mean = 278.22 gr/month, SD = 74.80 gr/month), and 22 in L (mean = 185.41 gr/month, SD = 60.28 gr/month). Using the mean of the total sample to categorize the participants allowed us to obtain two groups with significantly different consumption values for both nutrients, evaluated through a T-test for independent samples between the High vs. Low categories. In both nutrients, the differences were statistically significant (Protein: t = 8.065, p < 0.001; Lipid: t = -3–30, p < 0.001; Fig 1).

Fig 1. Boxplot shows the intake values including number of participants for each case (above the box), and median values (inside it).

Fig 1

Both nutrients categories are significantly different (Lipid: t = 3.30, p < 0.001; Protein t = 8.065, p < 0.001).

There are 11 individuals with high protein intake, 9 with high lipid intake, and 6 individuals that are both in the high protein and lipid intake, corresponding to 42.8% shared. On the other hand, there are 20 individuals with low protein intake, 22 with low protein intake, and 16 both with low protein and lipid intake, corresponding to 61.5% shared.

Fig 1, Boxplot of nutrient intake for high and low consumption.

Brain cortex activity

We determined BCA in children participants in terms of absolute power obtained through qEEG during a resting-state period. We used a GRAEL 4K EEG Amplified to recorder the brain cortex electrical signals, electrode caps, and the signal acquisition program Profusion EEG5. For the acquisition process, we used small (50–54 cm) and medium (54–58 cm) size Electrocap universal caps at 19 localizations according to the 10–20 International System [37]. The caps were chosen depending on the cephalic circumference. We acquired a resting-state EEG record through a monopolar montage using a reference for each ipsilateral ear lobe and an extra electrode at the left eye’s external canthus to record eye movements.

Signal acquisition and qEEG processing

Data were recorded with a bandwidth of 1 Hz to 70 Hz, an on-line Notch filter, and a sampling rate of 512 Hz; impedances below 10 kΩ were maintained in all the electrodes; a 5-minute open-eye and 5-minute closed-eye resting-state recording were performed for each participant. We record brain activity using a counterbalance between individuals, starting with eyes open or eyes closed depending on their disposition. The record lasts 15–20 minutes per individual, switching conditions to achieve two uninterrupted minutes of each condition (eyes open and eyes closed). An offline visual inspection was performed in the Profusion EEG5 to obtain 2 minutes running without each condition’s artifacts. Data were analyzed using a personalized script in Matlab and the Fieldtrip toolbox [38]. We applied filters above 1 Hz and below 40 Hz. A variance-based distribution method between trials and a second visual inspection was performed to obtain 39 to 42-second artifact-free epochs of each subject and each condition. Finally, the data were transformed to a logarithmic scale to proceed with the power analysis. We obtained the absolute power using a Fourier Analysis for each derivation, participant, and condition, by classic broad bands Delta (1–3 Hz), Theta (4–7 Hz), Alpha (8–14 Hz), and Beta (15–30 Hz). We finally created five brain nodes or regions of interest (ROI’s) of general brain activity; we averaged the absolute power from three electrodes per ROIS’s. ROIS’s contained the following electrodes; left anterior (Fp1, F3, F7), right anterior (Fp2, F4, F8), left posterior (P3, T7, O1), right posterior (P4, T8, O2), and midline (Fz, Cz, Pz).

GM taxonomic assignation

Taxonomic assignation of GM bacteria in each participant was obtained from fecal purified 16S rRNA fragments (20 ng per sample) sequenced on an IlluminaMiSeq platform (Yale Center for Genome Analysis, New Haven, CT, USA). All sequence data used in the present study have been previously reported in [33]. Briefly, the sequenced reads (Bioproject number PRJNA593240) were denoised with the DADA2 plugin to resolve the amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) [39]. Both forward- and reverse-reads were truncated at 200 pb, and chimeric sequences were removed using the “consensus” method. Representative ASVs sequences were taxonomically assigned using the “classify consensus-vsearch” plug in [40], using the SILVA 132 database as a reference [41]. An alignment was performed with the MAFFT algorithm [42]. After masking positional conservations and gap filtering, a phylogeny was built with the FastTree algorithm [43]. The abundance table and phylogeny were exported to the R environment to perform the statistical analysis with the phyloseq [44] and ggplot2 packages. Plastidic ASVs were filtered out of the samples, which were rarefied to a minimum sequencing effort of 21,000 reads per sample. Alpha or total diversity was calculated through Shannon’s Diversity Index and Observed ASVs. We performed a Welch two-sample t-test to determine differences in total diversity through protein and lipid consumption levels. We estimated Beta diversity (or degree of community differentiation, in relation to protein and lipid consumption) by computing unweighted UniFrac distances, obtaining statistical differences by a permutational multivariate analysis of variance using distance matrices (PERMANOVA). Additionally, we performed a differential abundance analysis with the DESeq2 library [45] to determine the main discriminant ASVs by the levels of protein and lipid consumption. ASVs considered as discriminants were those that statistically differ between the level of lipid or protein consumption at p < 0.01, corrected with the false discovery rate (FDR) method.

Network analysis for EEG and GM data

Following the work done by Saba and co-workers [21], we took the five BCA nodes arrangement (front left, front right; posterior left, posterior right; and midline) to calculate a Mutual Information (MI) matrix using the mpmi R Package [46]. Then, we constructed the corresponding networks in Cytoscape using the MI matrix coefficients as weights. Afterward, we calculate the Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) in Gephi [47]. In our context, given that each weight is a MI-connectivity value, the weight of the MST (the sum of the MST’s weights) is a measure of both structural and functional brain connectivity [48]. In network theory, a tree is an undirected network in which any two vertices are connected by exactly one path, or equivalently a connected acyclic undirected graph. If a tree includes all vertices then it is a spanning tree, and if that spanning tree satisfies the condition of giving the minimum possible total edge weight, then this spanning tree is named as the MST. So, the MST finds an edge of the least possible weight that connects any two trees in the forest. This algorithm finds a subset of the edges that forms a tree that includes every vertex, where the total weight of all the edges in the tree is minimized.

Fig 2 shows a basic flow diagram for data analysis described in Methods.

Fig 2. Basic flow diagram for data analysis.

Fig 2

For the case of GM, we carried out an initial exploratory data to identify whether the effect of different levels of protein and lipid consumption is expressed in a small number of ASVs, or if, on the contrary, the effect is systematically distributed in the network. For this, we used the Machine Learning algorithm of Random Forest [49] implemented in R under the randomForest package [50], and we identified essential ASVs (equivalent to BCA nodes) in terms of its Mean Decrease Gini value. This value tells us about the node’s relative importance for the classification process in terms of high vs. low nutrient intake. Although we found that not all ASVs participate informationally in protein or lipid intake differences (Fig 5a and 5b), classification analysis pointed to the fact that the way GM responds to protein and lipid intake differences is distributed among the network. For this reason, we used the complete ASVs data set as input to a co-occurrence analysis using Cooccur package in R [51]. The co-occurrence matrix obtained was then used as weights values in the GM network. Finally, we calculate MST values for GM as was done for the BCA data.

Results

As for general information about the participants, in Table 1 we show their anthropometric measurements according to sex. Using a Wilcoxon-Mann–Whitney test we found no significantly difference for any variable in terms of sex, so in further analysis we did not divide data in function of it.

In Table 2 we now focus on the variable used for network theory analysis: protein and lipid intake. We show that there is no significant difference in terms of anthropometric measurements (Gray boxes; Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test) and the protein or lipid intake. Values above gray boxes correspond to mean and standard deviation for each nutrient intake condition.

Table 2. Values above gray boxes correspond to mean and standard deviation for each nutrient intake condition; Gray boxes shows U Mann-Whitney test.

PROTEIN INTEAKE LIPID INTAKE
High Low High Low
Height (cm) 8.11 1.69 7.4 1.3 8.55 1.87 7.11 1.26
U = 82, p = 0.24 U = 72, p = 0.23
Weight (kg) 118.72 9.47 117.4 13.24 115.88 13.85 118.68 11.25
U = 100, p = 0.67 U = 95, p = 0.86
Weight (kg) 21.73 4.22 22.92 8.12 20.96 4.18 23.12 7.79
U = 107.5, p = 0.91 U = 93, p = 0.79
Weight (kg) 17.21 1.43 17.32 1.56 17.35 1.83 17.25 1.36
U = 89, p = 0.5 U = 83, p = 0.61

Brain cortex connectivity

Fig 3 shows the MI matrices of the BCA for all classic bands in each ROIs and resting state condition (i.e. Open and close eyes). Here, lines represent the level of MI in all possible ROIs combinations.

Fig 3. We show a resting-state EEG Mutual Information networks (MI), considering five regions of interest (ROIs): Front left, front right; posterior left, posterior right; and midline.

Fig 3

MI was obtained for each broad brain band in the two resting-state conditions, Open and Closed eyes. Similar to what is occurring in a correlation analysis, the red color indicates positive relationship between ROIs and blue negative. The thickness of the line represents the intensity of the relationship.

Most of the MI networks show a positive relation (Fig 2). However, the magnitude of the relation through ROIs nodes in all broad bands was qualitatively different, depending on protein and lipid intake levels. Notably, we observed that low protein intake results in negative MI values between left, right, anterior and posterior nodes in the beta band during open eyes (i.e. blue lines), representing the condition of the highest cognitive demand, while high protein intake results in a strongly positive relation. On the other hand, we found that except for the beta band for close eye condition, MST weights built from MI networks showed a systematic increase in the highest protein group for all classic broadbands; hence, higher brain connectivity (Fig 4). We also observed that except for the beta band in open eyes and the delta band in closed eyes condition, the increment in MST weight was also observable for the highest lipid group. The increase ranges from 12%, as occurred in the Delta band in open eyes condition, to even more than 80% in the alpha band for closed eyes condition.

Fig 4. Minimum spanning tree (MST) of absolute brain power networks for protein or lipid intake level in both condition A) closed or B) Open eyes.

Fig 4

Weight of the MST represents a measure of total structural and functional network connectivity (the higher the value, the higher connectivity). The complementary right-side subpanel (one for protein intake and one for lipid intake) shows the difference percentage for the condition, each value is annotated inside the corresponding bar of the sub-panel (light blue is used for positive difference, dark blue for negative difference).

Fig 4, shows the value of minimum spanning tree (MST) of absolute brain power networks for protein or lipid intake level in both condition A) closed or B) Open eyes.

GM connectivity

The GM composition and abundance was not affected by the level of protein or lipid intake. Both nutrients did not affect the GM total diversity nor Shannon index (Protein: p = 0.51; Lipid: p = 0.98, S1a, S1c Fig in S1 File) nor Observed ASVs (Protein: p = 0.51; Lipid:0.43, S1a, S1c Fig in S1 File). Also, there were no discriminant or beta diversity differences, between high and low protein (PERMANOVA: F = 0.91, p = 0.65, S1C Fig in S1 File) or lipid consumption groups (PERMANOVA: F = 0.87, p = 0.76, S1D Fig in S1 File). Finally, two Faecalibacterium ASVs (ASV_1 and ASV_2) and one undetermined ASV were the only discriminant ASVs found between low and high groups in both macronutrients. Faecalibacterium ASV_1 was more represented in the high protein group but Faecalibacterium ASV_2 was for the high lipid group. The undetermined ASV was higher only for the low lipid group (S2a, S2b Fig in S1 File). Nevertheless, GM connectivity assessed through MST was different between intake conditions.

Fig 5 shows the Mean Decrease Gini value on a log-normal scale, representing the relative importance for every ASVs identified (i.e. approximation of species) for each nutrient. For protein, only 740 ASVs contribute informationally to the Random Forest (Fig 5a), while for the case of lipid, it turned out to be a similar number of ASVs, resulting in 721 (Fig 5b).

Fig 5. Results from Random Forest of Mean Decrease Gini values that tell us the relative importance of different ASVs to the classification processes into low Vs high intake for both protein (gray) and lipid (black) intake.

Fig 5

Similar to BCA, GM connectivity also diminished in the low protein and lipid intake groups. Fig 6 shows GM connectivity calculated as the total weight of the corresponding MST of low Vs. high intake of both macronutrients. Compared with high consumption, Low consumption of protein and lipid diminished the MST weight in 49.98% and 51.38% respectively (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Weight of the Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) as a measure of total structural and functional network connectivity (the higher the value, the higher connectivity) for both protein and lipid intake.

Fig 6

There is a notable difference percentage in the weight of MST of the high intake treatment compared with the low intake treatment.Light colors are used for high intake and dark colors for low intake, and the corresponding MST weight values are annotated inside each. Value of difference percentage is annotated in black sub-bar.

Discussion

Here we used novel methodologies [13, 21] to analyze the parallelism in connectivity between the BCA and GM networks. This ecological/complex approach allows us to understand how information flows are constrained by external conditions, like diet patterns, modifying the GM ecosystem network topology and BCA in a resting state. In this case study, we test how animal protein and lipid consumption influence the BCA and the GM networks’ connectivity in childhood. The GM and the brain undergo a critical developmental window in this period of life, in which essential factors, such as diet, might profoundly influence the gut-brain signaling in adulthood [52]. Our results suggest that under this non-western diet, low animal protein and lipid intake may lead to non-neglecting effects on BCA and GM in terms of network connectivity. For example, brain connectivity measured by the MST (or the critical backbone of information flow in the network) improves for almost all brain broadbands under open eyes condition (cognitively demanding) when protein or lipid intake increases. Interestingly, optimal brain functioning for these ages may present recurrent activity in alpha rhythm, and the absence of the beta rhythm during closed-eyes [53]. Regarding brain connectivity, this phenotype was only observable in children with high protein and lipid consumption. Furthermore, the alpha rhythm was the most influenced by the protein and lipid consumption level, increasing brain connectivity on this oscillation when children consume higher amounts of these nutrients. This kind of oscillation is also essential to regulate the top-down functional inhibition of neuronal processing, representing a neurophysiological resource for optimal processing capabilities in the visual system, regulating the competition between target and distracting stimuli [54]. Complementary with alpha, the beta rhythm was another significant oscillation affected. In this case, beta oscillations are expected to have a greater frequency in open eyes, and the opposite is for closed eyes [55]. We found that brain connectivity in the beta rhythm follows this pattern but only for children with the highest protein consumption. On the other hand, BCA in the resting state is considered an indicator of cerebral self-modulation, a unique feature of the cerebral cortex that ensures that information flows across the entire neural network and flows to the right place at the right time [56]. Furthermore, this organized activity promotes an electrical coupling that establishes temporal windows in which neurons respond to certain stimuli facilitating or limiting the synaptic transmission for different cognitive processes [57, 58]. Nevertheless, given that we did not measure any of these cognitive functions, an essential prospect of this study is to evaluate whether network connectivity patterns found here are associated with demanding cognitive performance, such as working memory or executive functions. A novelty and valuable aspect of implementing MST measurements in determining BCA are that if we consider the brain as an information transport network, where cerebral areas are nodes, and connections edges [26]. Then, MST enables the assessment of both structural (anatomical) and functional (the statistical relationship between two nodes) connectivity [58], and it might represent the critical backbone of information flow [21]. Additionally, measure like the MST considers, at the same time, the interaction of all the cortical components measured (i.e., brain cortex electrodes). Contrary to traditional measures of functional brain connectivity, which only represent a correlation matrix of absolute or relative power between two brain nodes [59]. This approximation could be a novel implementation for determining “complete” brain networks integrating all system components. For instance, MI the entropy-based metric we used to obtain MST, is vastly more potent than correlation; MI can detect nonlinearities, and it is additive and ergodic [60]. Besides, MI captures the brain network’s physiologically relevant features better than correlation, as Zhang and co-workers [61] found in children with epilepsy, Sun and co-workers [62] within post-stroke patients with different levels of depression, or Gaubert and co-workers [63] as a helpful biomarker for preclinical Alzheimer’s.

Concerning GM, we did not find differences in the total diversity (i.e. alpha diversity) or discriminant composition (i.e. beta-diversity) between high and low frequency of consumption in both macronutrients. We only found three discriminant ASVs; One for protein (Faecalibacterium ASV_1) and two for lipid (Faecalibacterium ASV_2 and an unassigned ASV). These results indicate that GM, in terms of composition and abundance, is very similar in these indigenous children and is not dependent on lipid or protein consumption. However, despite having a similar GM, we found relevant differences in connectivity. Here, we observed the same effect for the GM as for the BCA; diminishing their network connectivities under the low protein and lipid intake. Interestingly enough, from an ecological perspective, a significant level of connectivity dissipates the effect of perturbations in the distribution of species and enhances stability. Hence, as suggested by Equihua and co-workers [64], this would lead to a loss in GM resilience/antifragility (system capacity to respond to perturbations) even though the two groups show similar compositions and abundances. In consequence, under a low animal-nutrient diet (especially in childhood), GM, brain or both, could lead to a systemic loss of health, with potential long-term effects in the axis that these two components interact. Given these results, a logical subsequent goal is to compare another population with different patterns of protein and lipid consumption, for example, a westernized population. Nevertheless, this could arise several methodological challenges. This kind of population differs not only in the frequency of consumption of these nutrients, but considerable differences in subyacent factors that may influence BCA and GM, such as the use of allopathic medication, access to health services, economic status, parent and child scholarly and access to computational and communications technologies [10, 31]. Consequently, they could confuse the effect of protein and lipid intake alone. Also, a longitudinal study modifying the amount of protein and lipid consumed in the study population would be a natural extension for future work.

As we have discussed above, current research in the field is pointing to the importance of doing microbiota studies in nonwestern populations, and how minorities are usually under-represented in mainstream literature. This is relevant not just because they represent very interesting contrasting populations, but also to fight against dominant culture bias. Nevertheless, due to other limitations such as lack of funding, difficulties in access, or just because those populations are themselves small; studying them may potentially translate into unavoidable sample size problems.

This is the case of our work, which has a too small sample size to do a more rigorous statistical treatment on the MST difference between high/low nutrition intake groups. An issue was highlighted by an anonymous reviewer during the peer review process. In particular, it would be desirable to randomly construct k subnetworks of sizes n, m (with n<m); and then compare pairs of subnetworks of n nodes vs. subnetworks of m nodes; to statistically respond: How the difference of weight of the MST would be if randomly divide the data into two groups?

Although the sample size is not large enough to perform this gedankenexperiment we offer a theoretical argument.

Let’s first consider that If there were no underlying ecological (external to the individual) population process, the mutual information matrix (MI) would be very homogeneous. These coefficients of the MI matrix are used as the weight of the networks, so weights are also very homogeneous. It would be expected then, that the value of the MST would change mainly in the function of the size of the network. This would mean that the MST of networks of m nodes would be greater than the MST of n nodes.

In our case study, the subnetwork with the highest number of nodes corresponds to the lowest intake of protein/lipids. However, the MST of the highest protein/fluid intake is the largest, in the other direction. Therefore, this result should not be attributed to chance.

In conclusion, we exemplify how network theory, through the MST metrics, has allowed us to unify and evaluate the connectivity of two biological systems from different substrates, neurons and GM, and assess how they are being affected by the same ecological pressure, the diet. The Brain and GM are two closely related systems that mature in parallel and whose level of communication will substantially impact the host’s health in adulthood [52].

Supporting information

S1 File

(PDF)

S2 File

(PDF)

S3 File

(PDF)

S4 File

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Margarita Muciño, Julio Naranjo from Xuajin Me’Phaa a non-governmental association, for their help in the liaison with the Me’Phaa community, their help in sample collection and logistics. We also are grateful to Santiago Martinez-Correa for their contribution in DNA amplification. Special thanks to Gregorio Iraola from institute Pasteur of Montevideo, Uruguay for his valuable bio-informatics orientation.

We would like to acknowledge the valuable assistance of Aida Elizondo-García in the fieldwork and data collection.

IG-S expresses his gratitude to the National Autonomous University of Mexico’s PASPA-DGAPA program for its financial support during his sabbatical stay, which was instrumental in the development of this manuscript.

Data Availability

All sequences obtained were uploaded to the NCBI database under the Bioproject number PRJNA593240 with the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA593240.

Funding Statement

This project was funded by UNAM-PAPIIT [grant numbers IA209416, IA207019], DGAPA postdoctoral Fellowship, CONACYT Ciencia Básica [grant number 241744] and Instituto de Ecología-UNAM [L.I.F].

References

  • 1. Mayer E. Gut feelings: the emerging biology of gut–brain communication. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 12, 453–466 (2011) doi: 10.1038/nrn3071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. De Filippo C., Cavalieri D., Di Paola M., Ramazzotti M., Poullet J., Massart S., et al. 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. 107, 14691–14696 (2010) doi: 10.1073/pnas.1005963107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Sandhu K., Sherwin E., Schellekens H., Stanton C., Dinan T. & Cryan J. Feeding the microbiota-gut-brain axis: diet, microbiome, and neuropsychiatry. Translational Research. 179 pp. 223–244 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.trsl.2016.10.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Paus T., Keshavan M. & Giedd J. Why do many psychiatric disorders emerge during adolescence?. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 9, 947–957 (2008) doi: 10.1038/nrn2513 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Duerden E., Thompson B., Poppe T., Alsweiler J., Gamble G., Jiang Y., et al. Early protein intake predicts functional connectivity and neurocognition in preterm born children. Scientific Reports. 11, 1–8 (2021) doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-83125-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Benton D. The influence of dietary status on the cognitive performance of children. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research. 54, 457–470 (2010) doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200900158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Georgieff M. Nutrition and the developing brain: nutrient priorities and measurement. The American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition. 85, 614S–620S (2007) [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. German J. & Dillard C. Saturated fats: what dietary intake?. The American Journal Of Clinical Nutrition. 80, 550–559 (2004) doi: 10.1093/ajcn/80.3.550 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Gómez-Pinilla F. Brain foods: the effects of nutrients on brain function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 9, 568–578 (2008) doi: 10.1038/nrn2421 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Sonnenburg E. & Sonnenburg J. The ancestral and industrialized gut microbiota and implications for human health. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 17, 383–390 (2019) doi: 10.1038/s41579-019-0191-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Margolis K., Cryan J. & Mayer E. The microbiota-gut-brain axis: from motility to mood. Gastroenterology. 160, 1486–1501 (2021) doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.066 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Flint H., Duncan S., Scott K. & Louis P. Links between diet, gut microbiota composition and gut metabolism. Proceedings Of The Nutrition Society. 74, 13–22 (2015) doi: 10.1017/S0029665114001463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Ramírez-Carrillo E., Gaona O., Nieto J., Sánchez-Quinto A., Cerqueda-García D., Falcón L., et al. Disturbance in human gut microbiota networks by parasites and its implications in the incidence of depression. Scientific Reports. 10, 1–12 (2020) doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-60562-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Bullmore E. & Sporns O. Complex brain networks: graph theoretical analysis of structural and functional systems. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 10, 186–198 (2009) doi: 10.1038/nrn2575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Drakesmith M., Caeyenberghs K., Dutt A., Lewis G., David A. & Jones D. Overcoming the effects of false positives and threshold bias in graph theoretical analyses of neuroimaging data. Neuroimage. 118 pp. 313–333 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.05.011 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Chiang S., Cassese A., Guindani M., Vannucci M., Yeh H., Haneef Z., et al. Time-dependence of graph theory metrics in functional connectivity analysis. NeuroImage. 125 pp. 601–615 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2015.10.070 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Agosta F., Sala S., Valsasina P., Meani A., Canu E., Magnani G., et al. Brain network connectivity assessed using graph theory in frontotemporal dementia. Neurology. 81, 134–143 (2013) doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e31829a33f8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Filippi M., Basaia S., Canu E., Imperiale F., Meani A., Caso F., et al. Brain network connectivity differs in early-onset neurodegenerative dementia. Neurology. 89, 1764–1772 (2017) doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000004577 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Telesford Q., Joyce K., Hayasaka S., Burdette J. & Laurienti P. The ubiquity of small-world networks. Brain Connectivity. 1, 367–375 (2011) doi: 10.1089/brain.2011.0038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Antonenko D., Külzow N., Sousa A., Prehn K., Grittner U. & Flöel A. Neuronal and behavioral effects of multi-day brain stimulation and memory training. Neurobiology Of Aging. 61 pp. 245–254 (2018) doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.09.017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Saba V., Premi E., Cristillo V., Gazzina S., Palluzzi F., Zanetti O., et al. Brain connectivity and information-flow breakdown revealed by a minimum spanning tree-based analysis of mri data in behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia. Frontiers In Neuroscience. 13 pp. 211 (2019) doi: 10.3389/fnins.2019.00211 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Tewarie P., Hillebrand A., Schoonheim M., Dijk B., Geurts J., Barkhof F., et al. Functional brain network analysis using minimum spanning trees in Multiple Sclerosis: an MEG source-space study. Neuroimage. 88 pp. 308–318 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.10.022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Diessen E., Otte W., Stam C., Braun K. & Jansen F. Electroencephalography based functional networks in newly diagnosed childhood epilepsies. Clinical Neurophysiology. 127, 2325–2332 (2016) doi: 10.1016/j.clinph.2016.03.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Lutterveld R., Dellen E., Pal P., Yang H., Stam C. & Brewer J. Meditation is associated with increased brain network integration. Neuroimage. 158 pp. 18–25 (2017) doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2017.06.071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Eisner, J. State-of-the-art algorithms for minimum spanning trees-a tutorial discussion. (Citeseer,1997)
  • 26. Rubinov M. & Sporns O. Complex network measures of brain connectivity: uses and interpretations. Neuroimage. 52, 1059–1069 (2010) doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Black, C. An Autosegmental Analysis of Me’phaa (Tlapanec) Noun Inflection. (2004)
  • 28. Camacho Z. Montaña de Guerrero: pobreza y militarización. Revista Contralıínea. 5 (2007) [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Miramontes O., DeSouza O., Hernández D. & Ceccon E. Non-Lévy mobility patterns of Mexican Me’Phaa peasants searching for fuel wood. Human Ecology. 40, 167–174 (2012) doi: 10.1007/s10745-012-9465-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Borda-Niño, M., Hernández-Muciño, D. & Ceccon, E. Restauración productiva en la práctica: el caso de las comunidades indígenas Me’phaa de la Montaña de Guerrero, México. Ceccon, E., Y Pérez, DR (coordinadores), Más Allá De La Ecología De La Restauración. Perspectivas Sociales En América Latina Y El Caribe. Buenos Aires: Vázquez Manzzini Editores. (2016)
  • 31. Lipina S. & Evers K. Neuroscience of childhood poverty: Evidence of impacts and mechanisms as vehicles of dialog with ethics. Frontiers In Psychology. 8 pp. 61 (2017) doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00061 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Centroamerica, W. Producción de Jamaica en la montañ a alta de Guerrero, proyecto apoyado por Fundación Walmart. (Youtube,2011), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOEcGUHjR9Q
  • 33. Sánchez-Quinto A., Cerqueda-Garcıía D., Falcón L., Gaona O., Martıínez-Correa S., Nieto J. et al. Gut microbiome in children from indigenous and urban communities in México: Different subsistence models, different microbiomes. Microorganisms. 8, 1592 (2020) doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8101592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Leongoméz J., Sánchez O., Vásquez-Amézquita M., Valderrama E., Castellanos-Chacón A., Morales-Sánchez L., et al. Self-reported health is related to body Height and waist circumference in rural indigenous and urbanised Latin-American populations. Scientific Reports. 10, 1–13 (2020) doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-61289-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Hernández-Muciño D., Borda-Niño B., Santiago R., Rodrıíguez A., Rodrıíguez M., Muciño M. et al. La comunidad me’phaa construye su futuro: agroecologıía y restauración como herramientas de desarrollo rural sustentable. Experiencias De Colaboración Transdisciplinaria Para La Sustentabilidad. 66 (2018). [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Pérez-Lizaur A., Palacios González B., Castro Becerra A. & Flores Galicia I. Sistema mexicano de alimentos equivalentes. Fomento De Nutrición Y Salud, AC México. pp. 35–42 (2014) [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Jasper H. The ten-twenty electrode system of the International Federation. Electroencephalogr. Clin. Neurophysiol. 10 pp. 370–375 (1958) [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Baillet S., Friston K. & Oostenveld R. Academic software applications for electromagnetic brain mapping using MEG and EEG. Computational Intelligence And Neuroscience. 2011 (2011) doi: 10.1155/2011/972050 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Callahan B., McMurdie P., Rosen M., Han A., Johnson A. & Holmes S. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nature Methods. 13, 581–583 (2016) doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Rognes T., Flouri T., Nichols B., Quince C. & Mahé F. VSEARCH: a versatile open source tool for metagenomics. PeerJ. 4 pp. e2584 (2016) doi: 10.7717/peerj.2584 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Quast S., Berger A. & Eberle J. ROS dependent phosphorylation of Bax by wortmannin sensitizes melanoma cells for TRAIL-induced apoptosis. Cell Death & Disease. 4, e839–e839 (2013) doi: 10.1038/cddis.2013.344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Katoh K., Asimenos G. & Toh H. Multiple alignment of DNA sequences with MAFFT. Bioinformatics For DNA Sequence Analysis. pp. 39–64 (2009) doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-251-9_3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Price M., Dehal P. & Arkin A. FastTree 2–approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PloS One. 5, e9490 (2010) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. McMurdie P. & Holmes S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PloS One. 8, e61217 (2013) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Love M., Huber W. & Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biology. 15, 1–21 (2014) doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Pardy C. Mixed-Pair Mutual Information Estimators. R News. (2022), https://r-forge.r-project.org/projects/mpmi/ [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Bastian, M., Heymann, S. & Jacomy, M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. Proceedings Of The International AAAI Conference On Web And Social Media. 3, 361–362 (2009).
  • 48. Tewarie P., Dellen E., Hillebrand A. & Stam C. The minimum spanning tree: an unbiased method for brain network analysis. Neuroimage. 104 pp. 177–188 (2015) doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Breiman L. Bagging predictors. Machine Learning. 24, 123–140 (1996). [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Liaw A. & Wiener M. Classification and Regression by randomForest. R News. 2 pp. 18–22 (2002), https://CRAN.R-project.org/doc/Rnews/ [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Griffith D., Veech J. & Marsh C. cooccur: Probabilistic Species Co-Occurrence Analysis in R. Journal Of Statistical Software, Code Snippets. 69 pp. 1–17 (2016), https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cooccur/cooccur.pdf [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Borre Y., O’Keeffe G., Clarke G., Stanton C., Dinan T. & Cryan J. Microbiota and neurodevelopmental windows: implications for brain disorders. Trends In Molecular Medicine. 20, 509–518 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.molmed.2014.05.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Gladstone M., Mallewa M., Jalloh A., Voskuijl W., Postels D., Groce N., et al. Assessment of neurodisability and malnutrition in children in Africa. Seminars In Pediatric Neurology. 21, 50–57 (2014) doi: 10.1016/j.spen.2014.01.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Solís-Vivanco R., Jensen O. & Bonnefond M. Top–down control of alpha phase adjustment in anticipation of temporally predictable visual stimuli. Journal Of Cognitive Neuroscience. 30, 1157–1169 (2018) doi: 10.1162/jocn_a_01280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Angulo-Ruiz B., Muñoz V., Rodrıíguez-Martıínez E. & Gómez C. Absolute and relative variability changes of the resting state brain rhythms from childhood and adolescence to young adulthood. Neuroscience Letters. 749 pp. 135747 (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.neulet.2021.135747 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Buzsáki G. The structure of consciousness. Nature. 446, 267–267 (2007) doi: 10.1038/446267a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Fricker D. & Miles R. Interneurons, spike timing, and perception. Neuron. 32, 771–774 (2001) doi: 10.1016/S0896-6273(01)00528-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Zhang Z., Telesford Q., Giusti C., Lim K. & Bassett D. Choosing wavelet methods, filters, and lengths for functional brain network construction. PloS One. 11, e0157243 (2016) doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0157243 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Rathee, D., Cecotti, H. & Prasad, G. Propofol-induced sedation diminishes the strength of frontal-parietal-occipital EEG network. 2017 39th Annual International Conference Of The IEEE Engineering In Medicine And Biology Society (EMBC). pp. 4463–4466 (2017). [DOI] [PubMed]
  • 60.Taleb, N. Statistical consequences of fat tails: Real world preasymptotics, epistemology, and applications. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2001.10488. (2020).
  • 61. Zhang W., Muravina V., Azencott R., Chu Z. & Paldino M. Mutual information better quantifies brain network architecture in children with epilepsy. Computational And Mathematical Methods In Medicine. 2018 (2018) doi: 10.1155/2018/6142898 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Sun C., Yang F., Wang C., Wang Z., Zhang Y., Ming D. et al. Mutual information-based brain network analysis in post-stroke patients with different levels of depression. Frontiers In Human Neuroscience. 12 pp. 285 (2018) doi: 10.3389/fnhum.2018.00285 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Gaubert S., Raimondo F., Houot M., Corsi M., Naccache L., Diego Sitt J., et al. EEG evidence of compensatory mechanisms in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Brain. 142, 2096–2112 (2019) doi: 10.1093/brain/awz150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Equihua M., Aldama M., Gershenson C., López-Corona O., Munguıía M., Pérez-Maqueo O. et al. Ecosystem antifragility: beyond integrity and resilience. PeerJ. 8 pp. e8533 (2020) doi: 10.7717/peerj.8533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nicoletta Righini

14 Sep 2022

PONE-D-22-17440Similar connectivity of gut microbiota and brain activity networks is mediated by animal protein and lipid intake in children from a Mexican indigenous population.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ramírez-Carrillo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The manuscript is interesting and presents a novel approach to shed light on the connectivity between the brain and gut microbiota networks. However, both reviewers highlights some flaws that need to be taken into account. Particularly, Rev. 1 indicates concerns about the experimental design, data handling, and statistical analyses. In addition, attention must be paid to several details (example: page 4, 33 children are mentioned, divided into 12 males and 19 females. But 19 + 12 = 31) and the English must be improved (see below). Finally, after responding to the queries of both reviewers and revising the manuscript, please resubmit it as a regular Word file with LINE NUMBERS, without any strange formatting to resemble a published PLOS article.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 27 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicoletta Righini, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

Please also provide as a Supporting Information file the questionnaire used in this study. If the questionnaire is in a language other than English, please provide as an additional Supporting Information file a version of the questionnaire translated into English.

Additionally, please note that PLOS ONE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service. 

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex

5. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

"We are grateful to Margarita Muciño, Julio Naranjo from Xuajin Me’Phaa a

non-governmental association, for their help in the liaison with the Me’Phaa community, their help in sample collection and logistics. We also are grateful to Santiago Martinez-Correa for their contribution in DNA amplification. IG-S explicitly acknowledges the UNAM and PASPA-DGAPA

program for the financial support granted to carry out his sabbatical stay and the development of this project"

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

"This project was funded by UNAM-PAPIIT [grant numbers IA209416, IA207019], DGAPA postdoctoral Fellowship, CONACYT Ciencia Básica [grant number 241744] and Instituto de Ecología-UNAM [L.I.F]."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for submitting the above manuscript to PLOS ONE. During our internal evaluation of the manuscript, we found significant text overlap between your submission and the following previously published work of which you are an author.

- https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.25.221408v1

We would like to make you aware that copying extracts from previous publications, especially outside the methods section, word-for-word is unacceptable. In addition, the reproduction of text from published reports has implications for the copyright that may apply to the publications.

Please revise the manuscript to rephrase the duplicated text, cite your sources, and provide details as to how the current manuscript advances on previous work. Please note that further consideration is dependent on the submission of a manuscript that addresses these concerns about the overlap in text with published work.

We will carefully review your manuscript upon resubmission, so please ensure that your revision is thorough.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Minor details:

1) Must be "protein and lipid intake" (singular), not proteins and lipids intake. Please change it throughout the manuscript.

2) Be consistent with how protein and lipid are written. It must be lower case, but sometimes they are written as Protein and Lipid (example, page 6)

3) Page 4: "and meanwhile animal-based products are available almost by hunting, it is consumed during special occasions and is not part of the daily diet".. Must be THEY ARE consumed (the subject is animal-based products).

4) GM is "gut microbiota". Why call them "gut bacteria microbiota"? (See Abstract). Bacteria are part of the microbiota, no need of repeating "bacteria". Moreover, it could be gut microbiota bacteria, not gut bacteria microbiota (which makes no sense). Also, bacteria are plural, so it's bacteria ARE/WERE, not bacteria IS/WAS (see page 5).

5) Page 13: Must be: This kind of population differS (third person singular)

6) Page 14: "but they are also present notably differences in factors...". Please rephrase. The sentence is not correct. Perhaps THERE ARE also differences? 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Ramírez-Carrillo and collaborators presented the weight of Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) as a new metric to unify complex biological systems. And showed its application to brain and gut microbiota study in different diet intake groups.

The results are interesting especially the MST showed difference in gut microbiota while the traditional method for microbiota study did have significant difference. However, there was no statistic test for compare weight of MST and I also have some concern about the experiment design.

Major comment:

1. The author compared weight of the MST between high/low protein or lipid intake, showed the difference in percentage. But there is no statistic test to prove this difference is due to the high/low protein or lipid intake. In other words, how the difference of weight of the MST would be, if randomly divide the data in two groups?

2. The strategy to divide the children into two group based on mean proteins/lipids intake is not a proper way. For instance, for a normal distribution data, the data points are centered around mean. Arbitrarily assign those data to high or low won’t change the fact that they are close; for a u-shaped distribution, the major data points are separated, and far from mean, it’s proper to separate them by mean. Back to this study, it seems for protein intake, there are two peaks in distribution; but for lipid intake, the high and low are very close. It would be better to separate the lipid intake into three groups divided by the percentiles.

3. For the GM network, the author first selected the ASVs based on random forest to classify high/low intake group. I think this step introduced bias when build GM network. This network may not represent the full gut microbiota (only 700+ out of 1900+ ASVs are selected). I think the better way is to build a network based on all ASVs or the high abundant/prevalent ASVs to get the full picture of the gut microbiota.

4. The method section of “Network analysis for EEG and GM data” is not clear. a, the protein/lipid intake group part is belonged to “Protein and Lipids intake estimation”. b, stepwise details are needed for building brain power network and gut microbiota network. c, the introduction of MST should be in the beginning or in the end, not in between of brain power network and gut microbiota network, and the pseudo code is not necessary. d, a flowchart may help understand the steps.

Minor comment:

1. The format of citation is not consistent along the manuscript. Most of the citations are in parentheses, but a few are in superscript. like reference 20 in page 3, 33 in page 5, 42 in page 6, 54, 55 in page 13.

2. Page 4, study site and participants, the number of children is 33, but “12 males and 19 females”.

3. What is the correlation between protein and lipid intake?

4. The citation for R Package is not a link of pdf file. Please use citation(“package name”) in R to get the correct citations. Page 6, 7.

5. In Figure 3, difference percentage in brain power networks is using “low” group as reference. But in figure 5, the difference is calculated on “high” as reference. Suggest using one group as reference in the two figures.

6. Have you rarefied the ASV table for gut microbiota data?

7. Page 7, “With these families identified, using the dataset of ASVs (i.e. bacteria species) relative abundances in fecal samples, we used the Cooccur package (https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/cooccur/cooccur.pdf) in R74 to construct a co-occurrence matrix and use it as weight in microbiota network”. It’s ASVs you identified, not “families”. ASVs are not “bacteria species”. And what is “R74”?

8. Page 12, “no Western diet”, should be non-western diet.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript “Similar connectivity of gut microbiota and brain activity networks is mediated by animal protein and lipid intake in children from a Mexican indigenous population” by Ramírez-Carrillo et al., is an original and interesting work in the area. It addresses the relationship between diet, microbiota and the brain, generating evidence to better understand this multidirectional relationship. In general, it is well written in a clear and fluent language. I consider it suitable for publication, after making MINOR REVISION. I list below mi suggestions:

1.Introduction:

• Page 3 of 16: Correct the format of citation number 20 in the text.

2. Materials and Methods:

• Page 5 of 16: In the “Gut microbiota composition” section, correct to 16S rRNA instead of rDNA.

• Page 6 of 16: In the “Network analysis for EEG and GM data” section, put spaces after the “=” sign and adjust throughout the document.

• Page 6 of 16: Remove “the” in (the 31 children).

• In methods, mentioned 33 participants and in results 31 children.

• Page 6 of 16: Figure 1. The figure must have a title and then, the explanation that is included. Please indicate the sample size as n = 9, n = 22, n = 11 and n = 20 and not just the isolated value.

• Page 6 of 16: Correct the format of citation number 42 in the text.

3. Results:

• Page 7of 16: Change in the text “study samples” to “study participants”. Also adjust the title of Table 1 in the same way.

• Page 7 of 16: Simplify the format of Table 1, placing the value and its deviation for males in a single column and in another for females (not in separate cells). Indicate in the header if it is mean or median and if it is standard error or standard deviation. Indicate in the title of the table that it is “according to sex”. It is recommended to add a column with the value of p and in the table footer indicate the realized statistical analysis (for example, t-test for independent samples).

• Page 8 of 16: Table 2. It must have a title and table footer. Unify format, avoid writing in capital letters, indicate if it is mean or median and if it is standard error or standard deviation.

• Page 9 of 16: Figure 2. Please include a figure title before the explanation.

• Page 11 of 16: Figure 4, unify 4a and 4b in lowercase as mentioned in the text, instead of A and B. It is recommended to cut the x-axis, for example up to 1000.

Page 11 of 16: “Finally, anthropometric and dietary patterns were not different between sex or age (Table 1). Hence, we did not include any of these variables as predictors of brain cortex or GM connectivity.” The authors do not present a statistical analysis showing that there are no differences. It is recommended to include it as part of the table.

4. Discussion:

• Page 13 of 16: In paragraph 2: “and in which essential factors,as diet, might profoundly influence the gut-brain signaling in adulthood (4).”, include a space and the word “such” before “as diet ”.

• Page 13 of 16: Correct the format of citations number 54 and 55 in the text.

5. Informed Consent Statement:

• All participants are between 5-10 years old. Please adjust the Informed Consent Statement, removing the adult participants.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Maria Esther Mejia-Leon

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 29;18(6):e0281385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281385.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


16 Nov 2022

We are very thankful to editor and reviewers comments, we have follow them as better as we could and we are certain that they have improved the manuscript. Please find point to point response in the response letter file in table format.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_letter.pdf

Decision Letter 1

Nicoletta Righini

3 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-17440R1Similar connectivity of gut microbiota and brain activity networks is mediated by animal protein and lipid intake in children from a Mexican indigenous population.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. G-Santoyo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. The authors did a good job revising the manuscript according to the reviewers' comments. A few issues still need to be addressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 17 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicoletta Righini, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: 

I think the authors answered most of my previous questions, although it takes a lot of time to check out every point since they didn’t mention the exact location in their revised manuscript to each question.

1. I still have the question regarding Lipid intake and protein intake. How many subjects belong to high lipid intake AND high protein intake? How many subjects belong to low lipid intake AND low protein intake? I think it’s important to know the proportion of overlapped subjects in high lipid and high protein group or low lipid and low protein group.

2. In their response they explained that their dataset is small and is not possible to have some statistic test on the MST difference between high/low nutrition intake group. I think it’s very important that they should also mention this limitation in their manuscript.

3. The author claimed they have corrected the format for R package citation, but they didn’t! line 241 and 249 are still two hyperlinks. I found the instruction for citation of these two packages below:

cooccur citation info (r-project.org), randomForest citation info (r-project.org).

What they need is just use the BibTeX entry from those links as the correct reference.

4. They now merged mean decrease gini of protein and lipid together in fig 5. That figure maybe misleading because in x axis the ASVs are arranges as the gini importance value decrease. When merge the two panels, it gives the reader the impression that the gini importance value ranks the same for the ASVs in protein intake and lipid intake. But I don’t think that’s true.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Jun 29;18(6):e0281385. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281385.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Jan 2023

Reviewer #1

I think the authors answered most of my previous questions, although it takes a lot of time to check out every point since they didn’t mention the exact location in their revised manuscript to each question.

We apologize for this and the subsequent inconvenience, we are now mentioning the exact location of all changes, in green.

I still have the question regarding Lipid intake and protein intake. How many subjects belong to high lipid intake AND high protein intake? How many subjects belong to low lipid intake AND low protein intake? I think it’s important to know the proportion of overlapped subjects in high lipid and high protein group or low lipid and low protein group.

There are 11 individuals with high protein intake, 9 with high lipid intake, and 6 individuals that are both in the high protein and lipid intake, corresponding to 42.8% shared. On the other hand, there are 20 individuals with low protein intake, 22 with low protein intake, and 16 both with low protein and lipid intake, corresponding to 61.5% shared.

We included this test in lines 160-164

In their response they explained that their dataset is small and is not possible to have some statistic test on the MST difference between high/low nutrition intake group. I think it’s very important that they should also mention this limitation in their manuscript.

We agree with reviewer, and have clearly state it at the end of the discussion section (lines 386-412):

As we have discussed above, current research in the field is pointing to the importance of doing microbiota studies in nonwestern populations, and how minorities are usually under-represented in mainstream literature. This is relevant not just because they represent very interesting contrasting populations, but also to fight against dominant culture bias. Nevertheless, due to other limitations such as lack of funding, difficulties in access, or just because those populations are themselves small; studying them may potentially translate into unavoidable sample size problems.

This is the case of our work, which has a too small sample size to do a more rigorous statistical treatment on the MST difference between high/low nutrition intake groups. An issue was highlighted by an anonymous reviewer during the peer review process. In particular, it would be desirable to randomly construct k subnets of sizes n, m (with n<m); and then compare pairs of subnets of n nodes vs. subnets of m nodes; to statistically respond: How the difference of weight of the MST would be if randomly divide the data into two groups?

Although the sample size is not large enough to perform this gedankenexperiment we offer a theoretical argument.

Let's first consider that If there were no underlying ecological (external to the individual) population process, the mutual information matrix (MI) would be very homogeneous. These coefficients of the MI matrix are used as the weight of the networks, so weights are also very homogeneous. It would be expected then, that the value of the MST would change mainly in the function of the size of the network. This would mean that the MST of networks of m nodes would be greater than the MST of n nodes.

In our case study, the subnetwork with the highest number of nodes corresponds to the lowest intake of protein/lipids. However, the MST of the highest protein/fluid intake is the largest, in the other direction. Therefore, this result should not be attributed to chance.

The author claimed they have corrected the format for R package citation, but they didn’t! line 241 and 249 are still two hyperlinks. I found the instruction for citation of these two packages below:

cooccur citation info (r-project.org), randomForest citation info (r-project.org).

What they need is just use the BibTeX entry from those links as the correct reference.

Sorry for this, we have now taken care of it and now it is found on lines 244 and 250-251 as following:

“...implemented in R under the randomForest package [50], and we identified essentia”

“... for this reason, we used the complete ASVs data set as input to a co-occurrence analysis using Cooccur package in R [51].”

Also corrected citation on line 226:

“Mutual Information (MI) matrix using the ‘mpmi’ R Package [46].”

They now merged mean decrease gini of protein and lipid together in fig 5. That figure maybe misleading because in x axis the ASVs are arranges as the gini importance value decrease. When merge the two panels, it gives the reader the impression that the gini importance value ranks the same for the ASVs in protein intake and lipid intake. But I don’t think that’s true.

Thank you for this detailed review. We really appreciate all your work. We modified the figure to take care of this comment by separating into two panels

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response Letter Minor Rev_Jan11.pdf

Decision Letter 2

Nicoletta Righini

23 Jan 2023

Similar connectivity of gut microbiota and brain activity networks is mediated by animal protein and lipid intake in children from a Mexican indigenous population.

PONE-D-22-17440R2

Dear Dr. G-Santoyo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nicoletta Righini, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Nicoletta Righini

27 Jan 2023

PONE-D-22-17440R2

Similar connectivity of gut microbiota and brain activity networks is mediated by animal protein and lipid intake in children from a Mexican indigenous population.

Dear Dr. G-Santoyo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nicoletta Righini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (PDF)

    S2 File

    (PDF)

    S3 File

    (PDF)

    S4 File

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_letter.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response Letter Minor Rev_Jan11.pdf

    Data Availability Statement

    All sequences obtained were uploaded to the NCBI database under the Bioproject number PRJNA593240 with the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/bioproject/?term=PRJNA593240.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES