Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Aug 27;20(8):e0328100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328100

An insight into the gut microbiota of healthy and allergic West Highland Whiter Terrier dogs

Vera Felten 1, Jonathan Louis Turck 2, Stefan Unterer 1, Claude Favrot 1, Jan Suchodolski 2, Nina Maria Fischer 1,#, Ana Rostaher 1,3,*,#
Editor: Rajeev Singh4
PMCID: PMC12385407  PMID: 40864614

Abstract

Canine atopic dermatitis (cAD) is a multifactorial, genetically predisposed inflammatory skin disease, with a high prevalence in many different dog breeds, with certain breeds being particularly affected, like the West Highland White Terrier (WHWT). While gut microbiome alterations are linked to allergic diseases in humans and some dog breeds, this relationship has never been investigated in WHWT dogs. This study aimed to compare the gut microbiome of allergic and healthy WHWT dogs to explore its role in cAD. Fecal samples from 21 WHWT dogs (12 allergic, 9 healthy) were analyzed using DNA shotgun sequencing and qPCR assays. No significant differences were observed in alpha or beta diversity, and no significant abundance of bacterial taxa was identified between allergic and healthy dogs. The Dysbiosis Index (DI) did not differ between the allergic (median −4.2, range −6.6 to 1.3) and healthy group. However, a moderate negative correlation was found between the relative abundance of E. coli and pruritus severity. These findings indicate that while the gut microbiome overall may not significantly contribute to cAD pathogenesis in WHWT dogs, some species like E. coli may be associated with clinical symptoms. Further studies are needed to investigate this relationship and to explore the role of genetics and the gut microbiota across different breeds with a larger number of dogs and with multi-omics approaches.

Introduction

Canine atopic dermatitis (cAD) is a clinical syndrome characterized as inflammatory and pruritic skin disease, resulting from a combination of genetic predispositions and environmental factors [1,2]. Humans also suffer from atopic dermatitis (AD), and there are many similarities between canine and human atopic dermatitis in terms of pathogenesis, clinical signs and treatment strategies [3,4]. Epidermal barrier impairment, dysregulated cell-mediated immune response, and high serum IgE levels against environmental allergens are observed in affected individuals of both species [3,4].

Canine AD closely mirrors its human AD counterpart in terms of its spontaneous onset, the nature and distribution of cutaneous lesions, the occurrence of immune dysregulation, impairments in the skin barrier, and the common occurrence of secondary infections that complicate the condition [5]. Furthermore, the long-standing cohabitation of dogs with humans has resulted in shared environmental and lifestyle factors, which in turn contribute to a shared exposome that influences the risk of developing atopic dermatitis [6]. Therefore, both species offer valuable reciprocal AD models for the study and development of management and preventive strategies for this disease.

In humans the prevalence of atopic dermatitis has increased in the last years and is estimated to be between 10-20% worldwide [7]. The exact prevalence in dogs remains uncertain, however, it is assumed that about 10% of the global dog population is affected [8]. Certain dog breeds are notably predisposed to a higher prevalence of canine atopic dermatitis, with the West Highland White Terrier (WHWT) being among the most affected [8,9]. Favrot et al could show in their study that in more than half of the included WHWT dogs, living in Switzerland, the first symptoms of cAD first appeared before they reached the first six months of age [9]. A genetic and hereditary component in WHWT dogs has been discussed in several studies, with evidence pointing to specific genes that may contribute to the increased predisposition to cAD in this breed [1014]. While genetic predisposition plays a crucial role in the development of canine atopic dermatitis in breeds such as the WHWT, genetics alone cannot fully account for the pathogenesis of the disease. Therefore, it is essential to consider additional factors playing a role in the pathogenesis in this disease to achieve a more comprehensive understanding and to identify possible new approaches for prevention and treatment.

As a key component of the cutaneous barrier, the skin microbiome and its disruptions, known as cutaneous dysbiosis—characterized by an imbalance in the microbial population, a decrease in microbial diversity, and a reduction in beneficial bacteria—have garnered significant attention over the past decades. Numerous studies have shown that both dogs and humans affected by AD experience cutaneous dysbiosis [1518]. However, it is still uncertain whether this dysbiosis is a cause or an effect of the atopic condition. Moreover, there is evidence from a previous study involving WHWT dogs indicating that the early-life skin microbiota of puppies involved in this cohort study was not associated with development of AD [15]. Hence, there is a growing emphasis on the gut microbiome, which could play an additional or even a more critical role in the development of allergies in dogs.

The “gut-skin axis” has been supported by several studies, which demonstrate that alterations in gut microbiota can significantly impact skin health and contribute to the development of skin conditions such as atopic dermatitis [19,20]. Previous studies showed that the compositional differences in the gut microbiome are associated with the development and severity of atopic dermatitis through immunologic, metabolic, and neuroendocrine pathways [20].

The gut microbiota directly influences T cells, and it is known that short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), produced by certain bacteria, can have an anti-inflammatory effect and influence the immune system [20,21]. The SCFAs generated by gut microbiota can trigger SCFA-sensing G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) and/or hinder histone deacetylases (HDACs). This initiates a series of signals that help to reduce inflammation and re-establish the balance between TH1 and TH2 responses. Additionally, the microbial metabolite D-tryptophan has the potential to restore this balance as well [22]. Several studies in human research focus on identifying the bacteria responsible for the development and maintenance of atopic dermatitis, as well as categorizing these bacteria into protective and triggering factors related to the disease [23,24].

In veterinary medicine, the importance of a healthy gut microbiome for overall - health is well established. There is clear evidence that dysbiosis plays a major role in several intestinal diseases in animals but data on the role of gut microbiota in cAD is still scarce [2527]. However, in the few studies performed, there is evidence that the gut microbiome differs between allergic and healthy dogs [26,27]. Based on this preliminary data and the large knowledge gap, there is a clear need for further research to better understand how gut microbiome may influence the development and progression of allergic skin conditions in dogs. In this study, we aimed to compare the gut microbiome of allergic and healthy dogs from a high-risk AD breed, specifically the WHWT breed, to gain insights into the disease’s pathogenesis and the gut microbiome’s role therein.

Materials and methods

Study population

A total of 21 WHWT dogs were prospectively recruited during October 2023 and June 2024 for this study, comprising 12 dogs with AD and 9 healthy controls. Nineteen of these 21 dogs were prospectively selected from a larger group enrolled in a prior observational birth cohort study [9]. In this earlier study, 107 WHWT puppies from 29 litters from 17 breeders in Switzerland were recruited. All puppies were clinically examined at 6–8 weeks of age and followed minimally three years of age to assess the development of AD. The two-remaining client-owned dogs (one healthy and one allergic) were presented to the Department of the Clinic for Small Animal Internal Medicine at the Vetsuisse Faculty, University of Zurich during routine consultations. All new owners signed a written informed consent form before participating the study, which was approved by the Swiss Cantonal Veterinary Office and conducted in accordance with guidelines established by the Animal Welfare Act of Switzerland (National No. 35805, Cantonal No. ZH069/2023).

Allergy status assessment

The allergy status of each dog was determined using a structured questionnaire completed by the owners and confirmed through clinical examination by a veterinarian. This comprehensive approach ensured accurate classification of allergic and healthy subjects. The questionnaires to identify allergic and healthy dogs used for this study were adapted from previous studies identifying risk factors for the development of cAD [9,28]. The inclusion of AD cases was based on the following: veterinarian-based AD diagnosis, owner-reported presence of typical AD symptoms (e.g., erythema, alopecia and excoriations) on typical predilections sites (e.g., ears, feet, axillae) associated with pruritus and unresponsiveness to adequate ectoparasite and antimicrobial treatments. The inclusion criteria for the healthy control dogs were absence of veterinarian-based AD diagnosis and other immunological disorders and the age above 5 years. The exclusion criteria for healthy dogs were food allergy improving on exclusion diet, having gastrointestinal problems, moist eczema skin lesions (hot spots), ear infections and inflammation, frequent vomiting, pruritus or were allergy tested. The intensity of itching was evaluated using the Pruritic Visual Analog Scale (PVAS) [29] allowing owners to quantify the severity of their dog’s itching on a standardized scale. All data were anonymized to ensure confidentiality and ethical compliance.

Sample collection

Stool samples from 12 dogs with spontaneous AD and a control group consisting of 9 healthy dogs were collected by the dog owners directly into PERFORMAbiome-GUT tubes (DNA Genotek, Ottawa, ON, Canada). Upon collection, the samples were promptly shipped to the laboratory, where they were stored at −80°C until further analysis.

Sample analysis

The fecal samples were collected from both groups and were stored at -80 °C before being shipped on dry ice to the Gastrointestinal Laboratory of Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas. The microbial DNA from fecal samples was extracted and quantified using the DNeasy PowerSoil Pro Kit (QIAGEN Inc, Germantown, Maryland) and the Thermo Scientific NanoDrop Microvolume Spectrophotometers respectively. The Nextera XT DNA Library Preparation Kit (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA) was used for sequencing library preparation, followed by pooling of the libraries. Afterward, SPRI bead purification and concentration were performed with SpeedBeads Magnetic Carboxylate Modified Particles (Cytiva Life Sciences, Marlborough, MA, USA). The pooled libraries were denatured using NaOH, diluted, and spiked with 2% PhiX. Sequencing was carried out on an Illumina NovaSeq6000 with a 2x150 flow cell to achieve a median of 2 million read pairs at the Diversigen laboratory (New Brighton, MN). The data were converted to FASTQ files and filtered for low-quality (Q-score <30) and short lengths (<50) sequences. Adapter sequences were removed, and all remaining sequences were trimmed to a maximum length of 100 base pairs before proceeding with the alignment process. Raw sequence data were uploaded to the NCBI Sequence Read Archive and analyzed using established pipelines. For taxonomic classification, FASTA sequences were aligned to a curated database containing all representative prokaryotic genomes from the NCBI RefSeq collection, as well as additional manually curated bacterial strains. Alignments were performed at 97% identity and compared with reference genomes. Taxonomy assignment was based on the lowest common ancestor approach, with compatibility to at least 80% of the reference sequences. Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) with fewer than one million species-level markers, or with less than 0.01% unique genome region matching and less than 0.1% of the entire genome, were discarded. The normalized and filtered data tables were then imported into QIIME2 for subsequent downstream analysis. Prior to conducting diversity analyses, samples were rarefied to depth of 642000, ensuring uniform depth for analysis.

The qPCR assays quantified total bacteria, Blautia, Clostridium (Peptacetobacter) hiranonis, Escherichia coli, Faecalibacterium, Fusobacterium, Streptococcus, and Turicibacter. The qPCR assays have been described previously as previously described [30]. Briefly, the qPCR assays were performed in the following order: at 95 ◦C maintained for 2 min, 40 cycles at 95 ◦C for 5 s, and then annealing at the optimized temperature for 10 s, using 10 μL of SYBR-based reaction mixtures (5 μL of SsoFast™ EvaGreen® supermix [Bio-Rad Laboratories GmbH, Düsseldorf, Germany]), 1.6 μL of high-quality PCR water, 0.4 μL of each primer (final concentration: 400 nM), and 2 μL of DNA. Both positive and negative controls were included for all qPCR assays to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the results. The DI was calculated based on the results of the qPCR assays using a previously described algorithm [30].

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was conducted to test the hypothesis that there is a difference in the fecal microbiome between the two groups. Data were tested against the hypothesis of normal distribution by conducting the Shapiro-Wilk’s test using GraphPad Prism v10.0.2 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA, USA). The data did mainly follow a normal distribution. However, due to the zero inflated and compositional nature of microbiome data, non-parametric methods were applied. Statistics on the Shannon, Chao1, and Observed Features indices were performed using a one-way ANOVA. All alpha diversity statistical analyses were performed in R statistical computing software (R v 4.2.3). To quantify the dissimilarity in microbial structure between groups, a non-parametric ANOSIM (analysis of similarities) was performed on the Bray-Curtis distance matrix in Quantitative Insights Into Microbial Ecology 2 (QIIME2 2024.2). Groups were defined based on the individual’s respective treatment and the time point at collection. To compute p-values, 999 permutations were calculated, and pairwise comparisons were performed against baseline. The significance level was set at a p-value of <.05. Differentially abundant taxa between the groups at phylum, family, genus, species, and strain levels were identified using Analysis of Composition of Microbiomes with Bias Correction (ANCOM-BC) from the R package ANCOMBC (v 2.2.0) using the default parameters. Subsequent analysis was performed with MaAsLin2 (v 1.16.0). Features were normalized with total sum scaling and log transformed. No differentially abundant features were found using ANCOMBC or MaAsLin2. Features were then filtered to exclude any filters with less than 0.001% overall relative abundance. A Wilcoxon signed-rank test was then performed within R. No features were found to be significant following p-value correction. Some selected features are plotted below. A stacked relative abundance table on a phylum level was created utilizing R statistical software v4.2.3 (R Core Team, 2020) with the phyloseq v3.20 package. The Spearman test was used to evaluate the correlations between the abundance of taxa obtained by qPCR and the severity of pruritus.

Results

Signalement and clinical data

A total of 21 WHWT were included in the study, of which 12 were in the allergic group and 9 were in the healthy group. The median age of the allergic and healthy dogs in this study was 6.75 (1.5-7.5) and 7 (5-7.8) years, respectively. The male to female sex distribution was 1:2 and was the same for both groups. The median pruritus score in the allergic group was 3 (range: 0–6), measured with the Pruritus visual analogue scale (PVAS) from 0 (low) to 10 (high). In the healthy group, the pruritus score for all dogs was 0. Symptomatic allergy treatment was administered to three dogs in the allergic group, such as oclacitinib (n=1), ear drops or ear cleaner (n=2), allergen-specific immunotherapy (n=1).

Comparison of bacterial diversity parameters between allergic and healthy dogs

Sequencing summary.

A total of 21 stool samples from 12 allergic and 9 healthy dogs were analyzed. Following the evaluation of the sequencing reads from the stool microbiota, 2,634 numbers of observations (ASVs) were detected, and 63,292,459 high-quality sequences were obtained. Species richness reached a plateau at approximately 1,100–1,300 observed features with a sequencing depth of 660,000 reads per sample, indicating sufficient capture of microbial diversity.

Alpha diversity.

Although the median values for Chao1, observed features and Shannon index were lower in allergic dogs as compared to healthy dogs (Fig 1), these values were not statistically significant (p = 0.7). Furthermore, the interquartile range in the allergic group was much broader, indicating a greater variability in microbial diversity within this group.

Fig 1. a-c. Comparison of alpha diversity parameters between atopic and healthy dogs, showing following features.

Fig 1

Chao 1, Observed features, Shannon index was not statistically different between the allergic and healthy dogs.

Beta diversity.

Beta diversity analyses also revealed no significant differences between allergic and healthy dogs (p = 0.98), as determined by Analysis of similarities (ANOSIM). Principal coordinate analysis by Bray-Curtis did not show clustering of the bacterial gut microbiota between the two groups, supporting the results that there were no significant differences in microbial composition between allergic and healthy dogs (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Principal coordinates analysis (PCoA) for the beta-diversity metrics.

Fig 2

No significant pattern was observed in the beta-diversity metrics between the groups, suggesting similar overall compositions between the allergic and healthy samples.

Microbial differential abundance.

The composition of the gut microbiota in both groups was divided into the following phyla: Firmicutes, Bacteroidota, Actinobacteriota, Fusobacteriota, Proteobacteria, Campylobacterota and other low abundant phyla. Bacteroidota (median allergic 38.4; Median healthy 34.6) and Firmicutes (median allergic 37.7; median healthy 30.6) were the most abundant Phyla in both groups (Fig 3).

Fig 3. Relative abundance taxonomy bar plot at the phylum level.

Fig 3

The plot depicts overall phylum abundance between allergic and healthy dogs.

However, no significant differences were observed at the phylum level between healthy and allergic dogs. Similarly, the analysis of the bacterial composition revealed no significant differences between the two groups at the class, order, or family level (Supporting information S1 Fig).

Dysbiosis index and correlation with severity of pruritus.

The Dysbiosis Index (DI) did not differ between the allergic (median -4.2, range -6.6–1.3) and healthy group (median -4.1, range -6.7–1.0). Only one dog in the allergic group (n = 12) and one dog in the healthy group (n = 9) showed a mild dysbiosis (Table 1). While no other dog in both groups had a bacterial shift that would indicate a dysbiosis in the gut. We also evaluated the correlation between individual bacterial species represented within DI. Escherichia coli showed a moderate negative correlation (R = -0.58, p = 0.049) with pruritus severity (Fig 4).

Table 1. The dysbiosis index (DI) of healthy and allergic dogs. In addition to the DI, data on the individual bacterial taxa represented in the DI are shown for each dog.
Dog No Health status Canine dysbiosis index* Faecalibacterium Log DNA Turicibacter Log DNA Streptococcus Log DNA E. coli Log DNA Blautia Log DNA Fusobacterium Log DNA Clostridium hiranonis Log DNA Bifidobacterium log DNA Bacteroides log DNA
1 allergic −3.1 7.4 6.5 5.2 4.6 9.8 9.5 5.9 3.5 7.3
2 allergic −3.3 5.0 5.9 5.4 3.4 9.8 9.6 6.2 3.1 7.5
3 allergic 1.3 2.4 7.3 2.5 6.5 9.5 9.1 0.2 2.6 7.7
4 allergic −5.2 2.7 7.5 4.0 1.4 9.2 8.5 6.5 3.3 6.6
5 allergic −6.5 7.3 7.0 3.3 2.9 10.2 9.6 6.3 3.2 7.5
6 allergic −6.1 6.4 5.4 3.2 2.9 10.2 9.7 6.1 3.0 7.0
7 allergic −3.0 6.5 6.7 5.6 5.2 9.9 9.9 6.6 3.0 7.4
8 allergic −5.0 7.4 7.5 4.6 3.9 10.3 9.4 6.6 3.7 7.4
9 allergic −5.6 7.5 5.7 3.1 2.0 9.9 9.3 5.5 2.5 7.0
10 allergic −6.6 7.0 8.2 3.7 1.4 10.3 9.7 6.4 3.8 7.4
11 allergic −3.3 7.3 6.1 3.8 7.2 10.0 9.5 6.2 3.8 7.0
12 allergic −2.1 5.0 6.0 3.8 6.7 9.7 9.4 4.7 1.6 6.0
1 healthy −6.6 6.9 7.4 2.6 3.3 10.0 9.2 5.6 2.6 6.9
2 healthy −3.4 3.2 8.0 4.9 5.5 10.5 9.5 6.3 2.1 6.7
3 healthy −0.2 7.3 5.8 7.4 5.8 10.1 9.6 6.4 3.6 7.5
4 healthy −4.1 6.5 6.0 4.7 1.4 9.6 9.3 5.4 2.3 7.1
5 healthy −6.7 7.1 7.8 3.1 2.7 9.8 9.5 6.3 3.0 7.4
6 healthy 1.0 2.6 6.1 6.0 7.4 9.7 9.6 6.2 3.4 7.4
7 healthy −6.0 6.5 5.7 3.3 1.4 9.8 9.4 6.3 3.1 7.3
8 healthy −2.8 6.5 7.1 6.6 2.0 9.5 8.8 6.7 3.2 6.9
9 healthy −5.6 6.8 7.4 3.2 6.1 10.0 9.5 6.5 3.4 7.3

*A DI of < 0 is classified as normal dysbiosis index indicating that no shifts in the overall diversity of the intestinal microbiota have been detected. If individual bacterial groups are outside the reference interval, this is suggestive of minor changes. Values between 0 and 2 represent a mildly increased CI, suggesting a mild to moderate shift in the overall diversity of the intestinal microbiota. Values > 2 indicate that the DI is significantly increased, which is consistent with a major shift in the overall diversity of the intestinal microbiota [68]. The allergic dogs are presented in the table with blue shadow.

Fig 4. The correlation between absolute abundance of E. coli (log DNA) and the pruritus severity.

Fig 4

Escherichia coli showed a moderate negative correlation with pruritus severity.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge this is the first comparative study to explore the gut microbiome of healthy and allergic WHWT dogs, a well-known high-risk breed for atopic dermatitis. The primary finding of the present study is that there were no significant differences in the fecal microbial composition between healthy and allergic WHWT dogs. Both alpha and beta diversity measures were comparable between the two groups, and no differences were observed at the taxonomic level.

Previous studies have shown significant differences in alpha and beta diversity between healthy and allergic dogs of various breeds [31] and in Beagle dogs [27], with allergic dogs typically exhibiting lower alpha diversity. Conversely, studies on Shiba Inu dogs, another breed at high risk for AD, found no significant differences in diversity between healthy and allergic dogs [26,32]. A previous study has shown that gut microbiome composition can be influenced by the dog breed [33,34]. These inconsistencies highlight that breed-specific factors might not only influence the gut microbiome composition in health but also in disease, such as in canine AD. We hypothesize that the breed effect in WHWT dogs may account for the lack of significant differences observed in our study and that possible changes in the gut microbiota between allergic and healthy dogs may not be strong enough to show significant differences, similar to the findings in the studies with the Shiba Inu dogs.

The composition of the gut microbiota in healthy dogs generally consists of phyla such as Firmicutes, Fusobacteriota, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteriota [25]. In our study using DNA shotgun sequencing, a method which avoids primer bias, the most abundant phyla detected in the gastrointestinal tract were Firmicutes, Bacteroidota, Actinobacteriota, Fusobacteriota, Proteobacteria, Campylobacterota with no significant differences observed between healthy and allergic WHWT dogs. Previous studies including various dog breeds have demonstrated differences in fecal microbiota composition at the phylum level, with Firmicutes, Fusobacteriota, Bacteroidota, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteriota being more prominent in healthy dogs, whereas Firmicutes, Bacteroidota, and Proteobacteria are predominate in allergic dogs [31]. The lack of a significant difference between the allergic and healthy population in this study may be explained by the breed-specific factors or because of the use of different methods in the sequencing analysis (DNA extraction, primers, bioinformatics pipelines) which all have. Furthermore, sequencing has high intra- and inter-laboratory variability, making comparison across studies using this approach alone difficult [35,36]. However, in this study we also examined important core bacterial taxa using qPCR, which is reproducible and allows comparison of overall microbiome shifts across previous studies, and we also did not observe any significant differences in microbial shifts and taxa [37].

Alterations in the gut microbiome have been linked to differences in allergen sensitivity and the development of atopic dermatitis in humans [21,38]. There is evidence, that the gut microbiota influences the tolerance towards allergens in many different ways, either directly interacting with T regulatory (Treg) cells or through the production of short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) such as butyrate, propionate, and acetate, which are exerting important advantageous immunomodulatory and anti-inflammatory effects both in the gastrointestinal tract and in the skin [3941]. Furthermore, it was shown, that gut microbiota can exert an effect on post-translational host protein and epigenetic level [20]. Unfortunately, these aspects were not studied herein and should be addressed in future studies.

Abrahamsson et. al. showed that infants developing an atopic eczema had a lower intestinal microbial diversity [42]. Whereas in another study there were no significant differences found between infants with atopic dermatitis and healthy controls, but a difference could be identified at the compositional level. Infants with AD had a significantly lower abundance of Streptococcus [43]. Some human studies detected higher levels of Clostridium and Escherichia in the gut of infants with AD [4446]. Whereas, in another study patients with AD had lower levels of Akkermansia, Bacteroidetes, and Bifidobacterium, compared to healthy controls [47,48]. Butyrate-producing bacteria (f.i. Coprococcus) were more abundant in healthy infants or infants with mild AD, compared to infants with severe AD in a study from Finland [49]. Based on this, one could hypothesize that maybe diversity alone may not be as important as specific microorganisms in the pathogenesis of AD [43]. However, it is important to note that findings from human medicine cannot be directly extrapolated to dogs. For instance, while Fusobacterium has been observed in healthy control dogs, it is associated with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a chronic gastrointestinal condition, of both, dogs and humans [50,51]. See Table 2 for a review of the current literature comparing to gut microbiota composition and diversity between allergic and healthy dogs.

Table 2. A review of studies comparing the fecal metagenome between healthy dogs and dogs with canine atopic dermatitis.

Reference Comparing diversities between allergic and healthy Comparing relative abundance between allergic and healthy dogs
Population Sequencing data Alpha diversity Beta diversity Significantly lower Significantly higher
In allergic dogs In allergic dogs
Thomsen, 2023 40 dogs V3 - V4 region Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Fusobacterium* Escherichia/Shigella*
20 healthy 16S rRNA Megamonas* Bacteroides
20 AD Clostridium sensu stricto
Shiba Inu
Sugita, 2023 32 dogs V3–V4 region Significantly lower in AD Significantly different Fusobacterium* Escherichia/Shigella* Ruminococcus gnavus group*
20 healthy 16S rRNA Megamonas* Klebsiella
12 AD Prevotella
Various breeds Roseburia
Sutterella Phascolarctobacterium
Rostaher, 2022 7 dogs V3–V4 region 16S rRNA Significantly lower in AD Significantly different Fusobacterium* Conchiformibius Catenibacterium spp.
3 AD Lachnospira Ruminococcus gnavus group* Megamonas
4 healthy Fecalibacterium
Beagle Ruminococcus torques group
Uchiyama, 2022 25 dogs V3–V4 region 16S rRNA gene Nonsignificant, no clear tendency for differences Significance almost reached Family Anaerovoracaceae
16 healthy
9 AD
Shiba Inu

*Genera which are significantly different between healthy and allergic dogs in two or more studies.

It is noteworthy that many comparative studies have focused on the gut microbiome in children and infants. This early phase of life is crucial for the development of the immune system and represents a critical window that can promote the onset of allergic diseases in humans and in dogs [5258]. During and after birth, we are exposed to a diverse world of bacteria coming from the mother and from the new environment which colonizes the gastrointestinal tract by oral ingestion [5961]. Studies have shown that the colonization of the gut with bacteria increases significantly from birth and reaches a plateau around the age of three [60,62]. Thereafter, the gut microbiota stays relatively stable during adulthood and then in elderly people the diversity of the bacterial composition in the gut decreases [63]. The hygiene hypothesis posits that reduced exposure to pathogens and microbes during early life can lead to an increased risk of allergic diseases [53]. Several retrospective/cross sectional studies have demonstrated that growing up on a farm during childhood significantly reduces the risk of developing allergies and hay fever [64,65]. A prospective study from Finland showed that contact with farm animals played a crucial role in this protective effect [66].

To date all studies in allergic dogs, including the study herein, analyzed the gut microbiome in adult animals and not during the early life window of opportunity, which might explain the missing significant findings in this study. Future, longitudinal studies analysing the gut microbiome of puppies and following them into adulthood to determine early microbiome characteristics influencing the development of cAD are of paramount importance.

To assess if there is any relevant association between bacteria represented in the dysbiosis index and the pruritus severity, a correlation analysis was performed. A statistically significant negative correlation was observed between E. coli abundance and pruritus severity [49]. E. coli, a dominant species within the Enterobacteriaceae family, is a major component of the gut microbiota in humans and also in dogs [30,67,68]. Its rapid decline has been epidemiologically associated with the onset of allergic diseases in humans [69]. Furthermore, in two studies with children of allergic mothers a preventive effect of early supplementation of newborns with E. coli strain-based probiotics on allergy development could be detected (EcO83) [70,71]. However, conflicting data exist as a higher E. coli abundance was found in individuals with atopic eczema compared to healthy individuals [4446]. Furthermore, a positive correlation between the amount of E. coli and total serum IgE levels in infants with eczema is suggesting that higher levels of E. coli are associated with greater atopic sensitization [72]. The conflicting data can be attributed to several factors such as the heterogeneity of studies, missing population stratification, temporal microbiome dynamics and even measurement and analysis variability. Based on this newly discovered correlation between pruritus severity and E. coli abundance in WHWT dogs, further research is warranted to explore the molecular basis of this relationship in larger populations and in various dog breeds.

The lack of statistical significance observed in our study may be attributed several reasons. One could be a suboptimal phenotyping, which could have impacted the accuracy and reliability of group classifications. Healthy control dogs might in fact be affected dogs that did not yet express the disease phenotype. We attempted to minimize this by using healthy control dogs over the age of 5 years who had a greater chance of encountering the environmental trigger for the disease than a young dog, as previously suggested [11]. Another possibility could be, that our study was underpowered, as the disease prevalence was reported to be over 50% in the Swiss WHWT population [9]. A larger study with more dogs and with different breeds included would be helpful to clarify this question.

Lastly, it is also possible that the AD pathogenesis in WHWT is not mainly driven by shifts in the gut microbiota and that either specific microbial metabolites, altered interactions between mucosa-adherent microbiota and the immune system, and/or the genetics play a substantial role in not only shaping the gut microbiome in WHWT dogs but also influencing the development of AD through “non-microbiome” targets. Moreover, the pathogenesis of AD is very complex as it involves an interaction of many genes and environmental exposures affecting the immune and skin barrier thru different pathways and the effect of only one factor is likely to be relatively small [73]. For this, future studies should be including a systems biology approach, which will enable researchers to better understand this complex disease.

Conclusions

The major findings of this study indicate that based on the assessment of fecal samples, shifts in the gut microbiota do not appear to be the primary driver in the pathogenesis of AD in WHWT dogs. However, we could find a moderate negative correlation with the amount of E. coli, which points towards a possible modulating effect on clinical symptoms. It is important to consider that this study was very likely underpowered, and future large-scale studies are necessary to validate these data and to explore the role of genetics and the gut microbiota across different dog breeds. Additionally, exploring the effects of early-life microbial exposure on microbiome composition and the development of allergic diseases could offer valuable insights into the prevention of AD, which is a highly relevant topic in current research.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Relative abundance taxonomy bar plots at the class, order, family and genus level.

(PDF)

pone.0328100.s001.pdf (686.7KB, pdf)

Data Availability

All relevant data are publicly available from the Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15849870).

Funding Statement

This study was financially supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (https://www.snf.ch) in the form of a grant (215128) received by AR and NMF. This study was also financially supported by the American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation (https://www.akcchf.org) in the form of a grant (03162) received by AR and NMF. This study was also financially supported by the Westie Foundation of America (https://westiefoundation.org) in the form of an award received by AR and NMF. This study was also financially supported by the Purina PetCare Research Excellence Fund (https://www.purina.com) in the form of an award received by JS. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Marsella R. Advances in our understanding of canine atopic dermatitis. Veterinary Dermatology. 2021;32(6):547. doi: 10.1111/vde.12965 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Halliwell R. Revised nomenclature for veterinary allergy. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2006;114(3–4):207–8. doi: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2006.08.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Marsella R, De Benedetto A. Atopic dermatitis in animals and people: an update and comparative review. Vet Sci. 2017;4(3). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gedon NKY, Mueller RS. Atopic dermatitis in cats and dogs: a difficult disease for animals and owners. Clin Transl Allergy. 2018;8:41. doi: 10.1186/s13601-018-0228-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Santoro D, Rodrigues Hoffmann A. Canine and human atopic dermatitis: two faces of the same host-microbe interaction. J Invest Dermatol. 2016;136(6):1087–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lehtimäki J, Sinkko H, Hielm-Björkman A, Laatikainen T, Ruokolainen L, Lohi H. Simultaneous allergic traits in dogs and their owners are associated with living environment, lifestyle and microbial exposures. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):21954. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78863-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Deckers IAG, McLean S, Linssen S, Mommers M, van Schayck CP, Sheikh A. Investigating International Time Trends in the Incidence and Prevalence of Atopic Eczema 1990–2010: A Systematic Review of Epidemiological Studies. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(7):e39803. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0039803 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hillier A, Griffin CE. The ACVD task force on canine atopic dermatitis (I): incidence and prevalence. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2001;81(3–4):147–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Favrot C, Fischer N, Olivry T, Zwickl L, Audergon S, Rostaher A. Atopic dermatitis in West Highland white terriers - part I: natural history of atopic dermatitis in the first three years of life. Vet Dermatol. 2020;31(2):106–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Roque JB, O’Leary CA, Duffy DL, Kyaw-Tanner M, Gharahkhani P, Vogelnest L. Atopic dermatitis in West Highland white terriers is associated with a 1.3-Mb region on CFA 17. Immunogenetics. 2012;64(3):209–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Agler CS, Friedenberg S, Olivry T, Meurs KM, Olby NJ. Genome-wide association analysis in West Highland White Terriers with atopic dermatitis. Vet Immunol Immunopathol. 2019;209:1–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Salzmann CA, Olivry TJ, Nielsen DM, Paps JS, Harris TL, Olby NJ. Genome-wide linkage study of atopic dermatitis in West Highland White Terriers. BMC Genet. 2011;12:37. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-12-37 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Roque JB, O’Leary CA, Kyaw-Tanner M, Duffy DL, Gharahkhani P, Vogelnest L, et al. PTPN22 polymorphisms may indicate a role for this gene in atopic dermatitis in West Highland white terriers. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4(1). doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Wood SH, Ke X, Nuttall T, McEwan N, Ollier WE, Carter SD. Genome-wide association analysis of canine atopic dermatitis and identification of disease related SNPs. Immunogenetics. 2009;61(11–12):765–72. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Rostaher A, Rodriguez-Campos S, Deplazes P, Zwickl L, Akdis AC, Urwyler A. Atopic dermatitis in West Highland white terriers - Part III: early life peripheral blood regulatory T cells are reduced in atopic dermatitis. Vet Dermatol. 2021;32(3):239–e63. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Fazakerley J, Nuttall T, Sales D, Schmidt V, Carter SD, Hart CA. Staphylococcal colonization of mucosal and lesional skin sites in atopic and healthy dogs. Vet Dermatol. 2009;20(3):179–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Rodrigues Hoffmann A, Patterson AP, Diesel A, Lawhon SD, Ly HJ, Elkins Stephenson C. The skin microbiome in healthy and allergic dogs. PLoS One. 2014;9(1):e83197. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gong JQ, Lin L, Lin T, Hao F, Zeng FQ, Bi ZG. Skin colonization by Staphylococcus aureus in patients with eczema and atopic dermatitis and relevant combined topical therapy: a double-blind multicentre randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2006;155(4):680–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Fang Z, Pan T, Wang H, Zhu J, Zhang H, Zhao J, et al. Limosilactobacillus reuteri Attenuates Atopic Dermatitis via Changes in Gut Bacteria and Indole Derivatives from Tryptophan Metabolism. IJMS. 2022;23(14):7735. doi: 10.3390/ijms23147735 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Lee SY, Lee E, Park YM, Hong SJ. Microbiome in the Gut-Skin Axis in Atopic Dermatitis. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res. 2018;10(4):354–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kim JE, Kim HS. Microbiome of the skin and gut in atopic dermatitis (AD): understanding the pathophysiology and finding novel management strategies. J Clin Med. 2019;8(4). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Alam MJ, Xie L, Yap YA, Marques FZ, Robert R. Manipulating microbiota to treat atopic dermatitis: functions and therapies. Pathogens. 2022;11(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sadowsky RL, Sulejmani P, Lio PA. Atopic Dermatitis: Beyond the Skin and Into the Gut. J Clin Med. 2023;12(17). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Drell T, Larionova A, Voor T, Simm J, Julge K, Heilman K. Differences in gut microbiota between atopic and healthy children. Current Microbiology. 2015;71(2):177–83. doi: 10.1007/s00284-015-0815-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Pilla R, Suchodolski JS. The role of the canine gut microbiome and metabolome in health and gastrointestinal disease. Front Vet Sci. 2019;6:498. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Uchiyama J, Osumi T, Mizukami K, Fukuyama T, Shima A, Unno A. Characterization of the oral and faecal microbiota associated with atopic dermatitis in dogs selected from a purebred Shiba Inu colony. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2022;75(6):1607–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Rostaher A, Morsy Y, Favrot C, Unterer S, Schnyder M, Scharl M. Comparison of the gut microbiome between atopic and healthy dogs-preliminary data. Animals (Basel). 2022;12(18). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tengvall K, Sundström E, Wang C, Bergvall K, Wallerman O, Pederson E. Bayesian model and selection signature analyses reveal risk factors for canine atopic dermatitis. Commun Biol. 2022;5(1):1348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Rybnícek J, Lau-Gillard PJ, Harvey R, Hill PB. Further validation of a pruritus severity scale for use in dogs. Vet Dermatol. 2009;20(2):115–22. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.AlShawaqfeh MK, Wajid B, Minamoto Y, Markel M, Lidbury JA, Steiner JM. A dysbiosis index to assess microbial changes in fecal samples of dogs with chronic inflammatory enteropathy. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2017;93(11). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Sugita K, Shima A, Takahashi K, Ishihara G, Kawano K, Ohmori K. Pilot evaluation of a single oral fecal microbiota transplantation for canine atopic dermatitis. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):8824. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Thomsen M, Künstner A, Wohlers I, Olbrich M, Lenfers T, Osumi T. A comprehensive analysis of gut and skin microbiota in canine atopic dermatitis in Shiba Inu dogs. Microbiome. 2023;11(1):232. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.You I, Kim MJ. Comparison of gut microbiota of 96 healthy dogs by individual traits: breed, age, and body condition score. Animals. 2021;11(8). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Reddy KE, Kim HR, Jeong JY, So KM, Lee S, Ji SY, et al. Impact of Breed on the Fecal Microbiome of Dogs under the Same Dietary Condition. J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2019;29(12):1947–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Forry SP, Servetas SL, Kralj JG, Soh K, Hadjithomas M, Cano R. Variability and bias in microbiome metagenomic sequencing: an interlaboratory study comparing experimental protocols. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):9785. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hoisington AJ, Stamper CE, Ellis JC, Lowry CA, Brenner LA. Quantifying variation across 16S rRNA gene sequencing runs in human microbiome studies. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2024;108(1):367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Sung CH, Pilla R, Chen CC, Ishii PE, Toresson L, Allenspach-Jorn K, et al. Correlation between targeted qPCR assays and untargeted DNA shotgun metagenomic sequencing for assessing the fecal microbiota in dogs. Animals. 2023;13(16):2597. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Johnson CC, Ownby DR. The infant gut bacterial microbiota and risk of pediatric asthma and allergic diseases. Transl Res. 2017;179:60–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Cox MA, Jackson J, Stanton M, Rojas-Triana A, Bober L, Laverty M. Short-chain fatty acids act as antiinflammatory mediators by regulating prostaglandin E(2) and cytokines. World J Gastroenterol. 2009;15(44):5549–57. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Arpaia N, Campbell C, Fan X, Dikiy S, van der Veeken J, deRoos P. Metabolites produced by commensal bacteria promote peripheral regulatory T-cell generation. Nature. 2013;504(7480):451–5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Schwarz A, Bruhs A, Schwarz T. The short-chain fatty acid sodium butyrate functions as a regulator of the skin immune system. J Invest Dermatol. 2017;137(4):855–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Abrahamsson TR, Jakobsson HE, Andersson AF, Björkstén B, Engstrand L, Jenmalm MC. Low diversity of the gut microbiota in infants with atopic eczema. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;129(2):434–40, 40.e1-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Yu L, Deng YH, Huang YH, Ke HJ, Guo Y, Wu JL. Comparison of gut microbiota between infants with atopic dermatitis and healthy controls in Guangzhou, China. J Asthma Allergy. 2021;14:493–500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Kalliomäki M, Kirjavainen P, Eerola E, Kero P, Salminen S, Isolauri E. Distinct patterns of neonatal gut microflora in infants in whom atopy was and was not developing. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2001;107(1):129–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Penders J, Thijs C, van den Brandt PA, Kummeling I, Snijders B, Stelma F. Gut microbiota composition and development of atopic manifestations in infancy: the KOALA Birth Cohort Study. Gut. 2007;56(5):661–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Lee E, Lee SY, Kang MJ, Kim K, Won S, Kim BJ, et al. Clostridia in the gut and onset of atopic dermatitis via eosinophilic inflammation. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2016;117(1):91-2.e1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Fujimura KE, Sitarik AR, Havstad S, Lin DL, Levan S, Fadrosh D. Neonatal gut microbiota associates with childhood multisensitized atopy and T cell differentiation. Nat Med. 2016;22(10):1187–91. doi: 10.1038/nm.4176 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Watanabe S, Narisawa Y, Arase S, Okamatsu H, Ikenaga T, Tajiri Y. Differences in fecal microflora between patients with atopic dermatitis and healthy control subjects. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;111(3):587–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Nylund L, Nermes M, Isolauri E, Salminen S, de Vos WM, Satokari R. Severity of atopic disease inversely correlates with intestinal microbiota diversity and butyrate-producing bacteria. Allergy. 2015;70(2):241–4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Vázquez-Baeza Y, Hyde ER, Suchodolski JS, Knight R. Dog and human inflammatory bowel disease rely on overlapping yet distinct dysbiosis networks. Nature Microbiology. 2016;1:16177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Galler AI, Suchodolski JS, Steiner JM, Sung CH, Hittmair KM, Richter B. Microbial dysbiosis and fecal metabolomic perturbations in Yorkshire Terriers with chronic enteropathy. Scientific Reports. 2022;12(1):12977. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Tuniyazi M, Li S, Hu X, Fu Y, Zhang N. The Role of Early Life Microbiota Composition in the Development of Allergic Diseases. Microorganisms. 2022;10(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Strachan DP. Hay fever, hygiene, and household size. BMJ. 1989;299(6710):1259–60. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Eriksson J, Ekerljung L, Lötvall J, Pullerits T, Wennergren G, Rönmark E. Growing up on a farm leads to lifelong protection against allergic rhinitis. Allergy. 2010;65(11):1397–403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Sbihi H, Boutin RC, Cutler C, Suen M, Finlay BB, Turvey SE. Thinking bigger: How early-life environmental exposures shape the gut microbiome and influence the development of asthma and allergic disease. Allergy. 2019;74(11):2103–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Rostaher A, Dolf G, Fischer NM, Silaghi C, Akdis C, Zwickl L. Atopic dermatitis in a cohort of West Highland white terriers in Switzerland. Part II: estimates of early life factors and heritability. Vet Dermatol. 2020;31(4):276-e66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Anturaniemi J, Uusitalo L, Hielm-Björkman A. Environmental and phenotype-related risk factors for owner-reported allergic/atopic skin symptoms and for canine atopic dermatitis verified by veterinarian in a Finnish dog population. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178771. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Renz H, Holt PG, Inouye M, Logan AC, Prescott SL, Sly PD. An exposome perspective: Early-life events and immune development in a changing world. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;140(1):24–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Matsumiya Y, Kato N, Watanabe K, Kato H. Molecular epidemiological study of vertical transmission of vaginal Lactobacillus species from mothers to newborn infants in Japanese, by arbitrarily primed polymerase chain reaction. J Infect Chemother. 2002;8(1):43–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Martín R, Jiménez E, Heilig H, Fernández L, Marín ML, Zoetendal EG. Isolation of bifidobacteria from breast milk and assessment of the bifidobacterial population by PCR-denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis and quantitative real-time PCR. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2009;75(4):965–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Galazzo G, van Best N, Bervoets L, Dapaah IO, Savelkoul PH, Hornef MW. Development of the microbiota and associations with birth mode, diet, and atopic disorders in a longitudinal analysis of stool samples, collected from infancy through early childhood. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(6):1584–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Chu DM, Ma J, Prince AL, Antony KM, Seferovic MD, Aagaard KM. Maturation of the infant microbiome community structure and function across multiple body sites and in relation to mode of delivery. Nat Med. 2017;23(3):314–26. doi: 10.1038/nm.4272 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.O’Toole P, Claesson M. Gut microbiota: Changes throughout the lifespan from infancy to elderly. International Dairy Journal. 2010;20:281–91. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.von Mutius E. Asthma and allergies in rural areas of Europe. Proceedings of the American Thoracic Society. 2007;4(3):212–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Riedler J, Braun-Fahrländer C, Eder W, Schreuer M, Waser M, Maisch S. Exposure to farming in early life and development of asthma and allergy: a cross-sectional survey. Lancet. 2001;358(9288):1129–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Lampi J, Canoy D, Jarvis D, Hartikainen AL, Keski-Nisula L, Järvelin MR. Farming environment and prevalence of atopy at age 31: prospective birth cohort study in Finland. Clin Exp Allergy. 2011;41(7):987–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Martinson JNV, Walk ST. Escherichia coli residency in the gut of healthy human adults. EcoSal Plus. 2020;9(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Tenaillon O, Skurnik D, Picard B, Denamur E. The population genetics of commensal Escherichia coli. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2010;8(3):207–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Wold AE. The hygiene hypothesis revised: is the rising frequency of allergy due to changes in the intestinal flora?. Allergy. 1998;53(46 Suppl):20–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hrdý J, Vlasáková K, Černý V, Súkeníková L, Novotná O, Petrásková P. Decreased allergy incidence in children supplemented with E. coli O83:K24:H31 and its possible modes of action. Eur J Immunol. 2018;48(12):2015–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Lodinová-Zádníková R, Prokesová L, Kocourková I, Hrdý J, Zizka J. Prevention of allergy in infants of allergic mothers by probiotic Escherichia coli. Int Arch Allergy Immunol. 2010;153(2):201–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Kirjavainen PV, Arvola T, Salminen SJ, Isolauri E. Aberrant composition of gut microbiota of allergic infants: a target of bifidobacterial therapy at weaning?. Gut. 2002;51(1):51–5. doi: 10.1136/gut.51.1.51 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Nuttall T. The genomics revolution: will canine atopic dermatitis be predictable and preventable? Vet Dermatol. 2013;24(1):10–8.e3-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Rajeev Singh

5 May 2025

Dear Dr. Rostaher,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 19 2025 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.

  • 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 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,

Rajeev Singh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.-->--> -->-->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. We noticed you have some minor occurrence of overlapping text with the following previous publication(s), which needs to be addressed:-->--> -->-->https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0165242718302447?via%3Dihub-->--> -->-->In your revision ensure you cite all your sources (including your own works), and quote or rephrase any duplicated text outside the methods section. Further consideration is dependent on these concerns being addressed.-->--> -->-->3. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match. -->--> -->-->When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.-->--> -->-->4. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: -->-->This study was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, American Kennel Club Canine Health Foundation and Westie Foundation of America-->-->  -->-->Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." -->-->If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. -->-->Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.-->--> -->-->5. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.-->--> -->-->6. Please upload a new copy of Figure 4 as the detail is not clear. Please follow the link for more information: --> -->-->7.">https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/06/looking-good-tips-for-creating-your-plos-figures-graphics/"-->--> -->-->7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.-->?>

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1:  General comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall the manuscript was well written and provided novel information on a topic of high relevance to veterinarians in general and specialty practice, as well as those with interest in the link between the microbiome and states of health.

I have a few minor comments for the authors to consider:

Introduction:

- Introduction is a nice length, provides a concise yet comprehensive review of the relevant information to set up the study methods and findings.

Methods:

- Is the sample size a convenience sample size, or is there further justification for the chosen numbers of AD and control dogs? A comment on the sample size choice will be helpful.

- The dogs are largely a subset from the previously reported study of the birth WHWT cohort (previously published) that sampled dogs from several different litters/breeders. Were the WHWT dogs taken from the previously reported studies genetically related? Or were they mainly from separate litters and separate breeders?

- Were the samples batched and all analyzed at the same time point?

Results:

- To clarify (Line 196): treatments were administered prior to collection of the fecal sample? If so, were signs resolved (partially/completely) or still present at the time of sample collection?

- Ln 243-244: this sentence needs a minor grammatical correction (While no other…) as it seems incomplete as written.

- Ln 275: DI not CI?

Discussion:

- Ln 287-291: Are these studies all referencing gut microbiome, or any are referencing skin? I think it would be good to specify.

- Ln 310: there might be something missing from this sentence (ending in “all have.”)

- Table 2: I would hesitate to say ‘significance almost reached’ as there is no other context to interpret the findings outside of that comment (e.g. was the sample size too small, or other factors warranting discussion that could help support that claim? Without having space to discuss I don’t know if it is valid to use such a comment).

- Ln 346 paragraph: this is an interesting discussion point, but I would consider shortening / editing it emphasize your main points and more directly focus it on your study. From your statements I think the main things that are relevant to your study are (1.) early life microbiota changes would be missed by the current study design; (2) the discussion point on whether there are any studies to show that early life microbiota changes precede AD or other allergic diseases (?) For the references to allergies (# 64, 65) – are these references to allergies related to AD / skin / similar disorders? Or other types of allergies? I think the paragraph as it is currently written and referenced is a bit outside the scope of your discussion, so I’d like to see you bring it back to emphasize the main points of your findings.

Reviewer #2:  Authors present a well-structured and clearly written manuscript investigating the gut microbiota of healthy and allergic West Highland White Terrier dogs, with a high predisposition to canine atopic dermatitis (cAD). This study is timely and of scientific relevance, given increasing interest in the gut-skin axis and the potential role of gut dysbiosis in allergic diseases. The use of both DNA shotgun metagenomic sequencing and qPCR-based dysbiosis indexing is commendable and reflects a methodologically rigorous approach. The study is focused on a single breed, minimizing genetic and environmental variability, which is a notable strength. The integration of sequencing and qPCR analyses enhances the depth and reliability of the microbial profiling.

While the methodology is technically sound, the study includes only 21 animals (12 allergic, 9 healthy), which limits statistical power. The lack of significant differences in microbial diversity and composition between groups may reflect underpowering rather than a true absence of effect. This limitation is acknowledged by the authors but deserves further emphasis, especially in the conclusion.

The selection of healthy control dogs >5 years old is reasonable. However, given the high prevalence of cAD in WHWTs and the possibility of late-onset disease or subclinical presentations, the authors should discuss in more detail this bias.

The moderate negative correlation observed between E. coli abundance and pruritus severity is intriguing but difficult to interpret biologically. Given the conflicting evidence in human studies, the authors should temper their interpretation and clearly state that causality cannot be inferred. This could be expanded with a brief discussion of E. coli strain variability and its functional implications.

Although the authors used DNA shotgun sequencing, which allows for strain-level resolution, there is limited discussion on potential strain-specific roles or functional analysis. A short commentary on the limitations of taxonomy-based analysis versus functional inference (e.g., metagenomic pathways or SCFA synthesis potential) would enhance the depth of the discussion.

It would be helpful to clarify in the Methods section whether dogs receiving symptomatic allergy treatment were excluded from specific analyses, as treatment could impact microbial profiles.

**********

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: 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

PLoS One. 2025 Aug 27;20(8):e0328100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328100.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


24 Jun 2025

Reviewer #1: General comments:

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Overall the manuscript was well written and provided novel information on a topic of high relevance to veterinarians in general and specialty practice, as well as those with interest in the link between the microbiome and states of health.

I have a few minor comments for the authors to consider:

Introduction:

- Introduction is a nice length, provides a concise yet comprehensive review of the relevant information to set up the study methods and findings.

Methods:

Question 1 : Is the sample size a convenience sample size, or is there further justification for the chosen numbers of AD and control dogs? A comment on the sample size choice will be helpful.

Answer: This is a very important question pointing out the main weakness of this study too low power. For this we now add a sentence in the materials and methods justifying the selected sample size and discuss this topic in depth in the discussion. Based on this fact our study can also deliver only preliminary data and this we write in the abstract so the reader is initially informed. Very likely we would need to have 50-100 dogs to detect an effect, which are now undertaking in a follow up study.

We write now in materials and methods (Line 98-101): “The sample size for this study was determined based on our previous research in Beagles, where we achieved significant results with fewer than 10 dogs [27]. By maintaining breed consistency, we aimed to minimize variability and enhance the robustness and reliability of our results.”

We make it also clear in the abstract that this study is preliminary (line 6). “This preliminary study aimed to compare the gut microbiome of allergic and healthy WHWT dogs to explore its role in cAD.»

We added also a clearer comment on this limitation in the discussion (Line 421-427): “Another possibility could be, that our study was underpowered. The relatively small sample size allowed us to detect only large effect sizes. Given that AD is a complex disease with multiple contributing factors, including the microbiome, one should anticipate that microbial effects on AD pathogenesis are likely to be of smaller magnitude. Future studies should aim for larger sample sizes, especially in high-risk breeds such as WHWT with AD prevalence up to 50% [9], to detect these small effect sizes.”

Question 2: The dogs are largely a subset from the previously reported study of the birth WHWT cohort (previously published) that sampled dogs from several different litters/breeders. Were the WHWT dogs taken from the previously reported studies genetically related? Or were they mainly from separate litters and separate breeders?

Answer: The dogs were mainly from different breeders and were not genetically related. We now write the following sentence(Line 88-89): “Most of the dogs in this study were not genetically related and were not from the same breeder.”

Question 3: Were the samples batched and all analyzed at the same time point?

Answer: Thank you for this comment. Yes, all were batch analyzed. We thought it was clear in the initial manuscript as we mentioned that we first collected all samples and then shipped them to the lab for analysis. To clarify this, we added a sentence: »The fecal samples were collected from both groups and were stored at -80 °C before being shipped on dry ice to the Gastrointestinal Laboratory of Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas (batch analysis of all samples).»

Results:

Question 4: To clarify (Line 196): treatments were administered prior to collection of the fecal sample? If so, were signs resolved (partially/completely) or still present at the time of sample collection?

Answer: Only 3 of the 12 AD dogs where currently under treatment but still exhibited clinical signs. To make this clear we added into the results section the following sentence (Line 203-204): “These three dogs still exhibited clinical signs of AD despite symptomatic treatment.”

Question 5: Ln 243-244: this sentence needs a minor grammatical correction (While no other…) as it seems incomplete as written.

Answer: Thank you for this comment. We improved the sentence as follows (Line 255-256): “The remaining dogs in both groups did not display a bacterial shift indicative of gut dysbiosis.»

Question 6: Ln 275: DI not CI?

Answer: Thank you, we changed it.

Discussion:

Question 7: Ln 287-291: Are these studies all referencing gut microbiome, or any are referencing skin? I think it would be good to specify.

Answer: Thank you for this comment. We specified that these studies analyzed the gut microbiome. We changed the sentence as follows (Line 315-317): “Previous studies have shown significant differences in alpha and beta diversity of the gut microbiome between healthy and allergic dogs of various breeds [31] and in Beagle dogs [27], with allergic dogs typically exhibiting lower alpha diversity.”

Question 8: Ln 310: there might be something missing from this sentence (ending in “all have.”)

Answer: Thank you for pointing this out. By mistake we deleted a part of the sentence. Now we write (Line 336-339): “The lack of a significant difference between the allergic and healthy population in this study may be explained by the breed-specific factors or because of the use of different methods in the sequencing analysis (DNA extraction, primers, bioinformatics pipelines).”

Question 9: Table 2: I would hesitate to say ‘significance almost reached’ as there is no other context to interpret the findings outside of that comment (e.g. was the sample size too small, or other factors warranting discussion that could help support that claim? Without having space to discuss I don’t know if it is valid to use such a comment).

Answer: Thank you so much for this valuable comment. We removed this sentence and say it was nonsignificant (see Table 2).

Question 10: Ln 346 paragraph: this is an interesting discussion point, but I would consider shortening / editing it emphasize your main points and more directly focus it on your study. From your statements I think the main things that are relevant to your study are (1.) early life microbiota changes would be missed by the current study design; (2) the discussion point on whether there are any studies to show that early life microbiota changes precede AD or other allergic diseases (?) For the references to allergies (# 64, 65) – are these references to allergies related to AD / skin / similar disorders? Or other types of allergies? I think the paragraph as it is currently written and referenced is a bit outside the scope of your discussion, so I’d like to see you bring it back to emphasize the main points of your findings.

Answer: Thank you so much, this is true, the “flow” of this paragraph was not optimal. We tried to improve it. The main thing we want to say is, as you already pointed out, that the early life gut microbiota is essential for disease development and that unfortunately we did not address this in the current study. Regarding your question about Reference 64 and 65, these studies focused on asthma and hay fever. However, these are seminal studies that contributed to the development of the hygiene hypothesis, which was the basis that we arrived at the point where we are now: studying the gut microbiome in relating to allergies and other chronic/immunologic diseases. For this reason, we would leave these references but appropriately mention the allergy type they refer to. However, considering you valuable advice, we shortened and adapted the paragraph according to this discussion.

Here you can read the revised version of this paragraph (Line 379-391): “Research related to the hygiene hypothesis has emphasized the microbiome's role in several immune-mediated including allergies, showing its influence not only on the disease progression but also its development [52-58]. For example, farm upbringing in childhood reduces asthma and hay fever risk, with farm animal contact being protective [59-61]. The first 1000 days of life are fundamental in the establishment of a healthy immune system and also gut microbiome, whereby several factors can influence its normal composition and function [62] . In this period, unhealthy cues can cause alterations in gene expression later in life, increasing the risk of multifactorial environmentally driven diseases such as allergies [63]. Current studies on allergic dogs, including this one, focus on adult microbiomes, missing the early life gut microbiome. Future, longitudinal studies analyzing the gut microbiome of puppies and following them into adulthood to determine early microbiome characteristics influencing the development of cAD are of paramount importance.”

Reviewer #2: Authors present a well-structured and clearly written manuscript investigating the gut microbiota of healthy and allergic West Highland White Terrier dogs, with a high predisposition to canine atopic dermatitis (cAD). This study is timely and of scientific relevance, given increasing interest in the gut-skin axis and the potential role of gut dysbiosis in allergic diseases. The use of both DNA shotgun metagenomic sequencing and qPCR-based dysbiosis indexing is commendable and reflects a methodologically rigorous approach. The study is focused on a single breed, minimizing genetic and environmental variability, which is a notable strength. The integration of sequencing and qPCR analyses enhances the depth and reliability of the microbial profiling.

Comment 1: While the methodology is technically sound, the study includes only 21 animals (12 allergic, 9 healthy), which limits statistical power. The lack of significant differences in microbial diversity and composition between groups may reflect underpowering rather than a true absence of effect. This limitation is acknowledged by the authors but deserves further emphasis, especially in the conclusion.

Answer:

Thank you for this very valuable comment. We added a paragraph in the discussion (Line 421-427): “Another possibility could be, that our study was underpowered. The relatively small sample size allowed us to detect only large effect sizes. Given that AD is a complex disease with multiple contributing factors, including the microbiome, one should anticipate that microbial effects on AD pathogenesis are likely to be of smaller magnitude. Future studies should aim for larger sample sizes, especially in high-risk breeds such as WHWT with AD prevalence up to 50% [9], to detect these small effect sizes.“

We also added a reasoning for this sample size. We write now in materials and methods (Line 98-101): “The sample size for this study was determined based on our previous research in Beagles27, where we achieved significant results with fewer than 10 dogs. By maintaining breed consistency, we aimed to minimize variability and enhance the robustness and reliability of our results.”

Comment 2: The selection of healthy control dogs >5 years old is reasonable. However, given the high prevalence of cAD in WHWTs and the possibility of late-onset disease or subclinical presentations, the authors should discuss in more detail this bias.

Answer:

Atopic dermatitis usually starts before the age of 3 years so 5 years is a much more stringent criterium. Furthermore, a birth cohort study with 108 WTWT dogs showed that the disease prevalence was 52% by the age of 3 years, which is not only reaching but also exceeding the estimated prevalence for AD. Based on these data we think that the 5 years are good choice to secure the inclusion of only healthy animals. To clarify this, we now added a sentence in the discussion (Line 419-421): “Furthermore, a birth cohort study in WHWT dogs showed that the expected AD prevalence in this breed was already reached or even exceeded by the age of 3 years [9].”

Comment 3: The moderate negative correlation observed between E. coli abundance and pruritus severity is intriguing but difficult to interpret biologically. Given the conflicting evidence in human studies, the authors should temper their interpretation and clearly state that causality cannot be inferred. This could be expanded with a brief discussion of E. coli strain variability and its functional implications.

Answer: We appreciate this important suggestion. We have revised the discussion section to clearly state that causality cannot be inferred from our results. Furthermore, we now include a short paragraph discussing the variability among E. coli strains and their differing functional roles. The revised text reads as follows (Line 406-411): “It is important to note that Escherichia coli represents a highly diverse group of strains with considerable genetic and functional variability (65) While some strains are commensal and part of a healthy gut microbiome, others may possess pathogenic traits (70). As our analysis did not resolve strain-level taxonomy, no conclusions about the potential role or function of E. coli in the disease context of cAD can be drawn at this stage.”

Comment 4: Although the authors used DNA shotgun sequencing, which allows for strain-level resolution, there is limited discussion on potential strain-specific roles or functional analysis. A short commentary on the limitations of taxonomy-based analysis versus functional inference (e.g., metagenomic pathways or SCFA synthesis potential) would enhance the depth of the discussion.

Answer: We appreciate your suggestion to enhance the discussion on the limitations of taxonomy-based analysis versus functional inference. Therefore, we added the following sentence to the discussion (Line 436-442): In our study, while DNA shotgun sequencing provided strain-level resolution, we recognize the limitations of taxonomy-based analysis in fully capturing the functional potential of the gut microbiome. Future research should integrate functional analyses, such as metagenomic pathways and short-chain fatty acid synthesis potential, to better understand the specific roles of microbial taxa in the pathogenesis of canine atopic dermatitis. This approach will enhance the insights into how the gut microbiome influences health and disease in dogs.

Comment 5: It would be helpful to clarify in the Methods section whether dogs receiving symptomatic allergy treatment were excluded from specific analyses, as treatment could impact microbial profiles.

Answer: Thank you so much for this question. Only one dog from these 12 allergic received oral drugs (Apoquel), therefore we do not believe that this could have a major impact on the results. The reasoning why it was legitim to include this dog:

1. He still showed clinical signs of AD

2. A recent study showed that Apoquel seems not to affect the gut microbiome in allergic dogs: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/18/2377

We agree with you that this information is important for the article, we added two sentences to the materials & methods section (line 94-97): “Dogs were allowed to receive orally only the symptomatic treatment oclacitinib, which was previously shown not to affect the gut microbiota [27]. Dogs receiving antibiotics within the last 6 months were excluded.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0328100.s003.docx (4.3MB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Rajeev Singh

26 Jun 2025

An insight into the gut microbiota of healthy and allergic West Highland Whiter Terrier dogs

PONE-D-25-07058R1

Dear Dr. Rostaher,

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 will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, 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,

Rajeev Singh

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Rajeev Singh

PONE-D-25-07058R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Rostaher,

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

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, 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.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@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. Rajeev Singh

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 Fig. Relative abundance taxonomy bar plots at the class, order, family and genus level.

    (PDF)

    pone.0328100.s001.pdf (686.7KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0328100.s003.docx (4.3MB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are publicly available from the Zenodo repository (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15849870).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES