Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2022 Mar 17;17(3):e0265123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265123

Changes in the gut microbiota of Nigerian infants within the first year of life

Omolanke T Oyedemi 1, Sophie Shaw 2, Jennifer C Martin 3, Funmilola A Ayeni 1,4,*, Karen P Scott 3,*
Editor: Erwin G Zoetendal5
PMCID: PMC8929609  PMID: 35298505

Abstract

The composition of the gut microbiota plays an important role in maintaining the balance between health and disease. However, there is considerably less information on the composition of the gut microbiota of non-Western communities. This study was designed to investigate the evolution in the gut microbiota in a cohort of Nigerian infants within the first year of life. Faecal samples were obtained monthly from 28 infants from birth for one year. The infants had been born by a mix of natural birth and caesarean section and were either breast-fed or mixed fed. Sequencing of the V1-V2 region of the 16S rRNA gene was used to characterise the microbiota. Short chain fatty acids and lactate present in each faecal sample were identified by gas chromatography. Microbial differences were observed between the vaginal and caesarean section delivered infants in samples collected within 7 days of life, although these differences were not observed in later samples. Exclusively breastfed infants had predominance of Ruminococcus gnavus, Collinsella, and Sutterella species. Different Bifidobacterium species dominated breast-fed compared to mixed fed infants. Clostridium, Enterococcus, Roseburia, and Coprococcus species were observed once the infants commenced weaning. Butyrate was first detected when weaning started between months 4–6 in the majority of the infants while total short chain fatty acid concentrations increased, and acetate and lactate remained high following the introduction of solid foods. The observed taxonomic differences in the gut microbiota between Nigerian infants, as well as butyrate production during weaning, were strongly influenced by diet, and not by birthing method. Introduction of local/solid foods encouraged the colonisation and evolution of specific marker organisms associated with carbohydrate metabolism.

Introduction

Humans play host to a complex microbial community referred to as the human microbiota, with the total number of genes encoded by these microbial genomes, the human microbiome, exceeding the number of human genes. The large intestine harbours the largest number of microbes when compared to other human body sites. This microbiota includes bacteria, viruses, eukarya (protozoa, yeast and fungi) and archaea [1, 2].

The gut microbiota plays an important role in shaping the immune system, preventing colonisation by pathogenic microorganisms and improving the health and development of infants. It’s multifunctional capacity led to the gut microbiota being defined as a “super organ” [3]. Perturbation in the gut microbiota has been associated with different disease pathologies such as immune diseases like atopy, allergy, asthma, and sclerosis [4]; autoimmune diseases [5]; metabolic diseases, such as diabetes and obesity [6, 7]; and gastrointestinal diseases like diarrhoea, inflammatory bowel diseases, and necrotizing enterocolitis [8].

Short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) are secondary metabolites produced from the fermentation of non-digestible carbohydrates (NDC) by the gut microbiota. These carbohydrates escape degradation by host digestive enzymes and reach the large intestine where the gut microbiota ferments them as substrates producing various metabolic products including the three major SCFAs acetate, butyrate and propionate, and also products like formate, lactate and succinate. The SCFAs are readily taken up by the mucosal epithelial cells in the gastrointestinal tracts and are involved in cellular metabolism such as gene expression, proliferation, chemotaxis, apoptosis and differentiation of immune cells [9].

Infants are generally thought to be born with intestines that are sterile or that contain a very low level of microbes, however, the infant gastrointestinal tract is rapidly colonised following delivery [10, 11]. The initial residents of the gut after birth are usually facultative anaerobes, including Proteobacteria (Enterobacteriaceae) and some Firmicutes (Staphylococcus, Enterococcus). After the exhaustion of any oxygen by these initial colonising bacteria, the environment is ready for colonisation by the strictly anaerobic bacteria within the Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes. Various factors contribute to the order of colonisation and development of the gut microbiota in infants, including: maternal microbiota, gestational age, genetics, delivery method (vaginal/natural birth, caesarean section), diet (breastfed, formula-fed, mixed-fed), and antibiotic use [3, 12]. In general, the infant’s gut composition is dominated by the genus Bifidobacterium in the first year of life as widely reported within many different studies of Western infant cohorts. A comparative gut microbiome study between Malawian, Amerindian and USA children also showed the dominance of Bifidobacterium species across the three populations in infants for the first year [13]. This study showed that the high conservation between the early infant samples in the different populations decreased following weaning, and the overall microbial diversity increased. By two years of age, the microbiota of the three geographically different populations were readily distinguishable [13]. A study comparing the microbiota in children under 6 years old from Europe (Italy) and Africa (Burkina Faso) showed that the main overlap in the microbial populations occurred in the samples from the youngest children (under 2yr) when Bifidobacterium species were prevalent. Bifidobacterium species became virtually undetectable in the older Burkina Faso children although remained at levels of 2–10% in the Italian children [14]. A longitudinal study carried out on cohorts of Finnish, Russian and Estonian infants over three years showed that the Bifidobacterium species detected changed after weaning, with B. longum subspecies infantis more prevalent during breastfeeding than after weaning [15]. These previous studies into the colonisation and adaptation of the infant gut microbiota are either single time point [13, 1618] or longitudinal studies [12, 14, 16, 19] within Western communities. There is no study investigating the development of the infant gut microbial composition over time from Nigeria, or any other African country. The present study investigated the changes in the gut microbiota of a cohort of Nigerian infants within the first year of life based on delivery mode, age and diet.

Materials and methods

Study subjects

This longitudinal cohort study of sampled participants was approved by the Ethics and Research Committee of the Federal Teaching Hospital, Ido-Ekiti, Ekiti State, South/West Nigeria, with protocol number: ERC/2016/09/29/44B. Written informed consent was obtained from the infant’s parents. Twenty eight infants (9 males and 19 females) were recruited, with mean gestational age (37.6±2.8 weeks) and birth weight (2.9±0.6 kg). Inclusion criteria were caesarean section and vaginal birth babies, full term and preterm babies, exclusively breastfed and mixed fed (breastfed and formula fed combined) babies and those with and without antibiotic treatment. Babies that were infected with HIV, tuberculosis and pneumonia were excluded from the study. Infants were grouped into two categories for birthing method: caesarean section birth (CSB) or vaginal birth (VB), and four categories for feeding: preweaning samples which split into babies either exclusively breastfed (EBF), or those who were a mixed fed a combination of breast and formula milk (MF), or combined as grouped preweaning samples in the analysis, and the weaning samples where babies were fed a combination of local and solid foods (local/solid fed -LF/SF) (Table 1).

Table 1. Characteristics of study infants at birth.

Baby code Gestational age (week) Mode of delivery Sex Weight at birth (kg) Feeding method Antibiotic treatment
Baby 1 37 wks 5 d CSB Male 3.45 MF No
Baby 2 39 wks 5 d CSB Female 3.8 MF No
Baby 3 39 wks 4 d VB Female 3 MF No
Baby 4 38 wk 5 d VB Female 2.8 EBF No
Baby 5 37 wks 3 d VB Male 3.25 EBF No
Baby 6 39 wks 6 d CSB Male 2.9 EBF No
Baby 7 42 wks CSB Female 3.2 MF Yes
Baby 8 38 wks VB Female 2.8 EBF Yes
Baby 9 38 wks 2 d VB Female 3.2 MF No
Baby 10 34 wks 5 d CSB Female 2.5 MF No
Baby 11 34 wks 5 d CSB Male 2.6 MF No
Baby 12 38 wks 5d CSB Female 2.6 MF Yes
Baby 13 38 wks 5d CSB Female 2.4 MF Yes
Baby 14 40 wks 4d VB Female 2.6 EBF No
Baby 15 30 wks 6d VB Female 1.3 MF Yes
Baby 16 32 wks CSB Male 1.9 MF Yes
Baby 17 40 wks 2 d CSB Female 3.6 EBF No
Baby 18 40 wks 2d VB Female 2.54 MF No
Baby 20 38 wks VB Male 3.7 MF No
Baby 21 40 wks VB Female 2.2 EBF No
Baby 22 39 wks CSB Male 3 EBF Yes
Baby 23 33 wks 2 d VB Female 2.25 EBF Yes
Baby 24 40 wks 3 d VB Female 3.1 EBF No
Baby 25 34 wks 3 d VB Male 3.4 EBF No
Baby 26 37 wks 4 d VB Female 3.5 EBF No
Baby 27 37 wks 2 d CSB Female 2.5 MF No
Baby 28 37 wks 2 d CSB Male 2.55 MF No
Baby 30 34 wks VB Female 2.9 EBF No

wks- weeks, d- day, CSB- Caesarean Section Birth, VB- Vaginal Birth, MF- Mixed Fed, EBF-Exclusive Breast Fed

Sample collection and processing

Faecal samples were obtained monthly from 28 infants for the first year of life with a varying number of samples collected from individual babies (S1 Table), making 169 faecal samples in total. Faecal samples were obtained from the baby’s diapers immediately after defecation and transferred into a sterile 20 ml sample bottle. Fifteen ml of absolute ethanol was added into the faecal bolus, and the samples left at room temperature for 24 hours, after which the ethanol was decanted carefully, ensuring the bolus remained intact. The dehydrated faecal bolus was air dried and transferred to another sterile tube containing 15 ml of 3 mm-sized silica gel beads (Guangdong Guanghua Sci-Tech Co. Ltd, Guangzhou city, China). A cotton wool wad was placed on top of the silica gel bead to prevent contact between the silica gel and the faecal bolus. This method has been described previously for sample collection in similar settings [2022]. The samples were then stored at room temperature until shipment to the Rowett Institute, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland where they were kept at 4°C until further analyses.

Total DNA extraction and the 16S rRNA gene library preparation

Total DNA was extracted from 0.1g (dry weight) of each faecal sample using the FastDNA SPIN kit (MP Biomedicals, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions as previously described by [23]. The V1-V2 region of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified using fusion barcoded primers as previously described [23] 27f_Miseq 5′-AATGATACGGCGACCACCGAGATCTACACTATGGTAATTCCAGMGTTYGATYMTGGCTCAG-3′ and 338R_MiSeq 5′-CAAGCAGAAGACGGCATACGAGAT nnnnnnnnnnnnAGTCAGTCAGAAGCTGCCTCCCGTAGGAGT-3′, where the bold type indicates the adaptor sequences, italicized are the linkers and the (n) string corresponds to the sample-specific molecular identifier barcodes. The primer sequence annealing to the 16S rRNA gene is in plain text. The PCR amplification was carried out using Q5 High-Fidelity PCR kit (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA). The 25 μl reaction conditions was set at one cycle of 98°C for two mins, followed by 20 cycles of 98°C for 30 s, 50°C for 30 s, 72°C for 90 s, 72°C for five mins and held at 10°C. Each PCR was done in quadruplicate to obtain sufficient material for subsequent sequencing. Following amplification, the replicate products were pooled together and a 10 μl aliquot with 2 μl of 6X loading dye (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, Massachusetts, USA) was checked on 1% agarose gel. Amplicons were cleaned up by ethanol precipitation through the addition of 0.3 volumes of 1M NaCl and 2 volumes of 100% Ethanol, stored overnight at -20°C, and centrifuged at 4°C at 14000-16000g for 20 mins. Pellets were washed with 600 μl of cold 70% ethanol, re-pelleted, air-dried and resuspended in 30 μl of TE buffer and kept at 4°C overnight. Quantification of DNA samples was performed using Qubit 2.0 Fluorometer (Life Technologies). All samples were pooled into a final tube containing an equimolar mix of each amplicon, and a final clean up step was performed using AMPure XP magnetic beads (Beckman Coulter). The subsequent sequencing was performed on the Illumina MiSeq platform producing 300 bp paired end sequencing data, generating between 3251 and 41103 reads per sample (average 15405). These sequences were deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the Accession number PRJEB31073.

Bioinformatics analysis of the sequence reads

The quality of the sequences was assessed using FastQC (version 0.11.3) [24] and all were found to be of average quality with no presence of adaptor sequence. The generated raw sequences underwent downstream bioinformatics analysis with DADA2 (version 1.3.1) [25] using default parameters to quantify sequence variants and assign taxonomy based upon the GreenGenes 13.8 database. Singleton sequence variants (those present in only a single sample at a single count) were removed to leave 1619 sequence variants. The sequence table was converted to Biom format and sequence variant abundances were summarised using Biomformat (version 2.1.3) [26].

Diversity analysis was performed using the core_diversity_analyses.py script from QIIME (version 1.9.0) [27] with a subsampling level of 1993, which enabled all samples to be kept for analysis. Rarefaction curves plateau at this subsampling depth, demonstrating that this was sufficient to capture the sample diversity (S1 Fig). Core diversity analyses calculated five alpha diversity measures (observed species, Chao [28], Shannon Index [29], and Simpson Index [30] and two beta diversity measures Bray Curtis [31] and Binary Jaccard [32].

Statistical testing of stratification of samples by meta data category was performed using the adonis statistical test [33] on the Bray Curtis diversity metrics, implemented by the compare categories script from QIIME (version 1.9.0) [27]. Differential abundance testing of amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) between groups was carried out by converting the biom file to a PhyloSeq object [34] and testing differential abundance using DESeq2 (version 1.14.1) [35]. LEfSe analysis [36] was performed to confirm DeSeq2 results. This analysis was done using the Huttenhower Galaxy server (http://huttenhower.sph.harvard.edu/galaxy/). Only taxa that had Linear Discriminate Analysis score (LDA > 2) were considered as significantly different between the groups.

Detecti on of Bifidobacterium in formula milk by genus-specific PCR

The most common formula milk used for mixed feeding was NAN 1, which the manufacturer claimed was fortified with a Bifidobacterium strain, “Bifid LAL”. In order to verify this by PCR, DNA was extracted from 0.6 g of NAN 1 formula milk powder using the FastDNA SPIN kit (MP Biomedicals, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The generic Bifidobacterium primer set, Bif164f (GGGGTGGTAATGCCGGATG) and Bif662r (CCACCGTTACACCGGGAA) were used for the amplification [37]. The PCR machine was programmed as follows; initial denaturation of the DNA template at 94°C for 5 mins, 35 further cycles of denaturation at 94°C for 30 sec, annealing at 62°C for 20 sec and extension at 68°C for 40 sec, with final extension of 68°C for 7 mins. The size of the product was estimated on 1.2% agarose gel in Tris-borate EDTA buffer (TBE) at 120V for 30 mins and visualized under the UV light.

Identification of short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) in faecal samples

Short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) present in each infant faecal sample were identified by gas chromatography. Weighed dried samples (150 mg) were resuspended in sterile distilled water (1.1mL) and the concentration of SCFAs measured in duplicate in 1:16 dilution of 250 μl supernatant. Samples were prepared as described previously [38]. Briefly, 25 μl of internal standard, 0.25 ml HCl and 1 ml of ether was added to 0.5 ml of diluted sample. Standards were included in each analysis set and contained 25 μl of internal standard, 0.5 ml of external standard, 0.25 ml HCl and 1 ml of ether. All tubes were vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged for 10 min at 3000 rpm. The upper ether layer was then transferred to a new tube and the sample was re-extracted with a further 0.5 ml of ether. Samples were vortexed and centrifuged as before and the ether layers combined. 400 μl of the combined ether layer was transferred to a Wheaton screw cap vial containing 50μl of MTBSFA (Sigma Aldrich). Samples were heated at 80°C for 20 min, then left at room temperature for 48 hr to derivatize before being run on a Hewlett Packard (Palo Alto, CA, USA) gas chromatograph (GC) fitted with a fused silica capillary column, with helium as the carrier gas.

Results

Overall taxonomic profiles of the infant gut microbiota

The protocol used to collect the samples relied on desiccation to preserve the samples prior to shipment and further processing. We validated the method comparing the bacterial composition profiles of samples from two volunteers processed fresh, or stored frozen at -70°C or desiccated for 3 months before DNA extraction. Although a few differences were observed in taxa detected, these were primarily driven by inter-individual variation rather than processing method (S2 Fig). This supported the previous validation data when bacterial and SCFA abundance profiles of replicate samples stored either desiccated or frozen at -80°C [21] were compared.

A total of 169 faecal samples were analysed with an average of seven samples per infant. Biometric information about the babies at birth; the sex, delivery mode, feeding method, gestational age, birth weight, antibiotic treatment (if given) are provided in Table 1. Microbial composition analysis shows that the phylum Actinobacteria was the most abundant across all time points (45.95 ± 2.12; Mean ± SEM), with lower abundance of Firmicutes (36.73 ± 1.78), Proteobacteria (12.96 ± 1.47), Bacteroidetes (4.30 ± 0.57) and Fusobacteria (0.05 ± 0.03) (S2 Table). The remaining phyla (Tenericutes, Verrucomicrobia, Cyanobacteria and Lentisphaerae), comprised less than 0.01% of the total microbiota, and are grouped together as Others. Taxonomic profiles of samples grouped by time point at the level of Phylum showed a general decrease in Proteobacteria by the third sample at month 2 (t2) and a slight increase in Bacteroidetes as time points progressed (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Taxonomic profile showing the infants’ gut microbial composition at phylum level grouped by time points.

Fig 1

Samples at birth (or within one week of life) are represented by t0 and months 1–10 are represented by t1, t2, t3, t4, t5, t6, t7, t8, t9, and t10 respectively. The major phyla shown are Actinobacteria (red), Proteobacteria (yellow), Firmicutes (green), Bacteroidetes (blue), Fusobacteria (purple) and others (orange).

At the assigned genus level, across all samples and time points, Bifidobacterium species were the most abundant representing 41.25% of the total genera identified. This was followed by Streptococcus 15.86%, Trabulsiella 5.46%, Klebsiella 4.64%, Bacteroides 3.49%, and Enterococcus 3.24% species. All other genera were below 3% of the total sequence reads (S3 Table). Interestingly only 28 of the total 169 samples contained <5% Bifidobacterium species, and 19 of these were the initial samples taken within 1 week of birth.

Microbial differences between the natural birth and caesarean section birth infants

There was no statistically significant difference in the alpha diversity or taxonomic profile between the birthing methods when all samples were grouped together across time points. However, differences were observed in the relative abundance of some taxa when all samples collected within 7 days of birth were compared. In total 21 different sequence variants were significantly different following DESeq2 analysis, with four higher in VB babies, although these were all single sequence variants of that taxa. Seven of the single sequence variants more abundant in CSB babies were identified as Clostridium perfringens, three as Trabulsiella farmeri and two in the Klebsiella genus giving confidence that these taxa, all classed as enteric pathogens, genuinely had higher abundance following CSB (S4 Table). The only sequence variant classified as Bifidobacterium animalis was also significantly increased in CSB samples (S4 Table). This identification of B. animalis in four CSB babies and no VB babies in the first seven days was further supported by LEfSe analysis. Although one sequence variant identified as Bifidobacterium longum was 24-fold more abundant in VB compared to CSB babies, other ASVs also characterised as B. longum were unchanged.

Microbial differences related to infant’s age and diet

The diversity of the microbiota increased with age. The alpha diversity showed that there was a rise in the sample richness across timepoints as infant age increased (Fig 2). This increased diversity within samples over time could be linked to diet. Nigerian babies are weaned with the introduction of the local diet usually referred to as “Ogi”. This initial weaning food is a fermented semi-solid slurry made from maize, millet and sorghum, and thereafter solid foods such as rice, yam flour made into bolus with “Ewedu” soup (Jute leaf), bean and bean products are introduced. Microbial diversity also significantly increased after weaning (the local/solid fed samples LF/SF) across all time points (p < 0.01; Kruskal Wallis followed by Dunn Post-Hoc analysis; Fig 3). Preweaning samples from both exclusive breast-fed (EBF) and mixed fed (MF) babies had similar diversity.

Fig 2. Change in alpha diversity over time of samples collected from all babies.

Fig 2

Samples grouped by time points showing the increasing diversity of the gut microbial composition with age. The preweaning samples were significantly different to the samples collected after weaning commenced (LF/SF) for each diversity metric shown (Observed Species p = 1.412−07, Chao p = 9.013−08, and Shannon p = 0.01055; Kruskal Wallis analysis). Samples from a single baby were available for timepoints t11 and t12.

Fig 3. Alpha diversity linked to feeding method for samples collected from all babies.

Fig 3

Samples were grouped into EBF (exclusive breastfeeding), MF (mixed feeding: breast milk plus formula milk) and weaning samples following the introduction of local food plus solid foods (LF/SF). EBF and MF samples were significantly different to the LF/SF samples (p < 0.01; Kruskal Wallis followed by Dunn Post-Hoc analysis).

The beta diversity revealed that the differences between individuals also increased with age. The samples were grouped by time point for clearer visualisation of age-related changes: early (t0-t4), mid (t5-t8) and late (t9-12). Most of the early time points form a tight cluster, illustrating considerable relatedness (p = 0.001) in the taxa present in these pre-weaning time points, irrespective of EBF or MF status. The later timepoints are much more scattered, demonstrating the increased inter-individual diversity (Fig 4).

Fig 4. Principal Component Analysis showing similarity between samples from different babies at grouped timepoints.

Fig 4

Principal Component Analysis plots based upon Bray Curtis Diversity indices for babies at grouped timepoints. Early time points (t0-t4, n = 80) are shown in red, middle time points (t5-t8, n = 68) in orange and late time points (t9-10, n = 21) in blue. Statistical testing of sample stratification (adonis test) showed significant clustering by age both when broadly grouped, and when more finely grouped by months (p = 0.001 for both tests).

Investigation into the differences between specific taxa between preweaning EBF and MF samples using DESeq2 revealed that 23 sequence variants had a significant difference in abundance (adjusted p value < 0.05; Table 2). This comparison focused on samples from timepoints t1-t3, removing any samples below 1 month of age (t0) where the microbiota is still establishing, and any samples after weaning had already commenced. A significant increase in sequence variants classified as Bifidobacterium bifidum and Bifidobacterium breve were identified in mixed fed samples (shown by the negative fold change). Additional LEfSe analysis supported these observations. Three ASVs identified as Blautia species were also increased in abundance in MF compared to EBF babies (Table 2). In contrast, in exclusive breast-fed samples, the Bifidobacterium species with increased abundance (positive fold change) were Bifidobacterium adolescentis and Bifidobacterium longum. Further investigation confirmed that the latter ASV could be identified as B. longum subsp. infantis. Sequence variants identified as Ruminococcus gnavus and from the genera Collinsella and Sutterella were also more abundant in EBF babies.

Table 2. Sequence variants with significant differential abundance between exclusive breastfed (EBF) and mixed fed (MF) samples (DESeq2; adjusted p < 0.05).

Sequence Variant ID LogFC* Adjusted P Value Phylum Family Genus Species
seq10 28.43 1.11E-20 Firmicutes Streptococcaceae Streptococcus
seq33 25.14 1.40E-16 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium adolescentis
seq42 25.09 6.56E-35 Firmicutes Lachnospiraceae [Ruminococcus] gnavus
seq35 24.98 2.84E-17 Firmicutes Lachnospiraceae [Ruminococcus] gnavus
seq97 24.67 2.21E-21 Firmicutes Streptococcaceae Streptococcus
seq63 24.14 2.29E-20 Proteobacteria Alcaligenaceae Sutterella
seq52 23.78 6.10E-22 Proteobacteria Enterobacteriaceae Trabulsiella
seq32 23.47 1.36E-14 Actinobacteria Coriobacteriaceae Collinsella aerofaciens
seq87 23.34 1.83E-14 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium adolescentis
seq39 22.94 3.94E-14 Firmicutes Erysipelotrichaceae
seq170 6.62 0.00637 Firmicutes Staphylococcaceae Staphylococcus aureus
seq2 5.7 0.02054 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium longum
seq22 -7.41 0.04425 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium breve
seq50 -8.42 0.00236 Firmicutes Lachnospiraceae Blautia
seq58 -22.49 1.25E-13 Proteobacteria Enterobacteriaceae Trabulsiella farmeri
seq54 -23.26 2.14E-16 Proteobacteria Enterobacteriaceae Klebsiella
seq194 -23.73 1.63E-19 Firmicutes Streptococcaceae Streptococcus
seq96 -24.32 1.70E-20 Firmicutes Lachnospiraceae Blautia
seq84 -24.52 1.13E-16 Firmicutes Lachnospiraceae Blautia
seq31 -26.13 7.18E-18 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium bifidum
seq64 -26.42 2.26E-22 Firmicutes Veillonellaceae Veillonella
seq18 -26.52 1.73E-28 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium bifidum
seq26 -27.95 3.82E-23 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium

* Positive log fold change (logFC) indicates higher expression in EBF samples, Negative log fold change indicates higher expression in MF samples (adjusted p value < 0.05).

Taxonomy classification using DESeq2: phylum, family, genus, species.

Where category is blank the ASV could not be differentiated to that taxonomic level.

The most common formula milk used for the 15 MF babies was NAN 1. Interestingly, Bifidobacterium was detected in the formula milk (S3 Fig), supporting the manufacturer’s claims of fortification, which may partly influence the higher abundance of the genus in the mixed fed samples. Bifidobacterium was not detected in the un-supplemented powdered milk routinely consumed by adults in Nigeria.

Comparisons were also made between the abundance of sequence variants in the grouped preweaning samples (excluding those from <1 month of age), regardless of whether they were from EBF or MF babies, versus all samples after the introduction of local and solid food (the LF/SF group). This identified 22 significantly different sequence variants (adjusted p value < 0.05; Table 3), with just five increased before weaning including three Streptococcus ASVs and one ASV from the genus Propionibacterium. Sequence variants with a significantly higher abundance after the introduction of solid food included several identified as Bifidobacterium spp., Bacteroides fragilis, Megamonas spp., Coprococcus spp., and variants from the Clostridiaceae family (adjusted p value < 0.05) (Table 3). A single Lactobacillus mucosae variant was also more abundant following weaning. Overall, Lactobacillus ASVs were identified in 50% of samples, representing an average of 1.93% of identified ASVs (S3 Table). More than 70% of these samples were from timepoint 4 onwards, and only 18% of samples lacking Lactobacillus were from timepoint 8 or later (with 9/15 of these samples from three infants where Lactobacillus was never detected).

Table 3. Sequence variants with significant differential abundance between samples collected before and after weaning.

Sequence Variant ID logFC* Adjusted p value Phylum Family Genus Species
seq10 26.27 2.67E-18 Firmicutes Streptococcaceae Streptococcus
seq55 23.91 1.12E-47 Firmicutes
seq27 8.05 6.41E-05 Actinobacteria Propionibacteriaceae Propionibacterium
seq17 6.08 0.005516 Firmicutes Streptococcaceae Streptococcus luteciae
seq79 5.72 0.008479 Firmicutes Streptococcaceae Streptococcus
seq120 -5.07 0.047676 Firmicutes Streptococcaceae Streptococcus
seq109 -5.12 0.020535 Firmicutes Lachnospiraceae Coprococcus
seq14 -5.23 0.000774 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium
seq226 -5.62 0.049114 Firmicutes Veillonellaceae Megasphaera
seq132 -5.86 0.002481 Firmicutes Clostridiaceae SMB53
seq77 -5.99 6.86E-05 Firmicutes Clostridiaceae 02d06
seq148 -6.14 0.001364 Firmicutes Erysipelotrichaceae [Eubacterium] dolichum
seq114 -6.6 5.82E-06 Firmicutes Clostridiaceae SMB53
seq73 -7.19 1.15E-05 Proteobacteria Pasteurellaceae Haemophilus Parainfluenzae
seq16 -9.6 3.46E-09 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium bifidum
seq51 -24.4 1.76E-55 Firmicutes Veillonellaceae Veillonella dispar
seq101 -25.03 4.35E-24 Firmicutes Lactobacillaceae Lactobacillus mucosae
seq61 -25.28 6.74E-35 Firmicutes Veillonellaceae Megamonas
seq45 -25.96 2.02E-66 Firmicutes Clostridiaceae 02d06
seq29 -27.13 1.76E-55 Bacteroidetes Bacteroidaceae Bacteroides fragilis
seq25 -28.04 4.47E-38 Actinobacteria Bifidobacteriaceae Bifidobacterium
seq23 -28.13 3.59E-42 Bacteroidetes Bacteroidaceae Bacteroides fragilis

* Positive log fold change (LogFC) indicates variants more abundant in the pre-weaning group, Negative log fold change indicates variants more abundant in the weaning (LF/SF) group, (adjusted p value < 0.05).

Taxonomy classification using DESeq2: phylum, family, genus, species. Where category is blank the ASV could not be differentiated to that level.

Concentrations of faecal short chain fatty acids change with age and diet

The detection of short chain fatty acids in the infant faecal samples reflects the microbial and dietary changes over age. Acetate and butyrate proportions increased significantly following weaning, presumably reflecting the incorporation of more fermentable carbohydrates into the diet (p<0.0001, Fig 5). In contrast proportions of succinate were highest in the first month of age and the proportion of propionate also declined after weaning. Concentrations of the microbial metabolite lactate were high before weaning and remained high through to the ten month timepoint in some babies. There was much more variation in the detection of lactate across all the samples, with 45% of samples containing no detectable lactate.

Fig 5. Relative abundance of SCFAs detected in faecal samples comparing pre-weaning and weaning infants.

Fig 5

The relative abundance of individual SCFAs (as a percentage of the total SCFA concentration), measured in duplicate samples from all babies during pre-weaning (blue) and weaning (orange) are plotted with accompanying error bars (standard error of the mean). Differences were calculated using a Wilcoxon Rank test of means before and after weaning commenced, indicating highly significant increases in acetate and butyrate (p<0.001), and significant decreases in succinate (p<0.05).

Discussion

In this longitudinal study, we investigated the influence of birth method, age, and feeding pattern on the development of the gut microbiota of Nigerian infants. This is the first study to characterise the gut microbial composition of Nigerian infants in such detail. Overall, the infant gut is dominated by the phylum Actinobacteria, specifically the genus Bifidobacterium. This is consistent with many previous studies including Canadian infants [39], European infants [17] and Scottish infants [23].

The bacterial diversity increased as the age of the infants increased, particularly following the introduction of solid food during weaning, supporting the hypothesis that the accompanying diet changes have a major impact on the microbial composition and diversity. The early samples (0–4 months) clustered closely together, with more inter-individual variation apparent in the samples from the older babies. Different factors such as developmental changes (oral stage), change in diet (introduction of solid foods), and familiarity with environment (crawling and toddling) contribute to the higher microbial diversity in the older infants, although the timing of these changes differs between infants. Similar chronological changes in the composition and diversity of the microbiota have been observed in single time point studies focused on different infants at specific ages [13, 14]. Two other longitudinal studies have also shown increased bacterial diversity with increasing age, although these focused on slightly older infants, with timepoints from 9 months (Danish infants; [40]) or 1 year (Irish infants; [41]) onwards. The increased diversity of the maturing microbiota coincides with increased metagenomic functionality [15].

Some differences were observed in the presence of specific taxa between samples obtained within the first week of life from vaginal birth and caesarean section birth babies, with bacteria not usually linked to a healthy gut more prevalent in CSB babies. The impact of birth method on the microbial composition has been shown previously [12, 16, 4244], although other studies found no difference [45, 46], perhaps reflecting the exact timepoints of the samples compared. Excluding the first samples from our comparisons of the preweaning and postweaning microbiota changed the differentially abundant groups identified, due to the prevalence of Proteobacteria in the very early samples before the microbiota stabilised. Many of the first colonisers in the Nigerian infants were facultative anaerobes. Members of the genera Streptococcus and Enterococcus were present in the first samples and persisted for three months, while Staphylococcus, Trabulsiella, and Klebsiella disappeared after two months. These genera belong to the phyla Proteobacteria and Firmicutes, and members of these groups have previously been reported as early infant gut colonisers [11, 12, 46]. The impact of delivery mode on the composition of infant gut microbiota has been shown to persist for as much as four years [41].

Bifidobacterium was the dominant bacterial genus, comprising more than 40% of the total bacteria identified across all samples at all timepoints, consistent with many other studies. An early study comparing the microbial composition in 6 month old Malawian and Finnish infants (using fluorescent in situ hybridisation and qPCR techniques) also observed a dominance of Bifidobacterium in both cohorts [47]. We found that different species of Bifidobacterium were prevalent in EBF (B. adolescentis, B. longum subsp. infantis) compared to MF (B. bifidum, B. breve) infants. This is consistent with the prevalence of B. longum subsp. infantis in breastfed Finnish, Estonian and Russian infants [15]. It is known that different Bifidobacterium species have different specific abilities to utilize human milk oligosaccharides, and that the composition of oligosaccharides is very different between breastmilk and formula milk [48], which may drive this difference. In addition, the NAN 1 formula milk consumed by most (80%) of the MF babies is fortified with a strain of Bifidobacterium, although we could not confirm if this was the same strain detected in our MF infants. Interestingly, the increased prevalence of B. bifidum persisted through to the samples after weaning. A B. bifidum strain identical to a commercial isolate commonly added to baby formulas in Russia was prevalent in samples from Russian babies but not Finnish or Estonian infants analysed in the same study [15]. The abundance of Collinsella aerofaciens and Sutterella, in the exclusively breastfed (EBF) infants is consistent with other studies of breastfed infants [49, 50]. The increased prevalence of R. gnavus in EBF compared to mixed fed infants, preweaning, may reflect the ability of this bacterium to grow on fucosylated glycans such as those found within human milk oligosaccharides as well as host mucins [51].

The differences in the microbial composition before and after weaning commenced is at least partly due to the shift from milk to solid foods. The indigenous Nigerian weaning diet consists of the local fermented food (Ogi), which is rich in fibre and vitamins and also contains Lactobacillus species that are potent against some pathogenic E. coli strains [52]. The weaning samples were characterized by increased bacterial diversity, as the infant microbiota matures towards an adult-like composition, and emergence or increased abundance of specific bacterial signatures including some with active carbohydrate metabolic activity, specifically members of the families Lachnospiraceae, uncultured Clostridiaceae and Lactobacillaceae. The changes that occurred in the gut microbiota of these Nigerian infants, before and after weaning are consistent with those reported in other studies during the transition from milk-dependent food to solid food [15, 53, 54]. The persistence of Bifidobacterium species after weaning differs from studies of older African children where a low abundance of Bifidobacterium was observed [14, 22], presumably reflecting the fact that our older infants (<1 yr old) still received milk feeding.

Members of the Bacteroidetes phylum also increased during weaning, and Bacteroides species are known to possess many genes encoding carbohydrate-degrading enzymes. Sequence types classed as B. fragilis in particular increased in abundance in some babies. This observed increased level of Bacteroides species agrees with the findings of [17] who found higher Bacteroides in European infants during weaning. Of note from our data was the finding that 25% of samples contained an ASV identified as Prevotella and 22/39 of these samples were post-weaning samples. A higher abundance of Prevotella compared to Bacteroides species is characteristic of African compared to European children samples [55]. A higher abundance of Prevotella was identified in Bassa individuals (both adults and children under 3 yr of age) from a rural northern settlement in Nigeria compared with urban dwelling Nigerians [22].

Dietary changes also affect the production of bacterial fermentation products, including short chain fatty acids and lactate. The relative abundance of the fermentation products acetate and butyrate increased during weaning, as would be expected following the introduction of solid foods. These acidic fermentation products help reduce the intestinal pH, helping to protect against the proliferation of pathogenic organisms. Lactate and acetate were dominant at all timepoints, consistent with the prevalence of Bifidobacterium species. The persistence of lactate after weaning starts is potentially due to the inclusion of the fermented Ogi during weaning, either by the lactate content or the presence of Lactobacillus species in the product. It would be interesting to ascertain if the Lactobacillus species identified in these infants corresponded to those found in the Ogi.

Notable in this study is the significant increase in butyrate when weaning starts between 4–6 months. This is likely to be related to the introduction of solid foods to the infant diet, and the change in microbial composition. Increased short-chain fatty acids concentrations have been reported in African children with distinct production of butyrate, different from their European counterparts [14]. More recently Nilsen et al. linked increased butyrate between infants of 6 and 12 months to increased prevalence of the butyrate producing bacteria Eubacterium rectale and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii [56], but neither of these species were detected at high abundance in our samples.

In summary, this study has provided baseline information on the gut microbial composition of Nigerian infants. The observed taxonomic differences in the gut microbiota between preweaning and weaning samples in Nigerian infants, as well as butyrate production, were influenced by diet. Introduction of solid foods encouraged an increase in microbial diversity, helpful for a healthy life.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Rarefaction curves showing A) Observed species, B) Chao, and C) Shannon diversity index over subsampling depths.

Analysis was performed using the core diversity analyses.py script from QIIME (version 1.9.0).

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Bacterial composition profiles of samples from two volunteers to validate the desiccation storage method.

(DOCX)

S3 Fig. The presence of Bifidobacterium in NAN 1 formula milk.

(DOCX)

S1 Table. Timing of faecal samples collection from individual babies (n = 28) during the first year of life.

Samples immediately after weaning commenced are shaded and shown in bold.

(XLSX)

S2 Table. Percentage abundance of phyla in all samples from all babies, across all time points.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Percentage of most abundant (top 39) genera in all samples across all time points, in all samples from all babies.

(XLSX)

S4 Table. Differentially abundant ASVs following DESeq2 analysis, comparing samples at day 7 between vaginal birth (+ve change) and C-section birth (-ve change) babies.

Negative fold changes indicate ASVs (17) more abundant in the C-section birth babies, and positive fold changes indicate the four ASCs more abundant in vaginal birth babies. ASVs are identified to the genus or (when possible) species level.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our recruited Mums and babies for providing the samples without which this study would not have been possible. We thank the Centre for Genome Enabled Biology and Medicine for Illumina sequencing and useful discussions.

Data Availability

The 16S rRNA gene sequences were deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the Accession number PRJEB31073. The remaining relevant data are within the article and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

OTO was a self-funded PhD student performing her PhD research at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. OTO received no specific funding for her PhD work except that her 5 month placement at The Rowett Institute was supported by the Scottish Funding Council - Global Challenge Research Fund (Internal Grant reference SF10180). The Rowett Institute (University of Aberdeen) receives financial support from the Scottish Government Rural and Environmental Sciences and Analytical Services (RESAS). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Hillman ET, Lu H, Yao T, Nakatsu CH. Microbial Ecology along the Gastrointestinal Tract. Microbes and Environments. 2017;32(4):300–313. doi: 10.1264/jsme2.ME17017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dekaboruah E, Suryavanshi MV, Chettri D, Verma AK. Human microbiome: an academic update on human body site specific surveillance and its possible role. Archives of Microbiology. 2020;202(8):2147–2167. doi: 10.1007/s00203-020-01931-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Rodríguez JM, Murphy K, Stanton C, Ross RP, Kober OI, Juge N et al. The composition of the gut microbiota throughout life, with an emphasis on early life. Microbial Ecology in Health & Disease. 2015;26(0). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Penders J, Thijs C, van den Brandt PA, Kummeling I, Snijders B, Stelma F et al. Gut microbiota composition and development of atopic manifestations in infancy: the KOALA Birth Cohort Study. Gut. 2007;56(5):661–667. doi: 10.1136/gut.2006.100164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yadava K, Pattaroni C, Sichelstiel AK, Trompette A, Gollwitzer ES, Salami O et al. Microbiota Promotes Chronic Pulmonary Inflammation by Enhancing IL-17A and Autoantibodies. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. 2016;193(9):975–987. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201504-0779OC [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Blandino G, Inturri R, Lazzara F, Di Rosa M, Malaguarnera L. Impact of gut microbiota on diabetes mellitus. Diabetes & Metabolism. 2016;42(5):303–315. doi: 10.1016/j.diabet.2016.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Scott KP, Antoine J, Midtvedt T, van Hemert S. Manipulating the gut microbiota to maintain health and treat disease. Microbial Ecology in Health & Disease. 2015;26(0). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Guinane CM, Cotter PD. Role of the gut microbiota in health and chronic gastrointestinal disease: understanding a hidden metabolic organ. Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology. 2013;6(4):295–308. doi: 10.1177/1756283X13482996 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Corrêa-Oliveira R, Fachi JL, Vieira A, Sato FT, Vinolo MA. Regulation of immune cell function by short-chain fatty acids. Clinical & Translational Immunology. 2016;5(4):e73. doi: 10.1038/cti.2016.17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Collado MC, Rautava S, Aakko J, Isolauri E, Salminen S. Human gut colonisation may be initiated in utero by distinct microbial communities in the placenta and amniotic fluid. Scientific Reports. 2016;6(1). doi: 10.1038/srep23129 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Perez-Muñoz ME, Arrieta M, Ramer-Tait AE, Walter J. A critical assessment of the “sterile womb” and “in utero colonization” hypotheses: implications for research on the pioneer infant microbiome. Microbiome. 2017;5(1). doi: 10.1186/s40168-017-0268-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Hill CJ, Lynch DB, Murphy K, Ulaszewska M, Jeffery IB, O’Shea CA et al. Evolution of gut microbiota composition from birth to 24 weeks in the INFANTMET Cohort. Microbiome 5, 4 (2017). doi: 10.1186/s40168-016-0213-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Yatsunenko T, Rey F, Manary M, Trehan I, Dominguez-Bello M, Contreras M et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature. 2012;486(7402):222–227. doi: 10.1038/nature11053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.De Filippo C, Cavalieri D, Di Paola M, Ramazzotti M, Poullet JB, 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 of the United States of America. 2010;107(33):14691–14696. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1005963107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Vatanen T, Plichta D, Somani J, Münch P, Arthur T, Hall A et al. Genomic variation and strain-specific functional adaptation in the human gut microbiome during early life. Nature Microbiology. 2018;4(3):470–479. doi: 10.1038/s41564-018-0321-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Biasucci G, Rubini M, Riboni S, Morelli L, Bessi E, Retetangos C. Mode of delivery affects the bacterial community in the newborn gut. Early Human Development. 2010;86(1):13–15. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Fallani M, Young D, Scott J, Norin E, Amarri S, Adam R et al. Intestinal Microbiota of 6-week-old Infants Across Europe: Geographic Influence Beyond Delivery Mode, Breast-feeding, and Antibiotics. Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology & Nutrition. 2010;51(1):77–84. doi: 10.1097/mpg.0b013e3181d1b11e [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hansen R, Scott KP, Khan S, Martin JC, Berry SH, Stevenson M et al. First-Pass Meconium Samples from Healthy Term Vaginally-Delivered Neonates: An Analysis of the Microbiota. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(7):e0133320. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0133320 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Jakobsson HE, Abrahamsson TR, Jenmalm MC, Harris K, Quince C, Jernberg C et al. Decreased gut microbiota diversity, delayed Bacteroidetes colonisation and reduced Th1 responses in infants delivered by Caesarean section. Gut. 2013;63(4):559–566. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-303249 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Roeder AD, Archer FI, Poinar HN, Morin PA. A novel method for collection and preservation of faeces for genetic studies. Molecular Ecology Notes. 2004;4(4): 761–764. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8286.2004.00737.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Schnorr SL, Candela M, Rampelli S, Centanni M, Consolandi C, Basaglia G et al. Gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter-gatherers. Nature Communications. 2014;5(1). doi: 10.1038/ncomms4654 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ayeni FA, Biagi E, Rampelli S, Fiori J, Soverini M, Audu HJ et al. Infant and Adult Gut Microbiome and Metabolome in Rural Bassa and Urban Settlers from Nigeria. Cell Reports. 2018;23(10):3056–3067. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2018.05.018 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Walker AW, Martin JC, Scott P, Parkhill J, Flint HJ, Scott KP. 16S rRNA gene-based profiling of the human infant gut microbiota is strongly influenced by sample processing and PCR primer choice. Microbiome. 2015;3(1). doi: 10.1186/s40168-015-0087-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Andrews S. 2015. FastQC: a quality control tool for high throughput sequence data. http://www.bioinformatics.babraham.ac.uk/projects/fastqc/.
  • 25.Callahan BJ, Mcmurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJ, Holmes SP. DADA2: High Resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nature methods. 2016; 13(7): 581–583. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Clemente JC, Ursell LK, Parfrey LW, Knight R. The Impact of the Gut Microbiota on Human Health: An Integrative View. Cell. 2012;148(6):1258–1270. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2012.01.035 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Caporaso JG, Kuczynski J, Stombaugh J, Bittinger K, Bushman FD, Costello EK et al. QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nature Methods. 2010;7(5):335–336. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.f.303 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Chao A. Nonparametric Estimation of the Number of Classes in a Population. Scandinavian Journal of Statistics, 1984;11(4):265–270. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4615964. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Shannon CA. Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal 1948;27(4):623–656. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Simpson EH. Measurement of Diversity. Nature. 1949;163(4148):688–688. Available at: http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/163688a0. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Bray JR, Curtis JT. An Ordination of the Upland Forest Communities of Southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs. 1957;27(4):325–349. doi: 10.2307/1942268 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Jaccard P. The Distribution of the Flora in the Alpine Zone 1. New Phytologist. 1912;11(2):37–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Anderson MA. new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology. 2001;26(1), pp.32–46. Available at: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.McMurdie PJ, Holmes S. phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(4):e61217. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Love MI, Huber W, Anders S. Moderated estimation of fold change and dispersion for RNA-seq data with DESeq2. Genome Biology. 2014;15(12). doi: 10.1186/s13059-014-0550-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Segata N, Izard J, Waldron L, Gevers D, Miropolsky L, Garrett WS et al. Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation. Genome Biology. 2011;12(6):R60. doi: 10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Satokari RM, Vaughan EE, Akkermans AD, Saarela M, de Vos WM. Bifidobacterial Diversity in Human Feces Detected by Genus-Specific PCR and Denaturing Gradient Gel Electrophoresis. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2001;67(2):504–513. doi: 10.1128/AEM.67.2.504-513.2001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Richardson AJ, Calder AG, Stewart C, Smith A. Simultaneous determination of volatile and non-volatile acidic fermentation products of anaerobes by capillary gas chromatography. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 1989;9(1):5–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1472-765x.1989.tb00278.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Azad MB, Konya T, Guttman DS, Field CJ, Chari RS, Sears MR et al. Impact of cesarean section delivery and breastfeeding on infant gut microbiota at one year of age. Allergy, Asthma & Clinical Immunology. 2014;10(S1). doi: 10.1186/1710-1492-10-s1-a24 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Bergstrom A, Skov T, Bahl M, Roager H, Christensen L, Ejlerskov K et al. Establishment of Intestinal Microbiota during Early Life: a Longitudinal, Explorative Study of a Large Cohort of Danish Infants. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 2014;80(9):2889–2900. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00342-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Fouhy F, Watkins C, Hill CJ, O’Shea C, Nagle B, Dempsey EM et al. Perinatal factors affect the gut microbiota up to four years after birth. Nature Communications. 2019;10(1):1517. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09252-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Dominguez-Bello MG, Costello EK, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Fierer N et al. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2010;107(26):11971–11975. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002601107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Bäckhed F, Roswall J, Peng Y, Feng Q, Jia H, Kovatcheva-Datchary P et al. Dynamics and Stabilization of the Human Gut Microbiome during the First Year of Life. Cell Host & Microbe. 2015;17(5):690–703. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2015.04.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Timmerman H, Rutten N, Boekhorst J, Saulnier D, Kortman G, Contractor N et al. Intestinal colonisation patterns in breastfed and formula-fed infants during the first 12 weeks of life reveal sequential microbiota signatures. Scientific Reports. 2017;7(1). doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08268-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Stewart CJ, Embleton ND, Clements E, Luna PN, Smith DP, Fofanova TY et al. Cesarean or Vaginal Birth Does Not Impact the Longitudinal Development of the Gut Microbiome in a Cohort of Exclusively Preterm Infants. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Jandhyala SM, Talukdar R, Subramanyam C, Vuyyuru H, Sasikala M, Reddy DN et al. Role of the normal gut microbiota. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2015;21(29):8787. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Grześkowiak L, Collado MC, Mangani C, Maleta K, Laitinen K, Ashorn P, et al. Distinct Gut Microbiota in Southeastern African and Northern European Infants. Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition. 2012;54:812–816. doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e318249039c [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Garrido D, Dallas DC, Mills DA. Consumption of human milk glycoconjugates by infant-associated bifidobacteria: mechanisms and implications. Microbiology. 2013;159(Pt_4):649–664. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.064113-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Lazar V, Ditu L, Pircalabioru GG, Gheorghe I, Curutiu C, Holban AM et al. Aspects of Gut Microbiota and Immune System Interactions in Infectious Diseases, Immunopathology, and Cancer. Frontiers in Immunology. 2018;9. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2018.01830 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Srikantha P, Mohajeri MH. The Possible Role of the Microbiota-Gut-Brain-Axis in Autism Spectrum Disorder. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2019;20(9):2115. doi: 10.3390/ijms20092115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Wu H, Rebello O, Crost EH, Owen CD, Walpole S, Bennati-Granier C et al. Fucosidases from the human gut symbiont Ruminococcus gnavus. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences. 2021;78(2):675–693. doi: 10.1007/s00018-020-03514-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Afolayan AO, Ayeni FA. Antagonistic effects of three lactic acid bacterial strains isolated from Nigerian indigenous fermented Ogi on E. coli EKT004 in co-culture. Acta Alimentaria. 2017;46(1):1–8. doi: 10.1556/066.2017.46.1.1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Koenig JE, Spor A, Scalfone N, Fricker AD, Stombaugh J, Knight R et al. Succession of microbial consortia in the developing infant gut microbiome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011;108(Supplement_1):4578–4585. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000081107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Fallani M, Amarri S, Uusijarvi A, Adam R, Khanna S, Aguilera M et al. Determinants of the human infant intestinal microbiota after the introduction of first complementary foods in infant samples from five European centres. Microbiology. 2011;157(5):1385–1392. doi: 10.1099/mic.0.042143-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.De Filippo C, Di Paola M, Ramazzotti M, Albanese D, Pieraccini G, Banci E et al. Diet, Environments, and Gut Microbiota. A Preliminary Investigation in Children Living in Rural and Urban Burkina Faso and Italy. Frontiers in Microbiology. 2017;8. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01979 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Nilsen M, Madelen Saunders C, Leena Angell I, Arntzen MØ, Lødrup Carlsen KC, Carlsen K et al. Butyrate Levels in the Transition from an Infant- to an Adult-Like Gut Microbiota Correlate with Bacterial Networks Associated with Eubacterium rectale and Ruminococcus gnavus. Genes. 2020;11(11):1245. doi: 10.3390/genes11111245 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Erwin G Zoetendal

23 Nov 2021

PONE-D-21-33595Changes in the gut microbiota of Nigerian infants within the first year of lifePLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Scott,

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.

Your manuscript has been evaluated by two reviewers. Both found the manuscript and topic interesting. However, they identified some issues with the current version as you can see in their comments. Both of them actually suggest a more in depth comparative analysis with observations described in literature. I recommend you to submit a revision in which all suggestions by the reviewers have been addressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 10 January 2022. 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,

Erwin G Zoetendal, 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. 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

[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: Partly

**********

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: This manuscript reports the results of a longitudinal gut microbiome study in Nigerian infants in the first months of life. While the uniqueness of the data is clear, the manuscript is really a "by-the-numbers" descriptive gut microbiome paper. I think the authors brush aside a wealth of similar datasets that have indeed been reported, but mostly from Western populations. Searching "longitudinal gut microbiome infants" in Pubmed provides hundreds of hits. I advise the authors to look for the most appropriate datasets available (a western study with similar temporal points, some of the few studies which have included infants gut microbiome like the "old" Yatsunenko and Dominguez-Bello papers...) and use these datasets to contextualize their own datasets. Such a contextualization is needed for a better discussion, and I am sure this will provide more exciting leads.

A few more comments below

More details are needed about the statistical analyses. On some figures, nothing is indicated, and it is not clear if this means no statistical difference? Using t-test requires the data to be normal, so this check needs to be stated somewhere...

L105-108 Is the protocol of storing fresh stool in ethanol and at room temperature validated? It seems that such a treatment could alter the gut microbiota rather than preserve it.

L130-131 It is common to use normalization/cleaning kits before pooling amplicons. Ethanol precipitation is not regarded as a really efficient clean-up method, at least not as good than isopropanol, which is as easy to perform...

L190-194 Basic sequence statistics (average and std error per sample for example) are needed to demonstrate that sufficient sequencing depth was reached

Reviewer #2: The manuscript ” Changes in the gut microbiota of Nigerian infants within the first year of life” PONE-D-21-33595 by Oyedemi et al. describes microbiota development in the Nigerian population and contributes to filling gaps in our knowledge in the microbiota development trajectories in non-western population. The contribution is in this respect very valuable. The manuscript is in general well written and reported. However, I have only some concerns about the methodologies and some suggestions for the improvement of manuscript, as follows:

Introduction:

Although there no studies on the development of the infant gut microbial composition over time from African countries, there are some cross-sectional studies investigating microbiota in African children. Please, describe the main findings from these studies and how microbiota was found to differ in African vs other populations -in this respect direct comparisons may not be available, but major differences may be obvious based on the literature.

M&M

Sample collection was done by immersing the sample in ethanol for 24 h and then drying. Are there previous studied comparing microbiota results obtained by using this method vs analysing fresh (or immediately -80C frozen) samples. If yes, please provide the reference. If not, and you would have such results, please provide them in supplementary material. The collection method is very practical and useful especially in low income or field settings and it would be good to know to what extent it has been validated. Is the protocol the same that was used in refs 17 and 18 or modified?

L115: “0.1g of each faecal sample” -add “dry weight” after 0.1 g

L119: The subtitle “Verification of manufacturer’s claim on NAN 1 formula milk” seems like an advertisement and doesn´t well describe the contents of the paragraph. Change to “Detection of bifidobacteria in formula milk by genus-specific PCR”

Has the method for measuring short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) been validated for ethanol treated and dried faecal samples? Ref 34, which is given as reference, investigated fresh faecal samples presumably. Concerning SCFA results, it is critical to know the validation as the analysis can be expected to be affected largely by sample preparation. Without validation the results may not be reliable and thereof should not be presented.

Results:

L222 and L225: The word “upregulated” may not be the best to describe “had higher abundance”. Revise throughout the manuscript.

Discussion:

L338:What about in comparison to previous findings in African children or other non-western populations?

Include in the discussion a general overview on the microbiota development in Nigerian infants as compared to other populations, what is similar and what is different in the general trajectories.

L365: Correct “species of Bifidobacteria” to “species of Bifidobacterium” and genus name in italic font

L367: Correct “Bifidobacterial” to “Bifidobacterium” and genus name in italic font

L392: “Bacteroides” in italic font. Also Prevotella in L.393 and elsewhere. Check throughout the manuscript that genus names are in italic font.

**********

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: 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. 2022 Mar 17;17(3):e0265123. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0265123.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


10 Jan 2022

Dear Professor Zoetendal,

Thank you for providing reviewers comments and editorial consideration of our manuscript:

“Changes in the gut microbiota of Nigerian infants within the first year of life” for publication, previously submitted to PLOS ONE with reference number PONE-D-21-33595. We appreciate the comments provided and would be grateful if you could consider the revised attached manuscript for publication. In addressing all the comments, including the more in depth comparative analysis suggested, we feel the manuscript has been clarified and improved.

The detailed rebuttal letter follows below and we have attached a marked up and a clean copy of the revised manuscript as instructed.

Furthermore we have addressed the additional requirements for style and file naming, and have checked the main Figures using the PACE tool.

We have clarified the information about the funding for the study. The appropriate wording for the funding information paragraph is:

OTO was a self-funded PhD student performing her PhD research at the University of Ibadan, Nigeria. OTO received no specific funding for her PhD work except that her 5 month placement at The Rowett Institute was supported by the Scottish Funding Council - Global Challenge Research Fund (Internal Grant reference SF10180). The Rowett Institute (University of Aberdeen) receives financial support from the Scottish Government Rural and Environmental Sciences and Analytical Services (RESAS).

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

We thank you for considering this revised manuscript for publication, and look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Yours faithfully,

Karen Scott (corresponding author, on behalf of all authors).

Detailed responses to Reviewer Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: This manuscript reports the results of a longitudinal gut microbiome study in Nigerian infants in the first months of life. While the uniqueness of the data is clear, the manuscript is really a "by-the-numbers" descriptive gut microbiome paper. I think the authors brush aside a wealth of similar datasets that have indeed been reported, but mostly from Western populations. Searching "longitudinal gut microbiome infants" in Pubmed provides hundreds of hits. I advise the authors to look for the most appropriate datasets available (a western study with similar temporal points, some of the few studies which have included infants gut microbiome like the "old" Yatsunenko and Dominguez-Bello papers...) and use these datasets to contextualize their own datasets. Such a contextualization is needed for a better discussion, and I am sure this will provide more exciting leads.

We appreciate the reviewer pointing that we had not considered our data in comparison to existing literature widely enough. The reviewer is correct that there are many such datasets available from western populations so we have identified those most relevant and compared our own data more substantially with them. We have added appropriate additional text to the Introduction and Discussion to put our study in greater context.

A few more comments below

More details are needed about the statistical analyses. On some figures, nothing is indicated, and it is not clear if this means no statistical difference? Using t-test requires the data to be normal, so this check needs to be stated somewhere...

We have added additional data on the statistical analysis to the figures as requested

Figure 1 – this is observational and does not require independent statistical analysis. The relevant statistical data for the basic bioinformatic analysis has been added to the Materials and Methods section. (see response to changes addressing comment referring to L190-194).

Figure 2 –We had previously quoted the general p values for these comparison in the text, but we have now added the specific numbers for each comparison to the Figure legend.

Figure 3 –Statistical testing of the Beta diversity analysis was previously included in the Materials and Methods section. We have added a further sentence clarifying this (and showing the p value) to the figure legend.

Figure 4 –[replacement figure] The data on the SCFA% abundance were compared using the Wilcoxon Rank test (since the data were not normally distributed)and the statistically different abundances are given in the legend

L105-108 Is the protocol of storing fresh stool in ethanol and at room temperature validated? It seems that such a treatment could alter the gut microbiota rather than preserve it.

This protocol had been previously validated (indicated in the reference cited), and we have clarified this in the text, but was also validated by ourselves. We have added further information about our validation in the supplemental material, as detailed in the response to a similar request from reviewer 2 (M&M comment).

L130-131 It is common to use normalization/cleaning kits before pooling amplicons. Ethanol precipitation is not regarded as a really efficient clean-up method, at least not as good than isopropanol, which is as easy to perform.

The clean-up method that was used prior to sequencing has been clarified in the text. In our method recommended by the University of Aberdeen central sequencing facility (which has been published many times by various groups within the Gut Microbiology lab) the initial cleanup of individual samples relies on precipitation of the DNA amplicons with NaCl and ethanol, with a subsequent cleanup utilising Amp-Pure magnetic beads applied after amplicon pooling into an equimolar pool, prior to performing the sequencing run. This balances cleanup efficacy and expense.

L190-194 Basic sequence statistics (average and std error per sample for example) are needed to demonstrate that sufficient sequencing depth was reached

We apologise that this data was not included in the previous version, and these details have now been added to the Methods section and shown in the new Supplementary Figure 1.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript ” Changes in the gut microbiota of Nigerian infants within the first year of life” PONE-D-21-33595 by Oyedemi et al. describes microbiota development in the Nigerian population and contributes to filling gaps in our knowledge in the microbiota development trajectories in non-western population. The contribution is in this respect very valuable. The manuscript is in general well written and reported. However, I have only some concerns about the methodologies and some suggestions for the improvement of manuscript, as follows:

Introduction:

Although there no studies on the development of the infant gut microbial composition over time from African countries, there are some cross-sectional studies investigating microbiota in African children. Please, describe the main findings from these studies and how microbiota was found to differ in African vs other populations -in this respect direct comparisons may not be available, but major differences may be obvious based on the literature.

We appreciate the reviewer pointing out that we should expand our comparison to these papers – and this has now been done. We have added additional text to the Introduction and Discussion to put our study in context.

M&M

Sample collection was done by immersing the sample in ethanol for 24 h and then drying. Are there previous studied comparing microbiota results obtained by using this method vs analysing fresh (or immediately -80C frozen) samples. If yes, please provide the reference. If not, and you would have such results, please provide them in supplementary material. The collection method is very practical and useful especially in low income or field settings and it would be good to know to what extent it has been validated. Is the protocol the same that was used in refs 17 and 18 or modified?

We acknowledge the importance of this practical protocol for collecting samples from field settings. We have now added the original reference using this method (Roedar et al 2004), and have provided additional information about the validation carried out in the Schnorr et al Nature communications manuscript (reference 17), which we had previously cited. In the latter paper the authors compared the desiccation method with -80oC storage for divided samples, showing comparable data for DNA yield, gut microbiota and SCFA relative abundance profiles. This has been added to the text. We also validated the method ourselves, illustrating that microbial composition profiles clustered per individual rather than processing method, and have commented on this in the text and added this data to supplemental information.

L115: “0.1g of each faecal sample” -add “dry weight” after 0.1 g

This has been done

L159: The subtitle “Verification of manufacturer’s claim on NAN 1 formula milk” seems like an advertisement and doesn´t well describe the contents of the paragraph. Change to “Detection of bifidobacteria in formula milk by genus-specific PCR”

We appreciate the reviewer pointing this out and have made the change as suggested

Has the method for measuring short chain fatty acids (SCFAs) been validated for ethanol treated and dried faecal samples? Ref 34, which is given as reference, investigated fresh faecal samples presumably. Concerning SCFA results, it is critical to know the validation as the analysis can be expected to be affected largely by sample preparation. Without validation the results may not be reliable and thereof should not be presented.

We appreciate the review’s concern on this point which reflected our own feelings. Reference 34 indeed investigates the SCFA profile of samples for which initial processing used fresh samples. However the cited reference 17, which utilised the same 2-step desiccation method we used for faecal processing prior to microbial composition analysis, also compared relative SCFA abundance in frozen and desiccated samples. They showed a maximum of 5% variation in the percentage abundance of the major SCFA in faecal samples from two individuals, illustrating remarkable consistency and validity of the data. We fully appreciate that the absolute concentrations of SCFA in samples that have been desiccated is likely to be lower than that found in fresh/frozen samples, but this validation enables us to have confidence that samples treated in the same way can be compared, and that the relative abundance reflects the amounts present in the original samples. We have however decided to replace our original Figure 4 graph which showed the calculated concentration of SCFA in mM (calculated per g of dried faecal sample) with a new graph showing the relative abundance of the major SCFA expressed as % of the total. Although the concentrations we observed were consistent with those presented in other literature, having considered the reviewer’s comment, we feel the percentage data allows us to robustly compare the samples within the study that were all treated the same way. The significant increases in acetate and butyrate, and decrease in succinate, following weaning were observed in both data sets, while the shifts in propionate and lactate concentrations were different, with the % lactate relatively constant in these samples pre/ and post weaning. The replaced data is described in the text.

Results:

L222 and L225: The word “upregulated” may not be the best to describe “had higher abundance”. Revise throughout the manuscript.

We agree with the reviewer that this phrasing was inaccurate and have corrected this throughout.

Discussion:

L338:What about in comparison to previous findings in African children or other non-western populations?

Extra detail on this point has been added to the discussion, as per response to reviewer 1

Include in the discussion a general overview on the microbiota development in Nigerian infants as compared to other populations, what is similar and what is different in the general trajectories.

Extra detail on this point has been added to the discussion, as per response to reviewer 1

L365: Correct “species of Bifidobacteria” to “species of Bifidobacterium” and genus name in italic font

We apologise for this error and have now corrected this, here and throughout the manuscript

L367: Correct “Bifidobacterial” to “Bifidobacterium” and genus name in italic font

We apologise for this error and have now corrected this

L392: “Bacteroides” in italic font. Also Prevotella in L.393 and elsewhere. Check throughout the manuscript that genus names are in italic font

We apologise for this error and have now corrected this here and throughout the manuscript

Attachment

Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

Decision Letter 1

Erwin G Zoetendal

24 Feb 2022

Changes in the gut microbiota of Nigerian infants within the first year of life

PONE-D-21-33595R1

Dear Dr. Scott,

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.

Please make sure that the following points are corrected in the proofs: 1) Consistently writing of 16S rRNA gene (sometimes I see 16S rRNA), 2) Correct use of the degrees Celsius symbol, 3) Making sure that plural names of genera, such as enterococci and clostridia are not written in italics nor capitalized.

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,

Erwin G Zoetendal, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

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

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: 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: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: The authors have addressed all mu questions/concerns adequately. I would like to congratulate the authors for accomplishing the study.

**********

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

Reviewer #2: No

Acceptance letter

Erwin G Zoetendal

8 Mar 2022

PONE-D-21-33595R1

Changes in the gut microbiota of Nigerian infants within the first year of life

Dear Dr. Scott:

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. Erwin G Zoetendal

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. Rarefaction curves showing A) Observed species, B) Chao, and C) Shannon diversity index over subsampling depths.

    Analysis was performed using the core diversity analyses.py script from QIIME (version 1.9.0).

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Bacterial composition profiles of samples from two volunteers to validate the desiccation storage method.

    (DOCX)

    S3 Fig. The presence of Bifidobacterium in NAN 1 formula milk.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Table. Timing of faecal samples collection from individual babies (n = 28) during the first year of life.

    Samples immediately after weaning commenced are shaded and shown in bold.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Table. Percentage abundance of phyla in all samples from all babies, across all time points.

    (XLSX)

    S3 Table. Percentage of most abundant (top 39) genera in all samples across all time points, in all samples from all babies.

    (XLSX)

    S4 Table. Differentially abundant ASVs following DESeq2 analysis, comparing samples at day 7 between vaginal birth (+ve change) and C-section birth (-ve change) babies.

    Negative fold changes indicate ASVs (17) more abundant in the C-section birth babies, and positive fold changes indicate the four ASCs more abundant in vaginal birth babies. ASVs are identified to the genus or (when possible) species level.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response to reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    The 16S rRNA gene sequences were deposited in the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the Accession number PRJEB31073. The remaining relevant data are within the article and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES