Hair Microbiome Diversity within and across Primate Species

Catherine Kitrinos; Rachel B Bell; Brenda J Bradley; Jason M Kamilar

doi:10.1128/msystems.00478-22

. 2022 Jul 25;7(4):e00478-22. doi: 10.1128/msystems.00478-22

Hair Microbiome Diversity within and across Primate Species

Catherine Kitrinos ^a,^✉, Rachel B Bell ^b, Brenda J Bradley ^c,^d, Jason M Kamilar ^a,^b,^✉

Editor: Sarah M Hird^e

PMCID: PMC9426569 PMID: 35876529

ABSTRACT

Primate hair and skin are substrates upon which social interactions occur and are host-pathogen interfaces. While human hair and skin microbiomes display body site specificity and immunological significance, little is known about the nonhuman primate (NHP) hair microbiome. Here, we collected hair samples (n = 158) from 8 body sites across 12 NHP species housed at three zoological institutions in the United States to examine the following: (1) the diversity and composition of the primate hair microbiome and (2) the factors predicting primate hair microbiome diversity and composition. If both environmental and evolutionary factors shape the microbiome, then we expect significant differences in microbiome diversity across host body sites, sexes, institutions, and species. We found our samples contained high abundances of gut-, respiratory-, and environment-associated microbiota. In addition, multiple factors predicted microbiome diversity and composition, although host species identity outweighed sex, body site, and institution as the strongest predictor. Our results suggest that hair microbial communities are affected by both evolutionary and environmental factors and are relatively similar across nonhuman primate body sites, which differs from the human condition. These findings have important implications for understanding the biology and conservation of wild and captive primates and the uniqueness of the human microbiome.

IMPORTANCE We created the most comprehensive primate hair and skin data set to date, including data from 12 nonhuman primate species sampled from 8 body regions each. We find that the nonhuman primate hair microbiome is distinct from the human hair and skin microbiomes in that it is relatively uniform—as opposed to distinct—across body regions and is most abundant in gut-, environment-, and respiratory-associated microbiota rather than human skin-associated microbiota. Furthermore, we found that the nonhuman primate hair microbiome varies with host species identity, host sex, host environment, and host body site, with host species identity being the strongest predictor. This result demonstrates that nonhuman primate hair microbiome diversity varies with both evolutionary and environmental factors and within and across primate species. These findings have important implications for understanding the biology and conservation of wild and captive primates and the uniqueness of the human microbiome.

KEYWORDS: ecology, evolution, integument, mammal, skin

INTRODUCTION

Microbiome diversity—the “catalog” of host-associated microbial taxa and their collective genes (1)—has important implications for host biology and health (2). Animal microbiome diversity can influence, or be influenced by, metabolism (3), behavior (4), and importantly immunity (5). Both environmental and evolutionary factors shape animal microbiome diversity, including but not limited to habitat (6), captivity status (7), diet (8), social contact (9), birth mode (10, 11), sex (12), and host genetic variation (13). Phylosymbiosis—the apparent correlation between host phylogeny and microbiome diversity—has also been observed in numerous studies (14 –17), suggesting that any factor which varies with host evolutionary history may impact microbiome structure (16).

Most of our knowledge of animal (including human) microbiome diversity comes from studies of the gut (18, 19), and little is known about the diversity of other body regions, such as the hair. Hair is a defining feature of all mammals and plays a critical role in numerous aspects of their biology. Aside from functioning in thermoregulation, hair provides camouflage from predators (20, 21), signaling to conspecifics (20) and—in primates and other social species—is an important substrate through which dominance hierarchies are established and social cohesion is bolstered by grooming. Hair is also home to multiple ectoparasites, including lice, ticks, and mites (22 –24), making it an important host-pathogen interface. As ectoparasitic infections may result in conditions, such as anemia, and even death (22, 25), they can incur a substantial cost to fitness in the host. Therefore, symbiotic relationships that control “hair-borne” pathogen spread may confer an adaptive advantage to the host. Indeed, fungal isolates from sloth hair have been shown to display antimicrobial activity as well as activity against parasites (26).

Commensal microbes of the skin (5) and gut (27, 28) influence host immune response. Skin-associated microbial symbionts (Staphylococcus hominis and Staphylococcus epidermis) act as a first line of defense against pathogenic variants of Staphylococcus by targeting them with antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) and working synergistically with the host immune system (5). Hair has a close relationship with the skin, being a skin appendage, with parts of the proximal portion of the hair belonging to the skin environment (29). Hair forms the outermost barrier between host and the environment across many parts of the nonhuman primate body, so hair-associated microbes may play a similar role to skin microbes in host defense.

In humans, skin and hair microbial diversity vary between sexes, individuals (12, 29 –31), and especially between body sites (29, 30). Both human and bat hair microbiomes may also be influenced by physical contact or sociality (12, 32). Human hair appears to be rich in human skin-associated microbiota such as Staphylococcus and Corynebacterium (30), while in a bat microbiome study, oral-associated Streptococcus salivarius was the most common species in both the hair and the gut (32). Kolodny et al. also found that temporality and individual identity had different impacts on the bat hair microbiome between open and captive bat colonies and that bacterial abundances correlated with various volatile hair compounds, which can influence scent. These findings suggest that captivity status influences hair microbiome structure and that hair microbes may play an important role in olfactory excretions and therefore social interactions.

A notable aspect of the human hair microbiome is variation across body sites and between sexes. For example, a comparison of the pubis and scalp found Staphylococcus was highly abundant in both regions while Corynebacterium was differentially abundant in the pubis (40%) and the scalp (7%) (30). In another human hair study, skin-associated bacteria (Corynebacterium and Anaerococcus spp.) were abundant in the scalp and pubis but Lactobacillaceae—a bacterial family found commonly in the human gut and vaginal microbiome—was the most prevalent taxa in female pubic hair. Unlike pubic hair, scalp hair microbial diversity did not differ noticeably with sex, although females did have more “transient” scalp microbiota than males (12). The authors propose that this may be due to more frequent washing and use of products in hair by females than those by males, which results in less stable microbial hair communities (12). However, in the same study, a male-female couple’s hair samples clustered more closely (compared to their previous samples) in a principal coordinates analysis when intercourse occurred 18 h prior, despite the fact that the couple showered in the interim (12). Therefore, the evidence for an effect of washing on hair microbiome diversity in humans is mixed, although it has been shown to alter microbiome community composition on the skin of the human hand and to alter it differentially between the sexes (33). Another study found that skin microbial communities—as well as antimicrobial activity—are fairly resilient to normal washing, and thus, even changes to the skin microbiome during normal washing may be temporary (34).

In other mammalian species, differences in scent gland distribution and activity between males and females may be driving sex differences in the microbial diversity of mammalian skin and hair. For example, olfactory signals play an important role in mate choice in many mammalian species, and microbes may modulate scent profiles by adding volatile metabolites (35). Sex differences in scent gland microbiomes have been observed in lemurs (19), bats (35), and hyenas (36). In wild spotted hyenas, juvenile males harbor more taxonomically rich scent gland microbiomes than juvenile females, which may be due to more frequent scent marking in male hyenas than that in females (36). Lemurs rely heavily on olfaction compared with other primates, and differences in prevalent microbial taxa have been noted between the sexes and between dominant and nondominant males (19). Thus, there may be differences in hair microbiome diversity between sexes due to differences in olfactory signaling.

The hair microhabitat lies adjacent to the skin. Additionally, sections of the hair—such as the hair follicle—are part of the skin environment (29). Microbial diversity on hair shafts has been shown to resemble that of the cutaneous skin region from which the shaft originated (30). Microbiome diversity of human hair and skin varies substantially across body sites and microhabitats, with sebaceous sites (oily skin sites with lipid-rich sebum secretions) being the most distinct compositionally from the others, such as “dry” sites (skin sites with little moisture) or “moist” sites (skin sites with high moisture: these generally contain more sweat glands) (31, 37). Topographical features, such as sweat glands, play an important role in shaping the skin and subsequently hair microhabitat, as sweat glands contain antimicrobial substances that may prevent colonization by some microbial taxa (37). Thus, we may expect to find that differences in hair microbial diversity correspond with higher-level taxonomic groupings in the order primates (e.g., the parvorders Catarrhini and Plathyrrhini, and suborder Strepsirhini). This is because, primates have both apocrine sweat glands—which are generally nonthermoregulatory, distributed across the whole of the primate body, and are associated with hair follicles and sebaceous glands—and eccrine sweat glands—which are associated with thermoregulatory sweating and vary in abundance and distribution between major primate clades (38). Eccrine glands especially are distributed differentially across the major primate clades, with a low ratio of eccrine to apocrine glands in platyrrhines and strepsirrhines, a higher ratio in many catarrhines (near 1:1), and the highest ratios in apes with humans having nearly 100% of the body surface covered in eccrine glands (38). Supporting this idea, Council et al. (18) found that axillary skin microbiome diversity corresponded with evolutionary distance among humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, macaques, and baboons. Humans also displayed high abundances of Staphyloccocaceae while more phylogenetically distant species from humans (baboons and macaques) had increased amounts of microbiota associated with soil, gut, and oral microbial communities (18).

Given these initial studies suggesting that the hair microbiome could play an important role in primate immunity, social signaling, and various physiological functions, understanding how host factors affect the hair microbiome is essential. The goal of the present study was 2-fold, as follows: (i) to characterize hair microbiome diversity within and across 12 primate species and (ii) to identify the factors that explain this variation. We made several predictions regarding the factors explaining microbiome diversity within and across species. First, we predicted that both the evolutionary history of the species and their environment would explain variation in microbiome diversity. Second, we expected that microbiota from different body regions would exhibit distinct patterns, although not to the extent found in humans since nonhuman primates have more uniform hair and skin characteristics across their body. Finally, we predicted that microbiome diversity would differ across sexes, similar to the human condition (12).

RESULTS

Relative abundances of microbial taxa.

All hair samples were dominated by species from the Bacteria domain, with only five samples containing more than 5% relative abundance of Archaea. The most abundant phyla (>15%) across all samples were Firmicutes (32.51%), Bacteroidetes (25.42%), and Proteobacteria (24.54%) (Fig. 1). The most abundant genera (>1.0%) across samples were bacteria typically associated with the gut, respiratory system, skin, and abiotic environment, such as Prevotella 9 (8.45%), Streptococcus (4.07%), Treponema 2 (3.13%), Prevotella 1 (2.99%), and Staphylococcus (2.90%) (see Table S2 and Fig. S1 in the supplemental material).

FIG 1 — Relative abundances (%) of the top 10 microbial phyla present in host samples, organized by host species. Each bar represents a sample. The “remainder” category is the aggregate abundance of microbial phyla that were not in the top 10 most abundant group.

FIG S1

Stacked bar plot of the relative abundances of the top 10 most abundant microbes at taxonomic level 6 (genus level) by primate host species. If the microbial taxon could not be identified at the genus level, it is identified at the lowest possible taxonomic level. Level 6 microbial taxa not in the top 10 are grouped into the “remainder” category. Download FIG S1, JPG file, 2.3 MB^{(2.3MB, jpg)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S2

Genus-level (level 6) microbial taxa with a relative abundance of >0.5% in order from most abundant to least abundant. Download Table S2, PDF file, 0.1 MB^{(61.2KB, pdf)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Univariate analyses examining hair microbiome diversity.

We found significant differences across species for all measures of alpha diversity (Table 1 and 2; Fig. 2a). We found the highest Chao1 estimates and amplicon sequence variant (ASV) counts in Lemur catta followed by Varecia rubra and Eulemur flavifrons, while the lowest scores were in Pithecia pithecia followed by Cebus capucinus (which recently has been renamed to Cebus imitator) and Hapalemur griseus (additional analyses of ASV counts were not performed because of its redundancy with Chao1 results). The highest Shannon diversity values were found in V. rubra (H’ = 7.96), L. catta (H’ = 7.87), and Trachypithecus obscurus (H’ = 7.85), and the lowest score was in Pithecia pithecia (H’ = 5.78) (Table 1). Species differences in Pielou’s evenness were statistically significant (Kruskal-Wallis, P < 0.0001, H = 65.78) with the highest value found in T. obscurus (J = 0.80) and the lowest found in Allenopithecus nigroviridis (J = 0.68). Based on Faith’s phylogenetic diversity, the most phylogenetically diverse host hair samples were from V. rubra (84.5) and the lowest were from P. pithecia (33.7) (Table 1; Fig. 2a). Using post hoc analyses, we found statistically significant differences among most species pairs for each alpha diversity metric (see Table S3 in the supplemental material).

TABLE 1.

Species averages for 5 alpha diversity metrics

Species	Species avg for:
Species	Chao 1	Shannon	Faith PD	Pielou’s	Observed ASVs
Allenopithecus nigroviridis	472	6.02	41.9	0.68	462
Cebus capucinus	459	6.04	34.2	0.70	420
Cercopithecus neglectus	985	7.42	68.0	0.76	898
Colobus angolensis	849	7.31	55.8	0.76	775
Eulemur flavifrons	1,026	7.51	72.9	0.77	945
Hapalemur griseus	461	6.40	39.2	0.73	444
Lemur catta	1,364	7.87	82.8	0.77	1,215
Mirza coquereli	485	6.85	36.4	0.78	468
Pithecia pithecia	354	5.78	33.7	0.70	342
Symphalangus syndactylus	694	7.41	57.9	0.79	658
Trachypithecus obscurus	1,018	7.85	63.0	0.80	918
Varecia rubra	1,288	7.96	84.5	0.78	1,183

Open in a new tab

TABLE 2.

Results of univariate analyses^a

Dependent variable	Results (H [P value]) by independent variable
Dependent variable	Species identity	Institution	Sex	Body site
Chao 1	111.5 (<0.0001)	6.4 (0.04)	3.7 (0.056)	4.9 (0.56)
Shannon	97.7 (<0.0001)	4.6 (0.10)	0.2 (0.63)	7.0 (0.32)
Faith PD	99.7 (<0.0001)	5.9 (0.051)	4.0 (0.046)	8.7 (0.19)
Pielou’s	65.8 (<0.0001)	2.7 (0.25)	2.1 (0.15)	5.4 (0.49)

Open in a new tab

Differences among species, institutions, sexes, and body sites for alpha diversity metrics determined using Kruskal-Wallis.

FIG 2 — (a) Boxplot of Faith’s phylogenetic diversity across primate host species (H = 99.7, P < 0.0001). White dots represent individual samples. (b) Boxplot displaying Faith’s phylogenetic diversity data distribution for male hair samples (n = 60) and female hair samples (n = 98) (H = 4.0, P = 0.046). White dots represent individual samples.

TABLE S3

Post hoc analyses examining pairwise differences in the alpha diversity metrics of the study species while accounting for other predictors (sex, body site, and institution) through linear modelling. Bolded, colored, and *-marked values indicate significant differences in alpha diversity after correction for multiple comparisons via the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Metrics are listed in the following order: top, Chao1; 2^nd, Shannon index; 3^rd, Faith’s PD; and 4^th, Pielou’s index. Q values that were not significant after performing the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure are marked as not significant (NS). Pairwise tests with sample sizes too small for comparison are marked with NA. Download Table S3, PDF file, 0.1 MB^{(94.1KB, pdf)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Similarly, we found significant differences across species in weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances (Fig. 3a and b) (see Table S4 in the supplemental material). The principal-coordinate analysis (PCoA) based on unweighted UniFrac distances showed that platyrrhines C. capucinus and P. pithecia clustered in the bottom left of the plot while catarrhines A. nigroviridis, Colobus angolensis, T. obscurus, and Symphalangus syndactylus grouped in the center of the plot, and strepsirrhines cluster at either the top left or far right.

TABLE S4

Post hoc analyses examining species identity pairwise differences in the principal coordinates 1 to 3 based on weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances while accounting for other predictors (sex, body site, and institution) through linear modeling. Bolded, colored, and *-marked values indicate significant differences in alpha diversity after correction for multiple comparisons via the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Metrics are listed in the following order: top, black, weighted PC1; 2^nd, black, weighted PC2; 3^rd, black, weighted PC3; top, gray, unweighted PC1; 2^nd, gray, unweighted PC2; and 3^rd, gray, unweighted PC3. Q values that were not significant after performing the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure are marked as NS. Pairwise tests with sample sizes too small for comparison are marked with NA. Download Table S4, PDF file, 0.1 MB^{(75.1KB, pdf)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

We found some sex differences in alpha diversity metrics. In particular, Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (PD) differed between males and females (P = 0.046, H = 3.97) (Fig. 2b) and Chao1 diversity approached statistical significance (P = 0.055, H = 3.67). In both cases, males had higher values than females. In contrast, we did not find sex differences in Shannon diversity or Pielou’s evenness. In addition, we found that sexes exhibited significantly different microbial compositions based on permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) tests of weighted (P = 0.01, pseudo-F = 3.70) and unweighted (P = 0.001, pseudo-F = 3.01) UniFrac distances (see Table S5 in the supplemental material).

TABLE S5

Results of PERMANOVA tests of weighted and unweighted UniFrac distance analyses, including post hoc tests for institutions with adjusted P values. Download Table S5, PDF file, 0.04 MB^{(39KB, pdf)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

We did not find significant differences across body sites for any of the alpha or beta diversity metrics (Table 2 and Table S5).

Finally, we found that some alpha diversity metrics significantly varied across the three institutions (Chao1) but others did not. Although, we did find significant differences across institutions using PERMANOVA tests of weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances (Fig. 3c and Table S5). In addition, our post hoc analyses showed that each pair of institutions was significantly different for the same beta diversity metrics (Table S5).

Linear models (LMs) predicting hair microbiome diversity.

We found that species identity was included in the best models predicting each of the eight alpha and beta diversity metrics and was either the most important predictor of each variable (3 out of 8) or shared the highest sum of corrected Akaike’s information criterion (AICc) weight values with body site (2 out of 8) or sex (3 out of 8) (Table 3). Sex was a strong predictor of Chao1 and Faith’s PD, a moderate predictor of Shannon Diversity, and a weak predictor of Pielou’s diversity. In addition, sex was an important predictor for PCoA axis 1 and 2 based on weighted UniFrac distance and PCoA axis 1 based on unweighted UniFrac distance. We found institution to be a moderate predictor of our dependent variables (sum of AICc weight, 0.50), only ranking second in relative importance as a predictor for Pielou’s evenness. For all other dependent variables, institution was the least or second to least important predictor.

TABLE 3.

Results of linear models predicting hair microbiome alpha and beta diversity metrics^a

Dependent variable	Model	AICc	Predictors				Sum of AICc weights
Dependent variable	Model	AICc	Species	Sex	Body site	Institution	Species	Sex	Body site	Institution
Chao1	1	2185.2	+	+	+		1.00	1.00	0.92	0.50
Chao1	2	2185.2	+	+	+	+	1.00	1.00	0.92	0.50
Shannon	1	391.9	+	+	+		1.00	0.54	0.53	0.50
	2	391.9	+	+	+	+
	3	392.3	+	+
	4	392.3	+	+		+
	5	392.3	+		+
	6	392.3	+		+	+
	7	392.4	+
	8	392.4	+			+
Faith’s PD	1	1269.1	+	+	+		1.00	0.99	1.00	0.50
Faith’s PD	2	1269.1	+	+	+	+	1.00	0.99	1.00	0.50
Pielou’s	1	−375.7	+				1.00	0.23	0.04	0.50
Pielou’s	2	−375.7	+			+	1.00	0.23	0.04	0.50
Weighted PC1	1	−237.4	+	+	+		1.00	0.83	1.00	0.50
Weighted PC1	2	−237.4	+	+	+	+	1.00	0.83	1.00	0.50
Weighted PC2	1	−392.5	+	+			1.00	0.86	<0.01	0.50
Weighted PC2	2	−392.5	+	+		+	1.00	0.86	<0.01	0.50
Unweighted PC1	1	−332.5	+	+	+		1.00	1.00	0.99	0.50
Unweighted PC1	2	−332.5	+	+	+	+	1.00	1.00	0.99	0.50
Unweighted PC2	1	−383.6	+		+		1.00	0.39	1.00	0.50
	2	−383.6	+		+	+
	3	−382.7	+	+	+
	4	−382.7	+	+	+	+

Open in a new tab

AICc values for the best models (the model with the lowest AICc value and those within 2 values of this model) predicting each dependent variable are included. All possible predictors are listed and their inclusion in each model is indicated by a “+.” The relative importance of each predictor variable for explaining each dependent variable is based on the sum of AICc weights across models, which varies from zero to one (from least to most important).

In contrast to our univariate analyses, body site was often an important variable explaining alpha and beta diversity metrics in our linear models. Body site was the second most frequently occurring predictor variable in our best models (Table 3). It was ranked with species identity as the most important predictors for Faith’s PD, PC1 (weighted UniFrac distances), and PC2 (unweighted UniFrac distances). Also, body site was ranked only slightly below species identity and sex as the most important predictor of Chao1 and PC1 (unweighted UniFrac distances) (sum of AICc weights, 0.92 and 0.99, respectively). Although, post hoc analyses showed that this effect was due largely to the difference between the tail—and to a lesser extent the crown and thigh—and other body sites (see Table S6 and S7 in the supplemental material).

TABLE S6

Post hoc analyses examining pairwise differences in the alpha diversity metrics of body sample sites, while accounting for other predictors (sex, species, and institution) using linear models. Bolded, colored, and *-marked values indicate significant (p_adj < 0.05) differences in alpha diversity after correction for multiple comparisons via the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Metrics are listed in the following order: top, Chao1; 2^nd, Shannon index; 3^rd, Faith’s PD; and 4^th, Pielou’s index. Download Table S6, PDF file, 0.05 MB^{(52.3KB, pdf)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S7

Post hoc analysis examining pairwise differences in beta diversity metrics of body sample sites, while accounting for other predictors (sex, species, and institution) using linear models. Bolded, colored, and *-marked values indicate significant (p_adj < 0.05) differences in alpha diversity after correction for multiple comparisons via the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure. Metrics are listed in the following order: top, black, weighted PC1; 2^nd, black, weighted PC2; top, gray, unweighted PC1; and 2^nd, gray, unweighted PC2. Download Table S7, PDF file, 0.04 MB^{(38.4KB, pdf)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

DISCUSSION

We found that primate hair microbiome diversity is best explained by several factors, including their local environment, species identity, sex, and the body site where the sample was obtained. Notably, however, there is less variation in microbiome diversity across body sites compared with that of humans. The more homogenous pattern of hair microbiome diversity across body sites in nonhuman primates may be attributed to the relatively uniform distribution of hair and other skin appendages across their body compared with that of humans (38). Our results are a first step in examining broad patterns in the ecology and evolution of primate hair microbiota and illustrate the unique biology of modern human hair and skin microbiota compared with that of other primates and mammals (17, 18, 29).

Relative microbial abundances in primate hair.

We found that the most prevalent taxa in our hair samples are reminiscent of the relative abundances found in the human and nonhuman primate (NHP) gut rather than the skin. While our four most abundant phyla—Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria—are also the four commonly found phyla known from a limited data set for the NHP axillary skin (18), the higher prevalence of Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes in relation to Actinobacteria is often associated with gut microbiomes (29). Clayton et al. (2) showed that 22 out of 34 NHP gut microbiome studies had Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes listed as the most abundant and second most abundant phyla, respectively. Likewise, the most abundant genus in our samples, Prevotella, is an especially prominent member of the human gut microbiome—although, it is also present in the human oral microbiome (39)—and has been shown to be particularly prevalent in the “humanized” gut microbiomes of captive primates whose diets are far less diverse than their wild counterparts (6, 7). Prevotella and Bacteroides have been prevalent in gut microbiome studies of some wild primates, such as wild lorises (40), Rhinopithecus (41), and chimpanzees (42). However, in two other studies, Amato and colleagues found that captive black howler monkeys and captive Asian colobines harbored relatively higher abundances of Prevotella (6, 43) than their wild counterparts. In an NHP axillary skin microbiome study (18), the primate host species with high abundances of Prevotella were either born in captivity (baboons) or were outdoor-living and given rations of “monkey chow” (macaques—who had the highest abundances of Prevotella). However, these results may also reflect evolutionary or biological differences between primate host species, as the nonape primates in the study (baboons and macaques) had proportionally more reads of Prevotella and proportionally fewer reads of skin-associated microbial taxa than the apes in the study (18). Therefore, we suggest that our captive primate hair microbiome samples may reflect to some degree a humanized gut microbiome that is somehow impacting the hair microbiome through transmission of gut microbes to hair or simply the interconnectivity of the gut and skin (44, 45). The potential to be colonized by Prevotella, regardless of the microbe’s origin, may differ due to differences in host biology occurring at higher clade levels. Future studies that include hair and skin microbiome samples from wild populations will clarify whether or not our results are impacted by captivity.

The high abundance of Streptococcus in our primate hair samples is similar to the findings of Kolodny et al. (32), where Streptococcus salivarius was the most prevalent species in both the bat hair and gut microbiome. While Streptococcus is often associated with the respiratory tract, the fact that other studies have found it commonly in the gut may demonstrate that gut-associated taxa are introduced to the hair through contact with fecal matter and/or that respiratory-associated taxa are introduced to the gut and hair through social contact, particularly social grooming (32). Treponema is a generally nonpathogenic genus found commonly in the oral cavity and intestines and is one of the most common genera in the gut microbiomes of NHPs (46). Gut-associated Treponema appears to be host specific in primates, and closely related Treponema species may appear only on certain host species, suggesting that this genus has colonized primates throughout their evolutionary history but is impacted by lifestyle or diet modifications as it appears to be under negative selection in human populations with “grocery store” diets (46).

Factors explaining primate hair microbiome diversity.

(i) Host species identity. Similar to studies of gut microbiome diversity, we found that variation in the primate hair microbiome is explained by several factors. Host species identity was consistently the most important predictor of hair microbiome diversity, which may be related to the evolutionary history and unique biological characteristics of the host species. We found noticeable differences among the microbiomes of catarrhines, platyrrhines, and strepsirrhines based on unweighted UniFrac and Bray Curtis distances (Fig. 3b; see Fig. S2 in the supplemental material). Compositional differences in the microbiomes of these primate clades may be due to known variation in their eccrine gland abundance and distributions, which may impact microbe colonization (37, 38). Specifically, eccrine glands in platyrrhines and strepsirrhines are found only on the surfaces of the hands, feet, and (in platyrrhines) the prehensile tail, while in catarrhines, these glands are distributed all over the body (38). These eccrine sweat glands may provide a moist microhabitat that make colonization possible for a more diverse array of microbes. This idea would explain the generally higher alpha diversity in our catarrhines than that in the platyrrhines and some strepsirrhines. Interestingly, these clades also differ in their reliance on olfaction for social communication, with strepsirrhines being the most reliant on scent. Strepsirrhines have scent glands that are not present in monkeys and apes, and some lemurs are capable of emitting hundreds of chemical compounds. For example, the highly social Lemur catta is known to produce hundreds of chemical compounds in contrast to Eulemur, which secreted only 27 chemical compounds in one study (47). Thus, the very high alpha diversity values for some strepsirrhines could be driven by scent gland deployment, although behavioral data would be necessary to confirm this hypothesis. It has been confirmed in other mammals that integumentary-associated microbial communities vary with scent gland activity (36) and volatile compounds that play a role in olfactory signaling (32). Therefore, hair microbiome structure in primates may be linked to the morphology and activity of other parts of the integument.

FIG S2

Principal-coordinate analysis of Bray-Curtis dissimilarity organized by host species. The solid line encircles samples from catarrhines, the dotted line encircles samples from platyrrhines, and the dashed line encircles samples from strepsirrhines. Download FIG S2, JPG file, 0.5 MB^{(507KB, jpg)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

In addition to biological variation, our species identity variable may simply reflect the specific social and abiotic environment where each species was housed at their respective institution. However, we do not have data about these environmental characteristics or behavior, so further study is warranted.

(ii) Host sex. Host sex was a strong predictor of several alpha and beta diversity metrics, with males scoring higher for measures of taxonomic richness, such as Faith’s PD and Chao1. Factors such as hormone cycling and sex-biased microbial transmission may play a role in differentiating male and female NHP hair microbial diversity. Hormone cycling can impact both host olfactory secretions (19) and gut microbiome structure (48), which is especially important considering the high abundances of gut-associated microbes in our samples. The differential transmission of microbes between the sexes has also been documented in black howler monkeys (Alouatta pigra) (49) and in marmosets (50).

In human hair microbiomes, sex differences in microbial diversity are body site specific; females have more transient microbes in their scalp hair than males but fewer transient microbes in the pubic hair than males (12). The higher relative “stability” of female pubic hairs (as well as the high abundances of Lactobacillus spp.) is attributed to its proximity to the vaginal microbiome which is dominated by potentially protective Lactobacillus spp. (12). However, human females appear to be unique among primates in their high abundances of vaginal Lactobacillus spp. (51). Therefore, body site-specific sex differences in nonhuman primate hair microbial communities that arise from differences in reproductive organ ecosystems may be driven by different microbial taxa than those which drive differences in humans, and more research is warranted on this topic.

(iii) Host institution. The institution where the primates were housed had a mixed effect on microbiome diversity. Our clearest result was connected to the beta diversity metrics, with primates living in different institutions exhibiting a distinct composition of microbes. The institution functions as the species’ environmental context, including their abiotic and dietary characteristics. Although we do not have specific information related to these characteristics for each species, we can assume that institutions differ to some extent. Habitat-dependent variation has been associated with differences in gut microbiome diversity in captive versus wild primates (6). Howler monkeys, for example, living in mostly pristine environments had more varied diets, while those living in fragmented or captive environments had less diverse diets (6). The reduction in diet diversity appears to result in a humanized gut microbiome in nonhuman primates (7), and thus, the high abundances of human gut-associated microbes like Prevotella in our samples may signal a dysbiotic gut. Therefore, differences in diet content or variation across institutions may drive differences in the microbiomes of our study species. Exposure to conspecifics creates opportunities for horizontal microbial transmission which can increase overall community diversity and subsequently host health and community resilience (9). Because microbial transmission can also be sex biased (49, 50), the male-female ratios present in the zoo enclosures may impact the hair microbiome structure of the host. Finally, microbes of the abiotic environment are affected by factors such as temperature, UV radiation, and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that vary across geographic regions (52). Because primates and other organisms interact constantly with their abiotic environment, the differences in abiotic microbiomes resulting from the various geographic locations of the institutions (in the mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Southwest) may influence the types of microbes colonizing primate hair.

(iv) Host body site. When accounting for other variables, we found a strong effect of body site on microbiome diversity. Although, this finding was driven largely by differences between the tail (and to some extent the crown and thigh) and other body sites (see Fig. S3, Table S6, and Table S7 in the supplemental material). One explanation for the distinctness of the tail may be differences in its grooming traffic compared with other body sites. For example, the tail may have reduced grooming traffic from conspecifics, which has been demonstrated in Verreaux’s sifaka (53), resulting in a unique microbiome structure compared with that of more heavily frequented body sites. Alternatively, the distinctness of tail hair microbiome structure may also be due to its regular contact with gut microbes in feces due to its proximity to the anus.

FIG S3

Box plot of Chao1 diversity (A), Shannon diversity (B), and Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (C) organized by body site. Download FIG S3, JPG file, 0.9 MB^{(923.7KB, jpg)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Our results are in stark contrast to those of humans, who exhibit substantial differences in skin/hair microbiome diversity across body sites. Much of the across-body site variation in the human microbiome is likely the result of microenvironmental variation across sites (29). For example, skin microbial communities sampled from different sites may be dominated by completely different families, as follows: the nares by Corynebacteriaceae and other Actinobacteria, the plantar heel by Staphylococcaceae, and the volar forearm by various Proteobacteria (29) (as shown in Fig. 3). The high variability in composition across multiple body sites in humans contrasts with our findings in nonhuman primates and suggests that the more uniform distribution of relatively thick, long hair—as well as less variation in gland types (38)—across the bodies of nonhuman primates has a homogenizing effect on microbial communities (see Fig. S4 online at https://figshare.com/articles/figure/Hair_microbiome_diversity_within_and_across_primate_species/19860025).

Our results provide not only insight into primate variation but also a comparative context for understanding human evolution and uniqueness. The evolution of reduced body hair and the increase in eccrine gland density in the human lineage (38) has likely played a major role in differentiating the human skin and hair microbiome from that of other primates. This information in turn illustrates how an evolutionary change in one trait (distribution of body hair) can have an substantial impact on other key biological differences (microbiome diversity).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample collection and DNA extraction.

Hair samples from captive primates housed at three U.S. institutions (Duke Lemur Center [Duke], Ft. Wayne Children’s Zoo [FW], and Gladys Porter Zoo [GPZ]) were plucked by institution staff between 2006 and 2011. Most hairs were associated with their roots based on visual inspection, although we did not explicitly quantify this trait. The length of the hair shaft immersed in each collection tube was around or under 3 cm. All samples were collected with IACUC approval from Yale University (number 2010-11410) and the respective institutions where the primates were housed. We do not have information about the specific conditions under which the primates were housed (e.g., social group composition, diet, hormone cycling data, and bathing information), although we did request institution staff take samples only from healthy, adult individuals.

Our data set included a total of 158 hair samples representing primate species from each major clade (Catarrhini, Platyrrhini, and Strepsirhini). We obtained hair samples from up to 8 body sites (arm, back, belly, cheek, crown, thigh, proximal tail, and distal tail) from 21 individuals representing 12 genera/species (members of the same genus are of the same species) (see Table S1 in the supplemental material). Hair samples were stored in RNAlater at −80°C until DNA extraction. Our sampling included hair from one male and one female for all genera except for Allenopithecus nigroviridis, Lemur catta, Mirza coquereli, Trachypithecus obscurus (female-only), and Cercopithecus neglectus (male-only).

TABLE S1

Table of information about the sex, species, body site, clade, age, and institution of each individual in the study, as well as the date each individual was sampled. (n = 159, one sample excluded from final analysis). Download Table S1, PDF file, 0.1 MB^{(67.5KB, pdf)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

In preparation for DNA extraction, we cut hairs protruding from collection tubes with scissors cleaned with DNA Away (Thermofisher) and 70% ethanol as outlined in Tridico et al. (12) to prevent contamination. We extracted DNA using the Invitrogen PureLink microbiome DNA purification kit according to the manufacturer’s protocol with the following modifications: (i) hair samples were moved between collection tubes via tweezers sterilized with DNA Away and 70% ethanol between each relocation, (ii) samples were incubated at 95°C for 10 min, (iii) samples in bead beater tubes were vortexed for 7 min both horizontally and vertically for a total of 14 min, and (iv) we set our centrifuge to its maximum speed of 12,100 × g rather than 14,000 × g that was recommended. The protocol modifications resulted from our prior experiments using different extraction kits and modifications to maximize DNA yield from hair samples. We quantified extracted DNA using a Qubit 3.0 fluorometer.

Library preparation and sequencing.

We performed PCR amplification in triplicate using 515F-806R primers to amplify the V4 hypervariable region of the 16S rRNA gene (54). PCR cleanup was conducted using the Qiagen QIAquick PCR purification kit. Library preparation was completed according to the protocol specified in the Earth Microbiome Project and was sequenced in one run on the Illumina MiSeq platform with V3 chemistry and 201-bp read lengths (54 –56) at the UMass Genomics Resource Laboratory. We generated a total of 49,245,096 raw reads with 93.39% of the reads associated with a Q value of >30. We specified a read depth of 20,000 reads and only included samples with at least 20,000 reads in downstream analyses, resulting in the exclusion of 1 hair sample (and 3 negatives). The average number of reads for our remaining 158 samples was 104,031, ranging from 25,635 to 219,861 reads.

FastQ files were imported into the QIIME2 pipeline for bioinformatic analyses (57). We used the DADA2 (58) plugin to identify amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) and to correct and/or remove sequencing errors, chimeric sequences, and chloroplast- and mitochondrion-associated ASVs. We used the naive Bayesian classifier method trained on SILVA (release 132) (59) reference sequences clustered at 99% similarity for taxonomic assignment of the ASVs.

Alpha and beta diversity metrics.

We assessed alpha diversity using several metrics (Table 1 and 2) (60 –63). We reported the relative abundances of microbial taxa at the phylum and genus level (Fig. 1 and Fig. S1). We used a series of Kruskal-Wallis tests with post hoc pairwise comparisons to examine differences in alpha diversity across body sites, institutions, sexes, and species (64). Post hoc test P values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate (FDR) (65). We quantified beta diversity using weighted and unweighted UniFrac distances (66) and the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity index (67) and then visualized them via principal-coordinate analysis (PCoA). We used the UniFrac distances in PERMANOVA tests (68) to examine differences in microbiome composition among body sites, institutions, sexes, and species. We used 999 permutations for all PERMANOVAs. In addition, we used the PCoA scores of the first two axes as dependent variables in linear models. All alpha and beta diversity analyses were performed in QIIME2 (57). All figures were made in R (4.0.3) (69) and R Studio version 1.3.1073 (70) with the ggplot2 (71), tidyverse (72), ggh4x (73), qiime2R (74), and pals (75) packages, except for Fig. S3, which was produced in QIIME2.

Linear models.

Kruskal-Wallis and PERMANOVA analyses are employed commonly in microbiome analyses. However, they do not account for the potential covariation among predictor variables. Therefore, we used linear models (LMs) to examine alpha and beta diversity metrics. These models have been applied commonly to community ecology data (76, 77), including those focused on mammalian microbiome diversity (78). We conducted these analyses in R (4.0.3) (69) and R Studio version 1.3.1073 (70) using the lm function. We included four predictor variables: species identity, sex, body site, and institution. We examined the standardized residuals and Cook’s distances in the full models to detect overly influential data points and check the model’s assumptions. We used corrected Akaike’s information criterion (AICc) to determine which combination of predictors best explained our dependent variables (79). The model with the lowest AICc value was considered the best, while models within 2 AICc values of the best model were considered equally good (79). We used the sum of AICc weights to determine which predictors best explained our data. Higher values indicate a better ability to predict the dependent variable (79). When examining beta diversity, we used PCoA scores from axis 1 and 2 as dependent variables. We conducted post hoc comparisons of alpha diversity and beta diversity metrics for the species identity and body site predictor variables. We did these comparisons by switching the reference category (set as the intercept) to obtain P values for pairwise differences between species and body sites. Then, we used the Benjamini-Hochberg FDR method to adjust P values for multiple comparisons (65). We used the MuMIn (80), lme4 (81), and lmerTest (82) packages to calculate AICc values and sum of AICc weights.

We considered using phylogenetic models to analyze our data since multiple species are represented (83). However, given that a main goal of our study was to identify if there are species-level differences in microbiome diversity, using a phylogenetic model would not be helpful since variation due to interspecific differences would be accounted for by the model itself, resulting in a reduced ability to detect species-level effects. In addition, we considered using a linear mixed model with Individual identity (ID) set as the random effect because we obtained multiple samples from each individual. However, our data set includes samples from species represented by a single individual or one male and one female. Therefore, the inclusion of sex and species in our linear models nearly perfectly accounts for individual ID.

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments

reviewer-comments.pdf^{(608.8KB, pdf)}

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Gladys Porter Zoo, the Duke Lemur Center (Erin Ehmke and Sarah Zehr), and the Ft. Wayne Children’s Zoo (Jennifer Diehl and Joe Smith) for providing hair samples. Sara Gutierrez assisted with data entry and management.

Funding for this study was provided generously by the Leakey Foundation, The National Science Foundation (BCS-1355021 and BCS-1606360), UMass Amherst, and The George Washington University.

This work was completed in part with resources provided by the University of Massachusetts Green High Performance Computing Cluster (GHPCC).

We greatly appreciate helpful comments from Associate Editor Sarah Hird and two anonymous reviewers on earlier versions of the manuscript.

Contributor Information

Catherine Kitrinos, Email: ckitrinos@umass.edu.

Jason M. Kamilar, Email: jkamilar@umass.edu.

Sarah M. Hird, University of Connecticut

REFERENCES

1.Ursell LK, Metcalf JL, Parfrey LW, Knight R. 2012. Defining the human microbiome. Nutrition Rev 70:S38–S44. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00493.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Clayton JB, Gomez A, Amato K, Knights D, Travis DA, Blekhman R, Knight R, Leigh S, Stumpf R, Wolf T, Glander KE, Cabana F, Johnson TJ. 2018. The gut microbiome of nonhuman primates: lessons in ecology and evolution. Am J Primatol 80:e22867. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3.Sonnenburg JL, Bäckhed F. 2016. Diet–microbiota interactions as moderators of human metabolism. Nature 535:56–64. doi: 10.1038/nature18846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4.Moeller AH, Foerster S, Wilson ML, Pusey AE, Hahn BH, Ochman H. 2016. Social behavior shapes the chimpanzee pan-microbiome. Sci Adv 2:e1500997. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5.Nakatsuji T, Chen TH, Narala S, Chun KA, Two AM, Yun T, Shafiq F, Kotol PF, Bouslimani A, Melnik AV, Latif H, Kim J-N, Lockhart A, Artis K, David G, Taylor P, Streib J, Dorrestein PC, Grier A, Gill SR, Zengler K, Hata TR, Leung DYM, Gallo RL. 2017. Antimicrobials from human skin commensal bacteria protect against Staphylococcus aureus and are deficient in atopic dermatitis. Sci Transl Med 9:eaah4680. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aah4680. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Amato KR, Yeoman CJ, Kent A, Righini N, Carbonero F, Estrada A, Rex Gaskins H, Stumpf RM, Yildirim S, Torralba M, Gillis M, Wilson BA, Nelson KE, White BA, Leigh SR. 2013. Habitat degradation impacts black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) gastrointestinal microbiomes. ISME J 7:1344–1353. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7.Clayton JB, Vangay P, Huang H, Ward T, Hillmann BM, Al-Ghalith GA, Travis DA, Long HT, Tuan BV, Minh VV, Cabana F, Nadler T, Toddes B, Murphy T, Glander KE, Johnson TJ, Knights D. 2016. Captivity humanizes the primate microbiome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:10376–10381. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1521835113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Nagpal R, Shively CA, Appt SA, Register TC, Michalson KT, Vitolins MZ, Yadav H. 2018. Gut microbiome composition in non-human primates consuming a Western or Mediterranean diet. Front Nutr 5:28. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Kuthyar S, Manus MB, Amato KR. 2019. Leveraging non-human primates for exploring the social transmission of microbes. Curr Opin Microbiol 50:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2019.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Dominguez-Bello MG, Costello EK, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Fierer N, Knight R. 2010. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:11971–11975. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002601107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Wampach L, Heintz-Buschart A, Fritz JV, Ramiro-Garcia J, Habier J, Herold M, Narayanasamy S, Kaysen A, Hogan AH, Bindl L, Bottu J, Halder R, Sjöqvist C, May P, Andersson AF, de Beaufort C, Wilmes P. 2018. Birth mode is associated with earliest strain-conferred gut microbiome functions and immunostimulatory potential. Nat Commun 9:5091. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07631-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12.Tridico SR, Murray DC, Addison J, Kirkbride KP, Bunce M. 2014. Metagenomic analyses of bacteria on human hairs: a qualitative assessment for applications in forensic science. Invest Genet 5:16. doi: 10.1186/s13323-014-0016-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Goodrich JK, Waters JL, Poole AC, Sutter JL, Koren O, Blekhman R, Beaumont M, Van Treuren W, Knight R, Bell JT, Spector TD, Clark AG, Ley RE. 2014. Human genetics shape the gut microbiome. Cell 159:789–799. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Amato KR, Sanders J, Song SJ, Nute M, Metcalf JL, Thompson LR, Morton JT, Amir A, McKenzie VJ, Humphrey G, Gogul G, Gaffney J, Baden AL, Britton GAO, Cuozzo FP, Di Fiore A, Dominy NJ, Goldberg TL, Gomez A, Kowalewski MM, Lewis RJ, Link A, Sauther ML, Tecot S, White BA, Nelson KE, Stumpf RM, Knight R, Leigh S. 2019. Evolutionary trends in host physiology outweigh dietary niche in structuring primate gut microbiomes. ISME J 13:576–587. doi: 10.1038/s41396-018-0175-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Ochman H, Worobey M, Kuo C-H, Ndjango J-BN, Peeters M, Hahn BH, Hugenholtz P. 2010. Evolutionary relationships of wild hominids recapitulated by gut microbial communities. PLoS Biol 8:e1000546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Song SJ, Sanders JG, Delsuc F, Metcalf J, Amato K, Taylor MW, Mazel F, Lutz HL, Winker K, Graves GR, Humphrey G, Gilbert JA, Hackett SJ, White KP, Skeen HR, Kurtis SM, Withrow J, Braile T, Miller M, McCracken KG, Maley JM, Ezenwa VO, Williams A, Blanton JM, McKenzie VJ, Knight R. 2020. Comparative analyses of vertebrate gut microbiomes reveal convergence between birds and bats. mBio 11:e02901-19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02901-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Ross AA, Müller KM, Weese JS, Neufeld JD. 2018. Comprehensive skin microbiome analysis reveals the uniqueness of human skin and evidence for phylosymbiosis within the class Mammalia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:E5786–E5795. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1801302115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Council SE, Savage AM, Urban JM, Ehlers ME, Skene JHP, Platt ML, Dunn RR, Horvath JE. 2016. Diversity and evolution of the primate skin microbiome. Proc R Soc B 283:20152586. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.2586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Greene LK, Bornbusch SL, McKenney EA, Harris RL, Gorvetzian SR, Yoder AD, Drea CM. 2019. The importance of scale in comparative microbiome research: new insights from the gut and glands of captive and wild lemurs. Am J Primatol 81:e22974. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Bradley BJ, Mundy NI. 2008. The primate palette: the evolution of primate coloration. Evol Anthropol 17:97–111. doi: 10.1002/evan.20164. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Kamilar JM, Bradley BJ. 2011. Interspecific variation in primate coat colour supports Gloger’s rule: primate coloration supports Gloger’s rule. J Biogeogr 38:2270–2277. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02587.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
22.Akinyi MY, Tung J, Jeneby M, Patel NB, Altmann J, Alberts SC. 2013. Role of grooming in reducing tick load in wild baboons (Papio cynocephalus). Anim Behav 85:559–568. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Tanaka I, Takefushi H. 1993. Elimination of external parasites (lice) is the primary function of grooming in free-ranging Japanese macaques. Anthropol Sci 101:187–193. doi: 10.1537/ase.101.187. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
24.Troyo A, Solano ME, Calderón Arguedas Ó, Chinchilla M, Sánchez R, Gutiérrez Espeleta GA. 2009. Prevalence of fur mites (Acari: Atopomelidae) in non-human primates of Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop 57:353–360. doi: 10.15517/rbt.v57i1-2.11326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Brain C, Bohrmann R. 1992. Tick infestation of baboons (Papio Ursinus) in the Namib Desert. J Wildl Dis 28:188–191. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-28.2.188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
26.Higginbotham S, Wong WR, Linington RG, Spadafora C, Iturrado L, Arnold AE. 2014. Sloth hair as a novel source of fungi with potent anti-parasitic, anti-cancer and anti-bacterial bioactivity. PLoS One 9:e84549. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
27.Abt MC, Osborne LC, Monticelli LA, Doering TA, Alenghat T, Sonnenberg GF, Paley MA, Antenus M, Williams KL, Erikson J, Wherry EJ, Artis D. 2012. Commensal bacteria calibrate the activation threshold of innate antiviral immunity. Immunity 37:158–170. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.04.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Lathrop SK, Bloom SM, Rao SM, Nutsch K, Lio C-W, Santacruz N, Peterson DA, Stappenbeck TS, Hsieh C-S. 2011. Peripheral education of the immune system by colonic commensal microbiota. Nature 478:250–254. doi: 10.1038/nature10434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Grice EA, Segre JA. 2011. The skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:244–253. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
30.Brinkac L, Clarke TH, Singh H, Greco C, Gomez A, Torralba MG, Frank B, Nelson KE. 2018. Spatial and environmental variation of the human hair microbiota. Sci Rep 8:9017. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27100-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
31.Oh J, Byrd AL, Deming C, Conlan S, Kong HH, Segre JA, NISC Comparative Sequencing Program . 2014. Biogeography and individuality shape function in the human skin metagenome. Nature 514:59–64. doi: 10.1038/nature13786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Kolodny O, Weinberg M, Reshef L, Harten L, Hefetz A, Gophna U, Feldman MW, Yovel Y. 2019. Coordinated change at the colony level in fruit bat fur microbiomes through time. Nat Ecol Evol 3:116–124. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0731-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Fierer N, Hamady M, Lauber CL, Knight R. 2008. The influence of sex, handedness, and washing on the diversity of hand surface bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:17994–17999. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807920105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Two AM, Nakatsuji T, Kotol PF, Arvanitidou E, Du-Thumm L, Hata TR, Gallo RL. 2016. The cutaneous microbiome and aspects of skin antimicrobial defense system resist acute treatment with topical skin cleansers. J Invest Dermatol 136:1950–1954. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.06.612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
35.Voigt CC, Caspers B, Speck S. 2005. Bats, bacteria, and bat smell: sex-specific diversity of microbes in a sexually selected scent organ. J Mammalogy 86:745–749. doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2005)086[0745:BBABSS]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
36.Rojas CA, Holekamp KE, Winters AD, Theis KR. 2020. Body site-specific microbiota reflect sex and age-class among wild spotted hyenas. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 96:fiaa007. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Byrd AL, Belkaid Y, Segre JA. 2018. The human skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 16:143–155. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Best A, Kamilar JM. 2018. The evolution of eccrine sweat glands in human and nonhuman primates. J Hum Evol 117:33–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Tett A, Pasolli E, Masetti G, Ercolini D, Segata N. 2021. Prevotella diversity, niches and interactions with the human host. Nat Rev Microbiol 19:585–599. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00559-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Xu B, Xu W, Yang F, Li J, Yang Y, Tang X, Mu Y, Zhou J, Huang Z. 2013. Metagenomic analysis of the pygmy loris fecal microbiome reveals unique functional capacity related to metabolism of aromatic compounds. PLoS One 8:e56565. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Xu B, Xu W, Li J, Dai L, Xiong C, Tang X, Yang Y, Mu Y, Zhou J, Ding J, Wu Q, Huang Z. 2015. Metagenomic analysis of the Rhinopithecus bieti fecal microbiome reveals a broad diversity of bacterial and glycoside hydrolase profiles related to lignocellulose degradation. BMC Genomics 16:174. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1378-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Uenishi G, Fujita S, Ohashi G, Kato A, Yamauchi S, Matsuzawa T, Ushida K. 2007. Molecular analyses of the intestinal microbiota of chimpanzees in the wild and in captivity. Am J Primatol 69:367–376. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Amato KR, Metcalf JL, Song SJ, Hale VL, Clayton J, Ackermann G, Humphrey G, Niu K, Cui D, Zhao H, Schrenzel MD, Tan CL, Knight R, Braun J. 2016. Using the gut microbiota as a novel tool for examining colobine primate GI health. Glob Ecol Conserv 7:225–237. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2016.06.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
44.Lee S-Y, Lee E, Park YM, Hong S-J. 2018. Microbiome in the gut-skin axis in atopic dermatitis. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 10:354–362. doi: 10.4168/aair.2018.10.4.354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Salem I, Ramser A, Isham N, Ghannoum MA. 2018. The gut microbiome as a major regulator of the gut-skin axis. Front Microbiol 9:1459. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Manara S, Asnicar F, Beghini F, Bazzani D, Cumbo F, Zolfo M, Nigro E, Karcher N, Manghi P, Metzger MI, Pasolli E, Segata N. 2019. Microbial genomes from non-human primate gut metagenomes expand the primate-associated bacterial tree of life with over 1000 novel species. Genome Biol 20:299. doi: 10.1186/s13059-019-1923-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.delBarco-Trillo J, Sacha CR, Dubay GR, Drea CM. 2012. Eulemur, me lemur: the evolution of scent-signal complexity in a primate clade. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:1909–1922. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Mallott EK, Borries C, Koenig A, Amato KR, Lu A. 2020. Reproductive hormones mediate changes in the gut microbiome during pregnancy and lactation in Phayre’s leaf monkeys. Sci Rep 10:9961. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66865-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Amato KR, Van Belle S, Di Fiore A, Estrada A, Stumpf R, White B, Nelson KE, Knight R, Leigh SR. 2017. Patterns in gut microbiota similarity associated with degree of sociality among sex classes of a neotropical primate. Microb Ecol 74:250–258. doi: 10.1007/s00248-017-0938-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Zhu L, Clayton JB, Suhr Van Haute MJ, Yang Q, Hassenstab HR, Mustoe AC, Knights D, Benson AK, French JA. 2020. Sex bias in gut microbiome transmission in newly paired marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). mSystems 5:e00910-19. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00910-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
51.Stumpf RM, Wilson BA, Rivera A, Yildirim S, Yeoman CJ, Polk JD, White BA, Leigh SR. 2013. The primate vaginal microbiome: comparative context and implications for human health and disease. Am J Phys Anthropol 152:119–134. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Santoyo G, Hernández-Pacheco C, Hernández-Salmerón J, Hernández-León R. 2017. The role of abiotic factors modulating the plant-microbe-soil interactions: toward sustainable agriculture. A review. Span J Agric Res 15:e03R01. doi: 10.5424/sjar/2017151-9990. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
53.Lewis RJ. 2010. Grooming patterns in Verreaux’s sifaka. Am J Primatol 72:254–261. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, Fierer N, Knight R. 2011. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:4516–4522. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000080107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Gilbert JA, Jansson JK, Knight R. 2014. The Earth Microbiome project: successes and aspirations. BMC Biol 12:69. doi: 10.1186/s12915-014-0069-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Thompson LR, Sanders JG, McDonald D, Amir A, Ladau J, Locey KJ, Prill RJ, Tripathi A, Gibbons SM, Ackermann G, Navas-Molina JA, Janssen S, Kopylova E, Vázquez-Baeza Y, González A, Morton JT, Mirarab S, Zech Xu Z, Jiang L, Haroon MF, Kanbar J, Zhu Q, Jin Song S, Kosciolek T, Bokulich NA, Lefler J, Brislawn CJ, Humphrey G, Owens SM, Hampton-Marcell J, Berg-Lyons D, McKenzie V, Fierer N, Fuhrman JA, Clauset A, Stevens RL, Shade A, Pollard KS, Goodwin KD, Jansson JK, Gilbert JA, Knight R, The Earth Microbiome Project Consortium . 2017. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551:457–463. doi: 10.1038/nature24621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, Alexander H, Alm EJ, Arumugam M, Asnicar F, Bai Y, Bisanz JE, Bittinger K, Brejnrod A, Brislawn CJ, Brown CT, Callahan BJ, Caraballo-Rodríguez AM, Chase J, Cope EK, Da Silva R, Diener C, Dorrestein PC, Douglas GM, Durall DM, Duvallet C, Edwardson CF, Ernst M, Estaki M, Fouquier J, Gauglitz JM, Gibbons SM, Gibson DL, Gonzalez A, Gorlick K, Guo J, Hillmann B, Holmes S, Holste H, Huttenhower C, Huttley GA, Janssen S, Jarmusch AK, Jiang L, Kaehler BD, Kang KB, Keefe CR, Keim P, Kelley ST, Knights D, et al. 2019. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol 37:852–857. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. 2016. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods 13:581–583. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
59.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. 2013. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and Web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D590–D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
60.Chao A. 1984. Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian J Statistics 11:265–270. [Google Scholar]
61.Pielou EC. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theoretical Biology 13:131–144. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
62.Faith DP. 1992. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61:1–10. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
63.Shannon CE. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
64.Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
65.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 57:289–300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
66.Lozupone C, Knight R. 2005. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8228–8235. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8228-8235.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Bray JR, Curtis JT. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349. doi: 10.2307/1942268. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
68.Anderson MJ. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26:32–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
69.R Core Team. 2021. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]
70.RStudio Team. 2020. RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/. [Google Scholar]
71.Wickham H. 2016. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, New York, NY. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. [Google Scholar]
72.Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, Grolemund G, Hayes A, Henry L, Hester J, Kuhn M, Pedersen T, Miller E, Bache S, Müller K, Ooms J, Robinson D, Seidel D, Spinu V, Takahashi K, Vaughan D, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H. 2019. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw 4:1686. doi: 10.21105/joss.01686. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
73.van den Brand T. 2021. ggh4x: Hacks for “ggplot2” (R package version 0.2.1.). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggh4x.
74.Bisanz JE. 2018. qiime2R: importing QIIME2 artifacts and associated data into R sessions (v0.99). https://github.com/jbisanz/qiime2R.
75.Wright K. 2021. pals: color palettes, colormaps, and tools to evaluate them (R package version 1.7.). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pals.
76.Rowan J, Beaudrot L, Franklin J, Reed KE, Smail IE, Zamora A, Kamilar JM. 2020. Geographically divergent evolutionary and ecological legacies shape mammal biodiversity in the global tropics and subtropics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:1559–1565. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1910489116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Kamilar JM, Beaudrot L. 2021. Quantitative methods for primate biogeography and macroecology. In Spatial Analysis in Field Primatology: Applying GIS at Varying Scales. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]
78.Sweeny AR, Lemon H, Ibrahim A, Nussey DH, Free A, McNally L. 2021. A mixed model approach for estimating drivers of microbiota community composition and differential taxonomic abundance. bioRxiv. 10.1101/2020.11.24.395715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
79.Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd ed. Springer, New York, NY. [Google Scholar]
80.Bartoń K. 2022. MuMIn: multi-modal inference. Model selection and model averaging based on information criteria (AICc and alike) (R package version 1.46.0.). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.
81.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft 67:1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
82.Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. 2017. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Soft 82:1–26. doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
83.Kamilar JM, Cooper N. 2013. Phylogenetic signal in primate behaviour, ecology and life history. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368:20120341. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Supplementary Materials

FIG S1

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S2

Genus-level (level 6) microbial taxa with a relative abundance of >0.5% in order from most abundant to least abundant. Download Table S2, PDF file, 0.1 MB^{(61.2KB, pdf)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S3

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S4

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S5

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S6

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S7

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

FIG S2

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

FIG S3

Box plot of Chao1 diversity (A), Shannon diversity (B), and Faith’s phylogenetic diversity (C) organized by body site. Download FIG S3, JPG file, 0.9 MB^{(923.7KB, jpg)}.

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

TABLE S1

This content is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.

Reviewer comments

reviewer-comments.pdf^{(608.8KB, pdf)}

[B1] 1.Ursell LK, Metcalf JL, Parfrey LW, Knight R. 2012. Defining the human microbiome. Nutrition Rev 70:S38–S44. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2012.00493.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B2] 2.Clayton JB, Gomez A, Amato K, Knights D, Travis DA, Blekhman R, Knight R, Leigh S, Stumpf R, Wolf T, Glander KE, Cabana F, Johnson TJ. 2018. The gut microbiome of nonhuman primates: lessons in ecology and evolution. Am J Primatol 80:e22867. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22867. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B3] 3.Sonnenburg JL, Bäckhed F. 2016. Diet–microbiota interactions as moderators of human metabolism. Nature 535:56–64. doi: 10.1038/nature18846. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B4] 4.Moeller AH, Foerster S, Wilson ML, Pusey AE, Hahn BH, Ochman H. 2016. Social behavior shapes the chimpanzee pan-microbiome. Sci Adv 2:e1500997. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1500997. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B5] 5.Nakatsuji T, Chen TH, Narala S, Chun KA, Two AM, Yun T, Shafiq F, Kotol PF, Bouslimani A, Melnik AV, Latif H, Kim J-N, Lockhart A, Artis K, David G, Taylor P, Streib J, Dorrestein PC, Grier A, Gill SR, Zengler K, Hata TR, Leung DYM, Gallo RL. 2017. Antimicrobials from human skin commensal bacteria protect against Staphylococcus aureus and are deficient in atopic dermatitis. Sci Transl Med 9:eaah4680. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aah4680. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B6] 6.Amato KR, Yeoman CJ, Kent A, Righini N, Carbonero F, Estrada A, Rex Gaskins H, Stumpf RM, Yildirim S, Torralba M, Gillis M, Wilson BA, Nelson KE, White BA, Leigh SR. 2013. Habitat degradation impacts black howler monkey (Alouatta pigra) gastrointestinal microbiomes. ISME J 7:1344–1353. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2013.16. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B7] 7.Clayton JB, Vangay P, Huang H, Ward T, Hillmann BM, Al-Ghalith GA, Travis DA, Long HT, Tuan BV, Minh VV, Cabana F, Nadler T, Toddes B, Murphy T, Glander KE, Johnson TJ, Knights D. 2016. Captivity humanizes the primate microbiome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:10376–10381. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1521835113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B8] 8.Nagpal R, Shively CA, Appt SA, Register TC, Michalson KT, Vitolins MZ, Yadav H. 2018. Gut microbiome composition in non-human primates consuming a Western or Mediterranean diet. Front Nutr 5:28. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2018.00028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B9] 9.Kuthyar S, Manus MB, Amato KR. 2019. Leveraging non-human primates for exploring the social transmission of microbes. Curr Opin Microbiol 50:8–14. doi: 10.1016/j.mib.2019.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B10] 10.Dominguez-Bello MG, Costello EK, Contreras M, Magris M, Hidalgo G, Fierer N, Knight R. 2010. Delivery mode shapes the acquisition and structure of the initial microbiota across multiple body habitats in newborns. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:11971–11975. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1002601107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B11] 11.Wampach L, Heintz-Buschart A, Fritz JV, Ramiro-Garcia J, Habier J, Herold M, Narayanasamy S, Kaysen A, Hogan AH, Bindl L, Bottu J, Halder R, Sjöqvist C, May P, Andersson AF, de Beaufort C, Wilmes P. 2018. Birth mode is associated with earliest strain-conferred gut microbiome functions and immunostimulatory potential. Nat Commun 9:5091. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-07631-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B12] 12.Tridico SR, Murray DC, Addison J, Kirkbride KP, Bunce M. 2014. Metagenomic analyses of bacteria on human hairs: a qualitative assessment for applications in forensic science. Invest Genet 5:16. doi: 10.1186/s13323-014-0016-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B13] 13.Goodrich JK, Waters JL, Poole AC, Sutter JL, Koren O, Blekhman R, Beaumont M, Van Treuren W, Knight R, Bell JT, Spector TD, Clark AG, Ley RE. 2014. Human genetics shape the gut microbiome. Cell 159:789–799. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B14] 14.Amato KR, Sanders J, Song SJ, Nute M, Metcalf JL, Thompson LR, Morton JT, Amir A, McKenzie VJ, Humphrey G, Gogul G, Gaffney J, Baden AL, Britton GAO, Cuozzo FP, Di Fiore A, Dominy NJ, Goldberg TL, Gomez A, Kowalewski MM, Lewis RJ, Link A, Sauther ML, Tecot S, White BA, Nelson KE, Stumpf RM, Knight R, Leigh S. 2019. Evolutionary trends in host physiology outweigh dietary niche in structuring primate gut microbiomes. ISME J 13:576–587. doi: 10.1038/s41396-018-0175-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B15] 15.Ochman H, Worobey M, Kuo C-H, Ndjango J-BN, Peeters M, Hahn BH, Hugenholtz P. 2010. Evolutionary relationships of wild hominids recapitulated by gut microbial communities. PLoS Biol 8:e1000546. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000546. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B16] 16.Song SJ, Sanders JG, Delsuc F, Metcalf J, Amato K, Taylor MW, Mazel F, Lutz HL, Winker K, Graves GR, Humphrey G, Gilbert JA, Hackett SJ, White KP, Skeen HR, Kurtis SM, Withrow J, Braile T, Miller M, McCracken KG, Maley JM, Ezenwa VO, Williams A, Blanton JM, McKenzie VJ, Knight R. 2020. Comparative analyses of vertebrate gut microbiomes reveal convergence between birds and bats. mBio 11:e02901-19. doi: 10.1128/mBio.02901-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B17] 17.Ross AA, Müller KM, Weese JS, Neufeld JD. 2018. Comprehensive skin microbiome analysis reveals the uniqueness of human skin and evidence for phylosymbiosis within the class Mammalia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 115:E5786–E5795. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1801302115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B18] 18.Council SE, Savage AM, Urban JM, Ehlers ME, Skene JHP, Platt ML, Dunn RR, Horvath JE. 2016. Diversity and evolution of the primate skin microbiome. Proc R Soc B 283:20152586. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2015.2586. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B19] 19.Greene LK, Bornbusch SL, McKenney EA, Harris RL, Gorvetzian SR, Yoder AD, Drea CM. 2019. The importance of scale in comparative microbiome research: new insights from the gut and glands of captive and wild lemurs. Am J Primatol 81:e22974. doi: 10.1002/ajp.22974. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B20] 20.Bradley BJ, Mundy NI. 2008. The primate palette: the evolution of primate coloration. Evol Anthropol 17:97–111. doi: 10.1002/evan.20164. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B21] 21.Kamilar JM, Bradley BJ. 2011. Interspecific variation in primate coat colour supports Gloger’s rule: primate coloration supports Gloger’s rule. J Biogeogr 38:2270–2277. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02587.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B22] 22.Akinyi MY, Tung J, Jeneby M, Patel NB, Altmann J, Alberts SC. 2013. Role of grooming in reducing tick load in wild baboons (Papio cynocephalus). Anim Behav 85:559–568. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B23] 23.Tanaka I, Takefushi H. 1993. Elimination of external parasites (lice) is the primary function of grooming in free-ranging Japanese macaques. Anthropol Sci 101:187–193. doi: 10.1537/ase.101.187. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B24] 24.Troyo A, Solano ME, Calderón Arguedas Ó, Chinchilla M, Sánchez R, Gutiérrez Espeleta GA. 2009. Prevalence of fur mites (Acari: Atopomelidae) in non-human primates of Costa Rica. Rev Biol Trop 57:353–360. doi: 10.15517/rbt.v57i1-2.11326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B25] 25.Brain C, Bohrmann R. 1992. Tick infestation of baboons (Papio Ursinus) in the Namib Desert. J Wildl Dis 28:188–191. doi: 10.7589/0090-3558-28.2.188. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B26] 26.Higginbotham S, Wong WR, Linington RG, Spadafora C, Iturrado L, Arnold AE. 2014. Sloth hair as a novel source of fungi with potent anti-parasitic, anti-cancer and anti-bacterial bioactivity. PLoS One 9:e84549. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B27] 27.Abt MC, Osborne LC, Monticelli LA, Doering TA, Alenghat T, Sonnenberg GF, Paley MA, Antenus M, Williams KL, Erikson J, Wherry EJ, Artis D. 2012. Commensal bacteria calibrate the activation threshold of innate antiviral immunity. Immunity 37:158–170. doi: 10.1016/j.immuni.2012.04.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B28] 28.Lathrop SK, Bloom SM, Rao SM, Nutsch K, Lio C-W, Santacruz N, Peterson DA, Stappenbeck TS, Hsieh C-S. 2011. Peripheral education of the immune system by colonic commensal microbiota. Nature 478:250–254. doi: 10.1038/nature10434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B29] 29.Grice EA, Segre JA. 2011. The skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 9:244–253. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro2537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B30] 30.Brinkac L, Clarke TH, Singh H, Greco C, Gomez A, Torralba MG, Frank B, Nelson KE. 2018. Spatial and environmental variation of the human hair microbiota. Sci Rep 8:9017. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-27100-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B31] 31.Oh J, Byrd AL, Deming C, Conlan S, Kong HH, Segre JA, NISC Comparative Sequencing Program . 2014. Biogeography and individuality shape function in the human skin metagenome. Nature 514:59–64. doi: 10.1038/nature13786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B32] 32.Kolodny O, Weinberg M, Reshef L, Harten L, Hefetz A, Gophna U, Feldman MW, Yovel Y. 2019. Coordinated change at the colony level in fruit bat fur microbiomes through time. Nat Ecol Evol 3:116–124. doi: 10.1038/s41559-018-0731-z. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B33] 33.Fierer N, Hamady M, Lauber CL, Knight R. 2008. The influence of sex, handedness, and washing on the diversity of hand surface bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 105:17994–17999. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0807920105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B34] 34.Two AM, Nakatsuji T, Kotol PF, Arvanitidou E, Du-Thumm L, Hata TR, Gallo RL. 2016. The cutaneous microbiome and aspects of skin antimicrobial defense system resist acute treatment with topical skin cleansers. J Invest Dermatol 136:1950–1954. doi: 10.1016/j.jid.2016.06.612. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B35] 35.Voigt CC, Caspers B, Speck S. 2005. Bats, bacteria, and bat smell: sex-specific diversity of microbes in a sexually selected scent organ. J Mammalogy 86:745–749. doi: 10.1644/1545-1542(2005)086[0745:BBABSS]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B36] 36.Rojas CA, Holekamp KE, Winters AD, Theis KR. 2020. Body site-specific microbiota reflect sex and age-class among wild spotted hyenas. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 96:fiaa007. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiaa007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B37] 37.Byrd AL, Belkaid Y, Segre JA. 2018. The human skin microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol 16:143–155. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro.2017.157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B38] 38.Best A, Kamilar JM. 2018. The evolution of eccrine sweat glands in human and nonhuman primates. J Hum Evol 117:33–43. doi: 10.1016/j.jhevol.2017.12.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B39] 39.Tett A, Pasolli E, Masetti G, Ercolini D, Segata N. 2021. Prevotella diversity, niches and interactions with the human host. Nat Rev Microbiol 19:585–599. doi: 10.1038/s41579-021-00559-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B40] 40.Xu B, Xu W, Yang F, Li J, Yang Y, Tang X, Mu Y, Zhou J, Huang Z. 2013. Metagenomic analysis of the pygmy loris fecal microbiome reveals unique functional capacity related to metabolism of aromatic compounds. PLoS One 8:e56565. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0056565. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B41] 41.Xu B, Xu W, Li J, Dai L, Xiong C, Tang X, Yang Y, Mu Y, Zhou J, Ding J, Wu Q, Huang Z. 2015. Metagenomic analysis of the Rhinopithecus bieti fecal microbiome reveals a broad diversity of bacterial and glycoside hydrolase profiles related to lignocellulose degradation. BMC Genomics 16:174. doi: 10.1186/s12864-015-1378-7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B42] 42.Uenishi G, Fujita S, Ohashi G, Kato A, Yamauchi S, Matsuzawa T, Ushida K. 2007. Molecular analyses of the intestinal microbiota of chimpanzees in the wild and in captivity. Am J Primatol 69:367–376. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20351. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B43] 43.Amato KR, Metcalf JL, Song SJ, Hale VL, Clayton J, Ackermann G, Humphrey G, Niu K, Cui D, Zhao H, Schrenzel MD, Tan CL, Knight R, Braun J. 2016. Using the gut microbiota as a novel tool for examining colobine primate GI health. Glob Ecol Conserv 7:225–237. doi: 10.1016/j.gecco.2016.06.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B44] 44.Lee S-Y, Lee E, Park YM, Hong S-J. 2018. Microbiome in the gut-skin axis in atopic dermatitis. Allergy Asthma Immunol Res 10:354–362. doi: 10.4168/aair.2018.10.4.354. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B45] 45.Salem I, Ramser A, Isham N, Ghannoum MA. 2018. The gut microbiome as a major regulator of the gut-skin axis. Front Microbiol 9:1459. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.01459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B46] 46.Manara S, Asnicar F, Beghini F, Bazzani D, Cumbo F, Zolfo M, Nigro E, Karcher N, Manghi P, Metzger MI, Pasolli E, Segata N. 2019. Microbial genomes from non-human primate gut metagenomes expand the primate-associated bacterial tree of life with over 1000 novel species. Genome Biol 20:299. doi: 10.1186/s13059-019-1923-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B47] 47.delBarco-Trillo J, Sacha CR, Dubay GR, Drea CM. 2012. Eulemur, me lemur: the evolution of scent-signal complexity in a primate clade. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 367:1909–1922. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0225. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B48] 48.Mallott EK, Borries C, Koenig A, Amato KR, Lu A. 2020. Reproductive hormones mediate changes in the gut microbiome during pregnancy and lactation in Phayre’s leaf monkeys. Sci Rep 10:9961. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-66865-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B49] 49.Amato KR, Van Belle S, Di Fiore A, Estrada A, Stumpf R, White B, Nelson KE, Knight R, Leigh SR. 2017. Patterns in gut microbiota similarity associated with degree of sociality among sex classes of a neotropical primate. Microb Ecol 74:250–258. doi: 10.1007/s00248-017-0938-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B50] 50.Zhu L, Clayton JB, Suhr Van Haute MJ, Yang Q, Hassenstab HR, Mustoe AC, Knights D, Benson AK, French JA. 2020. Sex bias in gut microbiome transmission in newly paired marmosets (Callithrix jacchus). mSystems 5:e00910-19. doi: 10.1128/mSystems.00910-19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B51] 51.Stumpf RM, Wilson BA, Rivera A, Yildirim S, Yeoman CJ, Polk JD, White BA, Leigh SR. 2013. The primate vaginal microbiome: comparative context and implications for human health and disease. Am J Phys Anthropol 152:119–134. doi: 10.1002/ajpa.22395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B52] 52.Santoyo G, Hernández-Pacheco C, Hernández-Salmerón J, Hernández-León R. 2017. The role of abiotic factors modulating the plant-microbe-soil interactions: toward sustainable agriculture. A review. Span J Agric Res 15:e03R01. doi: 10.5424/sjar/2017151-9990. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B53] 53.Lewis RJ. 2010. Grooming patterns in Verreaux’s sifaka. Am J Primatol 72:254–261. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20776. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B54] 54.Caporaso JG, Lauber CL, Walters WA, Berg-Lyons D, Lozupone CA, Turnbaugh PJ, Fierer N, Knight R. 2011. Global patterns of 16S rRNA diversity at a depth of millions of sequences per sample. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:4516–4522. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1000080107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B55] 55.Gilbert JA, Jansson JK, Knight R. 2014. The Earth Microbiome project: successes and aspirations. BMC Biol 12:69. doi: 10.1186/s12915-014-0069-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B56] 56.Thompson LR, Sanders JG, McDonald D, Amir A, Ladau J, Locey KJ, Prill RJ, Tripathi A, Gibbons SM, Ackermann G, Navas-Molina JA, Janssen S, Kopylova E, Vázquez-Baeza Y, González A, Morton JT, Mirarab S, Zech Xu Z, Jiang L, Haroon MF, Kanbar J, Zhu Q, Jin Song S, Kosciolek T, Bokulich NA, Lefler J, Brislawn CJ, Humphrey G, Owens SM, Hampton-Marcell J, Berg-Lyons D, McKenzie V, Fierer N, Fuhrman JA, Clauset A, Stevens RL, Shade A, Pollard KS, Goodwin KD, Jansson JK, Gilbert JA, Knight R, The Earth Microbiome Project Consortium . 2017. A communal catalogue reveals Earth’s multiscale microbial diversity. Nature 551:457–463. doi: 10.1038/nature24621. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B57] 57.Bolyen E, Rideout JR, Dillon MR, Bokulich NA, Abnet CC, Al-Ghalith GA, Alexander H, Alm EJ, Arumugam M, Asnicar F, Bai Y, Bisanz JE, Bittinger K, Brejnrod A, Brislawn CJ, Brown CT, Callahan BJ, Caraballo-Rodríguez AM, Chase J, Cope EK, Da Silva R, Diener C, Dorrestein PC, Douglas GM, Durall DM, Duvallet C, Edwardson CF, Ernst M, Estaki M, Fouquier J, Gauglitz JM, Gibbons SM, Gibson DL, Gonzalez A, Gorlick K, Guo J, Hillmann B, Holmes S, Holste H, Huttenhower C, Huttley GA, Janssen S, Jarmusch AK, Jiang L, Kaehler BD, Kang KB, Keefe CR, Keim P, Kelley ST, Knights D, et al. 2019. Reproducible, interactive, scalable and extensible microbiome data science using QIIME 2. Nat Biotechnol 37:852–857. doi: 10.1038/s41587-019-0209-9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B58] 58.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. 2016. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods 13:581–583. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B59] 59.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, Peplies J, Glöckner FO. 2013. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and Web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D590–D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B60] 60.Chao A. 1984. Nonparametric estimation of the number of classes in a population. Scandinavian J Statistics 11:265–270. [Google Scholar]

[B61] 61.Pielou EC. 1966. The measurement of diversity in different types of biological collections. J Theoretical Biology 13:131–144. doi: 10.1016/0022-5193(66)90013-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B62] 62.Faith DP. 1992. Conservation evaluation and phylogenetic diversity. Biol Conserv 61:1–10. doi: 10.1016/0006-3207(92)91201-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B63] 63.Shannon CE. 1948. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst Tech J 27:379–423. doi: 10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B64] 64.Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. 1952. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc 47:583–621. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1952.10483441. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B65] 65.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 57:289–300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B66] 66.Lozupone C, Knight R. 2005. UniFrac: a new phylogenetic method for comparing microbial communities. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:8228–8235. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.12.8228-8235.2005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B67] 67.Bray JR, Curtis JT. 1957. An ordination of the upland forest communities of southern Wisconsin. Ecol Monogr 27:325–349. doi: 10.2307/1942268. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B68] 68.Anderson MJ. 2001. A new method for non-parametric multivariate analysis of variance. Austral Ecology 26:32–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1442-9993.2001.01070.pp.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B69] 69.R Core Team. 2021. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/. [Google Scholar]

[B70] 70.RStudio Team. 2020. RStudio: integrated development for R. RStudio, PBC, Boston, MA. http://www.rstudio.com/. [Google Scholar]

[B71] 71.Wickham H. 2016. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer-Verlag New York, New York, NY. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org. [Google Scholar]

[B72] 72.Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, Grolemund G, Hayes A, Henry L, Hester J, Kuhn M, Pedersen T, Miller E, Bache S, Müller K, Ooms J, Robinson D, Seidel D, Spinu V, Takahashi K, Vaughan D, Wilke C, Woo K, Yutani H. 2019. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw 4:1686. doi: 10.21105/joss.01686. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B73] 73.van den Brand T. 2021. ggh4x: Hacks for “ggplot2” (R package version 0.2.1.). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggh4x.

[B74] 74.Bisanz JE. 2018. qiime2R: importing QIIME2 artifacts and associated data into R sessions (v0.99). https://github.com/jbisanz/qiime2R.

[B75] 75.Wright K. 2021. pals: color palettes, colormaps, and tools to evaluate them (R package version 1.7.). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pals.

[B76] 76.Rowan J, Beaudrot L, Franklin J, Reed KE, Smail IE, Zamora A, Kamilar JM. 2020. Geographically divergent evolutionary and ecological legacies shape mammal biodiversity in the global tropics and subtropics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 117:1559–1565. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1910489116. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[B77] 77.Kamilar JM, Beaudrot L. 2021. Quantitative methods for primate biogeography and macroecology. In Spatial Analysis in Field Primatology: Applying GIS at Varying Scales. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [Google Scholar]

[B78] 78.Sweeny AR, Lemon H, Ibrahim A, Nussey DH, Free A, McNally L. 2021. A mixed model approach for estimating drivers of microbiota community composition and differential taxonomic abundance. bioRxiv. 10.1101/2020.11.24.395715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]

[B79] 79.Burnham KP, Anderson DR. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd ed. Springer, New York, NY. [Google Scholar]

[B80] 80.Bartoń K. 2022. MuMIn: multi-modal inference. Model selection and model averaging based on information criteria (AICc and alike) (R package version 1.46.0.). https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=MuMIn.

[B81] 81.Bates D, Mächler M, Bolker B, Walker S. 2015. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J Stat Soft 67:1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v067.i01. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B82] 82.Kuznetsova A, Brockhoff PB, Christensen RHB. 2017. lmerTest package: tests in linear mixed effects models. J Stat Soft 82:1–26. doi: 10.18637/jss.v082.i13. [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[B83] 83.Kamilar JM, Cooper N. 2013. Phylogenetic signal in primate behaviour, ecology and life history. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 368:20120341. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2012.0341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

Hair Microbiome Diversity within and across Primate Species

Catherine Kitrinos

Rachel B Bell

Brenda J Bradley

Jason M Kamilar

Roles

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

RESULTS

Relative abundances of microbial taxa.

FIG 1.

Univariate analyses examining hair microbiome diversity.

TABLE 1.

TABLE 2.

FIG 2.

FIG 3.

Linear models (LMs) predicting hair microbiome diversity.

TABLE 3.

DISCUSSION

Relative microbial abundances in primate hair.

Factors explaining primate hair microbiome diversity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample collection and DNA extraction.

Library preparation and sequencing.

Alpha and beta diversity metrics.

Linear models.

Supplementary Material

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Contributor Information

REFERENCES

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Cite

Add to Collections

PERMALINK

Hair Microbiome Diversity within and across Primate Species

Catherine Kitrinos

Rachel B Bell

Brenda J Bradley

Jason M Kamilar

Roles

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION

RESULTS

Relative abundances of microbial taxa.

FIG 1.

Univariate analyses examining hair microbiome diversity.

TABLE 1.

TABLE 2.

FIG 2.

FIG 3.

Linear models (LMs) predicting hair microbiome diversity.

TABLE 3.

DISCUSSION

Relative microbial abundances in primate hair.

Factors explaining primate hair microbiome diversity.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sample collection and DNA extraction.

Library preparation and sequencing.

Alpha and beta diversity metrics.

Linear models.

Supplementary Material

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Contributor Information

REFERENCES

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases