Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2022 Sep 20;20(9):e3001743. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001743

Metabolic reconstitution of germ-free mice by a gnotobiotic microbiota varies over the circadian cycle

Daniel Hoces 1, Jiayi Lan 2, Wenfei Sun 3,¤, Tobias Geiser 1, Melanie L Stäubli 4, Elisa Cappio Barazzone 1, Markus Arnoldini 1, Tenagne D Challa 3, Manuel Klug 3, Alexandra Kellenberger 3, Sven Nowok 5, Erica Faccin 1, Andrew J Macpherson 6, Bärbel Stecher 7,8, Shinichi Sunagawa 4, Renato Zenobi 2, Wolf-Dietrich Hardt 4, Christian Wolfrum 3, Emma Slack 1,9,*
Editor: Jotham Suez10
PMCID: PMC9488797  PMID: 36126044

Abstract

The capacity of the intestinal microbiota to degrade otherwise indigestible diet components is known to greatly improve the recovery of energy from food. This has led to the hypothesis that increased digestive efficiency may underlie the contribution of the microbiota to obesity. OligoMM12-colonized gnotobiotic mice have a consistently higher fat mass than germ-free (GF) or fully colonized counterparts. We therefore investigated their food intake, digestion efficiency, energy expenditure, and respiratory quotient using a novel isolator-housed metabolic cage system, which allows long-term measurements without contamination risk. This demonstrated that microbiota-released calories are perfectly balanced by decreased food intake in fully colonized versus gnotobiotic OligoMM12 and GF mice fed a standard chow diet, i.e., microbiota-released calories can in fact be well integrated into appetite control. We also observed no significant difference in energy expenditure after normalization by lean mass between the different microbiota groups, suggesting that cumulative small differences in energy balance, or altered energy storage, must underlie fat accumulation in OligoMM12 mice. Consistent with altered energy storage, major differences were observed in the type of respiratory substrates used in metabolism over the circadian cycle: In GF mice, the respiratory exchange ratio (RER) was consistently lower than that of fully colonized mice at all times of day, indicative of more reliance on fat and less on glucose metabolism. Intriguingly, the RER of OligoMM12-colonized gnotobiotic mice phenocopied fully colonized mice during the dark (active/eating) phase but phenocopied GF mice during the light (fasting/resting) phase. Further, OligoMM12-colonized mice showed a GF-like drop in liver glycogen storage during the light phase and both liver and plasma metabolomes of OligoMM12 mice clustered closely with GF mice. This implies the existence of microbiota functions that are required to maintain normal host metabolism during the resting/fasting phase of circadian cycle and which are absent in the OligoMM12 consortium.


A comparison of germ-free, gnotobiotic and fully-colonized mice reveals that microbiota-released calories are well compensated by food intake, but the metabolism of germ-free mice tends to burn less glucose and more fat throughout the circadian cycle. Model microbiota could rescue this respiratory substrate bias during the active/dark-phase of the circadian cycle but not during the light phase.

Introduction

The gut microbiota is currently considered a key regulator of host energy metabolism [1]. In the absence of a microbiota, mice accumulated less fat [2] and were protected from obesity induced by certain types of high-fat diets [35]. Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain this phenomenon and its relationship to metabolic imbalances [6]. These include endocrine regulation of food intake [7,8], additional energy liberated by the microbiota from dietary fibers [9], alterations in bile acid profiles [10,11], inflammatory responses induced by some members of the microbiota [12], and induction of thermogenesis in adipose tissue [1315]. However, given the complexity of a complete microbiota and its interactions with the host, validating any of these theories and identifying causal relationships remains a major experimental challenge [16,17].

Gnotobiotic mice, colonized with a simplified microbiota made up of defined species, have become a major tool to identify potential mechanisms of interaction between the microbiota and host [1820]. Such approaches can generate a mechanistic understanding of how external factors (i.e., diet, infection) act on the different microbiota members individually and at a community level [21,22]. A widely used example, the OligoMM12, is a gnotobiotic consortium of 12 cultivable mouse-derived strains representing the major 5 bacterial phyla in the murine gut [23]. It is reproducible between facilities [24] and extensive data now exist on the metabolism of individual species and their metabolic interactions with each other [2528]. Understanding how and to what extent, this gnotobiotic microbiota reconstitutes the metabolic phenotype of conventional mice is therefore of broad relevance for microbiota research.

Circadian variations in microbiota function adds an extra layer of complexity to metabolic interactions between the host and the microbiota. Circadian feeding is a major driver of microbiota composition [29,30]. The luminal concentration of fermentation products such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) shows a dramatic circadian oscillation linked both to food intake and to intestinal motility [31]. Microbiota-derived molecules are known to influence host nutrient absorption [32] and host metabolic gene expression [33,34]. However, much of our current knowledge is derived from indirect calorimetry measurements made over a time period shorter than 24 h [2,3,35,36]. Measurements of the same host–microbiota system, if taken at different time points in the circadian cycle of metabolism, could therefore be wrongly interpreted as qualitative shifts in microbiota function. Consequently, to understand the influence of the microbiota on host energy metabolism, it is key to quantify variation over the full circadian cycle.

A challenging aspect of addressing the influence of the OligoMM12 microbiota on host metabolism is that long-term experiments require hygiene barrier conditions similar to those required to work with germ-free (GF) mice. In particular, standard metabolic cage systems do not permit maintenance of an axenic environment, and moving mice between the open cages typically used in isolator systems where such animals are normally bred, to IVC cage-like systems used for most metabolic cages, can be associated with stress and behavioral abnormalities [37]. We have therefore built an isolator-housed metabolic cage system. Based on the TSE PhenoMaster system, we can monitor levels of O2, CO2, and hydrogen every 24 min for up to 8 cages, across 2 separate isolators in parallel, while maintaining a strict hygienic barrier. With this custom-built system, longitudinal monitoring of metabolism can be carried out over periods of several weeks in GF and gnotobiotic mice.

In this study, we applied isolator-housed indirect calorimetry to understand how well gnotobiotic microbiota replicate the influence of a complex microbiota on host metabolism. We compared the metabolic profile of GF, gnotobiotic (OligoMM12), and conventionally raised mice (specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free (SPF)) fed ad libitum with standard chow. This revealed the potential for gnotobiotic mouse systems to identify microbiota species and functions essential to support normal host metabolism.

Results

To compare to published literature on GF and colonized mouse metabolism, we compared male, adult age-matched (12 to 14 wk old) GF, gnotobiotic (OligoMM12), and conventionally raised (SPF) mice, all bred and raised in flexible-film isolators and with a C57BL/6J genetic background. Indirect calorimetry measurements were carried out in flexible-film surgical isolators accommodating a TSE PhenoMaster system (Fig 1A and 1B). Mice were adapted for between 24 and 36 h to the single-housing condition inside isolator-based metabolic chambers before data collection. Variations on O2, CO2, and hydrogen, along with food and water consumption, were recorded every 24 min on each metabolic cage. We could confirm that GF mice maintain their GF status over at least 10 d of accommodation in these cages, via culture-dependent and culture-independent techniques (S2A–S2D Fig).

Fig 1. OligoMM12 mice have increased fat mass compared to GF mice and SPF C57B6/J mice.

Fig 1

(A) Schematic representation of isolator-based indirect calorimetry system, with a TSE PhenoMaster calorimeter connected to 2 flexible surgical isolators with 4 metabolic cages each. (B) Pictures of isolator-based indirect calorimetry system inside the facility. (C) Cecal mass (tissue including luminal content). (D) Total body mass at the end of the experiment and before cecum removal. (E) Total body mass after cecum removal. (F) Lean body mass acquired by EchoMRI before cecum removal (N of mice per group with EchoMRI and indirect calorimetry measurements: GF = 12, OligoMM12 = 8, SPF = 11). (G) Fat mass from iBAT, iWAT, and vWAT. Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 16, OligoMM12 = 12, SPF = 11. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; iBAT, interscapular brown adipose tissue; iWAT, inguinal white adipose tissue; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free; vWAT, visceral white adipose tissue.

Body composition in GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice

After data recording for indirect calorimetry, mice were fasted for 4 to 5 h and killed (approximately at Zeitgeber time (ZT) 6 ± 1 h), and body mass and body composition were measured. As cecal mass (cecal tissue plus its content) is massively affected by the colonization status [35], we first assessed the cecal mass in GF, OligoMM12, and SPF and its impact on body mass. We found that cecal mass was inversely correlated to the microbiota complexity, starting at approximately 0.5 g in SPF mice, increasing to around 1.5 g in OligoMM12 mice and reaching 3 g on average in GF mice (Fig 1C). Note that this represents around 10% of total body mass in GF mice (S2A Fig), which translates into a trend to increased total body mass in GF mice (Fig 1D). This trend was completely reverted after removal of the cecum from total mass (Fig 1E).

Measurements of body composition in mice are often performed using EchoMRI, which yields data on lean, fat, and water mass. We observed a nonsignificant increasing trend in lean body mass from GF to SPF mice (Fig 1F). GF mice had a significantly lower percentage of lean body mass than colonized mice (S2B Fig). As cecal content water retention can contribute up to 10% of the total body weight of a GF mouse (Fig 1C), we hypothesized that this would be the major contributor to a lower percentage lean mass. However, EchoMRI readouts of fat mass seemed inconsistent with this assumption. We therefore compared EchoMRI readouts of “lean” and “fat” body mass before and after removal of the cecum. We found a strong correlation between the total lean mass measured by EchoMRI with and without the cecum (S2C Fig), i.e., cecum removal consistently reduced the lean mass readout by 5% to 10% (S2D and S2E Fig). Therefore, cecum removal has a relatively consistent effect on lean mass across groups. For ease of comparison to published work, we decided to use lean mass obtained by EchoMRI before dissection for definitive energy expenditure calculations.

In contrast, EchoMRI fat mass measurements pre- and post-cecum dissection were poorly correlated in GF mice (S2F–S2H Fig) attributable to a highly variable percentage scoring of cecal content as either fat or water. As total fat mass is in the order of 2 to 4 g and the cecum of a GF mouse can easily have a mass of 3 g (Fig 1C), it is clear that aberrantly scoring 50% of the cecum as “fat” will have a massive impact on the EchoMRI-measured “fat mass”. Correspondingly, in GF mice, cecum removal resulted in a decrease in EchoMRI fat mass readout of between 5% and 48% (S2I and S2J Fig). Worryingly, we also observed a shift towards higher fat mass readings in SPF mice after cecum removal (S2I and S2J Fig), which occurred over and above the known phenomena of inaccuracies in fat mass estimation when comparing live and dead animals [38,39] (S2K Fig). In summary, these results further highlighting the need for caution in interpreting EchoMRI readouts for fat mass in mice with major differences in intestinal composition. Therefore, we proceeded to directly weigh the fat depots accessible to dissection (interscapular brown adipose tissue (iBAT); and inguinal and visceral white adipose tissue (iWAT and vWAT)). There was no significant difference between GF and SPF mice in size of the explored fat depots; however, OligoMM12 mice accumulated more fat in all explored depots than GF mice, including more iBAT and vWAT, compared to SPF mice (Fig 1G).

Energy metabolism and energy balance in GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice

Body composition is determined by the quantity of calories absorbed from food and whether these calories are directly expended or are stored. Energy expenditure was estimated using VO2 and VCO2 readouts [40] and normalized as described before [4143] using EchoMRI lean body mass (Fig 1F) and dissected fat mass (Fig 1G).

As described before, energy expenditure showed a linear relation with lean body mass (Fig 2A) and varied over the circadian cycle (S3A Fig). Although raw energy expenditure appears higher in SPF mice (S3B Fig), this difference disappears on normalization using a regression model that included lean body mass and total dissected fat mass as predictive variables (Fig 2B). This lack of difference was also observed when light and dark phase were analyzed separately (Fig 2B). “Classical” normalization procedures (dividing by mass) also showed no difference between groups when “total body mass after cecum dissection” (S3C Fig) or lean body mass (S3D Fig) was used for normalization of energy expenditure. Unsurprisingly, we did calculate a significant difference during the dark phase in energy expenditure between GF and SPF mice if “total body mass” was used for normalization (S3E Fig), which is an artefact attributable to the inclusion of around 10% extra body mass in the GF mice, contributed by inert cecal water. Therefore, at least when comparing to the SPF microbiota used in this study, absence of a microbiota does not result in altered daily energy expenditure in metabolically active tissues.

Fig 2. Energy metabolism in GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice.

Fig 2

(A) Linear regression of energy expenditure and lean body mass based on EchoMRI during light and dark phase. Each colored vertical line represents energy expenditure measurements during the experiment for 1 mouse. (B) Energy expenditure during 24-h period or during the 12-h light or dark phase. Values represent area-under-curve normalized by regression-based analysis using lean body mass obtained by EchoMRI and dissected fat mass. (C) Average daily food intake per mouse. Mice represented in this figure include those that underwent long-term indirect calorimetry (Fig 3) and mice that only contribute to daily fecal pellet quantification/bomb calorimetry. (N of mice per group: GF = 24, OligoMM12 = 19, SPF = 10) (D) Dry fecal output per mouse collected during a 24-h period. (N of mice per group: GF = 12, OligoMM12 = 8, SPF = 4) (E) Energy content of dry fecal output by bomb calorimetry. (N of mice per group: GF = 21, OligoMM12 = 11, SPF = 11). (F-I) Estimation energy metabolism parameters. Number represented estimate mean value ± 1.96*combined standard uncertainty from measurements used for calculations. (F) Estimated daily energy input (food intake* 3.94 kcal/g). (G) Estimated daily energy excretion (daily fecal dry mass*fecal energy content). (H) Estimated daily energy extraction (daily energy input–daily energy excretion). (I) Estimated energy extraction from food as percentage of energy input ((daily energy input − daily energy excretion)/daily energy input*100). Note that calculations in F, G, and H are per mouse and are not normalized to body mass. Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 9, OligoMM12 = 8, SPF = 10. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

We next investigated calorie absorption from food by comparing the daily energy ingestion from food and calorie excretion in feces of GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice. The difference between these 2 values estimates the absorbed calories. As reported previously [44], GF animals ingested on average between 10% and 20% more standard chow compared to OligoMM12 and SPF mice (Fig 2C). Correspondingly, GF animals also excreted a much larger dry mass of feces, while OligoMM12 mice produced an intermediate fecal mass and SPF mice excreted the least (Fig 2D).

Remarkably, energy density of dry feces was lower in GF mice (3.7 kcal/g) compared to colonized mice (OligoMM12 and SPF, 4.0 kcal/g), with the latter showing no difference among them (Fig 2E). This gap between GF and mice with microbiota can likely be explained by the fact that although fecal bacteria improve energy release from food, a considerable fraction of that energy remains stored in the bacteria present in the feces. We measured bacterial density in the cecum content of OligoMM12 and SPF by bacterial flow cytometry (S4 Fig), which gave us a good estimation of bacterial density [45]. Using the average bacterial density per type of mice (OligoMM12 = 1.1 × 1011 bacteria cells/g and SPF = 1.6 × 1011 bacterial cells/g) and assuming certain parameters (dry mass of a bacterium = 2.26 × 10−13g/bacteria cell [46], and energy stored in bacteria = 4.58 kcal/g of dry bacteria mass [47]); we estimated that the fecal microbiota of colonized mice can contribute between 0.11 kcal/g of dry fecal mass in OligoMM12 to 0.17 kcal/g of dry fecal mass in SPF—which is in the range of energy density difference between fecal energy density in colonized and GF mice.

We then used these values for food intake, fecal dry mass output, and fecal energy density to estimate energy absorbed from the feces. We found that the higher food consumption in GF mice (Fig 2F) almost perfectly counterbalances their corresponding higher energy excretion in feces (Fig 2G), such that all mice extract around 9 kcal per day from their food (Fig 2H). This is consistent with our measurements of daily energy expenditure by indirect calorimetry (Fig 2B), although it fails to explain the observed adiposity in the OligoMM12 mice (Fig 1G). Unexpectedly, the efficiency of release of calories from chow remains similar between GF and OligoMM12 mice. The gut content of both OligoMM12 and SPF mice is densely colonized, and the fecal energy density is similar. Therefore, it seems that the lower percentage of energy extracted from the food by the OligoMM12 may be less related to a poorer digestive capacity of the gnotobiotic gut microbes and more to the bioavailability of microbiota-released calories for the mouse (Fig 2I).

We therefore concluded that daily energy expenditure and daily energy absorption from food vary only within the range of experimental error intrinsic to indirect calorimetry experiments. At a fundamental level, food intake therefore seems to be well regulated by microbiota-released calories. Despite this, OligoMM12 mice have an elevated fat mass. It remains a distinct possibility that gain of fat mass depends on the cumulative effect of very small differences in energy intake and energy expenditure that are simply not resolvable in our system. An alternative explanation is that microbiota composition influences energy storage. In order to gain a deeper insight into underlying mechanisms, we carried out a series of more detailed analyses of metabolism.

Circadian changes in RER and microbiota-derived hydrogen and short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs)

Respiratory exchange ratio (RER; the ratio of CO2 produced per O2 consumed) is widely used as an informative proxy for substrate utilization (i.e., glucose or fatty acids) for oxidation in tissues. We observed that GF mice have a lower RER compared to SPF mice in both light and dark phases, indicative of increased fat/decreased glucose metabolism in GF mice (Fig 3A). Intriguingly, OligoMM12 mice show circadian dependence in recovery of SPF-like metabolism, phenocopying GF mice during the light phase, and SPF mice during the dark phase (Fig 3A). These changes in RER are not related to differences in feeding patterns as all mice have a similar food intake pattern during the periods in which their RERs differ the most (Fig 3B). Another critical determinant of RER is locomotion. Unfortunately, we did not have a system available to track locomotion within isolators. Therefore, we could not carry out reasonable locomotion analyses of GF mice without contamination. However, the OligoMM12 microbiota is sufficiently stable to work with in standard housing for short periods of time. We therefore compared locomotion activity in a standard TSE PhenoMaster system for OligoMM12 and SPF mice. This revealed no major changes in locomotion between the 2 groups at any phase of the circadian cycle (Figs 3C and S5A and S5B).

Fig 3. Circadian changes in RER, microbiota-derived hydrogen, and SCFAs.

Fig 3

(A) Comparison of circadian changes in RER among GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice. RER curves obtained by smoothing function of data obtained every 24 min per mouse over 10 d. Mean RER during the light phase (Zeitgeber 0–12) and dark phase (Zeitgeber 12–24). (B) Cumulative food intake during described ZT periods. Mice included in this analysis are those that underwent long-term indirect calorimetry, and they are a subset of the mice represented in Fig 2F. (C) Locomotor activity, average light phase and dark phase breaks/minute daily. (D) Hepatic glycogen and triglyceride concentration in samples obtained at Zeitgeber 5 and 16 (N = 3 per group). (E) Hydrogen production, curves obtained by smoothing function of data obtained every 24 min per mouse. Area-under-curve after regression-based normalization by cecal mass during the light and dark phase (N of mice per group: OligoMM12 = 11, SPF = 10). (F) Concentration of SCFAs (acetate, butyrate, propionate) and intermediate metabolites (lactate, succinate) products in cecal content during the light phase (ZT5: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 7, SPF = 7 mice) and dark phase (ZT16: GF = 5, OligoMM12 = 7, SPF = 7 mice). Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 13, OligoMM12 = 12, SPF = 10. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; RER, respiratory exchange ratio; SCFA, short-chain fatty acid; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

Differences in RER provided a clue that there could be differences in energy storage in mice with different microbiota status. Microbial fermentation products, including SCFAs and lactate, can be directly used as energy and carbon sources by the murine host and are generated by the microbiota via processes that liberate molecular hydrogen. We therefore quantified hepatic concentrations of glycogen, and cecal concentrations SCFA, at ZT5 (5 h into the light phase) and ZT16 (4 h into the dark phase). Hydrogen was measured continuously during the circadian cycle.

Hepatic glycogen levels show a circadian rhythm, which usually peaks early during the transition between dark to light phase (ZT2 to 4) and drops to its minimum during the early hours of the dark phase (ZT14 to 16) in nocturnal rodents [48,49]. We found similar accumulation of hepatic glycogen in GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice at ZT5; however, GF and OligoMM12 liver glycogen levels drop lower than SPF mice at ZT16 (Fig 3D), potentially consistent with more rapid exhaustion of hepatic glycogen supplies.

Hydrogen, a by-product of fiber fermentation by the microbiota, was also measured in the exhaust air of the metabolic cages. We found a clear circadian pattern in hydrogen production in OligoMM12 and SPF mice (Fig 3E). Hydrogen levels in OligoMM12 and SPF mice decreased down to the limit of blank (GF level as reference) during the light phase, to later peak after food intake resumes during the dark phase. In addition, OligoMM12 mice showed a higher production of hydrogen than SPF mice during the dark phase even after regression-based normalization by cecal mass (Fig 3E), i.e., the OligoMM12 microbiota produced hydrogen at a higher rate per cecal content mass than the SPF microbiota. Notably, this circadian rhythm of hydrogen production was not associated with changes either in community composition or bacterial load of the cecal microbiota in OligoMM12 mice (S6 Fig), but rather with altered metabolic activity of the bacteria present.

SCFA are the other major output of bacterial fermentation in the large intestine, as well as being key bioactive compounds produced by the large intestinal microbiota. SPF mice showed the highest cecal concentrations of acetate, butyrate, and propionate during both the light phase and dark phase, indicating efficient fermentation (Fig 3F). Interestingly, OligoMM12 mice showed only 20% to 50% of the SCFA concentrations observed in SPF mice, but instead showed high production of lactate during the dark phase (Fig 3F). In GF mice, all analyzed metabolites had levels below the limit of the blank except for lactate, which could correspond to host-produced L-lactate [50] (our assay is not able to differentiate the enantiomers). As the total mass of cecum content is widely different among GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice, we also estimated the total quantity of each compound in the cecal content by multiplying the concentration (Fig 3F) by the cecal mass for each group (Fig 1C) while propagating the uncertainty of each measurement. This transformation has quite a major impact on how these data can be interpreted: When taking cecal mass into account, OligoMM12 mice have considerably higher levels of acetate during the light and dark phase and of propionate during the dark phase than SPF mice, while butyrate levels remain low. There is also an increased abundance of lactate and succinate in the OligoMM12 cecum content (S5C Fig). Although we cannot directly link these microbial metabolites to the phenotype of the OligoMM12 mice, this underlines the major differences in microbial metabolite profiles in the large intestine when comparing GF, gnotobiotic, and SPF mice. High lactate production by the microbiome certainly warrants further study for potential effects on the host.

Circadian changes in liver and plasma metabolites in GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice

Finally, to increase our metabolic resolution, we applied ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (UPLC/MS) to perform untargeted metabolomics in the liver and plasma during the light (Zeitgeber 5) and dark phase (Zeitgeber 16) in GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice. Correlating to what we observed in the RER during the light phase, GF and OligoMM12 cluster closely and are clearly separated from the SPF in the light phase of principal component analysis for both liver and plasma samples (Fig 4A). However, no major shift towards the SPF metabolome was seen during the dark phase for OligoMM12 liver and plasma samples (Fig 4B). Therefore, although RER and glycogen levels clearly show GF-like patterns during the light phase and SPF-like patterns during the dark phase, the underlying metabolome circadian shifts attributable to the microbiome in OligoMM12 mice are subtle and generally closer to GF signatures than to SPF signatures in both liver and plasma samples.

Fig 4. Metabolic profile comparison of GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice by UPLC/MS.

Fig 4

(A and B) Principal coordinate analysis using Canberra distances of metabolites identified by untargeted UPLC/MS in liver and plasma during the (A) light phase (Zeitgeber 5) and (B) dark phase (Zeitgeber 16). (C-F) Metabolic pathways identified in the KEGG PATHWAY database; red dots represent pathways containing compounds differentially enriched in OligoMM12 vs.GF and OligoMM12 vs. SPF comparisons and selected compounds obtained by targeted peak extraction from differentially expressed pathways. Samples obtained during the light phase (Zeitgeber 5) and dark phase (Zeitgeber 16) in (C and D) liver and (E and F) plasma. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test after log2 transformation of area value. Number of mice per group: Liver ZT5: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 7; ZT16: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 7 / Plasma ZT5: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 7, SPF = 7; ZT16: GF = 5, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 6. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free; UPLC/MS, ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

We used the package MetaboAnalystR [51] to identify putative compounds that are significantly different in pair comparisons between OligoMM12 mice and their GF and SPF counterparts by untargeted peak extraction. These were then mapped onto metabolic pathways using the KEGG database. We found several pathways differentially enriched when OligoMM12 mice were compared to GF or SPF counterparts during the light and dark phase in liver (Fig 4C and 4E) and plasma (Fig 4D and 4F), including butanoate metabolism, amino acid biosynthesis and degradation, primary bile acids production, and fatty acid metabolism. Additionally, we selected compounds that belong to these differentially enriched pathways or have been previously identified to have circadian changes in obese patients [52], confirmed their structure using chemical standards, and performed a targeted peak extraction for a more precise comparison among groups (S7 and S8 Figs; full list of compounds in S1 Table). We observed that OligoMM12 show a different pattern when compared to GF or SPF mice depending on the compound analyzed, the site (live or plasma), and the circadian phase. For example, the ketone body β-hydroxybutanoate (which is the conjugated form of β-hydroxybutyrate and part of the butanoate metabolism pathway) is higher in the plasma of the OligoMM12 mice during both light and dark phase. For other compounds such as certain amino acids, and depending on the circadian phase and site, OligoMM12 have a similar pattern to GF (i.e., leucine) or SPF (i.e., L-glutamate and glycine). Finally, for many of these metabolites, the OligoMM12 microbiota produce an intermediate phenotype between GF and SPF mice, as in the case of the bile acids β-murocholate.

As bile acid profiles have been previously linked to increased fat mass, we also extracted all nonambiguous data relating to bile acids from our UPLC/MS data. This shows a good agreement with published literature on this topic (for example, elevated β-murocholate and Tauro- β-murocholate in the liver bile acid pool of GF mice, when compared to colonized animals [11,53]). The circadian rhythm dependence varies between bile acid examined, tissue examined, and microbiota status generating a complex picture that warrants deeper exploration.

Discussion

Since the early days of nutritional studies, there has been a clear interest to understand the role of microbiota in host morphology, physiology, and nutrition [54,55]. Pioneering work comparing GF rats with conventionally raised counterparts already described differences in food intake, energy extraction from diet, and energy expenditure by indirect calorimetry [44,56]. More recently, researchers have explored the effect of specific complex microbiota communities and how they influence energy metabolism and body composition in the host [9,57,58]. Here, we extend and clarify some of these observations via use of a well-established gnotobiotic mouse model consisting of 12 cultivable microbiota strains and a custom-built isolator-housed metabolic cage system that permits longitudinal analysis of GF and gnotobiotic animals.

By carefully checking the validity of different measurement types, we found no significant difference in lean body mass among GF, gnotobiotic (OligoMM12), and conventionally raised (SPF) mice. Although lean mass represented a lower percentage of the total mass in GF mice, this was mainly attributable to increased cecal water retention in these animals. Interestingly, there was a significant increase in fat depots in OligoMM12 mice compared to GF and SPF animals. Previous studies have also found increased fat depots during conventional/low-fat diet feeding in mice colonized with a gnotobiotic microbiota community [21] or SPF [2,14,58] when compared with GF mice. Our results using fat depot dissection showed only a very weak trend for white adipose tissues between GF and SPF mice, which may be attributable to differences in housing (temperature, cage-type, chow composition) and colony (genetic background, SPF microbiota composition, age). It has been shown that GF mice transplanted with microbiota derived from obese donors accumulated more fat mass compared to those transplanted with microbiota derived from lean donors [9,36,57], with correlates identified to individual species/strain abundance [59,60]. SPF microbiota matching more closely to those from obese donors could therefore be expected to give differing results to ours. In contrast, minimal microbiota communities such as the OligoMM12 can be perfectly replicated across sites [24] and can help to clarify the complex processes linking microbiota and host metabolism [61]. Further exploration of the metabolic effects of the OligoMM12 microbiota community, and extended versions thereof, has potential to clarify if specific strains, species, or functional classes [62] are sufficient and necessary to drive the development of increased fat depots in these mice.

We further observed no significant difference in energy expenditure in GF, OligoMM12, and SPF. This is in line with some studies that have reported no significant difference in energy expenditure between GF and SPF mice [3,13]. These results are in contrast to other work [2,15,35,56], but the discrepancies can potentially be explained by the methods applied for normalizing energy-expenditure data. Normalization of mass-dependent variables by a per-mass (or allometric transformation) ratio has been recognized as a common source of controversy [6365], especially with large changes in body mass composition [66,67], and there have been several publications calling for the use of better statistical methods [41,68,69]. Water and indigestible solute retention in the cecum lumen of GF and gnotobiotic mice can contribute up to 10% of the total body mass and should be considered metabolically inert. It is therefore unsurprising that when the cecal content mass is very different among groups, using total body mass for normalization introduces a considerable bias in normalized energy expenditure estimation. Interestingly, it was long ago observed that surgical removal of the cecum equalized the oxygen consumption between GF and conventional rats, as well as other measurements normalized by total body mass [35]. With normalization using linear regression models based on lean mass and fat mass [43], we and others found no significant differences in energy expenditure by indirect calorimetry between GF and SPF mice under standard chow diet conditions [3,13].

An additional important confounder that we encountered was high variability of fat mass readouts obtained by EchoMRI when comparing mice with major differences in intestinal colonization levels. This could be attributed to variable calling of the fluid-filled ceca of gnotobiotic animals as either fat or water, compared with more accurate calling in conventional mice, revealing an important limitation of these systems. Surprisingly, the EchoMRI estimate of fat mass increased in SPF mice after abdominal dissection and cecum removal. Previous studies reported a tendency to higher values of fat mass in dead animals when compared to live [38,39], which we could replicate. However, this was a much smaller effect than cecum removal. We could not find reports of EchoMRI measurements after major anatomical changes such as cecum removal, and we cannot accurately explain this phenomenon. Therefore, we recommend caution in the use of EchoMRI for fat mass measurements in mice with marked anatomical differences (i.e., enlarged cecum) and recommend physically dissected fat mass as a more useful readout.

We are also keen to point out the more general limitations of our observations: Only 1 gnotobiotic microbiota and 1 SPF microbiota were analyzed, and our conclusions pertain exclusively to these. We in no way exclude the possibility that some microbiota constituents or conformations can influence host energy expenditure [36] and/or body composition [9,57,70]. In addition, it should be noted that indirect calorimetry is an inherently noisy data type, and small differences in daily energy expenditure are impossible to resolve via this technique [69,71].

Nevertheless, the lack of measurable difference in energy expenditure between GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice is aligned with our finding that the amount of energy obtained by ad libitum food intake was also remarkably similar among the groups. GF mice seem to accurately compensate the lower capacity of energy extraction from diet by increasing food intake. While this seems generally to be in agreement with models that described the regulation of appetite (and therefore energy intake) by the basal energy requirement of the individual [72,73], it remains surprising given the discrepancy in the types of substrates available for oxidative metabolism in colonized and GF mice, revealed by RER differences. Although GF mice have a longer total gastrointestinal transit time than SPF mice [74], very little calorie absorption from food can occur after ingested food reaches the cecum of a GF mouse, while an SPF mouse will release usable energy from their food via microbial fermentation for several more hours in the cecum and colon, generating a major time difference in the absorption of calories after eating in GF and SPF animals. This compensation seems also to function in mice colonized with the OligoMM12 microbiota, where despite robust microbial fermentation (read out as hydrogen and fermentation product production) and identical fecal energy density to SPF mice, energy recovery from ingested food is poor due to the volume of feces shed. A clear conclusion from these observations is that microbiota-dependent changes in metabolic substrates, and timing of calorie absorption, are well integrated in the murine central regulation of appetite over the course of a day [75].

Interestingly, energy density of dry feces in GF mice was lower compared to OligoMM12 and SPF mice. Previous results have found a similar difference (approximately 0.1 kcal/g) when comparing GF and SPF rats under standard chow [44]. We theorized that this difference is due the contribution of energy stored in bacterial mass, which we estimated is in the range of 0.5 kcal/g per gram of feces. However, this observed difference in the fecal caloric content seems to depend on the type of diet, as GF and SPF mice under a high-fat diet showed a similar caloric content [4]. In addition, caloric uptake by the microbiota may be dependent on specific microbiota composition. Although we did not observe a difference in the fecal energy content among OligoMM12 and SPF mice, previous studies have shown that particular microbiota compositions allow more energy to be lost in the fecal output [9].

Despite this broadly successful regulation of food intake and energy expenditure, at the molecular level, major differences were observed between the mice with different microbiota. First, OligoMM12 mice displayed an RER at the GF level during the light phase (when mice typically sleep and fast) but raised up to SPF levels during the dark phase (i.e., when mice are active and eating). It therefore appears that the OligoMM12 microbiota better recapitulates the microbiome effects on the host energy substrate use during the dark (active) phase when food-derived carbohydrates are abundant in the large intestine, but not in the light (sleeping) phase when mainly host-derived carbon sources are available in the large intestine. We could directly exclude food intake and locomotion as major drivers of this altered RER. Interestingly, SPF had a higher RER than OligoMM12 and GF mice during the light phase despite no difference in the levels of hepatic glycogen at the beginning of this phase. This indicates that GF and OligoMM12 are using more fatty acids, and potentially that SPF mice have more prolonged access to carbohydrate substrates produced by their more complex microbiota or stored in other body sites. Improved carbon release from dietary fiber by the SPF microbiota would also be in line with a predominance of succinate and lactate in the OligoMM12 cecum, at the expense of propionate and butyrate that are more abundant in the SPF cecum. In complex microbiotas, lactate is typically further metabolized to butyrate by specific firmicutes [7678], which may be lacking or insufficiently abundant in the OligoMM12 mice. As lactate can inhibit lipolysis in adipocytes [79,80], this raises an interesting theme for follow-up studies to define the role of microbiota-derived lactate in host metabolism. Partially in line with the RER data, we also observed that the liver and plasma metabolite profiles of OligoMM12 mice clustered closer to GF mice than to SPF mice. Although a small shift in the liver metabolome could be observed in the OligoMM12 liver during the dark phase, this clearly demonstrates major metabolic effects of a complete microbiota that are not reconstituted by the OligoMM12 strains. In addition, certain amino acids were differentially represented between OligoMM12 and GF or SPF mice, as it has been described previously [81,82]. Interestingly, OligoMM12 had a bile acid profile closer to GF than SPF mice, for example, showing GF levels of hepatic β-murocholic acid and taurine-β-murocholic acid, the predominant bile acid in the liver of GF mice [11]. Follow-up studies with manipulation of the OligoMM12 microbiota or metabolic interventions are a promising tool to pull apart the circadian effects on RER, the influence of an unusual fermentation product profile, and other more subtle metabolic changes on overall metabolic health of the murine host.

In conclusion, our study showed that isolator-based indirect calorimetry is possible and allows detailed analysis of the metabolism of GF and gnotobiotic mice in real time. Data generated with this system demonstrated that microbiota-released calories are well integrated in host energy balance and that daily energy expenditure was not significantly influenced by microbiota composition in our mice. Nevertheless, mice colonized with the OligoMM12 gnotobiotic microbiota accumulated more fat mass and display a GF-like RER during the light phase but an SPF-like RER during the dark phase, indicative of altered metabolic substrate usage and energy storage. Correspondingly, the liver metabolome of mice colonized with the OligoMM12 showed alterations in bile acid, fatty acid, and amino acid metabolism, despite overall clustering with the GF liver metabolome. This reveals the potential for gnotobiotic microbiota communities to investigate the mechanisms underlying the influence of microbiota on host metabolic health. As microbial dysbiosis is associated with a range of human diseases, circadian analysis of energy balance represents a crucial tool in the mining of microbiome data for therapeutic and diagnostic purposes.

Methods

Animals

We used C57B6/J male mice aged between 12 to 14 weeks. We compare GF, with a 12-strain gnotobiotic microbiota [23] (OligoMM12), and SPF mice. The OligoMM12 mice used in this study were colonized from birth as they belonged to a colony, originally established by colonizing GF mice with 12 bacterial strains and later checking their engraftment by qPCR [24]. GF and OligoMM12 mouse lines are bred and maintained in open-top cages within flexible-film isolators, supplied with HEPA-filtered air, and autoclaved food and water ad libitum. As we are aware that housing conditions may influence behavior and potentially metabolism, we also bred and maintained a SPF colony under identical conditions inside a flexible-film isolator specifically for this study, such that all mice experienced identical living conditions, food, and water. Mice were adapted for between 24 to 36 h after transfer from the breeding isolators to the isolator-based metabolic chambers. For long-term experiments, mice were periodically rehoused in couples for short periods of times to avoid stress of extended single-housing conditions. In all cases, animals were maintained with standard chow (diet 3807, Kliba-Nafag, Switzerland) and autoclaved water. GF status was confirmed at the end of the long-term experiments by culturing cecal content in sterile BHIS and YPD media in aerobic and anaerobic conditions for a week. In addition, cecal content was frozen at −20°C for a week, then stained with SYBR Gold and assessed by bacterial flow cytometry [83] using similarly processed SPF mice cecal content as positive control for the presence of bacteria. All experiments were conducted in accordance with the ethical permission of the Zürich Cantonal Authority under the license number ZH120/19.

Indirect calorimetry

The isolator-housed TSE PhenoMaster system allows instantaneous measurements of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen levels as well as total feed and water consumption while keeping a strict hygiene level of control. The metabolic isolator system consists of an adapted set of 2 flexible-film surgical isolators, each of them housing 4 metabolic cages from the TSE PhenoMaster system (TSE Systems, Germany). Room air is pulled into the isolator by a vacuum pump passing through a double set of HEPA filters. Then, each cage is connected via a second HEPA filter through the back wall of the isolator to the CaloSys setup, which pulls sterile air from the isolator into the cages using negative pressure. Air coming from the cages is dehumidified at 4°C and sequentially passed by a Sensepoint XCD Hydrogen gas analyzer (Honeywell Analytics, Hegnau, Switzerland) and standard oxygen and carbon dioxide censors provided in the TSE PhenoMaster system. A 2-point calibration of all analyzers using reference gases was performed within 24 h before each animal experiment. Data were recorded using a customized version of the TSE PhenoMaster software modified to integrate hydrogen measurements.

For indirect calorimetry measurements, the animals were transported in pre-autoclaved, sealed transport cages from the breeding isolators into the metabolic isolator system. Mice were single housed and adapted for between 24 to 36 h before starting recording measurements to ensure proper access to food and water as well as account for initial exploratory behavior. Mice were kept up to 10 d at a stable temperature (21 to 22°C) with ad libitum availability of standard chow and water. The days were divided into a dark and light period of 12 h each. In this study, we kept the air flow of 0.4 L/min and recorded individual cage data (gases production and food/water consumption) every 24 min (time set per cage for measurement stabilization 2.5 min). In long experiments, mice were periodically pair-housed for 24 h to prevent stress due to prolonged single housing.

Body composition measurements

At the end of the experiment, mice were fasted for 4 h (Zeitgeber 1 till 5) before for body composition measurements. We used magnetic resonance whole-body composition analyzer (EchoMRI, Houston, USA) to analyze mice body composition (lean and fat mass). Then, mice were killed using CO2 according to approved protocols. Total body mass was obtained by weighing the full carcass, and cecum was dissected and weighed by 1 investigator (DH). For a set of mice, we remeasured body composition by EchoMRI after cecum removal and compare it with the composition observed in live animals (S2 Fig). Finally, fat depots were dissected from all mice after cecum removal by another investigator (WS) that was blinded to the hygiene status and cecum size of the mice. iBAT, iWAT, and vWAT were sampled and weighted. For a group of SPF mice, body composition by EchoMRI was performed also before cecum removal (S2K Fig).

Food intake, fecal samples, and bomb calorimetry

Daily food intake was obtained as the mean value of food intake recorded by the TSE PhenoMaster system during the course of the experiment. In addition to the mice reported in the indirect calorimetry experiments, we also collected food intake data from a set of selected experiments in which we collected fecal pellets produced during 24 h. For daily fecal excretion measurements, we cleaned up the bedding in the cage and replaced it for a clean and reduced amount of bedding. After 24 h, we collected the mix of bedding and fecal pellets. Fecal pellets were manually collected from the bedding, transferred to 15 ml tubes and stored at −20°C until bomb calorimetry. Before bomb calorimetry, fecal samples were freeze dried in a lyophilizer overnight (ALPHA 2–4 LDplus, Christ, Germany) and dry mass recorded. We used a C1 static jacket oxygen bomb calorimeter (IKA, Germany) to quantify the residual energy present in these dry fecal pellets, using approximately 0.2 to 0.5 g of material. Energy content was normalized to grams of dry fecal pellets.

Locomotor activity measurements

OligoMM12 and SPF mice were transferred to a different facility and single-housed in a conventional TSE PhenoMaster equipped with ActiMot3 Activity module for locomotor activity measurement. After 1 d of adaption, standard indirect calorimetry plus locomotor activity was recorded every 20 min for the next 5 d. Locomotor activity was reported as the average light beam breaks (XT+YT) per min.

Sample obtention and preparation for metabolomics, and 16S sequencing

Approximately at Zeitgeber 5 and 16, mice of each group were killed, and liver and plasma samples collected. To minimize variations among mice, individual mice were killed with CO2 and sampled as fast as possible. Blood was obtained by cardiac puncture, collected in lithium heparin coated tubes, and kept on ice for further processing. Mice were perfused with PBS and liver samples were obtained by dissection of the lower right lobe, collected on a 2-ml Eppendorf tube and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Finally, between 60 to 80 mg of cecal content was collected in a 2-ml Eppendorf tube and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. After all samples were obtained, blood samples were centrifuged 8,000 rcf for 5 min, supernatant collected, and flash frozen in liquid nitrogen. Samples were kept at −80°C until further processing.

Metabolomics by UPLC/MS

Short-chain fatty acid quantification by UPLC/MS

Samples were first homogenized in 70% isopropanol (1 mL per 10 mg sample), centrifuged. Supernatants were used for SCFA quantification using a protocol similar to previously described [84]. Briefly, a 7-point calibration curve was prepared. Calibrators and samples were spiked with mixture of isotope-labeled internal standards, derivatized to 3-nitrophenylhydrazones, and the derivatization reaction was quenched by mixing with 0.1% formic acid. Approximately 4 μL of the reaction mixture was then injected into a UPLC/MS system, [M-H]− peaks of the derivatized SCFAs were fragmented, and characteristic MS2 peaks were used for quantification.

Untargeted UPLC/MS

Samples were thawed on ice. Serum samples were diluted with 90% methanol in water with a volumetric ratio of 1:7, incubated for 10 min on ice for allowing protein to precipitate. Liver samples were mixed with 75% methanol in water (2 mL/100 mg liver), homogenized using a Tissue Lyser (Qiagen, Germany) at 25 Hz for 5 min. The result mixtures were centrifuged at 15,800g, 4°C for 15 min. Approximately 100 μL of the supernatants were filtered with 0.2 μm reversed cellulose membrane filter and transferred to sample vials and used for UPLC/MS analysis with an ACQUITY UPLC BEH AMIDE column (1.7 μm, 2.1 × 150 mm, Waters). Another 400 μL of the supernatants were then lyophilized and resuspended in 80 μL 5% methanol in water, sonicated, filtered, and used for UPLC/MS analysis with an ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (1.7 μm, 2.1 × 150 mm, Waters, RP column).

An ACQUITY UPLC system (I-Class, Waters, MA, USA) coupled with an Orbitrap Q-Exactive Plus mass spectrometer (Thermo Scientific, San Jose, CA) were used for UPLC/MS analysis. For the AMIDE column a flow rate of 400 μL/min was used with a binary mixture of solvent A (water with 0.1% formic acid) and solvent B (acetonitrile with 0.1% formic acid). The gradient starts from 1% of A, then gradually increases to 70% of A within 7 min. Then a 1% of A is kept for 3 min. The column was kept at 45°C and the autosampler at 5°C.

For the RP column, the flow rate was set to 240 μL/min using a binary mixture of solvent A (water with 5% methanol and 0.1% formic acid) and solvent B (methanol with 0.1% formic acid). The gradient starts from 95% of A, then gradually decreases to 5% of A within 10 min. A 100% solvent of B is kept for 2 min, then a 100% of A is kept for 2 min to restore the gradient. The column was kept at 30°C and the autosampler at 5°C.

The MS was operated at a resolution of 140,000 at m/z = 200, with automatic gain control target of 2 × 105 and maximum injection time was set to 100 ms. The range of detection was set to m/z 50 to 750. Untargeted MS data were extracted from raw MS files by using XCMS [85] in R (v3.6.1) and then subject to pathway enrichment by using MetaboAnalystR [51]. From all identified pathways, we selected those with a −log(p) value lower than 1 and those that include at least 5 significantly different compounds with no identical molecular weight.

Compound identification and targeted peak extraction

Chemical standards of selected compounds were diluted to 10 μg/mL and were analyzed using the UPLC/MS methods described before. Identification was done by comparing retention time and MS2 spectra in liver/plasma samples with the chemical standards [52]. After confirming the chemical identities of the compounds, targeted peak extraction was done using Skyline (v21.1) [86].

Quantification of bacterial density by flow cytometry

We used cecal content of GF, OligoMM12, and SPF mice sampled as described before to quantify bacterial density by flow cytometry during the light and dark phase. Briefly, approximately 20 to 50 mg of cecum content was homogenized in 2 mL Eppendorf tubes with 1 mL of PBS, using a 2-mm metal bead in a Tissue Lyser at 25 Hz for 2.5 min. After homogenization, tubes were left on the bench for 5 min for precipitation of big food particles. A mix of SYBR Gold (1:2,000 dilution from stock in PBS) spiked with fluorescent counting beads (Fluoresbrite Multifluorescent Microspheres 1.00 μm, Polysciences, USA) was prepared at a concentration 4.55 × 103 beads/μL. Then, 2 μL of homogenized content was added to the SYBR Gold plus beads mix and incubate at room temperature for 15 min. Samples were acquired by flow cytometry as described before for 1 min [83]. GF samples were used as negative controls to set the gates for SYBR Gold-positive bacterial particles. Bacterial counts were normalized to bead counts to estimate the concentration of bacteria in the sample.

16S sequencing for OligoMM12 community composition analysis

DNA extraction

For enzymatic lysis, roughly 30 mg of flash-frozen cecum content per sample were incubated in 100 μl of 1× TE buffer (30 mM Tris-HCl and 1 mM EDTA) supplemented with 30 mg/ml Lysozyme (Sigma-Aldrich), 1.6 U/ml Proteinase K (New England Biolabs), 10 U/ml Mutanolysin (Sigma-Aldrich), and 1 U/μl SUPERase●In RNase Inhibitor (Invitrogen) at room temperature for 10 min. To aid disruption, one 2-mm metal bead was added, and the samples were vortexed every 2 min. Subsequently, the samples were mixed with 550 μl RLT Plus buffer (Qiagen) complemented with 5.5 μl 2-beta-mercaptoethanol (Sigma-Aldrich) and prefilled tubes with 100 μm Zirconium beads (OPS Diagnostics LLC). The samples were disrupted twice at 30 Hz for 3 min using the mixer mill Retsch MM400 with 5-min incubation at room temperature between each disruption.

DNA was extracted from all samples with the DNA/RNA Mini kit (Qiagen) following the standard protocol and eluting the DNA in 100 μl elution buffer (EB). One water sample was used as a negative extraction control and subsequently split into 3 negative library controls undergoing the same library preparation as all samples. The integrity and quality of the extracted DNA was assessed on a Qubit and Fragment Analyzer respectively. The DNA was purified by overnight ethanol precipitation at −20°C in 275 μl ice-cold Ethanol (Sigma-Aldrich), 10 μl 3 M Sodium acetate (Invitrogen), and 1 μl 20 mg/ml Glycogen (Invitrogen) with subsequent centrifugation at 4°C for 30 min and 2 wash steps in 500 μl ice-cold 75% Ethanol with centrifugation at 4°C for 10 min each time. The DNA purity was assessed on a Nanodrop.

Sequencing for community composition analysis

16S amplicon libraries were generated from 50 ng input DNA with the Illumina primer set 515F Parada [87] and 806R Apprill [88], 12 cycles in PCR 1 and 13 cycles in PCR 2. Three positive controls containing 11 ng input DNA of ZymoBIOMICS Microbial Community DNA Standard II (Zymo Research, Germany) were used. Illumina Unique Dual Indexing Primers (UDP) were used for library multiplexing. A 12-pM library pool spiked with 20% PhiX was sequenced at the Functional Genomics Center Zurich using the MiSeq platform and 2 × 300 bp PE-reads with a target fragment size of 450 bp resulting in approximately 400,000 reads per sample. One sample was excluded from the analyses due to missing sequencing reads.

Data analysis

Data quality control

To facilitate analysis across different experimental runs, all times were converted into ZT (h), where 0 to 12 represents the light phase and 12 to 24 represents the dark phase. Any datapoint taken before the start of the first occurrence of ZT = 0 was discarded. To account for faulty measurements caused by measurement imprecision, equipment malfunction or other disruptive events, datapoints were removed from the raw datasets according to criteria based on statistical and biological arguments. Food consumption values of 0.01 g during the 24-min intervals were considered as measurement noise and discarded. Negative values for food and water consumption, as well as oxygen (dO2) and carbon dioxide (dCO2) differentials between the measurement chambers and the reference chamber were also considered as measurement noise and discarded. For the remaining subsets of measurements from the individual mice, we cleaned up outlier measurements in food and water intake by eliminating values greater than 75th percentile + 1.5 times interquartile range. Potential sources for outlier measurements in food and water consumption observed included leaky water bottles and loss of food pellets during mice husbandry procedures. A similar approach was used to eliminate outliers from dO2 and dCO2 values below 25th percentile − 1.5 times interquartile range. Potential sources for outlier measurements in gas differentials included inappropriate sealing of individual metabolic cages or clogging of pre-analyzer filters. Oxygen consumption (VO2) and CO2 production (VCO2) was calculated using dO2 and dCO2 and the Haldane transformation as described before [68]. Energy expenditure was estimated from dO2 and dCO2 using Weir’s approximation [89]. As one of the study objectives is to explore circadian patterns, if more than 20% of datapoints had to be removed from a particular day for a particular mouse, all other datapoints from that subset were discarded as well. After the cleanup process described above, the data from all different experiment runs were pooled together for further analysis. The above processes lead to a reduction in dataset size from 10,472 to 9,453 entries.

In the targeted and untargeted metabolomic analysis, some samples were excluded from further analysis due to technical reasons. Liver and plasma samples from 1 animal (L934 and P934) were excluded due to altered phenotype observed during sample acquisition. Additionally, 1 plasma sample (P939) and 2 liver samples (L914 and L930) were excluded due to errors in dilutions during sample preparation.

16S amplicon analysis for OligoMM12 community composition

Raw sequencing reads from all samples and 3 positive/negative controls served as input for the inference of ASVs using dada2 v1.22 [90]. Primer sequences (515F, 806R) were removed using cutadapt v2.8 [91], and only inserts that contained both primers and were at least 75 bases were kept for downstream analysis. Next, reads were quality filtered using the filterAndTrim function of the dada2 R package (maxEE = 2, truncQ = 3, trimRight = (40, 40)). The learnErrors and dada functions were used to calculate sample inference using pool = pseudo as parameter. Reads were merged using the mergePairs function and bimeras were removed with the removeBimeraDenovo (method = pooled). Remaining ASVs were then taxonomically annotated using the IDTAXA classifier [92] in combination with the Silva v138 database [93] available at http://www2.decipher.codes/Downloads.html. The resulting ASV table was used to check for contaminations with the decontam R package [94] using both frequency-based and prevalence-based classification with a single probability threshold of 0.05 computed by combining both probabilities with Fisher’s method (method = combined). ASVs classified as contaminants as well as the positive/negative controls were excluded from downstream analyses. The remaining ASV abundance table was downsampled to a common sequencing depth (approximately 130,000 reads per sample) to correct for differences in sequencing depth between samples using the rrarefy function of the vegan R package.

Relative abundance plots for the light and dark phase time points were generated separately. The OligoMM12 strains were identified using the package bio for rRNA sequence extraction from the Genbank accessions described earlier [23] and the tool VSEARCH (search_exact) for sequence alignment to the 16S sequences from the detected ASVs. ASVs with a maximum relative abundance below 0.05% across all samples were grouped into “Other”. Megasphaera was detected at the genus level at a mean relative abundance of 0.06% but was also grouped into the category “Other” since it was not knowingly part of the original OligoMM12 community. The category “Other” in total amounted to roughly 0.11% of the total relative abundances, thus the oligo strains represented at least 99.8% of the detected ASV abundances.

Statistical analysis

From the resulting dataset, energy expenditure over a certain period was calculated as the area under the curve (trapezoid interpolation) of instantaneous values obtained during the 24-min measurements intervals. Food intake values calculated over a certain time are always cumulative. To compare different mice in the above variables, variations in body mass and composition between individuals need to be accounted for. As suggested in several publications [41,42,69], this was done by regression-based analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). As such, a linear regression is performed on energy expenditure as a function of lean body mass and fat depots mass, with the microbiota group as a qualitative covariate. Then, each individual value is replaced by the sum of the corresponding residual and the energy expenditure predicted by the linear model using the average lean body and fat depot mass (calculated over all groups). Hydrogen production (difference in hydrogen concentration between the measurement chambers and the reference chamber) was adjusted in analogous fashion, using cecal mass (as a proxy for total gut microbiota mass) as a predictor.

For variables where the continuous evolution during the circadian cycle is of interest (RER, gross hydrogen production), values were averaged at each time point for each individual. A generalized additive model was used to fit a smooth line to these averages using a cubic penalized regression spline (using R function mgcv::gam with formula y ~ s(x; bs = “cs”)).

For estimating derived variables (i.e., daily energy excretion), we used the R package “errors” [95]. This package links uncertainty metadata to quantity values (i.e., mean “daily fecal dry mass excretion”, mean “fecal energy content”), and this uncertainty is automatically propagated when calculating derived variables (i.e., “daily energy excretion” = “daily fecal dry mass excretion” × “fecal energy content”). Uncertainty is treated as coming from Gaussian and linear sources and propagates them using the first-order Taylor series method for propagation of uncertainty.

For the principal coordinate analysis, we used the pcovar function included in the R package “dave” for calculating Canberra distances among metabolites.

All group comparisons were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey’s honest significance test. For comparisons of metabolites identified by targeted peak extraction among groups, area values were log2 transformed before the statistical test.

Resource availability

Materials availability

This study did not generate new unique reagents.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Sterility test in isolator-based indirect calorimetry system.

(A) OD measurement of BHIS liquid cultures incubated overnight in aerobic and anaerobic conditions. (B-C) Representative (B) BHI-blood and (C) YPD plates streaked with GF and SPF cecum content and incubated for 3 d. (D) Representative histograms bacteria flow cytometry plots of PBS, GF, and SPF cecum content stained with SYBR Gold. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; OD, optical density; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. Cecal mass interferes with fat mass estimation by EchoMRI.

(A) Cecal mass (tissue including luminal content) as percentage of total body mass (N of mice per group: GF = 16, OligoMM12 = 12, SPF = 11) (B) Percentage of lean body mass before cecum removal. (C) Lean body mass estimated by EchoMRI with and without cecum. Measurements were taken on live animals (x-axis) and dead animals after cecum dissection (y-axis). Equations show simple linear regression for estimating lean mass without cecum based on lean mass with cecum; in brackets adjusted R-squared. (D) Lean mass difference after cecum removal. (E) Lean mass difference after cecum removal as percentage of lean mass before cecum removal. (F) Fat body mass acquired by EchoMRI before cecum removal. (G) Percentage of fat body mass before cecum removal. (H) Fat body mass estimated by EchoMRI with and without cecum. Measurements were taken on live animals (x-axis) and dead animals after cecum dissection (y-axis). Equations show simple linear regression for estimating fat mass without cecum based on fat mass with cecum; in brackets adjusted R-squared. (I) Fat mass difference after cecum removal. (J) Fat mass difference after cecum removal as percentage of lean mass before cecum removal. (K) Fat mass measured by EchoMRI in live, dead, and cecum-removed SPF mice (n = 9). Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 13, OligoMM12 = 11, SPF = 15. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

(TIF)

S3 Fig. Cecal mass interferes with normalization of energy expenditure.

(A-B) Comparison of circadian changes in energy expenditure (without normalization) among GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice. (A) Circadian variation in average energy expenditure per time point and (B) overlayed curves obtained by smoothing function of data obtained every 24 min per mouse over 10 d. (C-E) Energy expenditure values obtained by “classical” ratio-based normalization methods (dividing energy expenditure values per phase by mass). (C) Area-under-curve after normalization by total mass after cecal dissection. (D) Area-under-curve after normalization by lean body mass (EchoMRI). (E) Area-under-curve after normalization by total body mass before cecal dissection. Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 9, OligoMM12 = 8, SPF = 10. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

(TIF)

S4 Fig. Bacterial density in cecum content of OligoMM12 and SPF mice.

(A) Bacterial density in cecum content of OligoMM12 and SPF mice during the light and dark phase quantified by flow cytometry. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data.

(TIF)

S5 Fig. Locomotor activity and total amount of cecal SCFAs.

(A-B) Locomotor activity in OligoMM12 and SPF mice (n = 9 per group): (A) Circadian variation in average breaks/minute per time point. (B) Average daily breaks/minute. (C) Estimation total amount of SCFAs and intermediate metabolites by multiplying measured concentration values by the cecal mass of the group. Number represented estimate mean value ± combined standard uncertainty from measurements used for calculations. Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 13, OligoMM12 = 12, SPF = 10. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SCFA, short-chain fatty acid; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

(TIF)

S6 Fig. Community composition of the OligoMM12 microbiota in cecum content during the light and dark phase quantified by 16S amplicon sequencing.

Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data, and raw sequencing data are publicly available on the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the Project ID PRJEB53981.

(TIF)

S7 Fig. Metabolic profile comparison of GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice by UPLC/MS in liver.

Manually curated list of compounds obtained by targeted peak extraction from differentially expressed pathways in liver samples during the light phase (ZT 5) and dark phase (ZT 16). p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test after log2 transformation of area value. Number of mice per group: ZT5: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 7; ZT16: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 7. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free; UPLC/MS, ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

(TIF)

S8 Fig. Metabolic profile comparison of GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice by UPLC/MS in plasma.

Manually curated list of compounds obtained by targeted peak extraction from differentially expressed pathways in plasma samples during the light phase (ZT 5) and dark phase (ZT 16). p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test after log2 transformation of area value. Number of mice per group: ZT5: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 7, SPF = 7; ZT16: GF = 5, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 6. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free; UPLC/MS, ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

(TIF)

S1 Table. List of metabolites identified by targeted peak extraction in the UPLC/MS data.

Table indicates compound name, KEGG entry number, type of column was used for UPLC and if the peak ID matched the retention time and MS2 spectra identified with the chemical standard in liver and plasma samples. Data of all compounds in liver and plasma samples during the light phase (ZT 5) and dark phase (ZT 16) available in S1 Data. UPLC/MS, ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Excel spreadsheet containing, in separate sheets, the underlying numerical data and statistical analysis for Figs 1C–1G, 2A–2I, 3A–3F, 4A–4F, S1A–S1D, S2A–S2K, S3A–S3E, S4, S5A–S5C, S6, S7, and S8.

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Thomas Fehr, Andre Galhano, and Susanne Freedrich for their support in the establishment of the gnotobiotic metabolic phenotype facility in the ETH Phenomic Center. Also, we thank Maria L. Balmer for her comments and suggestions for the manuscript.

Abbreviations

GF

germ-free

iBAT

interscapular brown adipose tissue

iWAT

inguinal white adipose tissue

RER

respiratory exchange ratio

SCFA

short-chain fatty acid

SPF

specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free

UPLC/MS

ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry

vWAT

visceral white adipose tissue

ZT

Zeitgeber time

Data Availability

Relevant source data for Figs 1C–1G, 2A–2I, 3A–3F, 4A–4F, and S1A–S1D, S2A–S2K, S3A–S3E, S4, S5A–S5C, S6, S7, S8 is available in S1 Data. Raw sequencing data used for S6 Fig is publicly available on the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the Project ID PRJEB53981. Raw data and code used for generating all figures in this publication are made available in a curated data archive at ETH Zurich (https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/521803) under the DOI 10.3929/ethz-b-000521803.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the Novartis FreeNovation (https://www.novartis.ch/de/novartis-in-der-schweiz/medizin-neu-denken/forschungsfoerderung/freenovation) (E.S., W-D.H., C.W.); NCCR Microbiomes, a research consortium financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation (https://nccr-microbiomes.ch) (E.S., W-D.H, S.S.); Swiss National Science Foundation (40B2-0_180953, 310030_185128; https://www.snf.ch/en) (E.S.), European Research Council Consolidator Grant (NUMBER 865730-SNUGly; https://erc.europa.eu/funding/consolidator-grants) (E.S.), Gebert Rüf Microbials (GR073_17; https://www.grstiftung.ch/en/area-activity/closed-areas/microbials.htm) (E.S.); Botnar Research Centre for Child Health Multi-Invesitigator Project 2020 (BRCCH_MIP: Microbiota Engineering for Child Health; https://brc.ch) (E.S.), ETH Zürich Foundation and Evi Diethelm-Winteler-Stiftung (Zurich Exhalomics; https://www.exhalomics.ch) (R.Z.). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Sonnenburg JL, Bäckhed F. Diet-microbiota interactions as moderators of human metabolism. Nature. Nature Publishing Group. 2016:56–64. doi: 10.1038/nature18846 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Bäckhed F, Ding H, Wang T, Hooper LV, Koh GY, Nagy A, et al. The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:15718–15723. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0407076101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kübeck R, Bonet-Ripoll C, Hoffmann C, Walker A, Müller VM, Schüppel VL, et al. Dietary fat and gut microbiota interactions determine diet-induced obesity in mice. Mol Metab. 2016;5:1162–1174. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2016.10.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bäckhed F, Manchester JK, Semenkovich CF, Gordon JI. Mechanisms underlying the resistance to diet-induced obesity in germ-free mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104:979–984. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0605374104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Fleissner CK, Huebel N, El-Bary MMA, Loh G, Klaus S, Blaut M. Absence of intestinal microbiota does not protect mice from diet-induced obesity. Br J Nutr. 2010;104:919–929. doi: 10.1017/S0007114510001303 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Cani PD, Van Hul M, Lefort C, Depommier C, Rastelli M, Everard A. Microbial regulation of organismal energy homeostasis. Nat Metab. 2019;1:34–46. doi: 10.1038/s42255-018-0017-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Lin H V., Frassetto A, Kowalik EJ Jr, Nawrocki AR, Lu MM, Kosinski JR, et al. Butyrate and Propionate Protect against Diet-Induced Obesity and Regulate Gut Hormones via Free Fatty Acid Receptor 3-Independent Mechanisms. Brennan L, editor. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e35240. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035240 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Goswami C, Iwasaki Y, Yada T. Short-chain fatty acids suppress food intake by activating vagal afferent neurons. J Nutr Biochem. 2018;57:130–135. doi: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2018.03.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature. 2006;444:1027–1031. doi: 10.1038/nature05414 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Yao L, Seaton SC, Ndousse-Fetter S, Adhikari AA, DiBenedetto N, Mina AI, et al. A selective gut bacterial bile salt hydrolase alters host metabolism. Elife. 2018;7. doi: 10.7554/eLife.37182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Sayin SI, Wahlström A, Felin J, Jäntti S, Marschall HU, Bamberg K, et al. Gut microbiota regulates bile acid metabolism by reducing the levels of tauro-beta-muricholic acid, a naturally occurring FXR antagonist. Cell Metab. 2013;17:225–235. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2013.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Caesar R, Tremaroli V, Kovatcheva-Datchary P, Cani PD, Bäckhed F. Crosstalk between Gut Microbiota and Dietary Lipids Aggravates WAT Inflammation through TLR Signaling. Cell Metab. 2015;22:658–668. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.07.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Krisko TI, Nicholls HT, Bare CJ, Holman CD, Putzel GG, Jansen RS, et al. Dissociation of Adaptive Thermogenesis from Glucose Homeostasis in Microbiome-Deficient Mice. Cell Metab. 2020;31:592–604.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2020.01.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Li M, Li L, Li B, Hambly C, Wang G, Wu Y, et al. Brown adipose tissue is the key depot for glucose clearance in microbiota depleted mice. Nat Commun. 2021;12:1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-24659-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Li B, Li L, Li M, Lam SM, Wang G, Wu Y, et al. Microbiota Depletion Impairs Thermogenesis of Brown Adipose Tissue and Browning of White Adipose Tissue. Cell Rep. 2019;26:2720–2737.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.02.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Harley ITW, Karp CL. Obesity and the gut microbiome: Striving for causality. Mol Metab. 2012;1:21–31. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2012.07.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Walter J, Armet AM, Finlay BB, Shanahan F. Establishing or Exaggerating Causality for the Gut Microbiome: Lessons from Human Microbiota-Associated Rodents. Cell. Cell Press. 2020:221–232. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.12.025 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mallapaty S. Gnotobiotics: getting a grip on the microbiome boom. Lab Anim (NY). 2017;46:373–377. doi: 10.1038/laban.1344 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Koh A, Bäckhed F. From Association to Causality: the Role of the Gut Microbiota and Its Functional Products on Host Metabolism. Molecular Cell. Cell Press. 2020:584–596. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2020.03.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Steimle A, De Sciscio A, Neumann M, Grant ET, Pereira GV, Ohno H, et al. Constructing a gnotobiotic mouse model with a synthetic human gut microbiome to study host–microbe cross talk. STAR Protoc. 2021;2:100607. doi: 10.1016/j.xpro.2021.100607 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Kovatcheva-Datchary P, Shoaie S, Lee S, Wahlström A, Nookaew I, Hallen A, et al. Simplified Intestinal Microbiota to Study Microbe-Diet-Host Interactions in a Mouse Model. Cell Rep. 2019;26:3772–3783.e6. doi: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.02.090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Faith JJ, Ahern PP, Ridaura VK, Cheng J, Gordon JI. Identifying gut microbe-host phenotype relationships using combinatorial communities in gnotobiotic mice. Sci Transl Med. 2014;6:220ra11. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3008051 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Brugiroux S, Beutler M, Pfann C, Garzetti D, Ruscheweyh HJ, Ring D, et al. Genome-guided design of a defined mouse microbiota that confers colonization resistance against Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium. Nat Microbiol. 2016;2:16215. doi: 10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Eberl C, Ring D, Münch PC, Beutler M, Basic M, Slack EC, et al. Reproducible Colonization of Germ-Free Mice With the Oligo-Mouse-Microbiota in Different Animal Facilities. Front Microbiol. 2020;10:2999. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.02999 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Streidl T, Karkossa I, Segura Muñoz RR, Eberl C, Zaufel A, Plagge J, et al. The gut bacterium Extibacter muris produces secondary bile acids and influences liver physiology in gnotobiotic mice. Gut Microbes. 2021;13:1–21. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2020.1854008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Wotzka SY, Kreuzer M, Maier L, Arnoldini M, Nguyen BD, Brachmann AO, et al. Escherichia coli limits Salmonella Typhimurium infections after diet shifts and fat-mediated microbiota perturbation in mice. Nat Microbiol. 2019. doi: 10.1038/s41564-019-0568-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Yilmaz B, Mooser C, Keller I, Li H, Zimmermann J, Bosshard L, et al. Long-term evolution and short-term adaptation of microbiota strains and sub-strains in mice. Cell Host Microbe. 2021;29:650–663.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.chom.2021.02.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Weiss AS, Burrichter AG, Chakravarthy A, Raj D, Von Strempel A, Meng C, et al. In vitro interaction network of a synthetic gut bacterial community. ISME J. 2021;2021:1–15. doi: 10.1038/s41396-021-01153-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Zarrinpar A, Chaix A, Yooseph S, Panda S. Diet and feeding pattern affect the diurnal dynamics of the gut microbiome. Cell Metab. 2014;20:1006–1017. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2014.11.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Thaiss CA, Zeevi D, Levy M, Zilberman-Schapira G, Suez J, Tengeler AC, et al. Transkingdom control of microbiota diurnal oscillations promotes metabolic homeostasis. Cell. 2014;159:514–529. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.09.048 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Tahara Y, Yamazaki M, Sukigara H, Motohashi H, Sasaki H, Miyakawa H, et al. Gut Microbiota-Derived Short Chain Fatty Acids Induce Circadian Clock Entrainment in Mouse Peripheral Tissue. Sci Rep. 2018;8:1395. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-19836-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wang Y, Kuang Z, Yu X, Ruhn KA, Kubo M, Hooper LV. The intestinal microbiota regulates body composition through NFIL3 and the circadian clock. Science. 2017;357:912–916. doi: 10.1126/science.aan0677 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Thaiss CA, Levy M, Korem T, Dohnalova L, Shapiro H, Jaitin DA, et al. Microbiota Diurnal Rhythmicity Programs Host Transcriptome Oscillations. Cell. 2016;167 (1495–1510):e12. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Kuang Z, Wang Y, Li Y, Ye C, Ruhn KA, Behrendt CL, et al. The intestinal microbiota programs diurnal rhythms in host metabolism through histone deacetylase 3. Science. 2019;365:1428–1434. doi: 10.1126/science.aaw3134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Wostmann BS, Bruckner-Kardoss E, Knight PL. Cecal Enlargement, Cardiac Output, and O2 Consumption in Germfree Rats. Exp Biol Med. 1968;128:137–141. doi: 10.3181/00379727-128-32962 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Halatchev IG, O’Donnell D, Hibberd MC, Gordon JI. Applying indirect open-circuit calorimetry to study energy expenditure in gnotobiotic mice harboring different human gut microbial communities. Microbiome. 2019;7:158. doi: 10.1186/s40168-019-0769-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rabasa C, Dickson SL. Impact of stress on metabolism and energy balance. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2016;9:71–77. doi: 10.1016/J.COBEHA.2016.01.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kovner I, Taicher GZ, Mitchell AD. Calibration and validation of EchoMRI whole body composition analysis based on chemical analysis of piglets, in comparison with the same for DXA. Int J Body Compos Res. 2010;8:17–29. Available from: /pmc/articles/PMC2998350/. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Tinsley FC, Taicher GZ, Heiman ML. Evaluation of a Quantitative Magnetic Resonance Method for Mouse Whole Body Composition Analysis. Obes Res. 2004;12:150–160. doi: 10.1038/oby.2004.20 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Meyer CW, Reitmeir P, Tschop MH. Exploration of Energy Metabolism in the Mouse Using Indirect Calorimetry: Measurement of Daily Energy Expenditure (DEE) and Basal Metabolic Rate (BMR). Curr Protoc Mouse Biol. 2015;5:205–222. doi: 10.1002/9780470942390.mo140216 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tschop MH, Speakman JR, Arch JR, Auwerx J, Bruning JC, Chan L, et al. A guide to analysis of mouse energy metabolism. Nat Methods. 2011;9:57–63. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Speakman JR. Measuring energy metabolism in the mouse—theoretical, practical, and analytical considerations. Front Physiol. 2013;4:34. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2013.00034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Mina AI, LeClair RA, LeClair KB, Cohen DE, Lantier L, Banks AS. CalR: A Web-Based Analysis Tool for Indirect Calorimetry Experiments. Cell Metab. 2018;28:656–666. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.06.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Wostmann BS, Larkin C, Moriarty A, Bruckner-Kardoss E. Dietary intake, energy metabolism, and excretory losses of adult male germfree Wistar rats. Lab Anim Sci. 1983;33:46–50. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6834773. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Barlow JT, Bogatyrev SR, Ismagilov RF. A quantitative sequencing framework for absolute abundance measurements of mucosal and lumenal microbial communities. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-16224-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Dennis PP, Bremer H. Modulation of Chemical Composition and Other Parameters of the Cell at Different Exponential Growth Rates. EcoSal Plus. 2008;3. doi: 10.1128/ecosal.5.2.3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Popovic M. Thermodynamic properties of microorganisms: determination and analysis of enthalpy, entropy, and Gibbs free energy of biomass, cells and colonies of 32 microorganism species. Heliyon. 2019;5:e01950. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01950 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ishikawa K, Shimazu T. Daily rhythms of glycogen synthetase and phosphorylase activities in rat liver: influence of food and light. Life Sci. 1976;19:1873–1878. doi: 10.1016/0024-3205(76)90119-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Doi R, Oishi K, Ishida N. CLOCK regulates circadian rhythms of hepatic glycogen synthesis through transcriptional activation of Gys2. J Biol Chem. 2010;285:22114–22121. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M110.110361 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zarrinpar A, Chaix A, Xu ZZ, Chang MW, Marotz CA, Saghatelian A, et al. Antibiotic-induced microbiome depletion alters metabolic homeostasis by affecting gut signaling and colonic metabolism. Nat Commun. 2018;9: 1–13. doi: 10.1038/s41467-018-05336-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Chong J, Xia J. MetaboAnalystR: an R package for flexible and reproducible analysis of metabolomics data. Stegle O, editor. Bioinformatics. 2018;34:4313–4314. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty528 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nowak N. Metabolic Insights Related to Sleep and Circadian Clocks from Mass Spectrometry-Based Analysis of Blood and Breath. 2021. [cited 2021 Aug 17]. doi: 10.3929/ETHZ-B-000480810 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Joyce SA, MacSharry J, Casey PG, Kinsella M, Murphy EF, Shanahan F, et al. Regulation of host weight gain and lipid metabolism by bacterial bile acid modification in the gut. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111:7421–7426. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1323599111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Levenson SM. The influence of the indigenous microflora on mammalian metabolism and nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 1978;2:78–107. doi: 10.1177/014860717800200203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Gordon HA, Pesti L. The gnotobiotic animal as a tool in the study of host microbial relationships. Bact Rev. 1971;35:390–429. doi: 10.1128/br.35.4.390-429.1971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Levenson SM, Doft F, Lev M, Kan D. Influence of microorganisms on oxygen consumption, carbon dioxide production and colonic temperature of rats. J Nutr. 1969;97:542–552. doi: 10.1093/jn/97.4.542 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Ridaura VK, Faith JJ, Rey FE, Cheng J, Duncan AE, Kau AL, et al. Gut microbiota from twins discordant for obesity modulate metabolism in mice. Science. 2013;341:1241214. doi: 10.1126/science.1241214 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Suárez-Zamorano N, Fabbiano S, Chevalier C, Stojanović O, Colin DJ, Stevanović A, et al. Microbiota depletion promotes browning of white adipose tissue and reduces obesity. Nat Med. 2015;21:1497–1501. doi: 10.1038/nm.3994 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Woting A, Pfeiffer N, Hanske L, Loh G, Klaus S, Blaut M. Alleviation of high fat diet-induced obesity by oligofructose in gnotobiotic mice is independent of presence of Bifidobacterium longum. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2015;59:2267–2278. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201500249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Woting A, Pfeiffer N, Loh G, Klaus S, Blaut M. Clostridium ramosum promotes High-Fat diet-induced obesity in Gnotobiotic Mouse Models. MBio. 2014;5:1530–1544. doi: 10.1128/mBio.01530-14 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Becker N, Kunath J, Loh G, Blaut M. Human intestinal microbiota: Characterization of a simplified and stable gnotobiotic rat model. Gut Microbes. 2011;2:25–33. doi: 10.4161/gmic.2.1.14651 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Schmidt TSB, Raes J, Bork P. The Human Gut Microbiome: From Association to Modulation. Cell. 2018;172:1198–1215. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.044 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Tanner JM. Fallacy of per-weight and per-surface area standards, and their relation to spurious correlation. J Appl Physiol. 1949;2:1–15. doi: 10.1152/jappl.1949.2.1.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Packard GC, Boardman TJ. The use of percentages and size-specific indices to normalize physiological data for variation in body size: Wasted time, wasted effort? Comp Biochem Physiol—A Mol Integr Physiol. 1999;122:37–44. doi: 10.1016/S1095-6433(98)10170-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.White CR, Seymour RS. Allometric scaling of mammalian metabolism. J Exp Biol. The Company of Biologists Ltd. 2005:1611–1619. doi: 10.1242/jeb.01501 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Butler AA, Kozak LP. A recurring problem with the analysis of energy expenditure in genetic models expressing lean and obese phenotypes. Diabetes. 2010;59:323–329. doi: 10.2337/db09-1471 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kaiyala KJ, Schwartz MW. Toward a more complete (and less controversial) understanding of energy expenditure and its role in obesity pathogenesis. Diabetes. 2011;60:17–23. doi: 10.2337/db10-0909 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Arch JRS, Hislop D, Wang SJY, Speakman JR. Some mathematical and technical issues in the measurement and interpretation of open-circuit indirect calorimetry in small animals. Int J Obes (Lond). 2006;30:1322–1331. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0803280 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Fernández-Verdejo R, Ravussin E, Speakman JR, Galgani JE. Progress and challenges in analyzing rodent energy expenditure. Nat Methods. 2019;16:797–799. doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0513-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.von Schwartzenberg RJ, Bisanz JE, Lyalina S, Spanogiannopoulos P, Ang QY, Cai J, et al. Caloric restriction disrupts the microbiota and colonization resistance. Nature. 2021:1–6. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03663-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Corrigan JK, Ramachandran D, He Y, Palmer CJ, Jurczak MJ, Chen R, et al. A big-data approach to understanding metabolic rate and response to obesity in laboratory mice. Elife. 2020;9. doi: 10.7554/eLife.53560 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Stubbs RJ, Hopkins M, Finlayson GS, Duarte C, Gibbons C, Blundell JE. Potential effects of fat mass and fat-free mass on energy intake in different states of energy balance. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2018;72:698–709. doi: 10.1038/s41430-018-0146-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.MacLean PS, Blundell JE, Mennella JA, Batterham RL. Biological control of appetite: A daunting complexity. Obesity. 2017;25:S8–S16. doi: 10.1002/oby.21771 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Touw K, Ringus DL, Hubert N, Wang Y, Leone VA, Nadimpalli A, et al. Mutual reinforcement of pathophysiological host-microbe interactions in intestinal stasis models. Physiol Rep. 2017;5:e13182. doi: 10.14814/phy2.13182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Fetissov SO. Role of the gut microbiota in host appetite control: Bacterial growth to animal feeding behaviour. Nature Reviews Endocrinology. Nature Publishing Group; 2017. p. 11–25. doi: 10.1038/nrendo.2016.150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Duncan SH, Louis P, Flint HJ. Lactate-utilizing bacteria, isolated from human feces, that produce butyrate as a major fermentation product. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:5810–5817. doi: 10.1128/AEM.70.10.5810-5817.2004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Belenguer A, Holtrop G, Duncan SH, Anderson SE, Calder AG, Flint HJ, et al. Rates of productionand utilization of lactate by microbial communities fromthe human colon. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2011;77:107–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01086.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Flint HJ, Duncan SH, Scott KP, Louis P. Links between diet, gut microbiota composition and gut metabolism. Proc Nutr Soc. 2015;74:13–22. doi: 10.1017/S0029665114001463 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Liu C, Wu J, Zhu J, Kuei C, Yu J, Shelton J, et al. Lactate inhibits lipolysis in fat cells through activation of an orphan G-protein-coupled receptor, GPR81. J Biol Chem. 2009;284:2811–2822. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M806409200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Cai TQ, Ren N, Jin L, Cheng K, Kash S, Chen R, et al. Role of GPR81 in lactate-mediated reduction of adipose lipolysis. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008;377:987–991. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2008.10.088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Mardinoglu A, Shoaie S, Bergentall M, Ghaffari P, Zhang C, Larsson E, et al. The gut microbiota modulates host amino acid and glutathione metabolism in mice. Mol Syst Biol. 2015;11:834. doi: 10.15252/msb.20156487 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Claus SP, Tsang TM, Wang Y, Cloarec O, Skordi E, Martin F-P, et al. Systemic multicompartmental effects of the gut microbiome on mouse metabolic phenotypes. Mol Syst Biol. 2008;4:219. doi: 10.1038/msb.2008.56 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Moor K, Fadlallah J, Toska A, Sterlin D, Balmer ML, Macpherson AJ, et al. Analysis of bacterial-surface-specific antibodies in body fluids using bacterial flow cytometry. Nat Protoc. 2016;11:1531–1553. doi: 10.1038/nprot.2016.091 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Liebisch G, Ecker J, Roth S, Schweizer S, Öttl V, Schött HF, et al. Quantification of fecal short chain fatty acids by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry—investigation of pre-analytic stability. Biomolecules. 2019;9:121. doi: 10.3390/biom9040121 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 85.Smith CA, Want EJ, O’Maille G, Abagyan R, Siuzdak G. XCMS: processing mass spectrometry data for metabolite profiling using nonlinear peak alignment, matching, and identification. Anal Chem. 2006;78:779–787. doi: 10.1021/ac051437y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86.Adams KJ, Pratt B, Bose N, Dubois LG, St John-Williams L, Perrott KM, et al. Skyline for Small Molecules: A Unifying Software Package for Quantitative Metabolomics. J Proteome Res. 2020;19:1447–1458. doi: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.9b00640 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87.Parada AE, Needham DM, Fuhrman JA. Every base matters: assessing small subunit rRNA primers for marine microbiomes with mock communities, time series and global field samples. Environ Microbiol. 2016;18:1403–1414. doi: 10.1111/1462-2920.13023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88.Apprill A, Mcnally S, Parsons R, Weber L. Minor revision to V4 region SSU rRNA 806R gene primer greatly increases detection of SAR11 bacterioplankton. Aquat Microb Ecol. 2015;75:129–137. doi: 10.3354/AME01753 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 89.Weir JBDB. New methods for calculating metabolic rate with special reference to protein metabolism. J Physiol. 1949;109:1–9. doi: 10.1113/jphysiol.1949.sp004363 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90.Callahan BJ, McMurdie PJ, Rosen MJ, Han AW, Johnson AJA, Holmes SP. DADA2: High-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat Methods. 2016;13:581–583. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.3869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91.Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet.journal. 2011;17:10–12. doi: 10.14806/EJ.17.1.200 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 92.Murali A, Bhargava A, Wright ES. IDTAXA: A novel approach for accurate taxonomic classification of microbiome sequences. Microbiome. 2018;6:1–14. doi: 10.1186/S40168-018-0521-5/FIGURES/6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93.Quast C, Pruesse E, Yilmaz P, Gerken J, Schweer T, Yarza P, et al. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41:D590–D596. doi: 10.1093/nar/gks1219 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94.Davis NM, DiM P, Holmes SP, Relman DA, Callahan BJ. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome. 2018;6:226. doi: 10.1186/s40168-018-0605-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95.Ucar I, Pebesma E, Azcorra A. Measurement errors in R. R J. 2019;10:549–557. doi: 10.32614/RJ-2018-075 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Dario Ummarino, PhD

21 Dec 2021

Dear Dr Slack,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Metabolic reconstitution by a gnotobiotic microbiota varies over the circadian cycle" for consideration as a Research Article by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff, as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise, and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed the checks it will be sent out for review. To provide the metadata for your submission, please Login to Editorial Manager (https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology) within two working days, i.e. by Dec 22 2021 11:59PM.

If your manuscript has been previously reviewed at another journal, PLOS Biology is willing to work with those reviews in order to avoid re-starting the process. Submission of the previous reviews is entirely optional and our ability to use them effectively will depend on the willingness of the previous journal to confirm the content of the reports and share the reviewer identities. Please note that we reserve the right to invite additional reviewers if we consider that additional/independent reviewers are needed, although we aim to avoid this as far as possible. In our experience, working with previous reviews does save time.

If you would like to send previous reviewer reports to us, please email me at dummarino@plos.org to let me know, including the name of the previous journal and the manuscript ID the study was given, as well as attaching a point-by-point response to reviewers that details how you have or plan to address the reviewers' concerns.

Given the disruptions resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, please expect some delays in the editorial process. We apologise in advance for any inconvenience caused and will do our best to minimize impact as far as possible. In addition, please note that we will invite reviewers from January, as the likelihood of having well placed reviewers decline during the upcoming festive break is high.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Dario

Dario Ummarino, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 1

Dario Ummarino, PhD

1 Mar 2022

Dear Dr Slack,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Metabolic reconstitution by a gnotobiotic microbiota varies over the circadian cycle" for consideration as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

As you will see in the reviews attached below, the reviewers appreciate the rigorous experimental set-up of the study, in particular the use of the metabolomic cage system; they also think that your findings would be valuable to the microbiology/metabolism research community. However, the reviewers also raise several points to improve the interpretation and discussion of the results. In particular, we would like to emphasize that you should carefully address the concerns around locomotion data raised by reviewers #1 and #2, as these data would be important to fully explain RER differences. Please also pay close attention to the additional analyses on the circadian microbiome dynamics in the OligoMM12 group, which were requested by reviewers #2 and #3. We also recommend that you provide evidence for sterility after continuous housing, but not necessarily at the end of the experiments, to address the comments by reviewer #2 and #3. Finally, in addressing the comments by reviewer #2, we recommend that you move most of the results related to cecum removal to the supplementary material and you shorten the discussion of these results, while on the other hand you elaborate more on the expected effects on bile acids.

In light of the reviews, we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome re-submission of a much-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

Given the potential time frame for performing the additional experiments requested by the reviewers, we expect to receive your revised manuscript within 6 months, although you can submit the revisions as soon as they are ready.

Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not intend to submit a revision so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

**IMPORTANT - SUBMITTING YOUR REVISION**

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit the following files along with your revised manuscript:

1. A 'Response to Reviewers' file - this should detail your responses to the editorial requests, present a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments, and indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

*NOTE: In your point by point response to the reviewers, please provide the full context of each review. Do not selectively quote paragraphs or sentences to reply to. The entire set of reviewer comments should be present in full and each specific point should be responded to individually, point by point.

You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

2. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please also upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type.

*Re-submission Checklist*

When you are ready to resubmit your revised manuscript, please refer to this re-submission checklist: https://plos.io/Biology_Checklist

To submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Please make sure to read the following important policies and guidelines while preparing your revision:

*Published Peer Review*

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*PLOS Data Policy*

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5

*Blot and Gel Data Policy*

We require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Dario

Dario Ummarino, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

dummarino@plos.org

*****************************************************

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1: Hoces et al. present a careful examination of how OligoMM12 mice differ from SPF and GF mice in terms of bodyweight (Fig. 1), energy balance (Fig. 2), RER and SCFAs (Fig. 3), and metabolomics of liver and plasma (Fig. 4). They use a clever setup to monitor calorimetric measurements under sterile conditions, which allows them to address some of the long-standing questions in the field of metabolic host-microbiota interactions.

Among the most interesting outcomes are the finding that OligoMM12 mice have larger fat depots than both SPF and GF mice (Fig. 1G), that GF mice successfully compensate for their lack of microbiota-derived calories by eating more (Fig. 2), and that GF, SPF, and OligoMM12 mice have approximately equivalent energy expenditure (Fig. 2B) and absolute energy extraction (Fig. 2K), but SPF mice extract a higher percentage of calories from food (Fig. 2L). This manuscript contributes to an improved understanding of the ways in which OligoMM12 mice do and don't mimic SPF mice.

Please find below several questions and suggestions that I hope will help improve this manuscript.

* Line 124: The authors present absolute lean mass in Fig. 1F, but it would be nice to see percent lean mass. For example, SPF mice seem to have the lowest body weight (Fig. 1D), but the highest lean body mass (Fig. 1F), suggesting that they have significantly higher percent lean mass. This would be an interesting finding to report. The same is true for percent fat mass, but I understand the authors' reservations about doing this given their observation that the measurement of fat mass is sensitive to cecal weight (Fig. S1E).

* Line 128: It is an interesting point that EchoMRI measurements are different pre- and post-cecum dissection. In the Methods, I saw that "for a set of mice," EchoMRI was performed on euthanized mice pre- and post-cecum removal. Are all the datapoints in Fig. S1E on dead mice, or is the y-axis dead mice and the x-axis live mice? I bring this up because the inconsistency in fat mass may also be related to comparing live v. dead mice. At least one publication reports EchoMRI inconsistencies when comparing live to dead animals (PMID: 21152249).

* Line 129: In Fig. S1, I suggest changing the word "variation" to "difference." Variation made me think standard deviation and variance, but the authors are simply referring to the difference between pre- and post-cecum measurements.

* Line 131: Fig. S1F is indeed baffling: how could there be higher fat mass when excluding the cecum? I appreciate that the authors included this puzzling result. They should discuss if this is incongruent with previously reported results.

* Line 134: The authors argue that directly weighing dissected fat mass is a more reliable way of estimating fat mass, given the EchoMRI weirdness they showed in Fig. S1E. However, dissection of small tissues weighing 50 to 500 mg (Fig. 1G) also seems imperfect. Very slight differences in the boundaries of tissue removal could have large effects on tissue weight. It was reassuring to read that dissection was performed while "blinded to the hygiene status of the mice," but, in my experience, the very large differences in cecum size prevent true blinding. One way to strengthen the authors' argument is to quantitatively compare their tissue weights to previously reported results (e.g. Bäckhed 2014, Suárez-Zamorano 2015), although such comparisons across studies and vivaria might be difficult.

* Line 150: Did the authors also try normalizing by lean body mass after subtracting the weight of the cecum? The cecum should be mostly (entirely?) lean mass, rather than fat mass, so this normalization approach would mimic the "classical normalization" of dividing by lean body mass but after adjusting for the confound of cecal weight.

* Line 165: It is interesting and surprising that feces from GF mice have fewer calories than feces from SPF mice. I like the authors' explanation for this observation, but they should discuss it in the context of previous papers that have reported bomb calorimetry done on feces from gnotobiotic mice.

* Line 203: Showing that changes in food intake don't explain differences in RER is an important control. The other behavior that could affect RER is locomotion, which unfortunately doesn't seem to have been measured in this manuscript. Physical activity is known to increase RER, so it would have been nice to investigate whether differences in physical activity could explain the differences in RER. Do the authors happen to have measurements of locomotion?

* Line 263: In Fig. 4C-D, the most consistent hit seemed to be butanoate metabolism. Are any of the molecules in Fig. S4 related to butanoate metabolism? It could be nice to have a sentence or two (and a graph or two) zooming in on this hit.

* Line 355: The RER data were used to emphasize that OligoMM12 mice resemble GF mice during the day and SPF mice at night, but the metabolomic data consistently showed that OligoMM12 and GF mice were always close together (both during the day and night). Therefore, I'm not sure that "In line with the RER data" is the appropriate transition here.

Praiseworthy highlights:

* Line 187: This is a nice result showing that SPF mice have microbes (not present in OligoMM12 mice) that improve energy extraction from food. This is consistent with OligoMM12 mice having a bigger cecum than SPF mice.

* Line 222: OligoMM12 mice producing much more hydrogen than the two other groups is a striking result.

* It is clear that the authors thought carefully about appropriate data normalization.

Very minor concerns:

* Line 246: Please define UPLC-MS the first time it's introduced.

* Typo in line 256: "OilgoMM12"

* Typo in line 454: "After samples all samples"

----------------------------------

Reviewer #2: Hoces, et al. present a manuscript demonstrating the effects of GF and a reduced community, OligoMM12 on energy expenditure, RER, SCFA metabolism, and metabolomics changes. In particular the true contribution of the manuscript is the ability to use metabolic cages in an isolator system, thus allowing better metabolic characterization of GF and Oligo mice. This is truly remarkable and exciting as is seeing their data confirming and challenging hypotheses of the metabolic effects on GF and reduced community systems. Moreover, the authors recognize that cyclical changes in feeding and their dynamic effects on the luminal environment and host dynamics influences their metabolic measures, which again strengthens the paper. A few reservations exist though. Better circadian characterization of the microbiome of the Oligo and SPF would have helped inform bacterial-metabolic relationships the authors are using. There was a particular focus on cecal weight (taking up two figures as well as supplemental figures) which is not interesting since it did not affect their ultimate conclusions and distracted from other more important metabolic findings. Finally, the metabolomic results, particularly of bile acids, a far more important finding that is relevant to many groups, is essentially ignored. More detailed comments below.

MAJOR COMMENTS

1. Though it is clear that the microbiome has cyclical dynamics in SPF mice (based on previous papers the authors have cited) and the GF mice have no microbiome dynamics (since they don't have a microbiome), what is the dynamic changes in the microbiome of Oligo mice? Could the different results observed in day vs. night be the result of shifts in relative abundance of bacteria in their reduced community? Or do they occur despite a lack of cyclical oscillations?

2. The authors present so many different versions of their EE data that the message is getting lost in their attempts to show their rigor. Though normalization to body compartments (not total body weight) is common and recommended (PMID 20103710), there needs to be more clarity as to whether their results would be different if they had used lean mass vs lean mass without cecum. My understanding of the experimental conditions presented here is that using lean mass (as opposed to other body compartments or total body weight) makes most sense since GF and low abundance communities (e.g. OligoMM12) lead to poor nutrition states. The fact that cecal removal affects lean mass percentage and could potentially affect EE is interesting. But the authors show that their conclusions were not affected by cecum removal (Fig 2CDE). Hence, I don't really understand why this is such a big part of the paper. It seems like most of what is Fig 1 and 2 can go into supplemental figures (i.e., here are the EE results, cecal removal did not affect our conclusions) and they should focus on the main message here (that EE is not different between GF/OligoMM12/SPF).

3. The authors should include mouse activity data over time.

4. Given the important of bacterial bile acid modifications on host physiology, what is the effect of OligoMM12 on bile acids? The authors hint that these are different and include it in a supplementary table, but this will require far more fleshing out. Since the organisms in the OligMM12 are known, their potential effect on bile acid pool should also be known. Are bile acid changes in line with what is expected? Or are certain bile acid changes occurring at certain times? The current manuscript as written has a missed opportunity here.

5. Calorie consumed in daytime vs. nighttime by GF mice appears to be different than those reported by others (PMID 25891358). Since the authors used a metabolic cage system it is likely that their results are more accurate. However, the authors should discuss these results in context of previous findings.

6. The authors state that "although [GF, Oligo] can equally fill up hepatic glycogen storages at the end of the dark phase, GF and OligoMM12 deplete hepatic glycogen faster during the light phase." However, don't these results contradict their results in Fig 3A which shows that they are using non-glycogen (i.e., primarily fatty acid) sources of energy. How can the authors explain this discrepancy?

7. Given how hard it is to bring a metabolic cage system into a germ-free environment, and this is a purported novelty in the paper, the authors should include in their supplementary figures quality control experiments that confirm that GF and OligoMM12 mice are indeed GF and OligoMM12 by the end of the experiment.

8. Though the authors do a good job of placing their findings in context of previous studies, it's not immediately clear what the significance of Oligo treated mice being similar to GF mice in the dark but (slightly) similar to SPF mice during the day is (especially without knowing more about the dynamics of the Oligo microbiome).

MINOR COMMENTS

9. TSE systems allow continuous measurement of EE. Is there a reason why hourly EE is not presented (as it is for RER and H2)? Area under the curve can be used for continuous time data. There may be additional insights gained by hourly EE.

10. Much of what is stated in the introduction, particularly in the last paragraph, should be shifted to the discussion. In particular, the authors should point out the novelty of having a metabolic cage system in the isolator which distinguishes their work from the others cited here (from my review no other one mentioned has done this).

11. As with the previous comment, description of cecal mass contribution to body composition is important but should likely be in results or methods rather than the introduction.

12. The figures were extremely hard to see. However, this is likely due to the PDF-merge function of the journal since the supplementary figures were exceptionally clear. This has been noted to the editor to improve their software.

13. The authors may want to use Canberra PCoA plots to look at distances between the metabolomics since this tool accounts for the relationship between metabolites (as opposed to plotting them as independent variables), which is increasingly being used instead of PCoA to determine differences between groups (https://github.com/mwang87/q2_metabolomics).

---------------------------------------

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript, the authors established a novel isolator-housed metabolic cage system to measure metabolic activities in germ-free and gnotobiotic mice with minimal contamination risk. Using this system, the authors observed no significant difference in energy extraction and expenditure among germ-free and SPF mice and mice with a defined microbiota (OligoMM12). The work goes on to demonstrate that mice with different microbiota groups have different circadian rhythms of respiratory exchange ratio, suggesting that the microbiota has an impact on the type of respiratory substrates in metabolism at different phases of a day/night cycle. The authors further showed differences in fat and glycogen accumulation, hydrogen and short-chain fatty acid production and host metabolome profiles in different microbiota groups.

Overall, the study is significant as it provides a new version of metabolic cage system for gnotobiotic research. It will be useful for understanding the roles of the microbiota in metabolic regulation. The authors identified multiple metabolic differences among the microbiota groups. How the metabolic reactions are connected and the molecular basis remain to be determined.

Specific comments:

1. Since the new system aims to minimize contamination for long-term examination, it would be important to provide results to show that germ-free mice remain sterile and OligoMM12 mice are not contaminated during and after experiment.

2. In most cases, the authors showed averages of readouts by the metabolic cage system, which were very clear and informative. The authors have also included raw time-course readouts in the supplemental table. It would be very helpful if the authors could plot the time-course values to show the rhythmicity and consistency of measurements across multiple day-night cycles.

3. The authors showed that OligoMM12 mice have more fat accumulation and different RER rhythmicity compared to germ-free and SPF mice. It would be very important if the authors could provide details of how they colonized the microbiota, such as how long the colonization was and what composition the microbiota was in their experiment. The gut microbiota is rhythmic and the rhythmicity may impact host rhythms. It would be helpful if the authors could examine the rhythm of OligoMM12 microbiota to gain some insight into the role of OligoMM12 microbiota in regulating host metabolic rhythms.

4. The authors estimated energy contribution by fecal microbiota using pre-determined parameters including bacterial mass, bacterial density in feces and energy stored in bacteria. Did OligoMM12 mice and SPF mice have similar bacterial density in their feces so that the same parameters could be used for the estimation?

5. The authors showed that multiple amino acid metabolic pathways were enriched in the comparisons between OligoMM12 and GF and between OligoMM12 and SPF. Have authors seen differential abundances of corresponding amino acids besides Glycine, Serine, Threonine and Glutamate, as shown in Sup Fig 4?

Decision Letter 2

Paula Jauregui, PhD

24 Jun 2022

Dear Dr. Slack,

Thank you for your patience while we considered your revised manuscript "Metabolic reconstitution by a gnotobiotic microbiota varies over the circadian cycle" for publication as a Research Article at PLOS Biology. This revised version of your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, and the Academic Editor.

Based on our Academic Editor's assessment of your revision, we are likely to accept this manuscript for publication, provided you satisfactorily address the following data and other policy-related requests.

1. DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it: Figures 1CDEFG, 2ABCDEFGHI, 3ABCDEF, 4ABCDEF, and Supplementary figures S1AD, S2ABCDEFGHIJK, S3ABCDE, S4, S5ABC, S6, S7, S8. We appreciate that some of the raw data is already in the manuscript.

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found.

2. We suggest a modification of the title: "Metabolic reconstitution by a gnotobiotic microbiota varies over the circadian cycle and resembles that of germ-free mice during the day". This is a suggestion, so please modify as you think it fits better.

As you address these items, please take this last chance to review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the cover letter that accompanies your revised manuscript.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks.

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include the following:

- a cover letter that should detail your responses to any editorial requests, if applicable, and whether changes have been made to the reference list

- a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable)

- a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Press*

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, please ensure you have opted out of Early Article Posting on the submission form. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Senior Editor,

pjaureguionieva@plos.org,

PLOS Biology

Decision Letter 3

Paula Jauregui, PhD

6 Jul 2022

Dear Dr. Slack,

Thank you for the submission of your revised Research Article "Metabolic reconstitution of germ-free mice by a gnotobiotic microbiota varies over the circadian cycle" for publication in PLOS Biology. On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Jotham Suez, I am pleased to say that we can in principle accept your manuscript for publication, provided you address any remaining formatting and reporting issues. These will be detailed in an email you should receive within 2-3 business days from our colleagues in the journal operations team; no action is required from you until then. Please note that we will not be able to formally accept your manuscript and schedule it for publication until you have completed any requested changes.

Please take a minute to log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have previously opted in to the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may opt out on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for choosing PLOS Biology for publication and supporting Open Access publishing. We look forward to publishing your study. 

Sincerely, 

Paula

---

Paula Jauregui, PhD,

Senior Editor

PLOS Biology

pjaureguionieva@plos.org

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Sterility test in isolator-based indirect calorimetry system.

    (A) OD measurement of BHIS liquid cultures incubated overnight in aerobic and anaerobic conditions. (B-C) Representative (B) BHI-blood and (C) YPD plates streaked with GF and SPF cecum content and incubated for 3 d. (D) Representative histograms bacteria flow cytometry plots of PBS, GF, and SPF cecum content stained with SYBR Gold. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; OD, optical density; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. Cecal mass interferes with fat mass estimation by EchoMRI.

    (A) Cecal mass (tissue including luminal content) as percentage of total body mass (N of mice per group: GF = 16, OligoMM12 = 12, SPF = 11) (B) Percentage of lean body mass before cecum removal. (C) Lean body mass estimated by EchoMRI with and without cecum. Measurements were taken on live animals (x-axis) and dead animals after cecum dissection (y-axis). Equations show simple linear regression for estimating lean mass without cecum based on lean mass with cecum; in brackets adjusted R-squared. (D) Lean mass difference after cecum removal. (E) Lean mass difference after cecum removal as percentage of lean mass before cecum removal. (F) Fat body mass acquired by EchoMRI before cecum removal. (G) Percentage of fat body mass before cecum removal. (H) Fat body mass estimated by EchoMRI with and without cecum. Measurements were taken on live animals (x-axis) and dead animals after cecum dissection (y-axis). Equations show simple linear regression for estimating fat mass without cecum based on fat mass with cecum; in brackets adjusted R-squared. (I) Fat mass difference after cecum removal. (J) Fat mass difference after cecum removal as percentage of lean mass before cecum removal. (K) Fat mass measured by EchoMRI in live, dead, and cecum-removed SPF mice (n = 9). Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 13, OligoMM12 = 11, SPF = 15. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

    (TIF)

    S3 Fig. Cecal mass interferes with normalization of energy expenditure.

    (A-B) Comparison of circadian changes in energy expenditure (without normalization) among GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice. (A) Circadian variation in average energy expenditure per time point and (B) overlayed curves obtained by smoothing function of data obtained every 24 min per mouse over 10 d. (C-E) Energy expenditure values obtained by “classical” ratio-based normalization methods (dividing energy expenditure values per phase by mass). (C) Area-under-curve after normalization by total mass after cecal dissection. (D) Area-under-curve after normalization by lean body mass (EchoMRI). (E) Area-under-curve after normalization by total body mass before cecal dissection. Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 9, OligoMM12 = 8, SPF = 10. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

    (TIF)

    S4 Fig. Bacterial density in cecum content of OligoMM12 and SPF mice.

    (A) Bacterial density in cecum content of OligoMM12 and SPF mice during the light and dark phase quantified by flow cytometry. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data.

    (TIF)

    S5 Fig. Locomotor activity and total amount of cecal SCFAs.

    (A-B) Locomotor activity in OligoMM12 and SPF mice (n = 9 per group): (A) Circadian variation in average breaks/minute per time point. (B) Average daily breaks/minute. (C) Estimation total amount of SCFAs and intermediate metabolites by multiplying measured concentration values by the cecal mass of the group. Number represented estimate mean value ± combined standard uncertainty from measurements used for calculations. Number of mice per group in all figures unless otherwise specified: GF = 13, OligoMM12 = 12, SPF = 10. p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SCFA, short-chain fatty acid; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free.

    (TIF)

    S6 Fig. Community composition of the OligoMM12 microbiota in cecum content during the light and dark phase quantified by 16S amplicon sequencing.

    Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data, and raw sequencing data are publicly available on the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the Project ID PRJEB53981.

    (TIF)

    S7 Fig. Metabolic profile comparison of GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice by UPLC/MS in liver.

    Manually curated list of compounds obtained by targeted peak extraction from differentially expressed pathways in liver samples during the light phase (ZT 5) and dark phase (ZT 16). p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test after log2 transformation of area value. Number of mice per group: ZT5: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 7; ZT16: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 7. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free; UPLC/MS, ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

    (TIF)

    S8 Fig. Metabolic profile comparison of GF, OligoMM12, and SPF C57B6/J mice by UPLC/MS in plasma.

    Manually curated list of compounds obtained by targeted peak extraction from differentially expressed pathways in plasma samples during the light phase (ZT 5) and dark phase (ZT 16). p-values obtained by Tukey’s honest significance test after log2 transformation of area value. Number of mice per group: ZT5: GF = 4, OligoMM12 = 7, SPF = 7; ZT16: GF = 5, OligoMM12 = 6, SPF = 6. Data underlying this figure are supplied in S1 Data. GF, germ-free; SPF, specific-opportunistic-pathogen-free; UPLC/MS, ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. List of metabolites identified by targeted peak extraction in the UPLC/MS data.

    Table indicates compound name, KEGG entry number, type of column was used for UPLC and if the peak ID matched the retention time and MS2 spectra identified with the chemical standard in liver and plasma samples. Data of all compounds in liver and plasma samples during the light phase (ZT 5) and dark phase (ZT 16) available in S1 Data. UPLC/MS, ultraperformance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Excel spreadsheet containing, in separate sheets, the underlying numerical data and statistical analysis for Figs 1C–1G, 2A–2I, 3A–3F, 4A–4F, S1A–S1D, S2A–S2K, S3A–S3E, S4, S5A–S5C, S6, S7, and S8.

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_reviewers_13Jun2022.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Relevant source data for Figs 1C–1G, 2A–2I, 3A–3F, 4A–4F, and S1A–S1D, S2A–S2K, S3A–S3E, S4, S5A–S5C, S6, S7, S8 is available in S1 Data. Raw sequencing data used for S6 Fig is publicly available on the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under the Project ID PRJEB53981. Raw data and code used for generating all figures in this publication are made available in a curated data archive at ETH Zurich (https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch/handle/20.500.11850/521803) under the DOI 10.3929/ethz-b-000521803.


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES