Microbiome: Balancing microbial composition through diet
A reciprocal interaction between gut bacteria and gut cells affects protein absorption in the host.
- Institute of Neuroscience, University of Oregon, United States
- Institute of Molecular Biology, University of Oregon, United States
- Humans and the Microbiome Program, CIFAR, Canada
The gut of animals is a complex ecosystem consisting of trillions of bacteria and other microorganisms that are unique to every individual. Infants can inherit their first gut bacteria through vaginal birth and breastfeeding, and the microbiome is later reshaped through diet (Ames et al., 2023).
The gut microbiome helps to break down and enhance the absorption of nutrients like carbohydrates and lipids but the role of gut bacteria in protein absorption is less clear. Previous research has shown that in neonatal mammals and fishes, specialized cells lining the gut, called enterocytes, are essential for absorbing protein (Park et al., 2019). Now, in eLife, Michel Bagnat, John Rawls and colleagues from Duke University, University of North Carolina and University of Alabama at Birmingham – including Laura Childers as first author – report how microbes affect protein absorption by enterocytes (Childers et al., 2024).
To follow the fate of proteins in a living organism, Childers et al. used transparent zebrafish larvae to visualize fluorescent proteins in their journey through the gut. The team fed the zebrafish fluorescent protein and isolated all the lysosome-rich enterocytes, or LREs, that took up the glowing cargo, and which had been previously shown to take up protein efficiently. They used various techniques to manipulate zebrafish microbiomes. Fish either had a complete gut microbiome (called conventionally reared) or no gut microbiome (germ-free): germ-free animals were further inoculated with single bacterial strains to generate fish with only one type of bacteria in their gut. These monoassociated fish allowed the researchers to measure precisely how specific bacteria affected protein uptake in the zebrafish gut. They then looked at gene expression in each of these different scenarios.
The results showed that collectively, resident microbes slowed down protein uptake and degradation in LREs. Moreover, the LREs in conventionally reared fish upregulated genes involved in immune responses and bacteria-sensing and downregulated genes linked to the degradation of proteins. To identify the impact of specific bacteria on LREs, Childers et al. tracked the fates of the fluorescent proteins in monoassociated fish and identified a bacterial strain, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, which only slightly reduced protein uptake compared to germ-free fish, while the Vibrio cholerae strain significantly decreased how much protein the LREs absorbed.
To explore why the fish colonized by V. cholerae absorbed protein so poorly, Childers et al. analyzed the protein uptake machinery of LREs. This revealed that expression of genes encoding the protein uptake machinery in V. cholerae monoassociated fish were reduced compared to A. calcoaceticus-monoassociated or germ-free animals. Why the expression of these genes changed in the presence of different bacteria remains to be determined. The V. cholerae strain used can cause a lot of damage to enterocytes (Ngo et al., 2024). It is possible that LREs down-regulate protein uptake in the presence of harmful bacteria like V. cholerae to avoid taking up toxic proteins. Alternatively, the LREs of V. cholerae-colonized fish may simply be slightly impaired and less capable of protein uptake. This suggests that individual bacterial strains can influence how much protein gets absorbed by enterocytes.
Childers et al. also explored how the amount of protein remaining in the gut tube affected the composition of the gut microbiome. When they fed zebrafish a low protein diet in comparison to the normal diet, they noted significant shifts in the types of bacteria found in the gut, especially in mutant zebrafish with defects in their protein uptake machinery. Fish fed a low protein diet had less diverse microbiomes.
Understanding what regulates the protein uptake machinery will shed new light on diseases of malnutrition. For example, children with kwashiorkor disease suffer from protein malabsorption (Williams, 2003). Their gut microbiomes appear to play a role in the disease because feces from children with kwashiorkor can cause similar symptoms when introduced into germ-free mice (Smith et al., 2013). Perhaps the gut bacteria of kwashiorkor patients inhibit protein uptake similarly to V. cholerae in zebrafish.
Childers et al. show that gut microbes shape the fate of protein in the gut. Future research will explore how specific bacteria affect the protein uptake machinery and how protein availability in the gut affects the microbiome. Already, the findings support the idea that correcting defective microbiomes could be a promising strategy for treating childhood malnutrition (Barratt et al., 2022). The findings also offer a cautionary lesson: dramatically changing the protein content of your diet, for example by consuming protein shakes, could backfire by changing the microbiome, possibly in a way that impairs protein uptake processes in the gut.
References
-
Gut microbiome development and childhood undernutritionCell Host & Microbe 30:617–626.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2022.04.002
-
Kwashiorkor: a nutritional disease of children associated with a maize diet. 1935Bulletin of the World Health Organization 81:912–913.
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2024, Acuff and Guillemin
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 678
- views
-
- 69
- downloads
-
- 0
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.
Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)
Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)
Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)
Microbiome: Balancing microbial composition through diet
eLife 13:e104560.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.104560
Further reading
-
- Cell Biology
- Genetics and Genomics
Progression through the G1 phase of the cell cycle is the most highly regulated step in cellular division. We employed a chemogenetic approach to discover novel cellular networks that regulate cell cycle progression. This approach uncovered functional clusters of genes that altered sensitivity of cells to inhibitors of the G1/S transition. Mutation of components of the Polycomb Repressor Complex 2 rescued proliferation inhibition caused by the CDK4/6 inhibitor palbociclib, but not to inhibitors of S phase or mitosis. In addition to its core catalytic subunits, mutation of the PRC2.1 accessory protein MTF2, but not the PRC2.2 protein JARID2, rendered cells resistant to palbociclib treatment. We found that PRC2.1 (MTF2), but not PRC2.2 (JARID2), was critical for promoting H3K27me3 deposition at CpG islands genome-wide and in promoters. This included the CpG islands in the promoter of the CDK4/6 cyclins CCND1 and CCND2, and loss of MTF2 lead to upregulation of both CCND1 and CCND2. Our results demonstrate a role for PRC2.1, but not PRC2.2, in antagonizing G1 progression in a diversity of cell linages, including chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), breast cancer, and immortalized cell lines.
-
- Cell Biology
Distal appendages are nine-fold symmetric blade-like structures attached to the distal end of the mother centriole. These structures are critical for formation of the primary cilium, by regulating at least four critical steps: ciliary vesicle recruitment, recruitment and initiation of intraflagellar transport (IFT), and removal of CP110. While specific proteins that localize to the distal appendages have been identified, how exactly each protein functions to achieve the multiple roles of the distal appendages is poorly understood. Here we comprehensively analyze known and newly discovered distal appendage proteins (CEP83, SCLT1, CEP164, TTBK2, FBF1, CEP89, KIZ, ANKRD26, PIDD1, LRRC45, NCS1, CEP15) for their precise localization, order of recruitment, and their roles in each step of cilia formation. Using CRISPR-Cas9 knockouts, we show that the order of the recruitment of the distal appendage proteins is highly interconnected and a more complex hierarchy. Our analysis highlights two protein modules, CEP83-SCLT1 and CEP164-TTBK2, as critical for structural assembly of distal appendages. Functional assays revealed that CEP89 selectively functions in RAB34+ ciliary vesicle recruitment, while deletion of the integral components, CEP83-SCLT1-CEP164-TTBK2, severely compromised all four steps of cilium formation. Collectively, our analyses provide a more comprehensive view of the organization and the function of the distal appendage, paving the way for molecular understanding of ciliary assembly.
