Cited by 133Gut microbiota and healthProbiotics and Fermented FoodsGastrointestinal motility and disorders

Distinct microbiome composition and metabolome exists across subgroups of elite Irish athletes

Open access
O’Donovan, Ciara M., Madigan, Sharon M., Garcia-Perez, Isabel, Rankin, Alan, O’ Sullivan, Orla, Cotter, Paul D.·2020·Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The gut microbiome has begun to be characterised in athlete groups, albeit, to date, only across a subset of sports. This study aimed to determine if the gut microbiome and metabolome differed across sports classification groups (SCGs) among elite Irish athletes, many of whom were participating in the 2016 Summer Olympics. METHODS: Faecal and urine samples were collected from 37 international level athletes. Faecal samples were prepared for shotgun metagenomic sequencing and faecal and urine samples underwent metabolomic profiling. RESULTS: Differences were observed in the composition and functional capacity of the gut microbiome of athletes across SCGs. The microbiomes of athletes participating in sports with a high dynamic component were the most distinct compositionally (greater differences in proportions of species), while those of athletes participating in sports with high dynamic and static components were the most functionally distinct (greater differences in functional potential). Additionally, both microbial (faecal) and human (urine) derived metabolites were found to vary between SCGs. In particular cis-aconitate, succinic acid and lactate, in urine samples, and creatinine, in faeces, were found to be significantly different between groups. These differences were evident despite the absence of significant differences in diet, as determined using food frequency questionnaires, which were translated into nutrient intake values using FETA. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the gut microbiome and metabolome between groups, in the absence of dietary changes, indicates a role for training load or type as a contributory factor. Further exploration of this hypothesis has the potential to benefit athletes, aspiring athletes and the general public.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jsams.2019.08.290

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Fecal and urine derived metabolites varied between classification including increased lactate in urine in sports with a static component and creatinine in feces in sports with a high dynamic and low static component.

    “Fecal and urine derived metabolites also varied between classification including increased lactate (urine) in sports with a static component and creatinine (feces) in sports with a high dynamic and low static component.”

    From The athletic gut microbiota (2020) · cites this paper as [58]

  • Athletes participating in sports with a high dynamic component were the most distinct compositionally, while athletes participating in sports with both a high dynamic and static component were the most functionally distinct.

    “Athletes participating in sports with a high dynamic component were the most distinct compositionally (greater differences in proportions of species; see Table 1), while athletes participating in sports with both a high dynamic and static component were the most functionally distinct (greater differences in functional potential).”

    From The athletic gut microbiota (2020) · cites this paper as [58]

  • The observed differences in microbiome and metabolome-related patterns across athlete classifications occurred despite no significant variation in dietary intakes, suggesting that variations in training loads and competition requirements contributed to these patterns.

    “However, these differences were observed despite no significant variation in dietary intakes across athletes from different classifications; suggesting that variations in training loads and competition requirements contributed to these microbiome and metabolome-related patterns.”

    From The athletic gut microbiota (2020) · cites this paper as [58]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
O’Donovan, C. M., Madigan, S. M., Garcia-Perez, I., Rankin, A., O’ Sullivan, O., & Cotter, P. D.
Affiliations
  • Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority (IE)
  • Sport Ireland Institute (IE)
Venue
Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-01
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
63-68
ISSN
1440-2440 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2974208590
Cited by
133
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8
FWCI
4.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of science and medicine in sport (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • T-Stór (Teagasc) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
  • Science Foundation Ireland
  • National Institute for Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
Keywords
gut microbiota, urinary metabolome, fecal metabolome, elite athletes, training load, training type, 2016 Rio Olympics, cis-aconitate, succinic acid, lactate, creatinine, diet and microbiome
MeSH terms
Gastrointestinal Microbiome, Feces, Female, Humans, Ireland, Male, Sports, Urine, Metabolome, Athletes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review