Cited by 478Gut microbiota and healthMicrobial Community Ecology and PhysiologyGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Organismal, genetic, and transcriptional variation in the deeply sequenced gut microbiomes of identical twins

Open access
Turnbaugh, Peter J., Quince, Christopher, Faith, Jeremiah J., McHardy, Alice C., Yatsunenko, Tanya, Niazi, Faheem, Affourtit, Jason, Egholm, Michael +3 more·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

We deeply sampled the organismal, genetic, and transcriptional diversity in fecal samples collected from a monozygotic (MZ) twin pair and compared the results to 1,095 communities from the gut and other body habitats of related and unrelated individuals. Using a new scheme for noise reduction in pyrosequencing data, we estimated the total diversity of species-level bacterial phylotypes in the 1.2-1.5 million bacterial 16S rRNA reads obtained from each deeply sampled cotwin to be ~800 (35.9%, 49.1% detected in both). A combined 1.1 million read 16S rRNA dataset representing 281 shallowly sequenced fecal samples from 54 twin pairs and their mothers contained an estimated 4,018 species-level phylotypes, with each sample having a unique species assemblage (53.4 ± 0.6% and 50.3 ± 0.5% overlap with the deeply sampled cotwins). Of the 134 phylotypes with a relative abundance of >0.1% in the combined dataset, only 37 appeared in >50% of the samples, with one phylotype in the Lachnospiraceae family present in 99%. Nongut communities had significantly reduced overlap with the deeply sequenced twins’ fecal microbiota (18.3 ± 0.3%, 15.3 ± 0.3%). The MZ cotwins’ fecal DNA was deeply sequenced (3.8-6.3 Gbp/sample) and assembled reads were assigned to 25 genus-level phylogenetic bins. Only 17% of the genes in these bins were shared between the cotwins. Bins exhibited differences in their degree of sequence variation, gene content including the repertoire of carbohydrate active enzymes present within and between twins (e.g., predicted cellulases, dockerins), and transcriptional activities. These results provide an expanded perspective about features that make each of us unique life forms and directions for future characterization of our gut ecosystems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1002355107

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Human gut microbial composition differs substantially among individuals and depends on age, genetic background, physiological state, microbial interactions, environmental factors, and diet.

    “Human studies have unveiled substantial differences in the gut microbial composition among individuals139–141 that depend on age, genetic background, physiological state, microbial interactions, environmental factors, and diet.142–144”

    From The Gut Microbiome and the Brain (2014) · cites this paper as [141]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Turnbaugh, P. J., Quince, C., Faith, J. J., McHardy, A. C., Yatsunenko, T., Niazi, F., Affourtit, J., Egholm, M., Henrissat, B., Knight, R., & Gordon, J. I.
Affiliations
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • University of Glasgow (GB)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • 454 Life Sciences, Branford, CT 06405;
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-04-02
Volume
107
Issue
16
Pages
7503-7508
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2082464084
Cited by
478
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 30 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 57 · 2012: 56
FWCI
23.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  • Crohn's and Colitis Foundation
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/H003851/1)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P01DK078669, DK78669, DK 70977, R01DK070977)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
gut microbiota, monozygotic twins, fecal microbiota, bacterial phylotypes, 16S rRNA gene sequencing, metagenome assembly, gene content, carbohydrate-active enzymes, cellulase, dockerin, Lachnospiraceae, microbial diversity, interindividual variability, transcriptional activity
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Bacteria, Carbohydrates, Feces, Female, Humans, Male, Models, Genetic, Obesity, Phylogeny, RNA, Ribosomal, 16S, Transcription, Genetic, Twins, Monozygotic, Genetic Variation, Gastrointestinal Tract

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