Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Covariation of diet and gut microbiome in African megafauna

Open access
Kartzinel, Tyler R., Hsing, Julianna C., Musili, Paul M., Brown, Bianca R. P., Pringle, Robert M.·2019·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

A major challenge in biology is to understand how phylogeny, diet, and environment shape the mammalian gut microbiome. Yet most studies of nonhuman microbiomes have relied on relatively coarse dietary categorizations and have focused either on individual wild populations or on captive animals that are sheltered from environmental pressures, which may obscure the effects of dietary and environmental variation on microbiome composition in diverse natural communities. We analyzed plant and bacterial DNA in fecal samples from an assemblage of 33 sympatric large-herbivore species (27 native, 6 domesticated) in a semiarid East African savanna, which enabled high-resolution assessment of seasonal variation in both diet and microbiome composition. Phylogenetic relatedness strongly predicted microbiome composition ( r = 0.91) and was weakly but significantly correlated with diet composition ( r = 0.20). Dietary diversity did not significantly predict microbiome diversity across species or within any species except kudu; however, diet composition was significantly correlated with microbiome composition both across and within most species. We found a spectrum of seasonal sensitivity at the diet−microbiome nexus: Seasonal changes in diet composition explained 25% of seasonal variation in microbiome composition across species. Species’ positions on (and deviations from) this spectrum were not obviously driven by phylogeny, body size, digestive strategy, or diet composition; however, domesticated species tended to exhibit greater diet−microbiome turnover than wildlife. Our results reveal marked differences in the influence of environment on the degree of diet−microbiome covariation in free-ranging African megafauna, and this variation is not well explained by canonical predictors of nutritional ecology.

Overview

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.1905666116

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. K. L. Arnolds, C. A. Lozupone, Striking a balance with help from our little friends—How the gut microbiota contributes to immune homeostasis. Yale J. Biol. Med. 89, 389–395 (2016).
  2. C. Duvallet, S. M. Gibbons, T. Gurry, R. A. Irizarry, E. J. Alm, Meta-analysis of gut microbiome studies identifies disease-specific and shared responses. Nat. Commun. 8, 1784 (2017). · doi:10.1038/s41467-017-01973-8
  3. M. D. Dearing, K. D. Kohl, Beyond fermentation: Other important services provided to endothermic herbivores by their gut microbiota. Integr. Comp. Biol. 57, 723–731 (2017). · DOI
  4. E. A. McKenney, K. Koelle, R. R. Dunn, A. D. Yoder, The ecosystem services of animal microbiomes. Mol. Ecol. 27, 2164–2172 (2018). · DOI
  5. A. W. Brooks, K. D. Kohl, R. M. Brucker, E. J. van Opstal, S. R. Bordenstein, Phylosymbiosis: Relationships and functional effects of microbial communities across host evolutionary history. PLoS Biol. 14, e2000225 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  6. K. D. Kohl, M. D. Dearing, The woodrat gut microbiota as an experimental system for understanding microbial metabolism of dietary toxins. Front. Microbiol. 7, 1165 (2016).
  7. V. J. McKenzie ., The effects of captivity on the mammalian gut microbiome. Integr. Comp. Biol., 57, 690–704 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  8. A. T. Reese, R. R. Dunn, Drivers of microbiome diversity: A review of general rules, feces, and ignorance. MBio 9, e01294-18 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  9. M. Groussin ., Unraveling the processes shaping mammalian gut microbiomes over evolutionary time. Nat. Commun. 8, 14319 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  10. K. R. Amato ., Evolutionary trends in host physiology outweigh dietary niche in structuring primate gut microbiomes. ISME J. 13, 576–587 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  11. A. Gomez ., Temporal variation selects for diet-microbe co-metabolic traits in the gut of Gorilla spp. ISME J. 10, 514–526 (2016). · DOI
  12. J. Tung ., Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons. eLife 4, e05224 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  13. R. M. Pringle ., Predator-induced collapse of niche structure and species coexistence. Nature 570, 58–64 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  14. N. G. Hairston, F. E. Smith, L. B. Slobodkin, Community structure, population control, and competition. Am. Nat. 94, 421–425 (1960). · DOI · Paper page
  15. J. L. Metcalf ., Evaluating the impact of domestication and captivity on the horse gut microbiome. Sci. Rep. 7, 15497 (2017). · DOI
  16. G. T. Bergmann, J. M. Craine, M. S. I. Robeson2nd, N. Fierer, Seasonal shifts in diet and gut microbiota of the American Bison (Bison bison). PLoS One 10, e0142409 (2015). · DOI
  17. D. Codron, J. S. Brink, L. Rossouw, M. Clauss, The evolution of ecological specialization in southern African ungulates: Competition- or physical environmental turnover. Oikos 117, 344–353 (2008). · DOI
  18. J. S. Brashares, T. Garland, P. Arcese, Phylogenetic analysis of coadaptation in behavior, diet, and body size in the African antelope. Behav. Ecol. 11, 452–463 (2000). · DOI
  19. D. I. Bolnick ., The ecology of individuals: Incidence and implications of individual specialization. Am. Nat. 161, 1–28 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  20. P. Taberlet ., Power and limitations of the chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, e14 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  21. J. G. Caporaso ., QIIME allows analysis of high-throughput community sequencing data. Nat. Methods 7, 335–336 (2010). · DOI · Paper page
  22. B. A. Gill ., Plant DNA-barcode library and community phylogeny for a semi-arid East African savanna. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 19, 838–846 (2019). · DOI
  23. P. J. Jarman, The social organization of antelope in relation to their ecology. Behaviour 48, 215–266 (1974). · DOI · Paper page
  24. B. T. Moyers, P. L. Morrell, J. K. McKay, Genetic costs of domestication and improvement. J. Hered. 109, 103–116 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  25. A. H. Moeller, T. A. Suzuki, M. Phifer-Rixey, M. W. Nachman, Transmission modes of the mammalian gut microbiota. Science 362, 453–457 (2018). · DOI · Paper page
  26. J. R. Goheen ., Conservation lessons from large-mammal manipulations in East African savannas: The KLEE, UHURU, and GLADE experiments. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1429, 31–49 (2018). · DOI
  27. G. E. Belovsky, Optimal foraging and community structure: The allometry of herbivore food selection and competition. Evol. Ecol. 11, 641–672 (1997). · DOI
  28. E. O. Price, Behavioral aspects of animal domestication. Q. Rev. Biol. 59, 1–32 (1984). · DOI · Paper page
  29. M. Gustafsson, P. Jensen, F. H. de Jonge, T. Schuurman, Domestication effects on foraging strategies in pigs (Sus scrofa). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 62, 305–317 (1999). · DOI
  30. J. G. Kie, Optimal foraging and risk of predation: Effects on behavior and social structure in ungulates. J. Mammal. 80, 1114–1129 (1999). · DOI · Paper page
  31. A. D. Letten, P.-J. Ke, T. Fukami, Linking modern coexistence theory and contemporary niche theory. Ecol. Monogr. 87, 161–177 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  32. K. S. McCann, The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405, 228–233 (2000). · DOI · Paper page
  33. T. R. Kartzinel ., DNA metabarcoding illuminates dietary niche partitioning by African large herbivores. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 112, 8019–8024 (2015). · DOI · Paper page
  34. B. E. Deagle ., Counting with DNA in metabarcoding studies: How should we convert sequence reads to dietary data? Mol. Ecol. 28, 391–406 (2019). · DOI · Paper page
  35. E. Willerslev ., Fifty thousand years of Arctic vegetation and megafaunal diet. Nature 506, 47–51 (2014). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Kartzinel, T. R., Hsing, J. C., Musili, P. M., Brown, B. R. P., & Pringle, R. M.
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2019-11-04
Volume
116
Issue
47
Pages
23588-23593
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2988845115
Cited by
264
References
7
FWCI
9.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid
Funders
National Science Foundation (DEB-1355122, DEB-1457697, IOS-1656527)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Covariation of diet and gut microbiome in African megafauna. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1905666116
The paper
Kartzinel, T. R., Hsing, J. C., Musili, P. M., Brown, B. R. P., & Pringle, R. M. (2019). Covariation of diet and gut microbiome in African megafauna. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905666116

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.