Cited by 1,527Gut microbiota and healthOral microbiology and periodontitis researchMicrobial Community Ecology and Physiology

Microbial co-occurrence relationships in the human microbiome

Open access
Faust, Karoline, Sathirapongsasuti, J. Fah, Izard, Jacques, Segata, Nicola, Gevers, Dirk, Raes, Jeroen, Huttenhower, Curtis·2012·PLoS Computational Biology

Abstract

The healthy microbiota show remarkable variability within and among individuals. In addition to external exposures, ecological relationships (both oppositional and symbiotic) between microbial inhabitants are important contributors to this variation. It is thus of interest to assess what relationships might exist among microbes and determine their underlying reasons. The initial Human Microbiome Project (HMP) cohort, comprising 239 individuals and 18 different microbial habitats, provides an unprecedented resource to detect, catalog, and analyze such relationships. Here, we applied an ensemble method based on multiple similarity measures in combination with generalized boosted linear models (GBLMs) to taxonomic marker (16S rRNA gene) profiles of this cohort, resulting in a global network of 3,005 significant co-occurrence and co-exclusion relationships between 197 clades occurring throughout the human microbiome. This network revealed strong niche specialization, with most microbial associations occurring within body sites and a number of accompanying inter-body site relationships. Microbial communities within the oropharynx grouped into three distinct habitats, which themselves showed no direct influence on the composition of the gut microbiota. Conversely, niches such as the vagina demonstrated little to no decomposition into region-specific interactions. Diverse mechanisms underlay individual interactions, with some such as the co-exclusion of Porphyromonaceae family members and Streptococcus in the subgingival plaque supported by known biochemical dependencies. These differences varied among broad phylogenetic groups as well, with the Bacilli and Fusobacteria, for example, both enriched for exclusion of taxa from other clades. Comparing phylogenetic versus functional similarities among bacteria, we show that dominant commensal taxa (such as Prevotellaceae and Bacteroides in the gut) often compete, while potential pathogens (e.g. Treponema and Prevotella in the dental plaque) are more likely to co-occur in complementary niches. This approach thus serves to open new opportunities for future targeted mechanistic studies of the microbial ecology of the human microbiome.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002606

Cites

85 of 85 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?

  • Bacteroides and Prevotella are taxonomically and functionally similar yet do not co-exist in the intestine, possibly because of competition within the same niche.

    “However, Bacteroides and Prevotella are taxonomically and functionally similar genera, yet do not co-exist in the intestine; this is an exception to the model, possibly resulting from competition within the same niche41.”
  • A better term may be enterogradient, based on whether Bacteroides or Prevotella dominate, because these two genera generally do not exist in equal proportions in the human intestine.

    “A better term might be enterogradient, based on whether Bacteroides or Prevotella dominate the intestinal microbial community—it appears that these 2 genera generally do not exist in equal proportions in the human intestine 41.”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [25]Legendre P Legendre L 1983 Numerical ecology Amsterdam Elsevier Science B.V.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faust, K., Sathirapongsasuti, J. F., Izard, J., Segata, N., Gevers, D., Raes, J., & Huttenhower, C.
Affiliations
  • Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Broad Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Faust, Karoline
  • Sathirapongsasuti, J. Fah
  • Izard, Jacques
  • Segata, Nicola
  • Gevers, Dirk
  • Raes, Jeroen
  • Huttenhower, Curtis
Venue
PLoS Computational Biology
Published
2012-07-12
Volume
8
Issue
7
Pages
e1002606
ISSN
  • 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
  • 1553-7358
OpenAlex
W1971061059
Cited by
1,527
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 64 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 99 · 2023: 115 · 2022: 124 · 2021: 168 · 2020: 169 · 2019: 117 · 2018: 114 · 2017: 133 · 2016: 116 · 2015: 92 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 11
FWCI
26.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Institutional Research Information System (Università degli Studi di Trento) (submittedVersion)
  • VUBIR (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1053486)
  • Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
  • Crohn's and Colitis Foundation
  • Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
  • Vlaamse regering
  • National Institutes of Health (ARO W911NF-11-1-0473, DBI-1053486)
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (U54HG004969, R01HG005969)
  • National Cancer Institute (R21CA139193, CA139193)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK043351)
  • Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI-1053486)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF-11-1-0473, W911NF, W911NF-11)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gut microbiota and health
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Microbial Community Ecology and Physiology
Keywords
microbial co-occurrence networks, human microbiome, oropharyngeal microbiota, gut microbiota, vaginal microbiota, subgingival plaque, Streptococcus, Fusobacteria, bacilli, Prevotella, Bacteroides, Treponema
MeSH terms
Bacteria, DNA, Bacterial, Female, Humans, Male, Nasal Cavity, Phylogeny, Skin, Vagina, Linear Models, Ecosystem, Bacterial Physiological Phenomena, Computational Biology, Genes, rRNA, Gastrointestinal Tract, Metagenome, Microbial Interactions

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