Search

The aerial portion of plants (phyllosphere) harbors complex and diverse microbial communities that have been shown to influence host growth and fitness, tolerance to environmental stressors, diseas...

Across group-living animals, linear dominance hierarchies lead to disparities in access to resources, health outcomes, and reproductive performance. Studies of how dominance rank affects these outcomes typically employ one of several dominance rank metrics without examining the assumptions each metric makes about its underlying competitive processes. Here we compare the ability of two dominance rank metrics—ordinal rank and proportional or ‘standardized’ rank—to predict 20 distinct traits in a well-studied wild baboon population in Amboseli, Kenya. We propose that ordinal rank best predicts outcomes when competition is density-dependent, while proportional rank best predicts outcomes when competition is density-independent. We found that for 75% (15/20) of the traits, one of the two rank metrics performed better than the other. Strikingly, all male traits were better predicted by ordinal than by proportional rank, while female traits were evenly split between being better predicted by proportional or ordinal rank. Hence, male and female traits are shaped by different competitive regimes: males’ competitive environments are largely driven by density-dependent resource access (e.g., access to estrus females), while females’ competitive environments are shaped by both density-independent resource access (e.g. distributed food resources) and density-dependent resource access. However, traits related to competition for social and mating partners are an exception to this sex-biased pattern: these traits were better predicted by ordinal rank than by proportional rank for both sexes. We argue that this method of comparing how different rank metrics predict traits of interest can be used as a way to distinguish between different competitive processes operating in animal societies.

Across group-living animals, linear dominance hierarchies lead to disparities in access to resources, health outcomes and reproductive performance. Studies of how dominance rank predicts these traits typically employ one of several dominance rank metrics without examining the assumptions each metric makes about its underlying competitive processes. Here, we compare the ability of two dominance rank metrics—simple ordinal rank and proportional or ‘standardized’ rank—to predict 20 traits in a wild baboon population in Amboseli, Kenya. We propose that simple ordinal rank best predicts traits when competition is density-dependent, whereas proportional rank best predicts traits when competition is density-independent. We found that for 75% of traits (15/20), one rank metric performed better than the other. Strikingly, all male traits were best predicted by simple ordinal rank, whereas female traits were evenly split between proportional and simple ordinal rank. Hence, male and female traits are shaped by different competitive processes: males are largely driven by density-dependent resource access (e.g. access to oestrous females), whereas females are shaped by both density-independent (e.g. distributed food resources) and density-dependent resource access. This method of comparing how different rank metrics predict traits can be used to distinguish between different competitive processes operating in animal societies.

Gut microbiota in geographically isolated host populations are often distinct. These differences have been attributed to between-population differences in host behaviours, environments, genetics and geographical distance. However, which factors are most important remains unknown. Here, we fill this gap for baboons by leveraging information on 13 environmental variables from 14 baboon populations spanning a natural hybrid zone. Sampling across a hybrid zone allowed us to additionally test whether phylosymbiosis (codiversification between hosts and their microbiota) is detectable in admixed, closely related primates. We found little evidence of genetic effects: none of host genetic ancestry, host genetic relatedness nor genetic distance between host populations were strong predictors of baboon gut microbiota. Instead, gut microbiota were best explained by the baboons' environments, especially the soil's geologic history and exchangeable sodium. Indeed, soil effects were 15 times stronger than those of host–population F ST, perhaps because soil predicts which foods are present, or because baboons are terrestrial and consume soil microbes incidentally with their food. Our results support an emerging picture in which environmental variation is the dominant predictor of host-associated microbiomes. We are the first to show that such effects overshadow host species identity among members of the same primate genus.

To date, most insights into the processes shaping vertebrate gut microbiomes have emerged from studies with cross-sectional designs. While this approach has been valuable, emerging time series analyses on vertebrate gut microbiomes show that gut microbial composition can change rapidly from one day to the next, with consequences for host physical functioning, health, and fitness. Hence, the next frontier of microbiome research will require longitudinal perspectives. Here we argue that primatologists, with their traditional focus on tracking the lives of individual animals and familiarity with longitudinal fecal sampling, are well positioned to conduct research at the forefront of gut microbiome dynamics. We begin by reviewing some of the most important ecological processes governing microbiome change over time, and briefly summarizing statistical challenges and approaches to microbiome time series analysis. We then introduce five questions of general interest to microbiome science where we think field-based primate studies are especially well-positioned to fill major gaps: (1) Do early life events shape gut microbiome composition in adulthood? (2) Do shifting social landscapes cause gut microbial change? (3) Are gut microbiome phenotypes heritable across variable environments? (4) Does the gut microbiome show signs of host aging? And (5) do gut microbiome composition and dynamics predict host health and fitness? For all of these questions, we high-light areas where primatologists are uniquely positioned to make substantial contributions. We review preliminary evidence, discuss possible study designs, and suggest future directions.

The microbes of the human intestinal tract play a profound role in our health. The complex interactions between our gut microbial communities and the external environment, and the resulting functional consequences, can be difficult to disentangle.The microbes of the human intestinal tract play a profound role in our health. The complex interactions between our gut microbial communities and the external environment, and the resulting functional consequences, can be difficult to disentangle. To address this problem, McDonald et al. (mSystems 3:e00031-18, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1128/mSystems.00031-18) present the first set of results from the American Gut Project, a citizen science-based data set currently comprised of over 10,000 gut microbiome samples and associated life history data. By combining this extensive data set with other published studies, the authors uncover novel relationships between gut microbiome structure and function. For example, they found that dietary plant diversity and recent antibiotic use predict both microbial and metabolomic diversity. McDonald et al. also demonstrate that there is high diversity across human gut microbiomes, even compared to the diversity of environmental microbiomes. The results from this study illuminate the potential of the citizen science approach to further our knowledge of host-associated microbial communities.

The mammalian gut microbiome plays a profound role in the physiology, metabolism, and overall health of its host. However, biologists have only a nascent understanding of the forces that drive inter-individual heterogeneity in gut microbial composition, especially the role of host social environment. Here we used 178 samples from 78 wild yellow baboons (Papio cynocephalus) living in two social groups to test how host social context, including group living, social interactions within groups, and transfer between social groups (e.g., dispersal) predict inter-individual variation in gut microbial alpha and beta diversity. We also tested whether social effects differed for prevalent "core" gut microbial taxa, which are thought to provide primary functions to hosts, versus rare "non-core" microbes, which may represent relatively transient environmental acquisitions. Confirming prior studies, we found that each social group harbored a distinct gut microbial community. These differences included both non-core and core gut microbial taxa, suggesting that these effects are not solely driven by recent gut microbial exposures. Within social groups, close grooming partners had more similar core microbiomes, but not non-core microbiomes, than individuals who rarely groomed each other, even controlling for kinship and diet similarity between grooming partners. Finally, in support of the idea that the gut microbiome can be altered by current social context, we found that the longer an immigrant male had lived in a given social group, the more closely his gut microbiome resembled the gut microbiomes of the group's long-term residents. Together, these results reveal the importance of a host's social context in shaping the gut microbiome and shed new light onto the microbiome-related consequences of male dispersal.

The digestive system is home to a complex community of microbes—known as the gut microbiome—that contributes to our health and wellbeing by digesting food, producing essential vitamins, and preventing the growth of harmful bacteria. The recent development of rapid genome sequencing techniques has made it much easier to identify the species of microbes found in the gut microbiome, and how this microbiome's composition varies between individuals. Studies in humans and other primates suggest that direct contact during social interactions may alter the composition of the gut microbiome in an individual. This could explain why there is a strong association between social interactions and health in humans and other social animals. However, similarities in the gut microbiomes of individuals within a social group could also be due to a shared diet or a common environment. The information collected during long-term studies of wild primates offers an opportunity to analyze and assess the influence of diet, environment and social interaction on the gut microbiome. Here, Tung et al. studied the gut microbiomes of 48 wild baboons belonging to two different social groups in Amboseli, Kenya. Using a technique called shotgun metagenomic sequencing, they sequenced DNA extracted from samples of feces collected from individual baboons. The sequence data revealed that an individual's social group and social network can predict the species found in its gut microbiome. This remained the case even when other factors—such as diet, kinship, and shared environments—were taken into account. Tung et al.'s findings suggest that direct physical contact during social interactions may be important in transmitting gut microbiomes between members of the same social group. However, scientists still don't know whether this exchange is good or bad for the health of the baboons. Future work will try to understand whether baboons benefit from acquiring gut microbes from their group members, and if the gut microbes of some social groups are better than others.