Patterns in the skin microbiota differ in children and teenagers between rural and urban environments

Jenni Lehtimäki, Antti Karkman, Tiina Laatikainen, Laura Paalanen, Leena von Hertzen, Tari Haahtela, Ilkka Hanski, Lasse Ruokolainen, Jenni Lehtimäki, Antti Karkman, Tiina Laatikainen, Laura Paalanen, Leena von Hertzen, Tari Haahtela, Ilkka Hanski, Lasse Ruokolainen

Abstract

The composition of human microbiota is affected by a multitude of factors. Understanding the dynamics of our microbial communities is important for promoting human health because microbiota has a crucial role in the development of inflammatory diseases, such as allergies. We have studied the skin microbiota of both arms in 275 Finnish children of few months old to teenagers living in contrasting environments. We show that while age is a major factor affecting skin microbial composition, the living environment also discriminates the skin microbiota of rural and urban children. The effect of environment is age-specific; it is most prominent in toddlers but weaker for newborns and non-existent for teenagers. Within-individual variation is also related to age and environment. Surprisingly, variation between arms is smaller in rural subjects in all age groups, except in teenagers. We also collected serum samples from children for characterization of allergic sensitization and found a weak, but significant association between allergic sensitization and microbial composition. We suggest that physiological and behavioral changes, related to age and the amount of contact with environmental microbiota, jointly influence the dynamics of the skin microbiota, and explain why the association between the living environment skin microbiota is lost in teenager.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Figures

Figure 1. The diversity of skin microbiota…
Figure 1. The diversity of skin microbiota in different age groups.
(a) Diversity in skin microbiota tends to increases with age. Diversity was calculated with q = 1, which corresponds to Shannon’s index. Box colour indicates the living-environment and the purple line indicates the mean diversity for each age group. In the oldest age group, children living in rural area (n = 26) have significantly lower diversity than those living in Helsinki (Urban, n = 8): P = 0.018. (b) The increase in diversity during the first eight years of life is associated with a reduced dominance of the Order Lactobacillales (namely Streptococcus) and a relatively even increase in other taxa, whereas the reduction in diversity in puberty is due to Actinobacteria (such as Propionibacterium acnes) becoming dominant. Means (±SE) are given for each age group.
Figure 2. The composition of skin microbiota…
Figure 2. The composition of skin microbiota differs between urban and rural children.
(Main panel) Predictions from random forest (RF) analyses plotted as an ordination. The x-axis shows the predicted age and the y-axis shows the predicted land-use around the current home. The variances explained indicate how well skin microbiota independently predicts either age or land-use. Symbol size indicates true age in months, symbol shape indicates the living environment of the current home (Urban, Rural, or Semi-urban), and the lines give spline fits to the respective groups. In the case a child had moved from the home at birth, the color of the symbol indicates the environment of the subject at birth. RF analyses were based on sqrt-transformed, CSS-normalised counts. RF analysis gives the OTUs which are the most important discriminators between subjects: The upper panel shows the relative proportion of OTU 12 (Streptococcus) across predicted age. The right panel shows the sum of proportions of several OTUs across the predicted land-use gradient. The segregation between living environments is not due to different variances along the land-use gradient for children of different age (Levene’s test: F = 0.45, P = 0.81), nor differences in sample size (X2 = 3.39, P = 0.64).
Figure 3. The between- and within-individual variation…
Figure 3. The between- and within-individual variation in the skin microbiota.
The x-axis in figures shows the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity between compared samples, and grey vertical lines are the average values of given groups. In figures (a) and (b) samples from the dominant and non-dominant arms have been compared, while in figure (c) the dominant arms of different individuals have been compared. Figure (a) shows that the intra-individual dissimilarity between arms is significantly smaller than inter-individual dissimilarity. Figure (b) shows that the intra-individual dissimilarity between arms is significantly smaller in rural than in urban children. Figure (c) shows that the inter-individual dissimilarities are significantly smaller between sibling-pairs than in other pairs meaning that children share more of their microbiota with their children than with other children. Our data included one dizygotic twin-pair (teenagers of different sex), who shared more of their microbiota than sibling pairs on average, providing interesting example about the effect of shared microbiota.

References

    1. Pasparakis M., Haase I. & Nestle F. O. Mechanisms regulating skin immunity and inflammation. Nature reviews. Immunology 14, 289–301 (2014).
    1. Naik S. et al.. Compartmentalized control of skin immunity by resident commensals. Science 337, 1115–1119 (2012).
    1. Belkaid Y. & Segre J. A. Dialogue between skin microbiota and immunity. Science 346, 954–959 (2014).
    1. Fyhrquist N. et al.. Acinetobacter species in the skin microbiota protect against allergic sensitization and inflammation. The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology 134, 1301–1309.e11 (2014).
    1. Chehoud C. et al.. Complement modulates the cutaneous microbiome and inflammatory milieu. Pnas 110, 15061–15066 (2013).
    1. Palm N. W., de Zoete, Marcel R. & Flavell R. A. Immune-microbiota interactions in health and disease. Clinical immunology 159, 122–127 (2015).
    1. Sanford J. A. & Gallo R. L. Functions of the skin microbiota in health and disease. Seminars in immunology 25, 370–377 (2013).
    1. Alekseyenko A. V. et al.. Community differentiation of the cutaneous microbiota in psoriasis. Microbiome 1, 31 (2013).
    1. Kong H. H. et al.. Temporal shifts in the skin microbiome associated with disease flares and treatment in children with atopic dermatitis. Genome research 22, 850–859 (2012).
    1. Parfrey L. W. et al.. Communities of microbial eukaryotes in the mammalian gut within the context of environmental eukaryotic diversity. Frontiers in microbiology 5, 298 (2014).
    1. Bowers R. M., McLetchie S., Knight R. & Fierer N. Spatial variability in airborne bacterial communities across land-use types and their relationship to the bacterial communities of potential source environments. Isme 5, 601–612 (2011).
    1. Ying S. et al.. The Influence of Age and Gender on Skin-Associated Microbial Communities in Urban and Rural Human Populations. PloS One 10, e0141842 (2015).
    1. Morton E. R. et al.. Variation in Rural African Gut Microbiota Is Strongly Correlated with Colonization by Entamoeba and Subsistence. PLoS genetics 11, e1005658 (2015).
    1. Lemieux-Labonté V., Tromas N., Shapiro B. J. & Lapointe F.-J. Environment and host species shape the skin microbiome of captive neotropical bats. PeerJ 4, e2430 (2016).
    1. Arrieta M.-C. et al.. Early infancy microbial and metabolic alterations affect risk of childhood asthma. Science translational medicine 7, 307ra152 (2015).
    1. Haahtela T. et al.. The biodiversity hypothesis and allergic disease: world allergy organization position statement. The World Allergy Organization journal 6, 3 (2013).
    1. Hertzen L., von Hanski I. & Haahtela T. Natural immunity. Biodiversity loss and inflammatory diseases are two global megatrends that might be related. EMBO reports 12, 1089–1093 (2011).
    1. Schanche M. et al.. High-Resolution Analyses of Overlap in the Microbiota Between Mothers and Their Children. Current microbiology 71, 283–290 (2015).
    1. Bäckhed F. et al.. Dynamics and Stabilization of the Human Gut Microbiome during the First Year of Life. Cell host & microbe 17, 690–703 (2015).
    1. Barberán A. et al.. The ecology of microscopic life in household dust. Proceedings. Biological sciences/The Royal Society 282 (2015).
    1. Pakarinen J. et al.. Predominance of Gram-positive bacteria in house dust in the low-allergy risk Russian Karelia. Environmental microbiology 10, 3317–3325 (2008).
    1. Lax S. et al.. Longitudinal analysis of microbial interaction between humans and the indoor environment. Science 345, 1048–1052 (2014).
    1. Ruokolainen L. et al.. Green areas around homes reduce atopic sensitization in children. Allergy 70, 195–202 (2015).
    1. Hofferth S. L. & Sandberg J. F. How American Children Spend Their Time. J Marriage and Family 63, 295–308 (2001).
    1. Dunn R. R., Fierer N., Henley J. B., Leff J. W. & Menninger H. L. Home life: factors structuring the bacterial diversity found within and between homes. PloS One 8, e64133 (2013).
    1. Gao Z., Tseng C.-h., Pei Z. & Blaser M. J. Molecular analysis of human forearm superficial skin bacterial biota. PNAS 104, 2927–2932 (2007).
    1. Grice E. A. & Segre J. A. The skin microbiome. Nature reviews. Microbiology 9, 244–253 (2011).
    1. Barberán A. et al.. Continental-scale distributions of dust-associated bacteria and fungi. Pnas 112, 5756–5761 (2015).
    1. Capone K. A., Dowd S. E., Stamatas G. N. & Nikolovski J. Diversity of the human skin microbiome early in life. The Journal of investigative dermatology 131, 2026–2032 (2011).
    1. Yatsunenko T. et al.. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature 486, 222–227 (2012).
    1. Oh J., Conlan S., Polley E. C., Segre J. A. & Kong H. H. Shifts in human skin and nares microbiota of healthy children and adults. Genome medicine 4, 77 (2012).
    1. Waller J. M. & Maibach H. I. Age and skin structure and function, a quantitative approach (I): blood flow, pH, thickness, and ultrasound echogenicity. Skin research and technology 11, 221–235 (2005).
    1. Callewaert C. & Hutapea P., Van de Wiele, Tom & Boon, N. Deodorants and antiperspirants affect the axillary bacterial community. Archives of dermatological research 306, 701–710 (2014).
    1. Walke J. B. et al.. Amphibian skin may select for rare environmental microbes. Isme 8, 2207–2217 (2014).
    1. Carmody R. N. et al.. Diet dominates host genotype in shaping the murine gut microbiota. Cell host & microbe 17, 72–84 (2015).
    1. Gensollen T., Iyer S. S., Kasper D. L. & Blumberg R. S. How colonization by microbiota in early life shapes the immune system. Science 352, 539–544 (2016).
    1. Shen W. et al.. Adaptive immunity to murine skin commensals. Pnas 111, E2977–86 (2014).
    1. Hanski I. et al.. Environmental biodiversity, human microbiota, and allergy are interrelated. Pnas 109, 8334–8339 (2012).
    1. Findley K. et al.. Topographic diversity of fungal and bacterial communities in human skin. Nature 498, 367–370 (2013).
    1. Costello E. K. et al.. Bacterial community variation in human body habitats across space and time. Science 326, 1694–1697 (2009).
    1. Oh J., Byrd A. L., Park M., Kong H. H. & Segre J. A. Temporal Stability of the Human Skin Microbiome. Cell 165, 854–866 (2016).
    1. Oh J. et al.. Biogeography and individuality shape function in the human skin metagenome. Nature 514, 59–64 (2014).
    1. Wall D. H., Nielsen U. N. & Six J. Soil biodiversity and human health. Nature 528, 69–76 (2015).
    1. McFall-Ngai M. et al.. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Pnas 110, 3229–3236 (2013).
    1. Asher M. I. et al.. International study of asthma and allergies in childhood (ISAAC): rationale and methods. Eur Respir J 8, 483–491 (1995).
    1. Lane D. In Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematics, edited by Stackebrandt E. & Goodfellow M. (Wiley, New York, 1991).
    1. Edwards U., Rogall T., Blöcker H., Emde M. & Böttger E. C. Isolation and direct complete nucleotide determination of entire genes. Characterization of a gene coding for 16S ribosomal RNA. Nucleic acids research 17, 7843–7853 (1989).
    1. Martin M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. embnet j. 17, 10 (2011).
    1. Zhang J., Kobert K., Flouri T & Stamatakis A. PEAR: a fast and accurate Illumina Paired-End reAd mergeR. Bioinformatics 30, 614–620 (2014).
    1. Edgar R. C. UPARSE: highly accurate OTU sequences from microbial amplicon reads. Nature methods 10, 996–998 (2013).
    1. Schloss P. D. et al.. Introducing mothur: open-source, platform-independent, community-supported software for describing and comparing microbial communities. Applied and environmental microbiology 75, 7537–7541 (2009).
    1. Quast C. et al.. The SILVA ribosomal RNA gene database project: improved data processing and web-based tools. Nucleic acids research 41, D590–6 (2013).
    1. Price M. N., Dehal P. S. & Arkin A. P. FastTree 2–approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PloS one 5, e9490 (2010).
    1. Paulson J. N., Stine O. C., Bravo H. C. & Pop M. Differential abundance analysis for microbial marker-gene surveys. Nature methods 10, 1200–1202 (2013).
    1. Core Team R.. A language and environment for statistical computing. Available at (2016).
    1. Tuomisto H. A consistent terminology for quantifying species diversity? Yes, it does exist. Oecologia 164, 853–860 (2010).
    1. Haegeman B. et al.. Robust estimation of microbial diversity in theory and in practice. Isme 7, 1092–1101 (2013).
    1. Tuomisto H. A diversity of beta diversities: straightening up a concept gone awry. Part 1. Defining beta diversity as a function of alpha and gamma diversity. Ecography 33, 2–22 (2010).
    1. Oksanen J. et al.. vegan: Community Ecology Package. R package version 2.3-2. Available at (2016).
    1. Liaw A. & Wiener M. Classification and Regression by randomForest. R News 2, 18–22 (2002).
    1. Mevik B.-H., Wehrens R. & Liland K. H. pls: Partial Least Squares and Principal Component regression. R package version 2.4-3. Available at (2013).
    1. Mevik B.-H. & Wehrens R. The pls Package: Principal Component and Partial Least Squares Regression in R. J. Stat. Soft. 18 (2007).
    1. Peres-Neto P. R., Legendre P., Dray S. & Borcard D. Variation partitioning of species data matrices: estimation and comparison of fractions. Ecology 87, 2614–2625 (2006).

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera