LF microbiota transfer prevented excessive weight gain in HF fed rats.
Initial body weights were similar for all rats, and they were randomly assigned to either chow or HF diet. 24-hr caloric intake measured using the Biodaq system in a subset of animals from each group and body weights are shown in Fig. 2. Prior to microbiota transfer, HF feeding led a significant increase in daily caloric intake compared to chow (t-test, p<0.01) (Fig. 2A). Consequently, HF fed rats gained significantly more body weight than LF rats (Mixed-effects model, F (3, 36) = 10.67; p<0.0001) (Fig. 2C).
Following microbiota transfer, HF-HF rats had a significantly higher daily intake than all other groups (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05). There was a significant effect of time (Mixed-effects model, F (3.375, 100.6) = 144.1; p<0.0001) and diet (F (3, 32) = 4.08; p<0.05) on weekly body weight gain as well as a significant interaction (F (30,298) = 4.648; p<0.0001) (Fig. 2D).
Following recolonization, HF-LF animals gained significantly less body weight than HF-HF animals (p<0.05) and the rate of body weight gain in the HF-LF group was comparable to that of LF controls. Since HF-LF animals were maintained on a HF diet, inulin was added to their water as a prebiotic to aid the effectiveness of the microbiota transfer (51). Inulin intake did not affect water intake in the HF-LF group compared to the HF-HF group (Suppl. Fig. 1).
Figure 2. LF microbiota transfer prevented excessive weight gain in HF fed rats. Pre-inoculation caloric intake (A, n = 12 per group), pre-inoculation body weight gain (C, n = 10 per group), post-inoculation caloric intake (B, n = 6 per group), and post-inoculation body weight gain (D, n = 10 per group). Pre-inoculation, HF fed rats ate significantly more (p<0.01) and gained significantly more body weight than LF fed animals (p<0.0001). Post-inoculation, HF-HF rats ate significantly more than all other groups (ps<0.05). LF and HF-LF rats gained significantly less body weight than HF-HF rats (ps<0.05). Bars denoted with the same letter are not statistically different. In graphs C and D, a denotes statistical significance between LF and HF rats, b denotes statistical significance between LF vs HF-HF and HF-LF vs HF-HF, and c denotes statistical significance between LF and LF-LF. LF: Low fat fed control; LF-LF: Low fat rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-LF; High fat fed rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-HF: High fat fed rats that received microbiota from high fat fed donors.
LF microbiota transfer improved microbiota profile in HF fed rats.
Analysis of fecal microbiota composition is shown in Fig. 3. Species richness post inoculation was evaluated using the Shannon index. HF animals had significantly lower species richness compared to LF animals (One-way ANOVA, F (3, 19) = 9.741, p<0.001) (Fig. 3A), regardless of microbiota transplant. We did not observe differences in species evenness. A PERMANOVA analysis of (dis-)similarities between samples revealed a clear separation between the fecal microbiota of LF and HF rats (F = 5.0392; p<0.001) (Fig. 3B). There was no difference between LF and LF-LF groups (p=0.121) as microbiota profiles from these groups clustered together. However, within the HF animals, HF-LF and HF-HF animals displayed significantly different microbiota profiles (p<0.01). HF-LF animals clustered closer to the LF (LF and LF-LF) animals compared to the HF-HF group, yet their microbiota profile did not fully normalize (ps<0.05). Analysis of relative taxa abundance at the phylum level identified significant differences in the Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes phyla among the groups (Two-way ANOVA, F (7, 146) = 412.7; p<0.0001) (Fig. 3C). HF-HF animals exhibited a significant decrease in relative abundance of members of the Bacteroidetes phylum compared to all other groups (Ps<0.001) as well as significant increase in the relative abundance of Firmicutes compared to all other groups (ps<0.0001). HF-LF phyla profile was similar to the LF and LF-LF animals, with no differences in relative abundances between the groups.
Belonging to the Bacteroidetes phylum, the species caccae and copri were found to be enriched in the HF-LF group compared to the other groups (One-way ANOVA, caccae, ps<0.01; copri, ps<0.05 vs. LF-LF and HF-HF). Conversely, the species uniformis was not transferred to HF-LF animals as we found a significantly higher abundance of the species in LF compared to HF animals (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05) (Fig. 3D). Within the Firmicutes phylum (Fig. 3E), species belonging to the SMB53 genus were found to be enriched in LF (LF and LF-LF) compared to the HF-HF animals (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05) and this trait was successfully transferred to the HF-LF group (HF-LF vs. HF-HF, One-way ANOVA, p<0.05) In addition, Species belonging the genus Dorea, and the species producta and celatum were present in significantly lower abundance in the LF groups (LF and LF-LF) compared to HF-HF animals (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05) and again, this trait was successfully passed to the HF-LF group (HF-LF vs. HF-HF, p<0.05). Other Firmicutes abundances differed based on diet regardless of microbiota transfer, species of the Ruminococcus genus were found to be significantly enriched in LF compared to HF animals (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.001) while species of the genus Oscillospira were significantly depleted in LF compared to HF animals (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05). Overall, the HF-LF group displayed a unique microbiota profile with similarities with both the LF and HF groups, showing the FMT improved but did not fully normalize the animals’ microbiota profile.
Figure 3. LF microbiota transfer improved microbiota profile in HF fed rats. A. Shannon index shown as mean + SEM for each group. HF fed rats had significantly lower species diversity than LF fed rats (F (3, 19) = 9.741, p<0.001). B. Principal coordinate analysis was analyzed using a pairwise PERMANOVA test with Benjamin-Hochberg procedure for multi-testing adjustment. Results revealed significant differences among the groups (F = 5.0392; R2=0.4431; p<0.001). The microbiota of LF and LF-LF rats clustered together (P = 0.121) and away from HF-HF (ps<0.01). The microbiota of HF-LF was significantly different from the microbiota of LF and LF-LF (ps<0.01) and HF-HF (p<0.0045) rats. However, it clustered closer to the microbiota of the LF and LF-LF groups than to the HF-HF cohort. C. Bacterial phyla abundance was quantified in fecal samples. Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes were the most abundant bacterial phyla in all groups. LF (LF and LF-LF) fed animals had significantly higher abundance of Bacteroidetes than HF (HF-LF and HF-HF) fed rats (Ps < 0.05). However, LF fed animals and HF-LF rats had significantly higher abundance of Bacteroidetes than HF-HF rats (Ps < 0.001). In contrast, HF-HF animals had significantly higher abundance of Firmicutes compared to LF fed and HF-LF rats (Ps < 0.001). D-E. Examples of taxa that displayed significantly different patterns of abundance among the groups. Bars denoted with the same letter are not statistically different. LF (n=5): Low fat fed control; LF-LF (n=8): Low fat rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-LF (n=6); High fat fed rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-HF (n=4): High fat fed rats that received microbiota from high fat fed donors.
LF microbiota transfer normalized feeding patterns and improved acquisition time for an operant task in HF fed rats.
Feeding patterns were analyzed using a BioDaq food intake monitoring system (Fig. 4). Pre-inoculation, HF feeding significantly increased meal size during the light phase (t-test, p<0.05) (Fig. 4C). There were no significant differences in meal size in the dark or meal number in the light or dark phase (Fig. 4A, G, and E). Post-inoculation, colonization with a LF microbiota normalized light phase meal size (HF-LF vs. HF-HF, One-way ANOVA, p<0.05). HF-LF animals also displayed a small reduction in meal number during the dark cycle, but this only reached significance when compared to the LF-LF groups (One-way ANOVA, p<0.05, Fig 4F). The HF-HF group still displayed a significant increase in meal size during the light phase compared to the LF groups (LF and LF-LF, One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05). There were no significant differences among groups in meal size in the dark or meal number in the light (Fig. 4B, H)
Figure 4. LF microbiota transfer normalized feeding patterns in HF fed rats. This figure shows representative data of 24-h food intake. Pre-inoculation data is shown on the left column. Post-inoculation data is shown on the right column. A, B. Meal size during the dark phase. There were no differences in meal size among the groups. C, D. Meal size during the light phase. Pre-inoculation, HF feeding significantly increased meal size. Post-inoculation, HF-HF rats had significantly larger meal size compared to LF, LF-LF, and HF-LF. E, F. Meal number during the dark phase. Pre-inoculation, there were no differences in meal number between LF and HF fed animals. Post-inoculation, HF-LF animals had a significantly lower meal number than LF-LF rats. G, H. Meal number during the light phase. There were no significant differences in meal number during the light phase among the groups. Bars denoted with the same letter are not statistically different. Pre-inoculation, LF n=11-12, HF n=12. Post-inoculation, LF (n=6): Low fat fed control; LF-LF (n=6): Low fat rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-LF (n=6); High fat fed rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-HF (n=6): High fat fed rats that received microbiota from high fat fed donors.
A progressive ratio schedule was used to assess the animals’ drive for fat and sucrose pellets (Fig. 5). There were no differences in responses for fat versus sucrose reward pellet; thus, data were combined. Pre inoculation, LF rats achieved FR3 and FR5 criteria significantly faster (t-test, ps<0.05) than HF rats (Figs. 5A, C). Time to achieve FR criteria has been interpreted as a measure of motivation (15) as well as a measure of cognitive function and ability to learn (52, 53). There was no difference in breakpoint between LF and HF animals (Suppl. Fig. 2A). Post inoculation, colonization of HF fed rats with a LF microbiota (HF-LF) led to a significant improvement in task acquisition as HF-LF rats achieved FR3 and FR5 criteria as quickly as the LF animals and significantly faster than HF-HF animals (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05). Again, there was no difference in breakpoint amongst the cohorts (Suppl. Fig. 2B).
Figure 5. LF microbiota transfer improved acquisition time for an operant task in HF fed rats. Pre-inoculation data is shown on the left column. Post-inoculation data is shown on the right column. A, B. Time to acquire FR3 training criteria. C, D. Time to acquire FR5 training criteria. HF-HF rats showed slower acquisition learning in FR3 and FR5 (ps < 0.05). There was no difference in willingness to work for a food reward (breakpoint; Suppl. Fig. 2). Pre-inoculation, LF n=19, HF n=17-18. Post-inoculation, LF (n=9): Low fat fed control; LF-LF (n=9): Low fat rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-LF (n=9); High fat fed rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-HF (n=8): High fat fed rats that received microbiota from high fat fed donors.
LF microbiota transfer rescued postprandial NG and NTS activation in HF fed rats.
Refeeding a fasted animal significantly increases CART immunoreactivity in the NG of lean (11) but not HF fed obese animals (54). Following refeeding, CART+ neurons were present in the NG of all animals, however there was no increase in the number of CART+ neurons in the HF-HF rats compared to the LF groups, despite receiving a fat-rich meal. HF-LF rats had a significantly higher number of CART positive neurons compared to all other groups (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.001) (Fig. 6A-E). Similarly, there were no differences in the number of NTS c-Fos+ neurons in the NTS between the HF-HF rats and the LF animals while the HF-LF animals had a significantly higher number of c-Fos+ neurons than LF-LF and HF-HF animals (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05) (Fig. 6F-J).
Figure 6. LF microbiota transfer increased post-prandial nodose ganglia (NG) and NTS activation in HF fed rats. Representative sections of NG are shown (A-D). Immunostaining against CART revealed that HF-LF animals had significantly higher number of CART positive neurons in the NG compared to HF-HF (p<0.05) and LF (ps<0.01) animals (E). Representative images of c-Fos staining in the hindbrain between bregma −13.10 and −14.10 mm are shown (F-I). HF-LF animals exhibited significantly higher c-Fos positive cells in the NTS compared to HF-HF (p<0.05) and LF-LF (p<0.05) rats (J). Bars denoted with the same letter are not statistically different. LF (NG n=5; NTS n=4): Low fat fed control; LF-LF (NG n=4; NTS n=4): Low fat rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-LF (NG n=6; NTS n=3); High fat fed rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-HF (NG n=4; NTS n=3): High fat fed rats that received microbiota from high fat fed donors; AP: Area postrema; NTS: Nucleus Tractus Solitarious.
LF microbiota transfer decreased immune cells activation but did not affect the density of vagal afferents in the NTS in HF fed rats.
HF-HF animals had a significant increase in the number of Iba1+ cells in the NTS as well as overall positive staining compared to LF (LF and LF-LF) (One-way ANOVA, ps<0.05) (Fig. 7). Colonization of HF fed animals with a LF microbiota (HF-LF) led to a significant reduction in NTS Iba1+ cells and staining (HF-LF vs. HF-HF, One-way ANOVA, p<0.05). However, staining against isolectin B4 showed no difference in vagal afferent density in the intermediate NTS among the groups (Suppl. Fig. 3).
Figure 7. LF microbiota transfer reduced immune cells activation in the NTS in HF fed rats. Representative images of Iba-1 staining in the hindbrain between bregma −13.10 and −14.10 mm. Binary analysis of the area fraction of Iba1 immunoreactivity and cell count of microglia revealed HF fed rats that received microbiota from HF fed donors (HF-HF) had significantly higher Iba1 immunoreactivity and activated microglia than LF fed rats (LF and LF-LF) and HF fed rats that received microbiota from LF fed donors (HF-LF) (Ps < 0.05). Bars denoted with the same letter are not statistically different. LF (n=4): Low fat fed control; LF-LF (n=6): Low fat rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-LF (n=4); High fat fed rats that received microbiota from low fat fed donors; HF-HF (n=4): High fat fed rats that received microbiota from high fat fed donors; AP: Area postrema; NTS: Nucleus Tractus Solitarious.