Abstract
Domestication represents one of the largest biological shifts of life on Earth, and for many animal species, behavioral selection is thought to facilitate early stages of the process. The gut microbiome of animals can respond to environmental changes and have diverse and powerful effects on host behavior. As such, we hypothesize that selection for tame behavior during early domestication, may have indirectly selected on certain gut microbiota that contribute to the behavioral plasticity necessary to adapt to the new social environment. Here, we explore the gut microbiome of foxes from the tame and aggressive strains of the “Russian-Farm-Fox-Experiment”. Microbiota profiles reveal a significant depletion of bacteria in the tame fox population that have been associated with aggressive and fear-related behaviors in other mammals. Our metagenomic survey allows for the reconstruction of microbial pathways enriched in the gut of tame foxes, such as glutamate degradation, which converge with host genetic and physiological signals, revealing a potential role of functional host-microbiota interactions that could influence behaviors associated with domestication. Overall, by characterizing how compositional and functional potential of the gut microbiota and host behaviors co-vary during early animal domestication, we provide further insight into our mechanistic understanding of this adaptive, eco-evolutionary process.
Similar content being viewed by others
Assessing the drivers of gut microbiome composition in wild redfronted lemurs via longitudinal metacommunity analysis
Selection and transmission of the gut microbiome alone can shift mammalian behavior
Intrahost evolution of the gut microbiota
Introduction
Behavioral shifts are thought to facilitate the early stages of animal domestication1,2 with tameness being the single most consistently shared trait across domesticated species3,4. Tameness denotes an attenuation of the flight-or-fight response, or in other words, a reduced fear and long-term stress response towards humans, which is often a prerequisite to successful breeding in captivity5. Rapid adaptation via behavioral plasticity is traditionally viewed as being primarily encoded by the genome, however, ample evidence shows that the gut microbiome of animals can respond to environmental changes and may play a crucial role on their adaptive capacity6,7. Further, mounting evidence has demonstrated how the gut microbiome influences host behavior, cognition, brain development and physiology8,9,10, which may have profound implications for host ecology and evolution, including adaptation via behavioral selection11,12,13.
The complex bidirectional communication between animals and their gut microbiota, called the microbiota–gut–brain axis, can be mediated through a variety of mechanisms and it is becoming increasingly clear that gut-derived metabolites are important to these interactions14,15,16,17,18. The biochemical communication pathways can occur through various direct and indirect mechanisms, which include transport of gut-derived metabolites from circulation into the brain, initiation of immune and vagus nerve activation, stimulation of enterochromaffin cells in the gut, and even epigenetic alterations8,14,15,16,18,19. Experimental studies have also implicated microbiome-derived signals in regulating fear and aggressive behavior in animals, as well as, expression of genes in the brain involved in such behaviors20,21,22,23,24,25, both of which have interesting implications for domestication. However, the eco-evolutionary relevance of the microbiome—gut–brain axis outside of laboratory animals remains largely unexplored.
The Russian Farm Fox Experiment is one of the most extensive experimental domestication studies. Initiated in 1959 at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics (ICG) (Novosibirsk, Russia), Dimitry K. Belyaev and Lyudmila Trut selectively bred captive populations of the silver fox (Vulpes vulpes) that were originally derived from fur farms in eastern Canada26,27, to understand the evolutionary processes of adapting to a new social environment1,2,5,28. After decades of selecting on foxes solely for behavior, specific strains of fox with markedly different behavioral phenotypes were gradually established. Foxes bred for tame phenotypes, herein referred to as the “tame” strain, displayed a reduced fear and positive response towards humans, whereas aggressive phenotypes, herein referred to as the “aggressive” strain, exhibited aggression towards humans along with avoidance behavior2,5,28,29. While a genetic basis has been extensively documented for both behavioral phenotypes of these foxes5,30,31,32,33, in several other animals species (e.g., chickens and mice), it has been demonstrated that the host genetic effect can be supplemented by the microbiome11,14. We therefore hypothesize that selection for behavioral traits in the fox domestication experiment may have led to selection on specific bacterial gut microbiota community structures that may potentially contribute to shaping fox behaviors – something we have previously demonstrated in a similar red jungle fowl domestication experiment11.
In this study we characterized the fecal microbiome community (as a proxy for gut) of foxes from the tame and aggressive strains of the Russian Farm Fox Experiment, in order to test the hypothesis that the gut microbial community compositions, and their neuroactive potentials, differ between fox behavioral phenotypes. All foxes were housed in the same or similar facilities and fed identical diets, allowing us to assess the differences between the gut microbiota of the two behavioral phenotypes without introducing the confounding variables of environment, and especially diet, both of which can strongly influence the gut community composition34.
Results and discussion
In order to profile the gut microbiome of the two fox behavioral strains, we generated both targeted bacterial 16S rRNA amplicon and shotgun metagenomic data from fecal samples collected from 123 foxes that represented two collection years (2015: tame (n = 10); aggressive (n = 10); 2017: tame (n = 51); aggressive (n = 52)). Because rare microbial species are typically not well assembled in metagenomic surveys because of low coverage35, 16S amplicon data was used as a starting point to characterize the microbiota’s broad taxonomic composition in order to study links with behavioral phenotypes. Complementary metagenomic data was incorporated to (1) recover and compare novel bacterial species between the behavioral selections lines, through the reconstruction of metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs), and (2) provide insights into the potential microbiome functions relevant to the microbiota–gut–brain axis.
Due to the strong batch effects (namely sample storage treatment known to significantly impact microbial taxonomic profiles36,37), between the two collections years (Supplementary Fig. 1), the 2015 dataset was removed from the 16S analysis and additionally removed from the shotgun metagenomic analysis after we generated the MAG reference catalog.
Gut microbial diversity reduced in tame foxes
To create initial community composition profiles of the gut microbiota of the two silver fox behavioral strains, a 16S rRNA gene amplicon survey was performed on the fecal samples collected in 2017 from aggressive (n = 52) and tame (n = 50) individuals. A total of 1525 amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) were identified after quality filtering. Diversity analysis at the genus level identified a lower Shannon diversity estimate in the microbiota of the tame, compared to aggressive, fox populations (Fig. 1A; Shannontame = 2.45 ± 0.006; Shannonaggr = 2.52 ± 0.003; p-value < 0.0001). Marked reductions in the gut microbial diversity of domesticated animals have been identified in a number of species, and are typically associated with anthropogenic factors, such as shifts in environment and diet, during the domestication process38,39,40,41. Interestingly, increased gut microbial diversity is also associated with aggressive and fearful behavior in mammals42,43,44,45,46,47 and chickens48. As the foxes from the two selection lines were housed in similar controlled environments, the lower diversity estimates identified in the tame gut microbiota are unlikely due to shifts in environmental factors (Supplementary Fig. 2). It is possible that founder effects influenced the gut microbial structure of the foxes, however, extensive genetic studies showed that the two populations are closely related32 and inbreeding was strenuously avoided since the beginning of the breeding program to avoid bottlenecks during selection. Gut morphology can influence gut microbiota composition (e.g., refs. 49,50), and changes in gut length have been reported in some domesticated species51,52. However, such morphological changes have yet to be explored in the experimentally domesticated foxes. Alternatively, it is possible that the depletion or loss of certain gut microbes during the early stages of the domestication process may initiate the behavioral shifts necessary to adapt to the new social environment, and knowledge of individual microbial species responsible for these phenotypes may be valuable in understanding their biological role during domestication.
A Diversity estimates with uncertainties of Shannon diversity in fox fecal samples collected in 2017. The dots represent the mean Shannon diversity estimate and the error bars (whiskers) represent the 95% confidence intervals. Differential relative abundance of the genera (B) Ruminococcaceae (UCG-014), (C) Anaeroplasma and (D) Lachnospiraceae (UCG-010). Microbial community composition was modeled at the genus level for the 16S dataset by fitting the beta-binomial regression model implemented in the ‘corncob’ package in R. Differentially abundant taxa were considered significant using the parametric Wald test with a controlled false discovery rate (p-value cut-off <0.05) **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.
Tame foxes are depleted in bacteria associated with fearful and aggressive behavior
To investigate whether certain microbes were associated with the different behavioral phenotypes, we modeled relative abundance of 16S sequence data at different taxonomic levels. At the phylum level, we observed that the gut microbiota of tame foxes were significantly depleted of Tenericutes in comparison to aggressive foxes (Wald test, t-value = −4.785, p-value = 1.53e-05), mainly due to the reduction of the bacterial family Anaeroplasmataceae (Wald test, t-value = −4.785, p-value = 7.88e-05). This finding is interesting for several reasons. Firstly, in other mammals such as hamsters and mice, Tenericutes, and more specifically Anaeroplasmataceae, have been reported to play a role in social behavior, and consistently and positively correlate with aggression42,43,47,53. Secondly, not only do some members of Tenericutes show heritability in multiple human populations54, but some Tenericutes are also less capable of recovering after perturbation in the gut47. Although taken at a broad taxonomic level, together, these findings suggest that it may be possible to select against at least some bacteria during early domestication, that remain depleted or lost throughout the process.
When considering the data at the order level, we noted a depletion of bacteria from the order Desulfovibrionales in tame foxes (Wald test, t-value = −2.938, p-value = 0.04). Maternal stress and perturbations in the gut microbiota of Siberian hamsters produced offspring that were not only enriched in Desulfovibrionales but also displayed increased levels of aggression when treated with stress55. Cusick and co-workers55 went on to suggest that both maternal microbiome and response to stress interact in ways that impact the behavior and gut microbiota of their offspring, both of which would have interesting implications in the eco-evolutionary processes of domestication.
Modeled relative abundance at the genus level revealed three additional taxa depleted in the tame fox strain, specifically Ruminococcaceae (UCG-014), Anaeroplasma and Lachnospiraceae (UCG-010) (Fig. 1B, C), all three of which have intriguing links to behavior in other mammals. In particular, Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae not only positively associate with aggressive behaviors in mammals, including dogs, mice and hamsters24,43,45,46,53, but also exhibit lower abundance in some captive and domestic animal populations of gaur and yaks39,41. Further, Lachnospiraceae are positively associated with brain reactivity to fear in humans, particularly in the prefrontal cortex56, which is a brain region involved in memory, learning and regulating fear, and shown to be modulated by changes in gut microbiota10,57,58.
In addition to Lachnospiraceae, Bacteroides similarly associate with brain reactivity to fear56. In this regard, when we explored our data at the ASVs level, we see many Bacteroides ASVs depleted in the tame strain (Fig. 2A). Interestingly, Bacteroides are observed in high abundance in the gut microbiota of wild red foxes from the grasslands in China59. Additional analysis at the ASV level revealed 53 ASVs to be differentially abundant between the aggressive and tame behavioral strains, and an additional 23 ASVs were discriminant to either selection line (Fig. 2; Supplementary Data 1). Most of these differences occurred in abundant and highly prevalent taxa (Fig. 2B). In addition to the depletion of Bacteriodes ASVs, we detected a significant depletion of Alloprevotella, Prevotellaceae and Blautia ASVs (Fig. 2A; Supplementary Data 1), all of which have previously been associated with aggression in dogs, hamsters, mice and voles43,45,46,53,60. Taken together, these data suggest that the gut microbiota in tame foxes are depleted of bacteria not only associated with aggressive and fearful behaviors, but also in taxa found in abundance in their wild counterparts. Furthermore, similar patterns in the gut microbiome of other domesticated animals have been observed, suggesting a role of the gut microbiome in domestic behaviors.
A Differences in the modeled abundance of ASVs, grouped by genus and phylum level taxonomic classifications, between aggressive and tame populations estimated with corncob using the Wald test with a controlled false discovery rate using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure. The dots represent the estimated model coefficients for abundance (effect sizes) and the errors bars (whiskers) represent the 95% confidence intervals. B Prevalence plots of 1525 bacterial 16S rRNA amplicon sequence variants (ASVs) found in fox fecal samples at the phylum level. Each point represents the total counts of a unique ASV corresponding to the fraction of individuals it was detected in. ASVs that were differentially abundant (n = 53) or discriminant (n = 23) in either the aggressive (*) or tame (O) population are highlighted.
Genome-resolved metagenomics characterize the neuroactive potential of the fox gut microbiota
To identify novel gut bacterial species, and assess the functional potential of the gut microbiota found in the aggressive and tame fox strains, we next carried out shotgun metagenomic sequencing. Initially, we generated a reference catalog of metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) using a dataset of 123 samples that represented two collection years (2015 + 2017) (tame (n = 61); aggressive (n = 62)). Briefly, the metagenomic data yielded 15.8 billion high-quality short-reads, of which ca. 30–70% (per sample) mapped to the fox genome (Supplementary Data 2a). After removing reads corresponding to the fox genome, we performed a large metagenomic co-assembly (7.09 billion reads), which produced 105,106 contigs >2500 nt. Subsequent manual binning within the anvi’o61 framework using differential coverage across all samples resulted in 237 non-redundant MAGs of which 50% of the reads mapped back to (Fig. 3A; Supplementary Fig. 3; Supplementary Data 2b). Four samples had a sequencing depth of less than 10 million single-end reads (<1 Gb) after quality control, and were removed from downstream analyses (as per recent recommendations35). At the phylum level, MAGs were affiliated to Firmicutes (n = 145), followed by Bacteroidetes (n = 27), Proteobacteria (n = 25), Actinobacteria (n = 17), Tenericutes (n = 17), Spirochaetes (n = 3), Cyanobacteria (n = 1), Fusobacteria (n = 1) and Deferribacteres (n = 1) (Fig. 3A). In addition, all MAGs were affiliated to known bacterial orders, and 43% of them could also be assigned to a known species (average nucleotide identity > 95%). Complete taxonomic assignments using the Genome Taxonomy Database Toolkit (GTDB-Tk)62 are found in Supplementary Data 2b.
A Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic tree comprising 237 gut-associated MAGs identified in 123 silver fox fecal samples, rooted at the level of Bacteroidetes. The innermost circular layer represents the percent completion of each genome followed by the associated phylum in the second layer. The following middle layers represent the 35 gut–brain modules (GBMs) detected in the collections of MAGs and categorized by functional association. Twenty-five MAGs were differentially abundant or exclusive to a behavioral phenotypic group and highlighted on the tree based on the enrichment in either the aggressive (yellow) or the tame (teal) populations. B Detection of GBMs (minimum 66% coverage) in the 22 differentially occurring fox MAGs highlighted in (A). Pathways and functions were annotated for each GBM along the bottom x-axis. GBMs exclusively present in MAGs enriched in the tame population are highlighted in teal whereas none were exclusively present in the aggressive population.
Modeled microbial abundance revealed 22 MAGs to be significantly differentially abundant between the aggressive and tame fox strains, and an additional 3 MAGs were discriminant to either strain (Fig. 3). Although overlap between shotgun metagenomic and 16S data exist at broad taxonomic levels63,64, comparison of community structures across the two sequencing strategies do not necessarily merge perfectly as a consequence of differences in taxonomic databases65,66,67, detection limits68, sequencing depths67,69 and PCR biases63,70. Nonetheless, corroborating 16S sequence data, there was an enrichment of Anaeroplasmataceae, Helicobacter C sp. and several Bacteroidaceae MAGs, namely Paraprevotella sp., Prevotellamassilia sp., and Prevotellamassilia sp.000437675, in the aggressive fox strain, among six additional enriched MAGs (Figs. 2A and 3B). Conversely, the tame fox strain was enriched in the MAGs Collinsella sp., Fusobacterium sp.900015295 and Helicobacter bilis, similarly identified at higher taxonomic resolution in the 16S data (Fig. 2A) in addition to eight other MAGs (Fig. 3B).
In order to describe the neuroactive potential of gut microbiota in relation to gut–brain interactions in the foxes, we applied a previously described module-based framework71. This framework identifies microbial pathways that metabolize molecules with the potential to interact with the host nervous system. We found 35 out of the 56 annotated gut–brain modules (GBMs) known to produce or degrade neuroactive compounds, spread widely across the phylogenic range of MAGs (Fig. 3A). We subsequently compared the microbial neuroactive potential of the gut microbiota between tame and aggressive fox strains by assessing the detection of GBMs in the 22 MAGs that were significantly enriched in one of the behavioral phenotypic groups (Fig. 3B). We detected six GBMs associated with the tame fox strain, three of which were identified in less than 5% of all MAGs (Fig. 3B; Supplementary Fig. 4). Two of the GBMs enriched in the tame population were associated with short chain fatty acids (SCFA), namely butyrate synthesis II and isovaleric acid synthesis I, and an additional three GBMs were from the glutamate-derived pathway, glutamate degradation II, GABA synthesis III and g-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) degradation (Fig. 3B). The final GBM was associated with the estrogen hormone signaling pathway, 17-beta-estradiol degradation, and was present in five out of the eleven MAGs enriched in the tame selection line (Fig. 3B). Interestingly, circulating levels of estradiol have been linked to variation in social behaviors, including a positive correlation with aggression in multiple animal species, namely sparrows, cichlids and mice72,73,74,75,76. It is therefore possible that the gut bacteria in the tame fox strain have the potential to reduce estradiol in circulation and in turn decrease aggressive behaviors important in the early domestication process.
We further applied the GBM framework to the cleaned shotgun data (7.09 billion reads), prior to assembly, for all fox samples, in order to increase the potential detection of GBMs associated to behavioral phenotypes. Most GBMs (n = 31) were present in over 75% of all fox samples and one was rare, namely nitric oxide degradation II and exclusively found in the tame fox selection line (Supplementary Fig. 5; Fig. 4). Modeled differential abundance of GBMs per metagenomic sample revealed three significant enrichments associated with the aggressive behavioral group; S-adenosylmethionine (SAM) synthesis (Wald test, t-value = −4.23, p-value = 3.9e-04), acetate synthesis I (Wald test, t-value = −4.34, p-value = 3.8e-04) and acetate synthesis III (Wald test, t-value = −3.15, p-value = 0.01) (Fig. 4).
Differences in the modeled relative abundance of GBMs detected in fecal metagenomes of silver foxes selected for tame and aggressive behaviors towards humans were estimated with corncob using the Wald test with a controlled false discovery rate using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure. The dots represent the estimated relative abundance of the GBM detected in the metagenomes of the foxes and the bars (whiskers) represent the 95% prediction intervals for the observed relative abundance for each individual fox with behavioral phenotype as a covariate.
Gut microbiota have the functional potential to produce neuroactive metabolites that influence the serotonergic system relevant to domestic behaviors
Serotonin (5-HT) has been implicated as one of the main neurotransmitters involved in animal aggression and plays an inhibitory role across a wide range of species77,78,79,80,81. Similarly, some domesticated animals have higher levels of brain 5-HT, including the Belyaev foxes as previously demonstrated, or peripheral 5-HT, that correlates with reduced aggressive and fear-related phenotypes82,83,84,85,86,87. Although the majority of 5-HT is produced in the gut (~90%), it is generally believed it cannot directly affect levels in the brain, because 5-HT cannot pass the blood–brain barrier (BBB)88. However, peripheral levels of 5-HT can alter brain functionality and behavior89. Furthermore, germ-free rodents have altered 5-HT concentrations and turnover in the brain, altered levels of circulating 5-HT and its precursor L-tryptophan, and decreased cecal and fecal 5-HT90,91,92,93,94. Gut bacteria can also modulate serotoninergic gene expression profiles in the brain95,96. Together, this suggests a role for the gut microbiota in modulating 5-HT signaling pathways in the central nervous systems, however, the mechanistic link between the gut microbiota and 5-HT production in the brain is not yet fully defined.
Here, we identified that foxes from the tame strain were significantly enriched in Enterococcus faecalis, Roseburia sp900548205 and Clostridiales MAGs, all taxa known to increase peripheral host serotonin levels by either directly producing it, promoting host serotonin biosynthesis, or upregulating the expression of serotonin transport genes in the gut71,88,97,98,99,100,101 (Fig. 3B; Wald test, t-value = 0.9, p-value = 0.007, Wald test, t-value = 2.86, p-value = 0.008 and order-level Clostridiales: t-value = 3.7, p-value = 0.001). Interestingly, Clostridiales were also enriched in red jungle fowl gut microbiota selected for low fear of humans11, and positively associated with impaired fear memory in mice102, which further suggest a role for this taxa in early domestication. The SCFAs butyrate and acetate can also influence the host serotonin system. Experimental studies have revealed that butyrate induces 5-HT colonic secretion from the gut, whereas acetate has been shown to do the opposite88,103, and the potential for butyrate and acetate synthesis were enriched in either the tame or aggressive fox strain gut microbiota, respectively (Figs. 3B and 4). Our 16S taxonomic data further support this pattern, where acetate producing bacteria104 were significantly enriched in the aggressive fox strain, namely Bacteroides spp., Prevotella spp., Ruminococcus spp. and Blautia spp. (Fig. 2). Intriguingly, butyrate is implicated in neuronal plasticity, fear memory formation, and increased fear extinction19,105,106,107, whereas acetate has been proposed to induce impairments in learning and coping with stress108. Further, SCFAs, such as butyrate and acetate, can cross the BBB and are known to be strong epigenetic modulators15 and epigenetic mechanisms may play an integral role in both the microbiota–gut–brain axis20,21,22,23,24,25,109 and domestication110,111,112,113,114,115,116.
We detected the nitric oxide (NO) degradation II GBM exclusively in the tame fox metagenomic data, although in low abundance (Fig. 4). Nitric oxide appears to play an important role in normal brain 5-HT functioning and has been implicated in both fear-related and aggressive behavior in mammals117,118,119,120,121. Together these data suggest that fox gut microbiota have the potential to influence the host serotonin system, however, how this translates into behavior remains to be defined. Nonetheless, the taxonomic and functional potential of the gut microbiota enriched in tame foxes indicate the capacity to influence fear memory formation and promote fear extinction learning, both of which would be relevant to overcoming a fear response toward humans during domestication.
Convergence of host and microbial selection signals on glutamate signaling pathway
Extensive studies have demonstrated that genes coding for different types of glutamate receptors in the host are associated with domestication in not only dogs, ducks, rabbits and chickens122,123,124,125,126, but also on the Belyaev foxes, where genomic regions, gene expression and allele frequencies involved in glutamatergic signaling are different between the tame and aggressive strains32,33. Mounting evidence has now shown that the gut microbiota can influence the genetic signatures (e.g., gene expression, epigenetics, dysregulate miRNAs) and functional connectivity of certain regions in the brain of the host10,57,58,127 and, further, alter gene expression of glutamatergic receptors in the brain128,129. In light of these findings, it is interesting that GBMs associated with glutamate degradation, GABA synthesis and g-Hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) degradation, all from the glutamate-derived pathway, were enriched in the MAGs from the gut of the tame fox strains (Fig. 3B). We additionally detected the potential for acetate synthesis in the aggressive population and gut-derived acetate can cross the blood–brain barrier and influence GABAergic and glutamatergic neurotransmission in the brain130.
Glutamate is the main excitatory neurotransmitter in the brain and plays an important role in fear conditioning, synaptic plasticity, learning, and memory131,132. GABA, on the other hand, is an inhibitory neurotransmitter that counteracts glutamate, and GABA signaling has been implicated in fear extinction learning133,134. Further, increased levels of glutamate in the brain can trigger aggression in mice135,136 whereas GABA is mainly associated with an inhibitory role in aggression137,138,139,140,141,142,143. GHB has also been implicated in aggressive behavior in animals and can increase levels of glutamate in the brain144,145,146. Moreover, the potential for glutamate synthesis has been identified in the gut microbiota of aggressive mice and red jungle fowl selected for high fear towards humans11,43. As with 5-HT, glutamate and GABA cannot pass the blood–brain barrier147, however, certain gut bacteria have been shown to increase GABA and glutamate in the brain148 and additionally promote consistent changes in GABA receptors in the brain accompanied by behavioral shifts in the host20. Further, GABA-producing bacteria in the gut can alter mood and fear-related behavior in studies modeling depression149. As such, these findings suggest a role for glutamate and GABA signaling in the behavioral shifts shared among animals during domestication, with both a host genomic and gut microbial component to its regulation.
Conclusion
Here we identified shifts in the fecal (as a proxy for gut) microbiota between behavioral phenotypes of the Belyaev foxes that have been linked to aggressive and fear-related behaviors, behaviors that are consistently reduced in domestic animals. Although our approach does not allow for interpretation of causality nor directionally of the microbiota–gut–brain axis interactions, and with this dataset we are unable to identify whether the gut microbiota is directly under selection, or alternatively responding to selection on host behavior150,151,152,153,154,155, such correlative findings set the stage for generating mechanistic hypotheses for further exploration. While the depletion of certain gut microbiota, such as Ruminococcaceae, Anaeroplasmataceae, and Lachnospiraceae during the early stages of the domestication process may initiate the behavioral shifts necessary to adapt to the new social environment, the enrichment of others, such as Enterococcus faecalis and Clostridiales may be equally important. Our metagenomic survey also allowed for the reconstruction of several microbial pathways enriched in the gut of tame foxes, such as glutamate degradation and GABA synthesis, which converged with host genetic and physiological signals, revealing a potential role of functional host-microbiota interactions that could influence behaviors associated with domestication. In future studies, the coupling of metagenomics, metatranscriptomics and metabolomics would provide opportunities to validate which bioactive metabolites are being produced, and together with antibiotic treatment and/or fecal transplant experiments, may establish a causative role of the functional pathways by which bacteria affect behavior and to what extent. Further, longitudinal studies of individuals across generations could provide further insights as to (i) when, and how quickly compositional changes occur within the microbiota of animals during early domestication, (ii) how these changes may reflect causal links to the behavioral shifts detected throughout the process, and even (iii) which host genetic mechanisms are driving the gut microbiome community trends. With regards to this latter point, we propose two hypotheses that may warrant future exploration. Firstly, previous characterization of the genomic differences found between the Belyaev fox behavioral strains reported not only significant enrichment for GO terms linked to the nervous system, but also immune responses, specifically “cytokine activity” and “interleukin-1 receptor binding”32. Given that differentiation in the host immune system can lead to differentiation in the gut microbiome156, we hypothesize that this intriguing observation may suggest that selection for behavioral phenotypic differences in the earliest stages of domestication may include, or even predominantly focus on, immune system differences, and that these in turn could shape the gut microbiome, and hence behavior. However, this relationship is bi-directional: the gut microbiota can also modulate signals for immune system development and function157, and this dynamic cross-talk may play a central role in the early stages of domestication. Our second hypothesis draws both on the recent observations from fish158 and humans159, that epigenetic changes in host genomes can directly shape the gut microbiome, and that rapid epigenetic divergence has been reported in the early stages of chickens subjected to behavioral selection110,111,112,114,115. As such, an alternate (or complementary) hypothesis, is that epigenetic changes in the fox genomes may be involved in shaping their gut microbiomes. Although this is yet to be tested, the fact that gut microbiomes are also well known to shape their host epigenomes160, this process could even involve some degree of reciprocal feedback.
Ultimately, however, although intriguing, we of course acknowledge that any role for the microbiota in the evolution of domestic behaviors in animals does not displace other contributing factors, but rather adds an additional layer to our understanding of how such behaviors arise. Understanding the eco-evolutionary mechanisms involved in the process of domestication provides crucial insights into how wild animals may adapt to human encounters over time. In this process, there is likely a bidirectional relationship between microbiota and host factors, including behavior, that further interact with the environment.
Methods
Animals and sample collection
Fecal samples were obtained from 61 tame and 62 aggressive silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes) maintained at the experimental farm of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics (ICG) (Novosibirsk, Russia). Foxes were approximately 5 months old at the time of collection. Each fox was housed individually in a cage with a wire net floor. The ground under the fox cage was covered with a piece of tissue at ~7 am and collected in the morning before feeding (~7–9 am) to ensure that only fresh fecal samples were obtained. No contact with urine was allowed. All foxes were raised in standard conditions and underwent identical treatment with minimally necessary human interaction until behavioral testing was performed161. Fox behavior was systematically scored based on their response to humans using a categorical scoring system that was well established early in the breeding program161.
Selection for the tame strain began in 1959 at the ICG, and was developed through selection of conventional farm-bred foxes from across the former Soviet Union due to their less aggressive and fearful behavior towards humans. The aggressive strain was developed by selecting conventional farm-bred foxes for an aggressive response towards humans, beginning in the late 1960s at the ICG. Both the tame and aggressive foxes ultimately originated from a conventional farm-bred fox population of Canadian descent that was established in the second part of the nineteenth century27. A description of the selective breeding program was previously described5,28,161. Fecal samples were collected and either frozen at −20 °C in the summer of 2015 (tame: n = 10, aggressive: n = 10) or preserved in RNAlater stabilization solution in the summer of 2017 (tame: n = 51, aggressive: n = 52) and stored at −20 °C.
DNA extraction
Prior to DNA extraction, RNAlater was removed with centrifugation (13,000 × g for 10 min) and the pellet was washed twice with 1 mL of PBS. DNA was extracted from approximately 100 mg of fecal sample using the DNeasy PowerSoil Kit DNA (Qiagen, Venlo, NL) following the manufacturer’s protocol with several modifications. Samples were incubated for 10 min at 65 °C after adding Solution C1 and bead-beaten for 10 min at 30 Hz using a TissueLyser II (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). Purified DNA was incubated in Solution C6 for 15 min at 37 °C before the final elution spin. Four negative controls (i.e., all reagents except sample continued in the workflow from extraction to sequencing as any other extracts) were included in order to check for potential reagent contamination.
Bacterial community composition from 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing
A dual-indexed PCR approach was used to target the V3-V4 variable region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene (~465 bp) for all fecal samples (n = 103) using the primer pair Bact-341F (5’-CCTAYGGGRBGCASCAG-3’) and Bact-806R (5’-GGACTACNNGGGTATCTAAT-3’) with Illumina Nextera overhang adapters (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA, USA)162,163,164,165. PCR was performed in triplicates and pooled prior to indexing PCR for each individual in order to reduce PCR bias. Pooled libraries were sequenced on an Illumina MiSeq platform using 250PE. Full methodological details can be found in Supplementary information.
Illumina adapters and primer sequences were removed from the 16S metabarcoding sequence data using cutadapt v.2.6166 and subsequently analyzed using the program DADA2 v.1.12.1167 and R v.3.6.1168 to infer amplicon sequence variants (ASVs). Complete code was modified from ref. 169. Briefly, forward and reverse reads were trimmed to 230 bp. The entire dataset was used to define an error rate at each base pair, and all sequences were denoised using the pooled approach to increase the likelihood of resolving rare sequence variants. Forward and reverse reads were merged, and any pair without perfect overlap and <400 bp was removed prior to chimeric sequence filtering. Each ASV was annotated with the RDP Bayesian classifier170 against the SILVA database171 to produce a 16S amplicon taxa table. All subsequent analyses were done in R v.3.6.3 unless otherwise stated172. ASV data was pre-processed with the phyloseq package v.1.30.0173, and potential contaminants were assessed with the decontam package v 1.6.0174. Twelve putative contaminants were removed from the ASV table. Only samples with >10,000 reads and ASVs present in a minimum of 5% of all samples were included in downstream 16S data analysis.
Metagenomic shotgun sequencing
Shotgun metagenome sequence data were prepared on all DNA extracts (n = 103) using the BEST single-tube library preparation protocol175 as optimized to be BGISEQ-500 compatible176. Briefly, genomic DNA was fragmented to 350 bp using a M220 Focused Ultrasonicator (Covaris, Woburn, MA). Sheared DNA was converted into BGISEQ-500 libraries following four steps: blunt end-repair, adapter ligation (20 μM BGI 2.0 adapters), fill-in reaction and SPRI magnetic bead purification (Sigma-Aldrich). Indexing PCR cycle number for all metagenomic libraries (7–11 cycles) were determined through qPCR library quantification. Libraries were pooled equimolar over 6 lanes in 100 bp or 150 bp paired-end mode on the BGISeq-500 platform aiming for a minimum of 50 million reads per sample.
Assembly and genome-resolved metagenomics
Prior to sequence assembly, all paired-end reads were demultiplexed and quality filtered. AdapterRemoval v.2.3.1177 was used to trim unidentified bases and adapter sequences from the ends of the read and PCR duplicates were removed with seqkit v.0.8.0178. Host and human reads were removed using bwa-mem algorithm v.0.7.15179 against the human (RefSeq: GCF_000001405.26) and fox (RefSeq: GCF_000002315.4) reference genomes. Quality filtered metagenomic reads were then co-assembled using MEGAHIT v.1.1.1 with k-mer sizes77,87,97,107,127,137,147,157,167: and default parameters180. Contigs less than 2500 nt were removed from the resulting assembly output and corresponding header names were simplifying using anvi’o v.6.261. Metagenomic reads were mapped to the assembled contigs using bwa-mem algorithm v.0.7.15 with default parameters179 and Samtools v.1.9181 was used to sort and index the output SAM files into BAM files.
BAM files were used to generate a contig depth of coverage table with jgi_summarize_bam_contig_depths (MetaBAT2 v.2.12.1)182. We then applied the automatic binning algorithm in CONCOCT183 on this coverage table to generate 10 large contig clusters to maximize explained patterns while minimizing fragmentation error, as performed elsewhere184,185. Subsequently, a manual binning and curation was performed for each CONCOCT cluster following the genome-resolved metagenomic workflow implemented in anvi’o v.6.261. Briefly, anvi’o was used to generate a contigs database that identified open reading frames using Prodigal v.2.6.3186 and single-copy core genes using HMMER v.3.2.1187 against the collection of built-in HMM profiles for Bacteria and Archaea. Gene-level taxonomy was classified using Kaiju v.1.5.0188, with NCBI’s non-redundant protein database, including fungi and microbial eukaryotes, and genes were further annotated with functions using the NCBI’s Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG)189. Anvi’o was then used to profile each metagenomic BAM file to estimate the coverage and detection statistics of contigs in the contigs database, and combined mapping profiles into a merged profile database for all individuals. In addition, we imported an anvi’o collection corresponding to the 10 CONCOCT clusters. Finally, each CONCOCT cluster was manually binned and further refined using the anvi’o interactive interface190 taking into account sequence composition, differential coverage, GC-content, and taxonomic signal of the considered contigs. MAGs with completeness >50% and redundancy <10% were retained for downstream analyses191 (Genomic features of the MAGs can be found in Supplementary Data 2b).
The taxonomy of MAGs was inferred using the Genome Taxonomy Database Toolkit (GTDB-Tk)62 version 95. However, we used NCBI taxonomy from the GTDB output to describe the phylum of MAGs in the results and discussion sections, in order to be in line with the literature. A phylogenetic tree of the MAGs was generated with FastTree 2.1.10192 and visualized in anvi’o.
MAGs were considered to be detected in a given sample when >50% of their length was covered by reads to minimize non-specific read recruitments184. The number of recruited reads below this cut-off was set to 0 before determining vertical coverage, the number of bases covering each genome divided by its length.
Gut–brain module (GBM) detection
The fox shotgun metagenomic data was translated into neuroactive potential using a previously described module-based reconstruction framework71. Briefly, we searched for the presence of 56 gut–brain modules (GBMs), each corresponding to a process of synthesis or degradation of a neuroactive compound by the gut microbiota, in each of the fox MAGs (n = 204). As module structure follows the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database syntax, gene calls for each MAG were exported from the contig database within anvi’o and functionally annotated with KEGG identifiers using GhostKoala193. GBM coverage was calculated as the number of pathway steps for which at least one of the orthologous groups is found in a genome, divided by the total number of steps constituting the GBM using Omixer-RPM v.0.3.2 (https://github.com/raeslab/omixer-rpm). GBM presence in microbial MAGs was defined with a detection threshold of at least 66% coverage, to provide tolerance to miss-annotations and missing data in incomplete genomes71. GBM detection was visualized with corrplot v.0.84194 in the 28 differentially abundant fox MAGs to identify over/under-represented metabolic GBMs between the two behavioral selection lines.
Differential abundance estimates
Diversity estimates and hypothesis testing of Shannon diversity were performed with the breakaway package v.4.6.16195,196 and DivNet package v.0.3.5197 for the 16S dataset. These packages use sophisticated models to account for sequencing depth and rare taxa in high-dimensional data and incorporate taxon interactions when estimating α-diversity. Diversity estimates with uncertainties were used to support hypothesis testing between selection lines198. Expected relative abundance of microbial taxa was modeled directly from read counts for 16S and shotgun sequence data at different taxonomic levels (phylum, class, order, family, genus, and ASVs) using a beta-binomial model. The model was fit using corncob v.0.1.0199, an r-based package designed specifically for marker gene compositional data, which uses sophisticated models to account for sequencing depth and rare taxa in high-dimensional data and estimates abundance with uncertainties to support hypothesis testing between selection lines. The Wald test was used to test for differential taxon abundances between selection lines with a controlled false discovery rate using the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure (p-value cutoff <0.05)200. Graphical representations were performed in R using the package ggplot2 v.3.2.1.9000201.
Statistics and reproducibility
Statistics were carried using R/v.3.6.1 and R/v.3.6.3 to generate results that are reported throughout the paper and at https://github.com/lcpuetz/Fox_microbiome.
Reporting summary
Further information on research design is available in the Nature Portfolio Reporting Summary linked to this article.
Data availability
The sequence data that support the findings of this study are available in European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/, study accession number PRJEB29232.
Code availability
The scripts for analysis are available at https://github.com/lcpuetz/Fox_microbiome.
References
Belyaev, D. K. Destabilizing selection as a factor in domestication. J. Hered. 70, 301–308 (1979).
Google Scholar
Trut, L. Early canid domestication: the farm-fox experiment. Am. Sci. 87, 160 (1999).
Google Scholar
Sánchez-Villagra, M. R., Geiger, M. & Schneider, R. A. The taming of the neural crest: a developmental perspective on the origins of morphological covariation in domesticated mammals. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3, 160107 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wilkins, A. S., Wrangham, R. W. & Fitch, W. T. The “domestication syndrome” in mammals: a unified explanation based on neural crest cell behavior and genetics. Genetics 197, 795–808 (2014).
Google Scholar
Trut, L., Oskina, I. & Kharlamova, A. Animal evolution during domestication: the domesticated fox as a model. BioEssays 31, 349–360 (2009).
Google Scholar
Alberdi, A., Aizpurua, O., Bohmann, K., Zepeda-Mendoza, M. L. & Gilbert, M. T. P. Do vertebrate gut metagenomes confer rapid ecological adaptation? Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 689–699 (2016).
Google Scholar
Suzuki, T. A. & Ley, R. E. The role of the microbiota in human genetic adaptation. Science 370, eaaz6827 (2020).
Google Scholar
Cryan, J. F. et al. The microbiota-gut-brain axis. Physiol. Rev. 99, 1877–2013 (2019).
Google Scholar
Morais, L. H., Schreiber, H. L. & Mazmanian, S. K. The gut microbiota–brain axis in behaviour and brain disorders. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 19, 241–255 (2021).
Google Scholar
Sharvin, B. L., Aburto, M. R. & Cryan, J. F. Decoding the neurocircuitry of gut feelings: region-specific microbiome-mediated brain alterations. Neurobiol. Dis. 179, 106033 (2023).
Google Scholar
Puetz, L. C. et al. Gut microbiota linked with reduced fear of humans in red junglefowl has implications for early domestication. Adv. Genet. 2, 2100018 (2021).
Google Scholar
Sarkar, A. et al. Microbial transmission in animal social networks and the social microbiome. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 4, 1020–1035 (2020).
Google Scholar
Sherwin, E., Bordenstein, S. R., Quinn, J. L., Dinan, T. G. & Cryan, J. F. Microbiota and the social brain. Science 366, eaar2016 (2019).
Google Scholar
Buffington, S. A. et al. Dissecting the contribution of host genetics and the microbiome in complex behaviors. Cell 184, 1740–1756.e16 (2021).
Google Scholar
Caspani, G. & Swann, J. Small talk: microbial metabolites involved in the signaling from microbiota to brain. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 48, 99–106 (2019).
Google Scholar
Needham, B. D., Kaddurah-Daouk, R. & Mazmanian, S. K. Gut microbial molecules in behavioural and neurodegenerative conditions. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 21, 717–731 (2020).
Google Scholar
Needham, B. D. et al. A gut-derived metabolite alters brain activity and anxiety behaviour in mice. Nature 602, 647–653 (2022).
Google Scholar
Strandwitz, P. Neurotransmitter modulation by the gut microbiota. Brain Res. 1693, 128–133 (2018).
Google Scholar
Stilling, R. M. et al. The neuropharmacology of butyrate: the bread and butter of the microbiota-gut-brain axis? Neurochem. Int. 99, 110–132 (2016).
Google Scholar
Bravo, J. A. et al. Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 16050–16055 (2011).
Google Scholar
Chu, C. et al. The microbiota regulate neuronal function and fear extinction learning. Nature 574, 543–548 (2019).
Google Scholar
Hoban, A. E. et al. The microbiome regulates amygdala-dependent fear recall. Mol. Psychiatry 23, 1134–1144 (2018).
Google Scholar
Jia, Y. et al. Gut microbiome modulates Drosophila aggression through octopamine signaling. Nat. Commun. 12, 2698 (2021).
Google Scholar
Leclercq, S. et al. Low-dose penicillin in early life induces long-term changes in murine gut microbiota, brain cytokines and behavior. Nat. Commun. 8, 15062 (2017).
Google Scholar
Liu, Y. et al. Increased persistence of avoidance behaviour and social deficits with L.rhamnosus JB-1 or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor treatment following social defeat. Sci. Rep. 10, 13485 (2020).
Google Scholar
Rando, H. M. et al. Y-Chromosome markers for the red fox. J. Hered. 108, 678–685 (2017).
Google Scholar
Statham, M. J. et al. On the origin of a domesticated species: identifying the parent population of Russian silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 103, 168–175 (2011).
Google Scholar
Trut, L. N., Plyusnina, I. Z. & Oskina, I. N. An experiment on fox domestication and debatable issues of evolution of the dog. Russ. J. Genet. 40, 644–655 (2004).
Google Scholar
Hare, B. et al. Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication. Curr. Biol. 15, 226–230 (2005).
Google Scholar
Kukekova, A. V. et al. Measurement of segregating behaviors in experimental silver fox pedigrees. Behav. Genet. 38, 185–194 (2008).
Google Scholar
Kukekova, A. V. et al. Mapping loci for fox domestication: deconstruction/reconstruction of a behavioral phenotype. Behav. Genet. 41, 593–606 (2011).
Google Scholar
Kukekova, A. V. et al. The red fox genome assembly identifies genomic regions associated with tame and aggressive behaviors. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2, 1479–1491 (2018).
Wang, X. et al. Genomic responses to selection for tame/aggressive behaviors in the silver fox (Vulpes vulpes). Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 115, 10398–10403 (2018).
Google Scholar
Reese, A. T. et al. Effects of domestication on the gut microbiota parallel those of human industrialization. Elife 10, e60197 (2021).
Google Scholar
Quince, C., Walker, A. W., Simpson, J. T., Loman, N. J. & Segata, N. Shotgun metagenomics, from sampling to analysis. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 833–844 (2017).
Google Scholar
Li, X. et al. Effects of stool sample preservation methods on gut microbiota biodiversity: new original data and systematic review with meta-analysis. Microbiol. Spectr. 11, e04297–22 (2023).
Google Scholar
Song, S. J. et al. Preservation methods differ in fecal microbiome stability, affecting suitability for field studies. mSystems, https://doi.org/10.1128/msystems.00021-16 (2016).
Bowerman, K. L. et al. Effects of laboratory domestication on the rodent gut microbiome. ISME Commun. 1, 49 (2021).
Google Scholar
Fu, H. et al. Domestication shapes the community structure and functional metagenomic content of the yak fecal microbiota. Front. Microbiol. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmicb.2021.594075 (2021).
Metcalf, J. L. et al. Evaluating the impact of domestication and captivity on the horse gut microbiome. Sci. Rep. 7, 15497 (2017).
Google Scholar
Prabhu, V. R., Wasimuddin, K. R., Arjun, M. S. & Nagarajan, M. Consequences of domestication on gut microbiome: a comparative study between wild gaur and domestic mithun. Front. Microbiol. 11, 133 (2020).
Google Scholar
Agranyoni, O. et al. Gut microbiota determines the social behavior of mice and induces metabolic and inflammatory changes in their adipose tissue. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 7, 28 (2021).
Google Scholar
Bai, S. et al. CD36 deficiency affects depressive-like behaviors possibly by modifying gut microbiota and the inflammasome pathway in mice. Transl. Psychiatry 11, 16 (2021).
Google Scholar
Carlson, A. L. et al. Infant gut microbiome composition is associated with non-social fear behavior in a pilot study. Nat. Commun. 12, 3294 (2021).
Google Scholar
Craddock, H. A. et al. Phenotypic correlates of the working dog microbiome. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 8, 66 (2022).
Google Scholar
Mondo, E. et al. Gut microbiome structure and adrenocortical activity in dogs with aggressive and phobic behavioral disorders. Heliyon 6, e03311 (2020).
Google Scholar
Sylvia, K. E., Jewell, C. P., Rendon, N. M., St. John, E. A. & Demas, G. E. Sex-specific modulation of the gut microbiome and behavior in Siberian hamsters. Brain. Behav. Immun. 60, 51–62 (2017).
Google Scholar
Wang, Y. & Yuan, Z. Gut microbiota in two chickens’ breeds: characteristics and dynamic changes. Microb. Pathog. 197, 107101 (2024).
Google Scholar
Joly, F. et al. Drastic changes in fecal and mucosa-associated microbiota in adult patients with short bowel syndrome. Biochimie 92, 753–761 (2010).
Google Scholar
Jensen, B. A. H. et al. Small intestine vs. colon ecology and physiology: why it matters in probiotic administration. Cell Rep. Med. 4, 101190 (2023).
Google Scholar
Lesch, R., Kotrschal, K., Kitchener, A. C., Fitch, W. T. & Kotrschal, A. The expensive-tissue hypothesis may help explain brain-size reduction during domestication. Commun. Integr. Biol. 15, 190–192 (2022).
Google Scholar
O’Regan, H. J. & Kitchener, A. C. The effects of captivity on the morphology of captive, domesticated and feral mammals. Mamm. Rev. 35, 215–230 (2005).
Google Scholar
Ren, C. C. et al. Photoperiod modulates the gut microbiome and aggressive behavior in Siberian hamsters. J. Exp. Biol. 223, jeb212548 (2019).
Google Scholar
Goodrich, J. K., Davenport, E. R., Clark, A. G. & Ley, R. E. The relationship between the human genome and microbiome comes into view. Annu. Rev. Genet. 51, 413–433 (2017).
Google Scholar
Cusick, J. A., Wellman, C. L. & Demas, G. E. Maternal stress and the maternal microbiome have sex-specific effects on offspring development and aggressive behavior in Siberian hamsters (Phodopus sungorus). Horm. Behav. 141, 105146 (2022).
Google Scholar
Callaghan, B. L. et al. Mind and gut: associations between mood and gastrointestinal distress in children exposed to adversity. Dev. Psychopathol. 32, 309–328 (2020).
Google Scholar
Hoban, A. E. et al. Microbial regulation of microRNA expression in the amygdala and prefrontal cortex. Microbiome 5, 102 (2017).
Google Scholar
Hoban, A. E. et al. Regulation of prefrontal cortex myelination by the microbiota. Transl. Psychiatry 6, e774–e774 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wang, X. et al. Comparative analyses of the gut microbiome of two fox species, the red fox (Vulpes Vulpes) and corsac fox (Vulpes Corsac), that occupy different ecological niches. Microb. Ecol. 83, 753–765 (2022).
Google Scholar
Liu, J. et al. High housing density increases stress hormone- or disease-associated fecal microbiota in male Brandt’s voles (Lasiopodomys brandtii). Horm. Behav. 126, 104838 (2020).
Google Scholar
Eren, A. M. et al. Anvi’o: an advanced analysis and visualization platform for ‘omics data. PeerJ 3, e1319 (2015).
Google Scholar
Chaumeil, P.-A., Mussig, A. J., Hugenholtz, P. & Parks, D. H. G. T. D. B. – Tk: a toolkit to classify genomes with the Genome Taxonomy Database. Bioinformatics 36, 1925–1927 (2020).
Google Scholar
Bowers, R. M. et al. Dissecting the dominant hot spring microbial populations based on community-wide sampling at single-cell genomic resolution. ISME J. 16, 1337–1347 (2022).
Google Scholar
Gehrig, J. L. et al. Finding the right fit: evaluation of short-read and long-read sequencing approaches to maximize the utility of clinical microbiome data. Microb. Genomics 8, 000794 (2022).
Lesker, T. R. et al. An integrated metagenome catalog reveals new insights into the murine gut microbiome. Cell Rep. 30, 2909–2922.e6 (2020).
Google Scholar
Odom, A. R., Faits, T., Castro-Nallar, E., Crandall, K. A. & Johnson, W. E. Metagenomic profiling pipelines improve taxonomic classification for 16S amplicon sequencing data. Sci. Rep. 13, 13957 (2023).
Google Scholar
Tessler, M. et al. Large-scale differences in microbial biodiversity discovery between 16S amplicon and shotgun sequencing. Sci. Rep. 7, 6589 (2017).
Google Scholar
Durazzi, F. et al. Comparison between 16S rRNA and shotgun sequencing data for the taxonomic characterization of the gut microbiota. Sci. Rep. 11, 3030 (2021).
Google Scholar
Dawson, D. A. et al. New methods to identify conserved microsatellite loci and develop primer sets of high cross-species utility – as demonstrated for birds. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 10, 475–494 (2010).
Google Scholar
Sze, M. A. & Schloss, P. D. The impact of DNA polymerase and number of rounds of amplification in PCR on 16S rRNA gene sequence data. mSphere, https://doi.org/10.1128/msphere.00163-19 (2019).
Valles-Colomer, M. et al. The neuroactive potential of the human gut microbiota in quality of life and depression. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 623–632 (2019).
Google Scholar
Huffman, L. S., O’Connell, L. A. & Hofmann, H. A. Aromatase regulates aggression in the African cichlid fish Astatotilapia burtoni. Physiol. Behav. 112–113, 77–83 (2013).
Google Scholar
Laredo, S. A., Villalon Landeros, R. & Trainor, B. C. Rapid effects of estrogens on behavior: environmental modulation and molecular mechanisms. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 35, 447–458 (2014).
Google Scholar
Merritt, J. R. et al. Rapid effects of estradiol on aggression depend on genotype in a species with an estrogen receptor polymorphism. Horm. Behav. 98, 210–218 (2018).
Google Scholar
Sylvia, K. E. & Demas, G. E. A gut feeling: microbiome-brain-immune interactions modulate social and affective behaviors. Horm. Behav. 99, 41–49 (2018).
Google Scholar
Trainor, B. C., Sima Finy, M. & Nelson, R. J. Rapid effects of estradiol on male aggression depend on photoperiod in reproductively non-responsive mice. Horm. Behav. 53, 192–199 (2008).
Google Scholar
Deckel, A. Behavioral changes in Anolis carolinensis following injection with fluoxetine. Behav. Brain Res. 78, 175–182 (1996).
Google Scholar
Homberg, J. R., Schiepers, O. J. G., Schoffelmeer, A. N. M., Cuppen, E. & Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J. Acute and constitutive increases in central serotonin levels reduce social play behaviour in peri-adolescent rats. Psychopharmacology 195, 175–182 (2007).
Google Scholar
Olivier, B. & van Oorschot, R. 5-HT1B receptors and aggression: a review. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 526, 207–217 (2005).
Google Scholar
Pinna, G., Costa, E. & Guidotti, A. SSRIs act as selective brain steroidogenic stimulants (SBSSs) at low doses that are inactive on 5-HT reuptake. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 9, 24–30 (2009).
Google Scholar
Sperry, T. S., Moore, I. T., Meddle, S. L., Benowitz-Fredericks, Z. M. & Wingfield, J. C. Increased sensitivity of the serotonergic system during the breeding season in free-living American tree sparrows. Behav. Brain Res. 157, 119–126 (2005).
Google Scholar
Agnvall, B., Katajamaa, R., Altimiras, J. & Jensen, P. Is domestication driven by reduced fear of humans? Boldness, metabolism and serotonin levels in divergently selected red junglefowl (Gallus gallus). Biol. Lett. 11, 20150509 (2015).
Google Scholar
Bolhuis, J. E. et al. Effects of genetic group selection against mortality on behavior and peripheral serotonin in domestic laying hens with trimmed and intact beaks. Physiol. Behav. 97, 470–475 (2009).
Google Scholar
Clouard, C., Resmond, R., Vesque-Annear, H., Prunier, A. & Merlot, E. Pre-weaning social behaviours and peripheral serotonin levels are associated with behavioural and physiological responses to weaning and social mixing in pigs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 259, 105833 (2023).
Google Scholar
Plyusnina, I. Z., Oskina, I. N. & Trut, L. N. An analysis of fear and aggression during early development of behaviour in silver foxes (Vulpes vulpes). Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 32, 253–268 (1991).
Google Scholar
Popova, N. K., Voitenko, N. N., Kulikov, A. V. & Avgustinovich, D. F. Evidence for the involvement of central serotonin in mechanism of domestication of silver foxes. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 40, 751–756 (1991).
Google Scholar
Rosado, B. et al. Blood concentrations of serotonin, cortisol and dehydroepiandrosterone in aggressive dogs. Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. 123, 124–130 (2010).
Google Scholar
Yano, J. M. et al. Indigenous bacteria from the gut microbiota regulate host serotonin biosynthesis. Cell 161, 264–276 (2015).
Google Scholar
Sbrini, G. et al. Peripheral serotonin deficiency affects anxiety-like behavior and the molecular response to an acute challenge in rats. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 23, 4941 (2022).
Google Scholar
Clarke, G. et al. The microbiome-gut-brain axis during early life regulates the hippocampal serotonergic system in a sex-dependent manner. Mol. Psychiatry 18, 666–673 (2013).
Google Scholar
Crumeyrolle-Arias, M. et al. Absence of the gut microbiota enhances anxiety-like behavior and neuroendocrine response to acute stress in rats. Psychoneuroendocrinology 42, 207–217 (2014).
Google Scholar
Hata, T. et al. Regulation of gut luminal serotonin by commensal microbiota in mice. PLoS ONE 12, e0180745 (2017).
Google Scholar
Heijtz, R. D. et al. Normal gut microbiota modulates brain development and behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3047–3052 (2011).
Google Scholar
Wikoff, W. R. et al. Metabolomics analysis reveals large effects of gut microflora on mammalian blood metabolites. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106, 3698–3703 (2009).
Google Scholar
Borrelli, L. et al. Probiotic modulation of the microbiota-gut-brain axis and behaviour in zebrafish. Sci. Rep. 6, 30046 (2016).
Google Scholar
Engevik, M. A. et al. Human-derived bifidobacterium dentium modulates the mammalian serotonergic system and gut–brain axis. Cell. Mol. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 11, 221–248 (2021).
Google Scholar
Chen, Y.-M. et al. Effect of Bacillus subtilis, Enterococcus faecium, and Enterococcus faecalis supernatants on serotonin transporter expression in cells and tissues. World J. Gastroenterol. 28, 532–546 (2022).
Google Scholar
Lyte, M. Probiotics function mechanistically as delivery vehicles for neuroactive compounds: microbial endocrinology in the design and use of probiotics. BioEssays 33, 574–581 (2011).
Google Scholar
O’Mahony, S. M., Clarke, G., Borre, Y. E., Dinan, T. G. & Cryan, J. F. Serotonin, tryptophan metabolism and the brain-gut-microbiome axis. Behav. Brain Res. 277, 32–48 (2015).
Google Scholar
Özogul, F., Kuley, E., Özogul, Y. & Özogul, İ The function of lactic acid bacteria on biogenic amines production by food-borne pathogens in arginine decarboxylase broth. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 18, 795–804 (2012).
Google Scholar
Roshchina, V. V. In Microbial Endocrinology (eds Lyte, M. & Freestone, P. P. E.) 17–52 (Springer New York, 2010).
Bruce-Keller, A. J. et al. Obese-type gut microbiota induce neurobehavioral changes in the absence of obesity. Biol. Psychiatry 77, 607–615 (2015).
Google Scholar
Bhattarai, Y. et al. Human-derived gut microbiota modulates colonic secretion in mice by regulating 5-HT 3 receptor expression via acetate production. Am. J. Physiol. Liver Physiol. 313, G80–G87 (2017).
Liu, Z. et al. Exploring the roles of intestinal flora in enhanced recovery after surgery. iScience 26, 105959 (2023).
Fischer, A., Sananbenesi, F., Wang, X., Dobbin, M. & Tsai, L.-H. Recovery of learning and memory is associated with chromatin remodelling. Nature 447, 178–182 (2007).
Google Scholar
Lattal, K. M., Barrett, R. M. & Wood, M. A. Systemic or intrahippocampal delivery of histone deacetylase inhibitors facilitates fear extinction. Behav. Neurosci. 121, 1125–1131 (2007).
Google Scholar
Levenson, J. M. et al. Regulation of Histone Acetylation during Memory Formation in the Hippocampus. J. Biol. Chem. 279, 40545–40559 (2004).
Google Scholar
Fiore, M. et al. Prenatal methylazoxymethanol acetate alters behavior and brain NGF levels in young rats: a possible correlation with the development of schizophrenia-like deficits. Neuropharmacology 38, 857–869 (1999).
Google Scholar
Romano, K. A. et al. Metabolic, epigenetic, and transgenerational effects of gut bacterial choline consumption. Cell Host Microbe 22, 279–290.e7 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bélteky, J., Agnvall, B. & Jensen, P. Gene expression of behaviorally relevant genes in the cerebral hemisphere changes after selection for tameness in Red Junglefowl. PLoS ONE 12, e0177004 (2017).
Google Scholar
Bélteky, J. et al. Epigenetics and early domestication: differences in hypothalamic DNA methylation between red junglefowl divergently selected for high or low fear of humans. Genet. Sel. Evol. 50, 13 (2018).
Google Scholar
Jensen, P. & Wright, D. In Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals 3rd edn (eds Grandin, T. B. T.-G. and the B. of D. A.) 49–93 (Elsevier, 2022).
Konstantinidis, I. et al. Major gene expression changes and epigenetic remodelling in Nile tilapia muscle after just one generation of domestication. Epigenetics 15, 1052–1067 (2020).
Google Scholar
Lindqvist, C. et al. Transmission of stress-induced learning impairment and associated brain gene expression from parents to offspring in chickens. PLoS ONE 2, e364 (2007).
Google Scholar
Nätt, D. et al. Heritable genome-wide variation of gene expression and promoter methylation between wild and domesticated chickens. BMC Genomics 13, 59 (2012).
Google Scholar
Podgorniak, T. et al. Early fish domestication affects methylation of key genes involved in the rapid onset of the farmed phenotype. Epigenetics 17, 1281–1298 (2022).
Google Scholar
Chiavegatto, S. et al. Brain serotonin dysfunction accounts for aggression in male mice lacking neuronal nitric oxide synthase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 1277–1281 (2001).
Google Scholar
Chiavegatto, S. & Nelson, R. J. Interaction of nitric oxide and serotonin in aggressive behavior. Horm. Behav. 44, 233–241 (2003).
Google Scholar
Demas, G. E. et al. Elimination of aggressive behavior in male mice lacking endothelial nitric oxide synthase. J. Neurosci. 19, RC30–RC30 (1999).
Google Scholar
Frisch, C. et al. Superior water maze performance and increase in fear-related behavior in the endothelial nitric oxide synthase-deficient mouse together with monoamine changes in cerebellum and ventral striatum. J. Neurosci. 20, 6694–6700 (2000).
Google Scholar
Nelson, R. J. et al. Behavioural abnormalities in male mice lacking neuronal nitric oxide synthase. Nature 378, 383–386 (1995).
Google Scholar
Carneiro, M. et al. Rabbit genome analysis reveals a polygenic basis for phenotypic change during domestication. Science 345, 1074–1079 (2014).
Google Scholar
Li, Y. et al. Domestication of the dog from the wolf was promoted by enhanced excitatory synaptic plasticity: a hypothesis. Genome Biol. Evol. 6, 3115–3121 (2014).
Google Scholar
Montague, M. J. et al. Comparative analysis of the domestic cat genome reveals genetic signatures underlying feline biology and domestication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17230–17235 (2014).
Google Scholar
Wang, M.-S. et al. Positive selection rather than relaxation of functional constraint drives the evolution of vision during chicken domestication. Cell Res. 26, 556–573 (2016).
Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. et al. Whole-genome resequencing reveals signatures of selection and timing of duck domestication. Gigascience 7, giy027 (2018).
Google Scholar
Stilling, R. M. et al. Microbes & neurodevelopment–absence of microbiota during early life increases activity-related transcriptional pathways in the amygdala. Brain. Behav. Immun. 50, 209–220 (2015).
Google Scholar
Neufeld, K. M., Kang, N., Bienenstock, J. & Foster, J. A. Reduced anxiety-like behavior and central neurochemical change in germ-free mice. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 23, 255–e119 (2011).
Google Scholar
Sudo, N. et al. Postnatal microbial colonization programs the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal system for stress response in mice. J. Physiol. 558, 263–275 (2004).
Google Scholar
Frost, G. et al. The short-chain fatty acid acetate reduces appetite via a central homeostatic mechanism. Nat. Commun. 5, 3611 (2014).
Google Scholar
Julio-Pieper, M., O’Connor, R. M., Dinan, T. G. & Cryan, J. F. Regulation of the brain–gut axis by group III metabotropic glutamate receptors. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 698, 19–30 (2013).
Google Scholar
Mahan, A. L. et al. Alteration of plasma glutamate and glutamine levels in children with high-functioning autism. Biol. Psychiatry 6, e76993 (2013).
Adkins, J. M., Lynch, J., Gray, M. & Jasnow, A. M. Presynaptic GABAB receptor inhibition sex dependently enhances fear extinction and attenuates fear renewal. Psychopharmacology https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-021-05831-w (2021).
Tillisch, K. et al. Brain structure and response to emotional stimuli as related to gut microbial profiles in healthy women. Psychosom. Med. 79, 905–913 (2017).
Google Scholar
Takahashi, A. et al. Lateral habenula glutamatergic neurons projecting to the dorsal raphe nucleus promote aggressive arousal in mice. Nat. Commun. 13, 4039 (2022).
Google Scholar
Takahashi, A. et al. Glutamate input in the dorsal raphe nucleus as a determinant of escalated aggression in male mice. J. Neurosci. 35, 6452–6463 (2015).
Google Scholar
Chaibi, I. & Bennis, M. & Ba-M’Hamed, S. GABA-A receptor signaling in the anterior cingulate cortex modulates aggression and anxiety-related behaviors in socially isolated mice. Brain Res. 1762, 147440 (2021).
Google Scholar
Clement, J. et al. Age-dependent changes of brain GABA levels, turnover rates and shock-induced aggressive behavior in inbred strains of mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 26, 83–88 (1987).
Google Scholar
Earley, C. J. & Leonard, B. E. The effect of testosterone and cyproterone acetate on the concentration of γ-aminobutyric acid in brain areas of aggressive and non-aggressive mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 6, 409–413 (1977).
Google Scholar
Lee, G. & Gammie, S. C. GABAA receptor signaling in the lateral septum regulates maternal aggression in mice. Behav. Neurosci. 123, 1169–1177 (2009).
Google Scholar
Lee, G. & Gammie, S. C. GABAA receptor signaling in caudal periaqueductal gray regulates maternal aggression and maternal care in mice. Behav. Brain Res. 213, 230–237 (2010).
Google Scholar
Miczek, K. A., Fish, E. W. & De Bold, J. F. Neurosteroids, GABAA receptors, and escalated aggressive behavior. Horm. Behav. 44, 242–257 (2003).
Google Scholar
Simler, S., Puglisi-Allegra, S. & Mandel, P. γ-Aminobutyric acid in brain areas of isolated aggressive or non-aggressive inbred strains of mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 16, 57–61 (1982).
Google Scholar
Mason, P. E. & Kerns, W. P. Gamma hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) intoxication. Acad. Emerg. Med. 9, 730–739 (2002).
Google Scholar
Navarro, J. F., Pedraza, C. & González, F. Acute and subchronic effects of gamma-hydroxybutyrate (GHB) on isolation-induced aggression in male mice. Methods Find. Exp. Clin. Pharmacol. 29, 379 (2007).
Google Scholar
Pedraza, C., Dávila, G., Martín-López, M. & Navarro, J. F. Anti-aggressive effects of GHB in OF.1 strain mice: Involvement of dopamine D2 receptors. Prog. Neuro-Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 31, 337–342 (2007).
Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. A. The blood-brain barrier and glutamate. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 90, 867S–874S (2009).
Google Scholar
Janik, R. et al. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy reveals oral Lactobacillus promotion of increases in brain GABA, N-acetyl aspartate and glutamate. Neuroimage 125, 988–995 (2016).
Google Scholar
Mayneris-Perxachs, J. et al. Microbiota alterations in proline metabolism impact depression. Cell Metab. 34, 681–701.e10 (2022).
Google Scholar
Tannock, G. W. & Savage, D. C. Influences of dietary and environmental stress on microbial populations in the murine gastrointestinal tract. Infect. Immun. 9, 591–598 (1974).
Google Scholar
Bailey, M. T., Lubach, G. R. & Coe, C. L. Prenatal stress alters bacterial colonization of the gut in infant monkeys. J. Pediatr. Gastroenterol. Nutr. 38, 414–421 (2004).
O’Mahony, S. M. et al. Early life stress alters behavior, immunity, and microbiota in rats: implications for irritable bowel syndrome and psychiatric illnesses. Biol. Psychiatry 65, 263–267 (2009).
Google Scholar
Bailey, M. T. et al. Exposure to a social stressor alters the structure of the intestinal microbiota: implications for stressor-induced immunomodulation. Brain. Behav. Immun. 25, 397–407 (2011).
Google Scholar
Golubeva, A. V. et al. Prenatal stress-induced alterations in major physiological systems correlate with gut microbiota composition in adulthood. Psychoneuroendocrinology 60, 58–74 (2015).
Google Scholar
Fung, T. C. et al. Intestinal serotonin and fluoxetine exposure modulate bacterial colonization in the gut. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 2064–2073 (2019).
Google Scholar
Khan, A. A. et al. Polymorphic immune mechanisms regulate commensal repertoire. Cell Rep. 29, 541–550.e4 (2019).
Google Scholar
Kamada, N., Seo, S.-U., Chen, G. Y. & Núñez, G. Role of the gut microbiota in immunity and inflammatory disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 13, 321–335 (2013).
Google Scholar
Hansen, S. B. et al. Intestinal epigenotype of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) associates with tenacibaculosis and gut microbiota composition. Genomics 115, 110629 (2023).
Google Scholar
Zhang, H. et al. Altered DNA methylation within DNMT3A, AHRR, LTA/TNF loci mediates the effect of smoking on inflammatory bowel disease. Nat. Commun. 15, 595 (2024).
Google Scholar
Qin, Y. & Wade, P. A. Crosstalk between the microbiome and epigenome: messages from bugs. J. Biochem. 163, 105–112 (2018).
Google Scholar
Kukekova, A. V., Trut, L. N. & Acland, G. M. Genetics of Domesticated Behavior in Dogs and Foxes, 2nd edn (eds. Grandin, T. & Deesing, M. J. B. T.-G. and the B. of D. A.) 361–396 (Academic Press, 2014).
Hansen, C. H. F. et al. Early life treatment with vancomycin propagates Akkermansia muciniphila and reduces diabetes incidence in the NOD mouse. Diabetologia 55, 2285–2294 (2012).
Google Scholar
Klindworth, A. et al. Evaluation of general 16S ribosomal RNA gene PCR primers for classical and next-generation sequencing-based diversity studies. Nucleic Acids Res. 41, e1–e1 (2012).
Google Scholar
Kozich, J. J., Westcott, S. L., Baxter, N. T., Highlander, S. K. & Schloss, P. D. Development of a dual-index sequencing strategy and curation pipeline for analyzing amplicon sequence data on the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 79, 5112–5120 (2013).
Google Scholar
Yu, Y., Lee, C., Kim, J. & Hwang, S. Group-specific primer and probe sets to detect methanogenic communities using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Biotechnol. Bioeng. 89, 670–679 (2005).
Google Scholar
Martin, M. Cutadapt removes adapter sequences from high-throughput sequencing reads. EMBnet. J. 17, 10–12 (2011).
Google Scholar
Callahan, B. J. et al. DADA2: high-resolution sample inference from Illumina amplicon data. Nat. Methods 13, 581–583 (2016).
Google Scholar
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing https://www.r-project.org/ (2019).
Lee, M. Happy Belly Bioinformatics: an open-source resource dedicated to helping biologists utilize bioinformatics. J. Open Source Educ. 2, 53 (2019).
Google Scholar
Wang, Q., Garrity, G. M., Tiedje, J. M. & Cole, J. R. Naïve Bayesian classifier for rapid assignment of rRNA sequences into the new bacterial taxonomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 73, 5261–5267 (2007).
Callahan, B. Silva taxonomic training data formatted for DADA2 (Silva version 132). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1172783 (2018).
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/ (2020).
McMurdie, P. J. & Holmes, S. phyloseq: an R package for reproducible interactive analysis and graphics of microbiome census data. PLoS ONE 8, 1–11 (2013).
Google Scholar
Davis, N. M., Proctor, D. M., Holmes, S. P., Relman, D. A. & Callahan, B. J. Simple statistical identification and removal of contaminant sequences in marker-gene and metagenomics data. Microbiome 6, 226 (2018).
Google Scholar
Carøe, C. et al. Single-tube library preparation for degraded DNA. Methods Ecol. Evol. 9, 410–419 (2018).
Google Scholar
Mak, S. S. T. et al. Comparative performance of the BGISEQ-500 vs Illumina HiSeq2500 sequencing platforms for palaeogenomic sequencing. Gigascience 6, 1–13 (2017).
Google Scholar
Schubert, M., Lindgreen, S. & Orlando, L. AdapterRemoval v2: rapid adapter trimming, identification, and read merging. BMC Res. Notes 9, 88 (2016).
Google Scholar
Shen, W., Le, S., Li, Y. & Hu, F. SeqKit: a cross-platform and ultrafast toolkit for FASTA/Q file manipulation. PLoS ONE 11, e0163962 (2016).
Google Scholar
Li, H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM. arXiv https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1303.3997 (2013).
Li, D. et al. MEGAHIT v1.0: A fast and scalable metagenome assembler driven by advanced methodologies and community practices. Methods 102, 3–11 (2016).
Google Scholar
Li, H. et al. The Sequence alignment/Map format and SAMtools. Bioinformatics 25, 2078–2079 (2009).
Google Scholar
Kang, D. D., Froula, J., Egan, R. & Wang, Z. MetaBAT, an efficient tool for accurately reconstructing single genomes from complex microbial communities. PeerJ 3, e1165 (2015).
Google Scholar
Alneberg, J. et al. Binning metagenomic contigs by coverage and composition. Nat. Methods 11, 1144–1146 (2014).
Google Scholar
Delmont, T. O. et al. Nitrogen-fixing populations of Planctomycetes and Proteobacteria are abundant in surface ocean metagenomes. Nat. Microbiol. 3, 804–813 (2018).
Google Scholar
Delmont, T. O. et al. Heterotrophic bacterial diazotrophs are more abundant than their cyanobacterial counterparts in metagenomes covering most of the sunlit ocean. bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.03.24.436778 (2021).
Hyatt, D. et al. Prodigal: prokaryotic gene recognition and translation initiation site identification. BMC Bioinforma. 11, 119 (2010).
Google Scholar
Eddy, S. R. Accelerated profile HMM searches. PLoS Comput. Biol. 7, e1002195 (2011).
Google Scholar
Menzel, P., Ng, K. L. & Krogh, A. Fast and sensitive taxonomic classification for metagenomics with Kaiju. Nat. Commun. 7, 11257 (2016).
Google Scholar
Tatusov, R. L. et al. The COG database: an updated version includes eukaryotes. BMC Bioinforma. 4, 41 (2003).
Google Scholar
Delmont, T. O. & Eren, A. M. Identifying contamination with advanced visualization and analysis practices: metagenomic approaches for eukaryotic genome assemblies. PeerJ 4, e1839 (2016).
Google Scholar
Delmont, T. O. et al. Reconstructing rare soil microbial genomes using in situ enrichments and metagenomics. Front. Microbiol. 6, 358 (2015).
Google Scholar
Price, M. N., Dehal, P. S. & Arkin, A. P. FastTree 2—approximately maximum-likelihood trees for large alignments. PLoS One 5, e9490 (2010).
Google Scholar
Kanehisa, M., Sato, Y. & Morishima, K. BlastKOALA and GhostKOALA: KEGG tools for functional characterization of genome and metagenome sequences. J. Mol. Biol. 428, 726–731 (2016).
Google Scholar
Wei, T. & Simko, V. R package ‘corrplot’: Visualization of a Correlation Matrix. https://github.com/taiyun/corrplot (2017).
Willis, A. & Bunge, J. Estimating diversity via frequency ratios. Biometrics 71, 1042–1049 (2015).
Google Scholar
Willis, A., Bunge, J. & Whitman, T. Improved detection of changes in species richness in high diversity microbial communities. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. C. (Appl. Stat. 66, 963–977 (2017).
Google Scholar
Willis, A. D. & Martin, B. D. Estimating diversity in networked ecological communities. Biostatistics https://doi.org/10.1093/biostatistics/kxaa015 (2020).
Willis, A. D. Rigorous statistical methods for rigorous microbiome science. mSystems 4, e00117–e00119 (2019).
Google Scholar
Martin, B. D., Witten, D. & Willis, A. D. Modeling microbial abundances and dysbiosis with beta-binomial regression. Ann. Appl. Stat. 14, 94–115 (2020).
Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y. & Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B 57, 289–300 (1995).
Google Scholar
Wickham, H. Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (Springer-Verlag New York, 2016).
Acknowledgements
We thank Irina Pivovarova, Anastasiya Vladimirova, and Tatyana Semenova for their assistance with experiments at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics. Support was provided by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF143) to the Center for Evolutionary Hologenomics and the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation (FWNR-2026-0032). We also acknowledge the support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH GM144276).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.T.P.G. and L.C.P. conceived the study with input from A.V.Kuk. and L.N.T. Sampling was organized and performed by D.V.S., A.V.K., A.V.Kuk., L.N.T., M.T.P.G., and L.C.P. Laboratory work was performed by L.C.P. and G.Z. L.C.P. and T.O.D. performed the computational analysis with input from A.L.M. and R.D.F. L.C.P. wrote the paper with input from all authors.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Biology thanks the anonymous reviewers for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Silvio Waschina and Mengtan Xing. A peer review file is available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary information (download PDF )
Description of Additional Supplementary Files (download DOCX )
Supplementary Data 1 (download XLSX )
Supplementary Data 2 (download XLSX )
Reporting Summary (download PDF )
Transparent Peer Review file (download PDF )
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Puetz, L.C., O. Delmont, T., Mitchell, A.L. et al. Gut microbiome community structure correlates with different behavioral phenotypes in the Belyaev Farm-Fox Experiment.
Commun Biol 9, 453 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-026-09717-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-026-09717-5
Source: Ecology - nature.com
