in

Modulating microbial intake helps to maintain the gut microbiome diversity


Abstract

The animal gut is home to a myriad of microbes whose diversity has a proven impact on the host’s health. Indeed, lower values of this metric often correlate with pathological status. In this context, processes involved in the gut microbiome assembly have been studied in the search for optimal nutritional habits and medical interventions. While the nutritional content of food has been extensively investigated, its microbial content has comparatively received little attention as an ecological driver of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, while probiotics use is increasing, the question of optimal dose remains open. Here, we fill these gaps by designing a model that tracks the effect of microbial migration bursts – that result from feeding and/or from probiotics administration – on the gut community alpha-diversity. We find that there is a set of feeding parameters (feeding interval and food microbial content) that maximizes the gut Shannon alpha-diversity, which we call the Maximal Diversity Strategy (MDS). Using a combination of numerical and analytical techniques, we show that for large numbers of microbial types, in the diversity maximization scenario, diversity converges to that of the food, and the feeding rate converges to the average clearance rate. These results remain robust both to the choice of distribution for the parameters that describe microbial dynamics and to weak dispersal noise, thus increasing their theoretical significance and potential for empirical exploration. We believe this work can help evaluate how quantitative ecological control can be used to improve the intake protocols of live biotherapeutic products.

Similar content being viewed by others

The interplay between diet and the gut microbiome: implications for health and disease

The gut microbiome connects nutrition and human health

The hallmarks of dietary intervention-resilient gut microbiome

Data availability

The computationally generated data used in this work is available at Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18802496106.

Code availability

The computer codes used in this work are available at Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18802496106.

References

  1. Eckburg, P. B. et al. Diversity of the human intestinal microbial flora. Science 308, 1635–1638 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Qin, J. et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature 464, 59–65 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sender, R., Fuchs, S. & Milo, R. Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002533 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Human Microbiome Project Consortium. Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature 486, 207–214 (2012).

  5. Valdes, A. M., Walter, J., Segal, E. & Spector, T. D. Role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health. Bmj 361, k2179 (2018)

  6. Wong, J. M., De Souza, R., Kendall, C. W., Emam, A. & Jenkins, D. J. Colonic health: fermentation and short chain fatty acids. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 40, 235–243 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hooper, L. V., Littman, D. R. & Macpherson, A. J. Interactions between the microbiota and the immune system. Science 336, 1268–1273 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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 

  9. Belkaid, Y. & Hand, T. W. Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation. Cell 157, 121–141 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Furuichi, M. et al. Commensal consortia decolonize enterobacteriaceae via ecological control. Nature 633, 878–886 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clemente, J. C., Ursell, L. K., Parfrey, L. W. & Knight, R. The impact of the gut microbiota on human health: an integrative view. Cell 148, 1258–1270 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  12. Manor, O. et al. Health and disease markers correlate with gut microbiome composition across thousands of people. Nat. Commun. 11, 5206 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Knight, R. et al. The microbiome and human biology. Annu. Rev. Genom. Hum. Genet. 18, 65–86 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Le Chatelier, E. et al. Richness of human gut microbiome correlates with metabolic markers. Nature 500, 541–546 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  15. Turnbaugh, P. J. et al. A core gut microbiome in obese and lean twins. Nature 457, 480–484 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Ley, R. E. Obesity and the human microbiome. Curr. Opin. Gastroenterol. 26, 5–11 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Barlow, G. M., Yu, A. & Mathur, R. Role of the gut microbiome in obesity and diabetes mellitus. Nutr. Clin. Pract. 30, 787–797 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Long, S. et al. Metaproteomics characterizes human gut microbiome function in colorectal cancer. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 6, 14 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  19. Mohajeri, M. H., La Fata, G., Steinert, R. E. & Weber, P. Relationship between the gut microbiome and brain function. Nutr. Rev. 76, 481–496 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  20. Peirce, J. M. & Alviña, K. The role of inflammation and the gut microbiome in depression and anxiety. J. Neurosci. Res. 97, 1223–1241 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Szajewska, H. et al. Antibiotic-perturbed microbiota and the role of probiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 22, 155–172 (2024).

  22. Kim, M.-H. et al. Gut microbiota and metabolic health among overweight and obese individuals. Sci. Rep. 10, 19417 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  23. Otto-Dobos, L. D. et al. Baseline gut microbiome alpha diversity predicts chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal symptoms in patients with breast cancer. NPJ Breast Cancer 10, 99 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  24. David, L. A. et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature 505, 559–563 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ross, F. C. et al. The interplay between diet and the gut microbiome: implications for health and disease. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 22, 671–686 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kolodziejczyk, A. A., Zheng, D. & Elinav, E. Diet–microbiota interactions and personalized nutrition. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 742–753 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Holscher, H. D. Dietary fiber and prebiotics and the gastrointestinal microbiota. Gut Microbes 8, 172–184 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Wolters, M. et al. Dietary fat, the gut microbiota, and metabolic health–a systematic review conducted within the mynewgut project. Clin. Nutr. 38, 2504–2520 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ma, N., Tian, Y., Wu, Y. & Ma, X. Contributions of the interaction between dietary protein and gut microbiota to intestinal health. Curr. Protein Pept. Sci. 18, 795–808 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mutlu, E. A. et al. Colonic microbiome is altered in alcoholism. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 302, G966–G978 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ruiz-Ojeda, F. J., Plaza-Díaz, J., Sáez-Lara, M. J. & Gil, A. Effects of sweeteners on the gut microbiota: a review of experimental studies and clinical trials. Adv. Nutr. 10, S31–S48 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lang, J. M., Eisen, J. A. & Zivkovic, A. M. The microbes we eat: abundance and taxonomy of microbes consumed in a day’s worth of meals for three diet types. PeerJ 2, e659 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Derrien, M. & van Hylckama Vlieg, J. E. Fate, activity, and impact of ingested bacteria within the human gut microbiota. Trends Microbiol. 23, 354–366 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Marco, M. L. et al. Should there be a recommended daily intake of microbes? J. Nutr. 150, 3061–3067 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kadariya, J., Smith, T. C. & Thapaliya, D. Staphylococcus aureus and staphylococcal food-borne disease: an ongoing challenge in public health. BioMed. Res. Int. 2014, 827965 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  36. Preidis, G. A. & Versalovic, J. Targeting the human microbiome with antibiotics, probiotics, and prebiotics: gastroenterology enters the metagenomics era. Gastroenterology 136, 2015–2031 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wala, S. J. et al. Contemporary use of prophylactic probiotics in NICUs in the United States: a survey update. J. Perinatol. 44, 739–744 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kerry, R. G. et al. Benefaction of probiotics for human health: A review. J. Food Drug Anal. 26, 927–939 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cruchet, S. et al. The use of probiotics in pediatric gastroenterology: a review of the literature and recommendations by latin-american experts. Pediatr. Drugs 17, 199–216 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Prajapati, S. K., Wang, S., Mishra, S. P., Jain, S. & Yadav, H. Protection of alzheimer’s disease progression by a human-origin probiotics cocktail. Sci. Rep. 15, 1589 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Merenstein, D. J. et al. Is there evidence to support probiotic use for healthy people? Adv. Nutr. 15, 100265 (2024).

  42. Minelli, E. B. & Benini, A. Relationship between number of bacteria and their probiotic effects. Microb. Ecol. Health Dis. 20, 180–183 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ouwehand, A. A review of dose-responses of probiotics in human studies. Benef. Microbes 8, 143–151 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Liddicoat, C. et al. Naturally-diverse airborne environmental microbial exposures modulate the gut microbiome and may provide anxiolytic benefits in mice. Sci. Total Environ. 701, 134684 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  45. Schmidt, T. S. et al. Extensive transmission of microbes along the gastrointestinal tract. Elife 8, e42693 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  46. Patterson, R. E. & Sears, D. D. Metabolic effects of intermittent fasting. Annu. Rev. Nutr. 37, 371–393 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  47. Teker, H. T. & Ceylani, T. Intermittent fasting supports the balance of the gut microbiota composition. Int. Microbiol. 26, 51–57 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  48. Thaiss, C. A. et al. Transkingdom control of microbiota diurnal oscillations promotes metabolic homeostasis. Cell 159, 514–529 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Hanski, I. Metapopulation dynamics. Nature 396, 41–49 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Mallmin, E., Traulsen, A. & De Monte, S. Chaotic turnover of rare and abundant species in a strongly interacting model community. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 121, e2312822121 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  51. Arnoulx De Pirey, T. & Bunin, G. Many-species ecological fluctuations as a jump process from the brink of extinction. Phys. Rev. X 14, 011037 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jost, L. Entropy and diversity. Oikos 113, 363–375 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  53. Thukral, A. K. A review on measurement of alpha diversity in biology. Agric. Res. J. 54, 1–10 (2017).

  54. Cordaillat-Simmons, M., Rouanet, A. & Pot, B. Live biotherapeutic products: the importance of a defined regulatory framework. Exp. Mol. Med. 52, 1397–1406 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Youngster, I. et al. Oral, capsulized, frozen fecal microbiota transplantation for relapsing Clostridium difficile infection. Jama 312, 1772–1778 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Gibson, B., Wilson, D. J., Feil, E. & Eyre-Walker, A. The distribution of bacterial doubling times in the wild. Proc. R. Soc. B 285, 20180789 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Vieira-Silva, S. & Rocha, E. P. C. The systemic imprint of growth and its uses in ecological (meta)genomics. PLoS Genet. 6, e1000808 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Arnoldini, M., Cremer, J. & Hwa, T. Bacterial growth, flow, and mixing shape human gut microbiota density and composition. Gut Microbes 9, 559–566 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  59. MacArthur, R. H. Patterns of species diversity. Biol. Rev. 40, 510–533 (1965).

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bengmark, S. Ecological control of the gastrointestinal tract. The role of probiotic flora. Gut 42, 2–7 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Shepherd, E. S., DeLoache, W. C., Pruss, K. M., Whitaker, W. R. & Sonnenburg, J. L. An exclusive metabolic niche enables strain engraftment in the gut microbiota. Nature 557, 434–438 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Shmida, A. & Wilson, M. V. Biological determinants of species diversity. J. Biogeogr. 12, 1–20 (1985).

  63. Leibold, M. A. et al. The metacommunity concept: a framework for multi-scale community ecology. Ecol. Lett. 7, 601–613 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  64. Vasquez, K. S. et al. Quantifying rapid bacterial evolution and transmission within the mouse intestine. Cell Host Microbe 29, 1454–1468 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Márquez Rosales, S., Bouchard, P. I., Olmstead, E. M. & Parthasarathy, R. Uv-irradiated rotifers for the maintenance of gnotobiotic zebrafish larvae. mSphere 10, e00698–24 (2025).

    Google Scholar 

  66. Pereira, F. C. & Berry, D. Microbial nutrient niches in the gut. Environ. Microbiol. 19, 1366–1378 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  67. Cremer, J., Arnoldini, M. & Hwa, T. Effect of water flow and chemical environment on microbiota growth and composition in the human colon. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 114, 6438–6443 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  68. Yilmaz, B. & Macpherson, A. J. Delving the depths of ‘terra incognita’in the human intestine-the small intestinal microbiota. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 22, 71–81 (2024).

  69. Smith, H. et al. Comparative anatomy and phylogenetic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix. J. Evolut. Biol. 22, 1984–1999 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  70. Clench, M. H. The avian cecum: update and motility review. J. Exp. Zool. 283, 441–447 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  71. Culp, E. J. & Goodman, A. L. Cross-feeding in the gut microbiome: ecology and mechanisms. Cell Host Microbe 31, 485–499 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Garud, N. R., Good, B. H., Hallatschek, O. & Pollard, K. S. Evolutionary dynamics of bacteria in the gut microbiome within and across hosts. PLoS Biol. 17, e3000102 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Shkoporov, A. N., Turkington, C. J. & Hill, C. Mutualistic interplay between bacteriophages and bacteria in the human gut. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 737–749 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Wiles, T. J. et al. Host gut motility promotes competitive exclusion within a model intestinal microbiota. PLoS Biol. 14, e1002517 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Schlomann, B. H. & Parthasarathy, R. Gut bacterial aggregates as living gels. Elife 10, e71105 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Robinson, C. D. et al. Experimental bacterial adaptation to the zebrafish gut reveals a primary role for immigration. PLoS Biol. 16, e2006893 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Stephen, A. M. & Cummings, J. The microbial contribution to human faecal mass. J. Med. Microbiol. 13, 45–56 (1980).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Rose, C., Parker, A., Jefferson, B. & Cartmell, E. The characterization of feces and urine: a review of the literature to inform advanced treatment technology. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 1827–1879 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  79. Martinsen, T. C., Bergh, K. & Waldum, H. L. Gastric juice: a barrier against infectious diseases. Basic Clin. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 96, 94–102 (2005).

    Google Scholar 

  80. Hofmann, A. F. & Eckmann, L. How bile acids confer gut mucosal protection against bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103, 4333–4334 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  81. Obadia, B. et al. Probabilistic invasion underlies natural gut microbiome stability. Curr. Biol. 27, 1999–2006 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  82. Ja, W. W. et al. Prandiology of drosophila and the cafe assay. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104, 8253–8256 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  83. Blum, J. E., Fischer, C. N., Miles, J. & Handelsman, J. Frequent replenishment sustains the beneficial microbiome of drosophila melanogaster. MBio 4, 10–1128 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Vega, N. M. & Gore, J. Stochastic assembly produces heterogeneous communities in the Caenorhabditis elegans intestine. PLoS Biol. 15, e2000633 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  85. Roggenbuck, M. et al. The microbiome of new world vultures. Nat. Commun. 5, 5498 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Dunbar, A., Drigo, B., Djordjevic, S. P., Donner, E. & Hoye, B. J. Impacts of coprophagic foraging behaviour on the avian gut microbiome. Biol. Rev. 99, 582–597 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Fajardo, G. & Hörnicke, H. Problems in estimating the extent of coprophagy in the rat. Br. J. Nutr. 62, 551–561 (1989).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Kenagy, G. & Hoyt, D. F. Reingestion of feces in rodents and its daily rhythmicity. Oecologia 44, 403–409 (1979).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Cheng, F.-S., Pan, D., Chang, B., Jiang, M. & Sang, L.-X. Probiotic mixture vsl# 3: an overview of basic and clinical studies in chronic diseases. World J. Clin. Cases 8, 1361 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  90. Campaniello, D. et al. A narrative review on the use of probiotics in several diseases. evidence and perspectives. Front. Nutr. 10, 1209238 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  91. Bertazzoni, E., Donelli, G., Midtvedt, T., Nicoli, J. & Sanz, Y. Probiotics and clinical effects: is the number what counts? J. Chemother. 25, 193–212 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  92. Mao, N., Cubillos-Ruiz, A., Cameron, D. E. & Collins, J. J. Probiotic strains detect and suppress cholera in mice. Sci. Transl. Med. 10, eaao2586 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  93. Preidis, G. A. et al. Probiotics stimulate enterocyte migration and microbial diversity in the neonatal mouse intestine. FASEB J. 26, 1960 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Hill, C. et al. The international scientific association for probiotics and prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 11, 506–514 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  95. Dethlefsen, L., Huse, S., Sogin, M. L. & Relman, D. A. The pervasive effects of an antibiotic on the human gut microbiota, as revealed by deep 16s rrna sequencing. PLoS Biol. 6, e280 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Broderick, N. A. & Lemaitre, B. Gut-associated microbes of Drosophila melanogaster. Gut Microbes 3, 307–321 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Clavel, T., Lagkouvardos, I., Blaut, M. & Stecher, B. The mouse gut microbiome revisited: from complex diversity to model ecosystems. Int. J. Med. Microbiol. 306, 316–327 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  98. Jones, E. W., Carlson, J. M., Sivak, D. A. & Ludington, W. B. Stochastic microbiome assembly depends on context. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2115877119 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Kumar, M., Ji, B., Zengler, K. & Nielsen, J. Modelling approaches for studying the microbiome. Nat. Microbiol. 4, 1253–1267 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  100. Bunin, G. Ecological communities with Lotka-Volterra dynamics. Phys. Rev. E 95, 042414 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  101. Biroli, G., Bunin, G. & Cammarota, C. Marginally stable equilibria in critical ecosystems. N. J. Phys. 20, 083051 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Madhusoodanan, J. Editing the microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 117, 3345–3348 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  103. Shanahan, F., Ghosh, T. S. & O’Toole, P. W. The healthy microbiome-what is the definition of a healthy gut microbiome? Gastroenterology 160, 483–494 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Joos, R. et al. Examining the healthy human microbiome concept. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 23, 206 (2024).

  105. Zmora, N., Suez, J. & Elinav, E. You are what you eat: diet, health and the gut microbiota. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 16, 35–56 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  106. Marquioni, V. M., Hofacker, A.-C., Villavicencio, J. V. & Bansept, F. Code and data for the Paper: “Modulating microbial intake helps to maintain the gut microbiome diversity.” https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18802496 (2026).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank members of the M3G group for insightful discussions, especially Florian Labourel. We thank Brendan Bohannan, Raghuveer Parthasarathy, and Kayla C. Evens for valuable help with zebrafish data. The project leading to this publication has received funding from France 2030, the French Government program managed by the French National Research Agency (ANR-16-CONV-0001), and from Excellence Initiative of Aix-Marseille University – A*MIDEX. FB thanks Román Zapién-Campos, Ana Teles, and Thomas Roeder for discussions that led to the onset of the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

F.B. conceived the project, A.-C.H. and J.V.V. worked on an earlier version of the model. V.M.M. extended the original model, performed the numerical and analytical study, and analyzed the results. VMM wrote the original draft, V.M.M. and F.B. edited it. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to
Vitor M. Marquioni or Florence Bansept.

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 Tobias Goris. 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 )

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

Marquioni, V.M., Hofacker, AC., Villavicencio, J.V. et al. Modulating microbial intake helps to maintain the gut microbiome diversity.
Commun Biol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-026-09867-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-026-09867-6


Source: Ecology - nature.com

Soil phosphorus forms and their availability in six typical plantations at the southern foot of the Taihang Mountains, China

TuberIndex 1.0, a dataset of ecological interactions from five centuries of French literature on Tuberaceae

Back to Top