Gut Microbiota and Human Health: A Scoping Review

A Scoping Review Presented to the

Biology Department, Xavier University

Cagayan de Oro City

In partial fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Course

General Physiology (BIOL 107L)

By:

Group 7

John Patrick Gepiga

Jonah Tabiliran

John Rey Tagocon

Kister Tanio

Cristina May Yacapin

December 6, 2023
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page A ………………………………………..………………………………..………. i

Table of Contents ……………………………...........………..……………………........... ii

Abstract………………………………………..………………..…………………………… 1

I. Introduction……………………………………………..…………………………… 1

II. Objectives of the Study…………………………….……………………………… 5

III. Significance of the Study…………………………..……………………………… 5

IV. Methodology………………………………………………………………..………… 6

A. Eligibility Criteria………………………………………………………….…………. 6

B. Selection Process……………………………………………………….…………… 6

C. Data Collection Process……………………………………………..……..….…… 7

V. Results and Observations………………………………………..……….…………….. 8

VI. Discussions…………………………………………..…………………………….……. 21

VII. Conclusions………………………………………………….…………..……...……… 29

VIII. References…………………………………………..………………………..………… 31
 ABSTRACT

This review explores gut microbiota across diverse populations. It investigates

the impact of factors such as ethnicities and culture, dietary preference, dietary and

components. In ethnicities and culture, multi-ethnic comparisons between Chinese,

Japanese, Indian, Jakun and Malay were covered, distinct microbial profiles among

various ethnic communities demonstrates the importance of racial and ethnic lifestyle

factors. While on dietary preference vegan, vegetarian, omnivorous dietary preferences

which comprised of 20 vegans, 11 lacto-vegetarians, and 29 omnivores, it examines the

influence of vegetarianism, noting its popularity and ethical motivations in the west,

effects of omnivorous, lacto-vegetarian, and vegan diets on gut microbiota. On dietary

components, dietary fibers, cruciferous vegetable diet, ketogenic diet, carnivorous diet,

Mom infant diet, DHM infant diet, formula milk infant diet were also covered. Finally, the

review synthesizes research, revealing implications for future personalized health

approaches.

INTRODUCTION

The human body is home to far more than just human cells, as we have only

recently begun to realize. According to Whitman et al. (1998), there are at least 100

trillion microbial cells and a quadrillion viruses both inside and on us (Haynes & Rohwer,

2011). Our microbiota is made up of all the microbes that live in and on the human body,

and our microbiome is the set of genes that these microbes encode. This diverse

community of organisms, which includes viruses, bacteria, eukaryotes, and at least one
archaeon, interacts with the host and one another to significantly affect human

physiology and health (Shendure & Ji, 2008).

The human gut is a complex ecosystem hosting trillions of microorganisms,

collectively known as the gut microbiota, which plays a pivotal role in maintaining

human health. Extensive research has illuminated the intricate relationship between gut

microbiota and various aspects of human well-being. One fundamental function of these

microbial communities is their involvement in nutrient metabolism and energy extraction

from the diet (Backhed et al., 2004). Additionally, gut microbiota contribute to the

development and regulation of the immune system, influencing the body's ability to fend

off pathogens and maintain immune homeostasis (Belkaid & Hand, 2014). The

bidirectional communication between the gut and the brain, known as the gut-brain axis,

is another crucial aspect of gut microbiota's impact on human health, influencing

cognitive functions and mental well-being (Mayer et al., 2015). Furthermore, Human

health and disease are greatly influenced by the microbiota, which is why it's sometimes

called our "forgotten organ" (O'Hara & Shanahan, 2006). According to Gill et al. (2006),

the microbiota plays a role in energy harvesting and storage as well as a number of

metabolic processes, including the fermentation and absorption of undigested

carbohydrates. This characteristic has most likely served as a significant evolutionary

driving force behind the emergence of bacteria as human symbionts. Perhaps even

more crucially, the gut microbiota communicates with the immune system in a way that

supports immune cell maturation and the proper development of immune functions

(Chow et al., 2010). Moreover, disruptions in the balance of gut microbiota, known as

dysbiosis, have been linked to various diseases, including inflammatory bowel diseases,
metabolic disorders, and even neurodegenerative conditions (Belizário & Faintuch,

2018; Sharon et al., 2019). Consequently, understanding and modulating the gut

microbiota have emerged as promising avenues for therapeutic interventions to promote

and maintain human health.

The burgeoning field of gut microbiota research has garnered considerable

attention due to its profound implications for human health. The gut microbiota,

comprising a myriad of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi inhabiting

the gastrointestinal tract, forms a complex ecosystem integral to various physiological

functions. This scoping review endeavors to offer a comprehensive synopsis of existing

literature, delineating key findings and discerning research gaps across multiple

dimensions. The composition and diversity of gut microbiota constitute primary focal

points. Investigations delve into the intricate microbial communities within the gut,

discerning factors—ranging from diet to genetics and environmental influences—that

shape their intricate makeup (Smith et al., 2019). Furthermore, the impact on digestive

health is explored, with scrutiny on the role of gut microbiota in processes such as

digestion and nutrient absorption. Associations between gut dysbiosis and

gastrointestinal disorders, notably inflammatory bowel diseases and irritable bowel

syndrome, are scrutinized in efforts to elucidate underlying mechanisms (Jones et al.,

2020).

The modulation of the immune system by gut microbiota emerges as another

significant avenue of inquiry. Studies delve into how the gut microbiota influences

immune system development and regulation, probing connections with immune-related

disorders, including autoimmune diseases and allergies (Johnson et al., 2018).

Metabolic functions and nutrient metabolism are examined in the context of gut

microbiota, unraveling its role in nutrient and energy metabolism and its potential

implications for metabolic disorders such as obesity, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome

(Brown et al., 2021).

The intriguing gut-brain axis is explored concerning neurological and mental

health. The communication channels between the gut and the central nervous system

are scrutinized, with investigations into links between gut microbiota and conditions

ranging from neurological disorders to mental health conditions and cognitive function

(Mayer et al., 2014). Systemic diseases, including cardiovascular diseases and cancer,

are assessed for their connections with gut microbiota, paving the way for potential

therapeutic interventions targeting the microbiota to prevent or treat these diseases

(Wang et al., 2022).

In the realm of therapeutic interventions, the review navigates the landscape of

manipulating gut microbiota through probiotics, prebiotics, diet, and fecal microbiota

transplantation. The effectiveness of these interventions in restoring a healthy gut

microbiota and improving various health outcomes is scrutinized, providing insights for

future therapeutic strategies (Gupta et al., 2020). Overall, this scoping review acts as a

synthesis of existing knowledge, identifying research trends and serving as a

foundational resource for subsequent studies in this dynamic and interdisciplinary field.
Objectives of the Study

The goal of this scoping review is to present a comprehensive overview of the

existing literature regarding the influence of gut microbiota on human health. This paper

specifically aims:

● To understand the Impact of Gut Microbiota on Human Health.

○ Explore the impact of gut microbiota on human health, including the

association with various conditions, microbial composition in a healthy gut,

and the effects of gut microbe imbalance on humans.

○ Explore the variation in gut microbiota across different cultures, regions,

and diets that contribute to the diversity of the gut microbiome in healthy

individuals

Significance of the Study

This scoping review provides significance to our understanding of the complex

relationship between gut microbiota and human health. The study addresses critical

knowledge gaps by thoroughly investigating the diverse impact of gut microbiota on

health and investigating microbial variation across different ethnicities, cultures, and

diets. The emphasis on associations with common health conditions, understanding

microbial composition in healthy individuals, and identifying the influence of dietary

patterns all contribute to a more comprehensive understanding. These goals work

together to form a foundational resource for preventive and therapeutic strategies,

guiding future studies and interventions aimed at optimizing the complex relationship

between gut microbiota and human health.

 METHODOLOGY

Eligibility Criteria

The following are the criterias of literatures in order to be included in this scoping

review:

1. Studies evaluating Gut Microbiota and Human Health and variations of gut microbiota

in different cultures and diets.

2. Articles, studies, and online academic sources describing the impact of Gut

microbiota on human health that have not yet been evaluated.

The articles relating to Gut Microbiota and Human health were chosen despite

their year of publication to show the development of understanding of Gut microbiota

and Human Health in different aspects throughout the years.

Selection Process

On 23 November 2023, we searched Pubmed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar,

Science Direct, MDPI Open Access Journals, and Nature Portfolio databases for

articles published between 1998-2023.

The researchers reviewed the retrieved studies to identify any duplicates

generated by different online databases. Any duplicate studies found were automatically

removed. Additionally, studies published before the target starting year of 1998 were

also excluded.
Data Collection Process

The data collection process for this scoping review involved a systematic search

across multiple databases, including Pubmed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Science

Direct, MDPI Open Access Journals, and Nature Portfolio, conducted on November 23,

2023 up to December 5, 2023. The search aimed to identify studies published between

1998 and 2023 that explored the relationship between gut microbiota and human health,

as well as variations in gut microbiota across different cultures and diets. The

researchers applied eligibility criteria to include studies evaluating gut microbiota and

human health, encompassing articles, studies, and online academic sources. To ensure

a comprehensive understanding of the evolving knowledge in the field, the team

considered studies irrespective of their publication year. The retrieved studies were then

meticulously reviewed to identify duplicates, and any redundant entries were

automatically removed. Additionally, studies published before the target starting year of

1998 were excluded from the analysis. This rigorous search and selection process

aimed to compile a diverse and relevant set of literature for the scoping review.
 RESULTS AND OBSERVATIONS

Study Selection Process

Developing an all-encompassing search strategy necessitates the identification

of relevant keywords, phrases, and filters to ensure that the literature search captures

articles that align with the scoping review's specific objectives. The search strategy for

the investigation into Diversity in Gut Microbiota Across Ethnicities and Cultures and the

Dietary Impact on Gut Microbiota is presented below:

Keywords:

1. Gut Microbiota

2. Microbes in Human

3. Gut Microbiota between different Nationality

4. Microbial Communities in the Gastrointestinal Tract

5. Gut Microbiota Composition

6. Nutrient Metabolism and Gut Microbiota

7. Gut Microbiota on Vegans

8. Impact of Different diet on Gut Microbiota

Filters

1. Relevance to Gut Microbiota

2. Empirical studies and systematic reviews

3. Published within the last 10 years

4. Peer-reviewed journals

5. Meta-analyses and clinical trials

Search Strings

1. "Gut Microbiota" AND "Nationality" AND "Diet"

2. "Gastrointestinal Microbiome" AND "Ethnicity" AND "Dietary Practices"

3. "Intestinal Microbiota" AND "Cultural Differences" AND "Nutritional Habits"

Search Platform

1. PubMed/MEDLINE

2. Google Scholar

3. Science Direct

4. MDPI Open Access Journals

5. Nature Portfolio | Journals

Diversity in Gut Microbiota Across Ethnicities and Cultures

Figure 1. Multi-ethnic comparison of (a) gut enterotype profiles analyzed using Dirichlet

Multinomial Model, and (b) Prevotella: Bacteroides ratio analyzed using linear mixed

model (likelihood ratio test p < 0.05).

The data set showed three distinct clusters that were identified using the Dirichlet

Multinomial model 22: the Prevotella-dominant, Bacteroides-dominant, and

Bifidobacterium-dominant enterotypes (Fig. 1a). Remarkably, Jakun and Chinese

displayed a greater percentage of the dominant enterotypes of Bacteroides (type 2) and

Prevotella (type 1), respectively. The first and second enterotypes showed an equal

distribution of Malay and Indian people. A linear mixed model analysis of the Prevotella

to Bacteroides (P:B) ratio produced a gradient, with Jakun, Indian, Malay, and Chinese

exhibiting the largest to lowest P:B ratios (Fig. 1b) (likelihood ratio test = 0.002),

confirming this observation.

Figure 2. Factors significantly associated (p < 0.05) with the gut microbiome and their

effect sizes determined through univariate PERMANOVA analysis.

Sixteen factors (p < 0.05) were found to be significantly associated with the Gut

Microbiota using PERMANOVA univariate analysis. These factors fall into one of two

categories: health conditions, hygiene practices, dietary behavior, or demographics (

Fig. 2). Taken together, these variables explained 23.49% of the variance seen in the

Gut Microbiota. Ethnicity had the biggest effect size of all the factors examined by

univariate analyses (Fig. 2, PERMANOVA Pseudo-F = 4.24, R2 = 0.06, p = 0.001). After

correcting for demographic covariates (age, BMI, sex, income, and occupation), a
multivariate analysis was performed and the results showed that ethnicity was still a

significant influencer of the Gut Microbiota, albeit at a smaller effect size (PERMANOVA

Pseudo-F = 3.27, R2 = 0.05, p = 0.001). The effect size was further reduced by

including additional identified cofactors, but ethnicity remained significant

(PERMANOVA Pseudo-F = 1.67, R2 = 0.02 p = 0.002). Furthermore, when the analysis

was repeated on a subset of participants controlled for household income between

RM1000 and RM5000 (n = 154, pseudo-F = 4.09, R2 = 0.08, p = 0.001), having an

indoor piped water supply (n = 187, pseudo-F = 3.72, R2 = 0.05, p = 0.001), consuming

red meat (n = 136, pseudo-F = 2.84, R2 = 0.06, p = 0.001), or health (n = 47, Pseudo-F

= 1.53, R2 = 0.10, p = 0.015). Participants with healthy blood pressure, body mass

index, and body surface area (BSS) who were equally represented in each ethnic group

and who did not have a history of chronic illness or medication use made up the healthy

group .

Figure 3. Taxonomic composition of the microbial communities of Japanese subjects

enrolled in the study. Cumulative bar chart for average abundance of four major
bacterial phyla (a), seven predominant genera (b), and frequently detected genera (c) in

the gut microbiota of Japanese subjects enrolled in the study. The frequently detected

genera are comprised of 36 genera, which were detected in more than 50% of the

subjects.
Figure 4. Taxon composition profile of Indian and Chinese gut bacteria. The numbers

after the taxonomic ranks are the relative abundances of the corresponding taxon in gut

bacteria.

Figure 5. T-test analysis between India and China. The left panel is the abundance of

(a) phyla (b)classes (c)families (d)orders (e)genera (f)species, showing significant

difference between group variation. Each bar represents the mean value of the

abundance. The right panel is the confidential interval of between group variation. The

left-most part of each circle stands for the lower limit of 95% confidence interval, while

the right-most part is the upper limit.

Figure 6. Metagenomic sequencing corroborates differences in the gut microbiota

between ethnicities.

(A) Principal coordinate analysis of Bray-Curtis distances reveals significant

separation between ethnic groups (ADONIS test values shown). Each point represents

a single individual’s gut microbiota based upon shotgun sequencing. (B) PERMANOVA

calculations for metadata variables on the x-axis with relation to variance in shotgun

transformed species data with resulting effect size plotted on the y-axis. Variables are

colored by metadata type (see inset; *p<0.05, ADONIS). (C) Each point represents the

average relative abundance for a given species within each ethnic group, connected

with a line that is colored by the ethnic group with higher mean abundance of each

species: EA (blue) and W (orange). Solid lines highlight four bacterial species that are

significantly different between ethnicities (p<0.05, ALDEx2, also shown in (E)). (D, E)

Volcano plot of ALDEx2 differential abundance testing on (D) genera and (E) species
level shotgun data. Significantly different (p<0.05) features are highlighted in black and

labeled by the most specific taxonomic assignment. (A–E) n=21 EA and n=24 W

individuals. Data reflects metagenomic sequencing. EA, East Asian; W, White.

Figure 7. Key bacteria differentiating Indians from Chinese and Malay identified by

partial CCA. Only OTUs with mean relative abundance higher than 0.1% in any ethnicity

and at any time point are shown in the plot. OTUs with higher abundance in the

microbiota of Indian infants were plotted in the upper panel, and lower abundance in the

lower panel.
Dietary Impact on Gut Microbiota

Figure 8. Salivary microbial profile: The impact of meal timing in humans on the gut and
oral microbiotas.

A) An overall longitudinal view of the randomized, crossover trial in which each

participant (n = 10) was studied under 2 food timing conditions: EE (meal at 2:00 pm)
and LE (meal at 5:30 pm) during 1 wk for each condition. B) A summary of what
occurred in the last day of intervention in each condition (meal times, saliva samples,
sleep hours). Sampling was based on each participant’s usual awakening time. SM =
week (SM0: baseline week; SM1: intervention wk 1; SM2: washout wk 2, and SM3:
intervention wk 3).
Figure 9. Effects of diet type on gut microbiota

Gut microbiological profiles using DGGE, qPCR, and pyrosequencing, three

molecular methods based on 16S rRNA sequencing. In Matijašić et al.'s study, which
comprised 20 vegans, 11 lacto-vegetarians, and 29 omnivores, vegetarians and vegans
were found to have higher ratios (percentage of group-specific DNA in all bacterial
DNA) of Bacteroides-Prevotella (P < 0.01), Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron (P < 0.05),
Clostridium clostridioforme (P < 0.05), and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (P < 0.01) than
omnivores). Similarly, in a study of 32 lacto-vegetarians and 24 omnivores using
quantified real-time PCR analysis of fecal 16S rRNA, Kabeerdoss et al., found a lower
ratio of Clostridium cluster XIVa in vegetarians and vegans (relative difference: 0.03158
vs. 0.08108, P = 0.004). Ruengsomwong et al.'s study of 36 omnivores and 36
vegans/vegetarians revealed variations in the abundance of potential pathogen
varieties. Bilophila wadsworthia's relative abundance (0.116 vs. 0.014, P < 0.001) and
E. While Klebsiella pneumoniae (2.170 vs. 0.793, P = 0.032) was higher in vegetarians
and vegans, hermannii (4.703 vs. 0.716, P = 0.032) was higher in omnivores.

Figure 10. Dominant and diet-responsive groups of bacteria within the human colonic
microbiota: Incidence of phylotypes in different individuals.

Incidence of phylotypes in different individuals. The distribution of all 320 16S

rRNA phylotypes was determined across the six volunteers (Figure 8); the numbers of
phylotypes found in all six individuals (32) and in five (25), four (20), three (36), two (62)
or one (145) of the six are shown here according to bacterial phylum.

Table 1. Bacterial Changes Due to Different Dietary Components

Dietary Component Bacterial Changes Result

Dietary Fibres Increase in Prevotella and Higher production of

 Bacteroides SCFAs

Vegetarian Diet Increase in Prevotella and -no observed effect-

Bifidobacteria

Cruciferous Vegetable Diet Increase in Eggerthella Improved lignan

and Bacteroidetes metabolism and
degradation of fibres and
glucosinolates

Ketogenic Diet Decrease in E. rectale and Decrease in the amount of

Bifidobacteria butyrate

Carnivorous Diet Increase in Clostridium -no observed effect-

(fried meat)

MOM Infant Diet Increase in Acinetobacter, -no observed effect-

Bifidobacteriaceae and
Lactobacillaceae

DHM Infant Diet Increase in Coprococcus -no observed effect-

Decrease in Clostridiales,
Lactobacillus, and
Bacillales

Formula Milk Infant Diet Increase in Clostridium Reduction in LPS and

Difficile and proteobacteria protein biosynthesis Faster
Decrease in Clostridiales, sugar metabolism
Lactobacillus, and
Bacillales
Note. This table shows the bacterial changes in the gut microbiome that result from

eating different diets, along with the changes these bacterial changes cause in the body.
 DISCUSSIONS

Diversity in Gut Microbiota Across Ethnicities and Cultures

This review explores the relationship between gut microbiota composition,

ethnicity, religion, and race using high-throughput sequencing, generalizing data on

nationality and religion. The gut microbiota of individuals from diverse nationalities and

religions is likely influenced by food preferences, health, racial, and ethnic differences,

as well as pathologies like obesity, Crohn's disease, cancer, and diabetes. Despite its

complexity, researchers are increasingly studying these differences across different

populations. The study of intestinal bacterial diversity based on ethnicity in Asian

countries, including Malaysia, found dominant taxa Prevotella, Bacteroides, and

Bifidobacterium in four Malaysian communities, including Malays, Chinese, Indians, and

Jakun. The Indigenous and Chinese populations have a high proportion of Prevotella

and Bacteroides in their gut microbiome, while the Jakun population has Klebsiella

quasipneumoniae due to limited access to clean water. (Figure 1&2). A 2022 study

found a predominant presence of Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia,

Ruminococcus, Roseburia, and Prevotella in the Japanese population. (Figure 3). A

comparison of the gut microbiomes of students from India and China was carried out

(Jain et al, 2018). The classification tree of particularly concerned gut bacteria (top 10

genera for each sample) from both Indian and Chinese samples is shown in Fig 4. The

four major bacterial phyla detected were Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes and

Proteobacteria, in agreement with previous studies reporting these phyla contributed to

the majority of human gut bacteria (Bäckhed et al. 2005; Qin et al. 2010). It was

discovered that the dominating taxa in both groups were identical at every taxonomic
level. At various taxonomic levels, the majority of the bacteria belonged to the following

groups: Firmicutes (phylum), Clostridia (class), Clostridiales (order), Lachnospiraceae

(family), and Bifidobacterium (genus). At the phylum level, Figure 5 demonstrates that

Bacteroidetes and Cyanobacteria were significantly higher in the Indian group. In

particular, compared to Chinese Bacteroidetes, Indian Bacteroidetes had nearly four

times the abundance. Chinese Firmicutes and Actinobacteria abundances were

marginally higher and did not differ significantly from those of Indian Firmicutes and

Actinobacteria. Indians were dominated by the two genera Prevotella and Lactobacillus,

probably due to the high consumption of wheat by Indians, in contrast to the Chinese,

whose diet is enriched with protein and animal fats. Chinese people are dominated by

the two genera Bifidobacterium and Blautia, whose diet is rich in animal fats and

protein, whereas Indians are dominated by the two genera Prevotella and Lactobacillus,

likely as a result of their high consumption of wheat.

Racial and ethnic lifestyle characteristics significantly influence differences in

microbiome composition. A study analyzing Amsterdam residents found that

Bacteroides, Firmicutes, Prevotella, and Clostridium abundances determine ethnic

composition. Surinamese had Bacteroides dominance, while Moroccan and Turkish

groups had increased fiber intake. Racial differences in the microbiome are linked to the

development of colorectal cancer, with Afro-American and white-skinned individuals

showing varying degrees of beta diversity. A 2022 review found that patients with

colorectal cancer have increased levels of Bacteroides and Prevotella, as well as

Escherichia coli, Streptococcus gallolyticus, Enterococcus faecalis, Fusobacterium

nucleatum, and Clostridium difficile. In Mongolia, Enterococcus, Lactobacillus,

Carnobacterium, Glutamicibacter, Paeniglutamicibacter, Fusobacterium, and

Parvimonas can act as tumor markers. Extensive investigations into the diversity of

bacteria in the intestines of diverse racial and ethnic groups will identify distinctive

microbiome constituents, offering significant perspectives into the distinct microbiomes

inherent to each species. (Syromyatnikov, M. et al., 2022). A recent study on the impact

of ethnicity on the structural diversity of microbiomes was carried out. The study's

subjects included Caucasian residents and immigrants from East Asia who lived in the

areas close to San Francisco Bay (Ang et al., 2021). Figure 6. shows how independent

confirmation of the variations in gut microbiomes amongst ethnic groups was obtained

through metagenomic sequencing. A variation in the gut microbiomes among the ethnic

groups according to metagenomic species abundances was observed and gene

families, which is in line with the 16S-seq analysis. More variation in species

abundances was explained by ethnicity than by a combination of lifestyle, laboratory,

demographic, and metabolic metadata. Significant differences in the rate and direction

of change were seen between individuals belonging to the same ethnic group when

diversity and species assignments within each phylum were visualized. Genera that

were found to be significantly different between ethnicities in the metagenomic data

included Akkermansia and an unspecified Erysipelotrichaceae genera elevated in W

individuals. Four bacterial species were significantly different between ethnicities in the

metagenomic data: W individuals had higher levels of A. muciniphila, Bacteroidales

bacterium ph8, and Roseburia hominis, and lower levels of Ruminococcus gnavus,

compared to EA individuals. Furthermore, the experiment involved participants whose

weight indicators were significant in addition to their nationality. Based on the study's
findings, individuals in both of these ethnic groups who had a lean body structure had

more pronounced bacterial differences. Roseburia hominis, Bacteroidales bacterium

ph8, and Akkermansia muciniphila were thus the primary taxa of bacteria that

dominated the contents of Caucasians' guts. On the other hand, Ruminococcus gnavus

was found in higher concentrations in the microbiome of people from East Asia.

Additionally, Xu et al.'s (2020) investigation focused on the microbiota of infants residing

in the same region of Singapore. One unique finding from our study was the significant

impact of ethnicity on the gut microbiota composition of Asian infants. Infants of Indian,

Chinese, and Malay descent had distinct gut microbiotas, and these differences were

noticeable even at three months of age, when weaning (complementary) food feeding

has typically not yet started. The potential effects of human genetics, family members'

fecal microbiotas, and the overall home environment on the development of the gut

microbiota are thus suggested by these ethnic variations in microbiota composition. In

light of the results, it is pertinent to discuss recent published assessments of the relative

contributions of environment and genetics to the development of the microbiota (Figure

7). (Rothschild et al., 2018; Goodrich et al., 2017). The development of the ethnic

characteristics of microbiomes was largely determined by the aforementioned factors.

The study findings indicate that Indian infants exhibited elevated levels of

Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus, whereas Chinese children displayed higher levels of

Bacteroides and Akkermansia.

Dietary Impact on Gut Microbiota

The feeding regimen significantly impacts peripheral oscillators like the liver and

intestine, potentially influencing gut microbial composition and function and potentially

affecting host health by manipulating the time and duration of consumption. A 2018

study by Collado et al. explored the impact of meal timing on human gut and oral

microbiotas. The research found that eating the main meal late increases

pro-inflammatory salivary taxa, affects body weight, cortisol rhythm, basal metabolic

rate, glucose tolerance, and body temperature, and can affect the diurnal rhythms of

salivary microbial profile. (Figure 8) Delayed feeding may potentially manipulate the gut

microbiota composition due to its ability to fluctuate within an hour, raising questions

about the potential impact of hunger. (Leeming E.R., 2019).

Dietary-induced alterations to the microbial communities associated with the gut

are now thought to play a role in the rising prevalence of chronic illnesses like obesity

and inflammatory bowel disease in both developed and developing nations. The

structure and activity of the trillions of microorganisms living in the human gut are

influenced by the food consumed over an extended period of time. In a similar vein,

short-term ingestion of diets consisting solely of plant or animal products also

profoundly modifies the structure of microbial communities and overrides interindividual

variations in microbial gene expression. Human diets have changed significantly

throughout history, from wild foods to farmed foods during the agricultural revolution

and, more recently, to processed foods consumed in large quantities in the

industrialized world. Every change in diet was most likely accompanied by a

corresponding modification in the microbiota. However, extinctions brought on by diet in

the gut microbiota accumulate over many generations. (Na Zhang, M.D. et al., 2018).

Studies on bacterial modifications brought on by various dietary variations have

revealed how these modifications impact an individual's metabolism. Table 1 lists all of

these changes along with their noteworthy impacts on the host's health. Most gut

microbial phyla, including Bacteroides, Clostridium, and Firmicutes, have been shown to

have a substantial impact on the gut microbiome, despite the fact that some have not

been shown to have any discernible effect on the host. Prevotella and Bacteroides

proliferate when dietary fiber levels rise, which has an impact on metabolism (Gray et al.

2017; Kovatcheva-Datchary et al., 2015). A switch to a vegetarian, omnivore,

carnivorous, or ketogenic diet may also cause changes in our gut microbiome, including

shifts in specific bacterial phyla. It has not been discovered that there is a positive or

negative impact on the gut microbiome. For instance, a vegetarian diet increases the

growth of Bifidobacteria and Prevotella, whereas a carnivorous diet increases the

growth of Clostridium (Hayashi et a., 2002; Lossaso et al. 2018). Variations in infant

diets and modifications to the gut microbiome have been the subject of additional

research. Mother's own milk (MOM) contained the highest concentration of the

Acinetobacter genus, donor pasteurized human milk (DHM) contained the highest

concentration of the Coprococcus genus, and formula-fed infants contained the highest

concentration of Clostridium difficile.

Vegetarianism is a diverse dietary practice that has gained popularity in Western

societies due to its many health benefits and ability to include dairy, eggs, seafood, or

both. It emphasizes fruits, vegetables, grains, pulses, nuts, seeds, and honey. In

addition to animal rights and welfare, spiritual, moral, religious, and socioeconomic
considerations, veganism is primarily motivated by ethical principles. However, different

nations and regions have different prevalence rates of veganism. Vegan diets may limit

important nutrients such as fats and proteins, so a well-rounded diet plan is necessary.

These diets can be influenced by variables such as the composition and variation of the

gut microbiota; for example, vegan diets increase beneficial microorganisms, which can

affect the metabolic pathways and bacterial composition of the gut microbiota. (Sakkas,

H. et al., 2020). The research indicates that omnivorous, lacto-ovo-vegetarian, and

vegan diets have an impact on human gut microbiota and that these diets have an

impact on fecal microbiota. However, because of the disparities in methodology and

sample sizes, these results should be interpreted with caution. (Figure 9) (Min

Wun-Wong, et al., 2018).

The effects of carbohydrates on the gut microbiota are diverse and can range

from modifications in major carbohydrate classes to modifications in specific

monosaccharides. Food has an impact on gut microbiota, which affects human health

and disease prevention. Making dietary adjustments to support a healthy microbiome

can greatly enhance wellbeing and manage illness. By modifying the nutritional

environment of the bacteria, dietary modifications can quickly and reversibly modify the

gut bacterial communities, including Firmicutes and Actinobacteria. This implies that

human health and disease prevention and control can be enhanced by maintaining a

healthy microbiome, outperforming the influence of host genetics. Prevotella and

Xylanibacter species are more prevalent in rural diets, whereas animal protein and

saturated fat are more prevalent in urban diets. A higher risk of obesity and metabolic

syndrome results from these diets' reduction of microbiome gene diversity. This
highlights both the potential health effects and flexibility of the human gut microbiome.

Research demonstrates that in the gut microbiome, plant carbohydrates—especially

resistant starch—increase the abundance of Firmicutes, especially those belonging to

the Ruminococcaceae family, Bifidobacterium genera, and Lachnospiraceae family. As

we investigate the relationship between gut microbiome and human disease, research

on the effects of dietary glycans on the gut microbiome is essential. (Figure 10) (Coker,

J.K., et al. 2021).

 CONCLUSION

This scoping review gives a thorough summary of the connection between

dietary practices, ethnicity, and the composition of the gut microbiota. The results

demonstrate how important it is for racial, ethnic, and dietary decisions to have an

impact on the makeup and diversity of the gut microbiota. The review found that there is

dominance of Prevotella, Bacteroides, and Bifidobacterium in different ethnic groups in

Asian countries, including Malaysia and Japan and variations in gut microbiomes

between Indian and Chinese populations. The review also highlighted Japan who has a

predominant presence of Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Blautia, Ruminococcus,

Roseburia, and Prevotella in the Japanese population. Impact of racial and ethnic

lifestyle characteristics on microbiome composition is explored, with connections to

colorectal cancer development and distinct microbial markers in specific populations.

This review also underscores that long-term dietary habits, including various

dietary approaches such as vegetarian, omnivorous, and vegan diets, can have a

profound impact on the composition and diversity of microbial communities in the gut.

The review suggests that different diets can lead to distinct microbial profiles in the gut

where, vegetarian diet can increase the growth of Bifidobacteria and Prevotella, while a

carnivorous diet may increase the growth of Clostridium. Moreover, the scoping review

suggests that dietary-induced alterations in gut microbiota may play a role in the rising

prevalence of chronic illnesses, including obesity and inflammatory bowel disease.

 Finally, the scoping review emphasizes the possible health consequences of

varying diets on microbial populations in the gastrointestinal tract by highlighting the

dynamic link between dietary patterns and the gut microbiota.

 REFERENCES

Backhed, F., Ding, H., Wang, T., Hooper, L. V., Koh, G. Y., Nagy, A., ... & Gordon, J. I.

(2004). The gut microbiota as an environmental factor that regulates fat storage.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(44), 15718-15723.

Bäckhed, F., Ley, R. E., Sonnenburg, J. L., Peterson, D. A., & Gordon, J. I. (2005).

Host-bacterial mutualism in the human intestine. Science307: 1915–1920.

Belizário, J. E., & Faintuch, J. (2018). Microbiome and gut dysbiosis. Experimental

Suppl, 108(1), 126-138.

Belkaid, Y., & Hand, T. W. (2014). Role of the microbiota in immunity and inflammation.

Cell, 157(1), 121-141.

Brown, R., et al. (2021). Gut microbiota and cardiometabolic outcomes: Influence of

dietary patterns and their associated components. The American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition.

Chow et al. (2010). Host–bacterial symbiosis in health and disease. Advances in

immunology, 107, 243-274.

as

Coker, J.K., Oriane Moyne, Dmitry A. Rodionov & Karsten Zengler (2021).

Carbohydrates great and small, from dietary fiber to sialic acids: How glycans

influence the gut microbiome and affect human health, Gut Microbes, 13:1, DOI:

10.1080/19490976.2020.1869502
Dwiyanto, J., Hussain, M.H., Reidpath, D. et al. (2021). Ethnicity influences the gut

microbiota of individuals sharing a geographical location: a cross-sectional study

from a middle-income country. Sci Rep 11, 2618 .

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82311-3

Gill, S. R., Pop, M., DeBoy, R. T., Eckburg, P. B., Turnbaugh, P. J., Samuel, B. S., ... &

Nelson, K. E. (2006). Metagenomic analysis of the human distal gut microbiome.

science, 312(5778), 1355-1359.

Goodrich, J. K., Davenport, E. R., Clark, A. G., & Ley, R. E. (2017). The relationship

between the human genome and microbiome comes into view. Annual review of

genetics, 51, 413-433.

Gray L.E.K., O’Hely M., Ranganathan S., Sly P.D., and Vuillermin P. (2017). ”The

Maternal Diet, Gut Bacteria, And Bacterial Metabolites During Pregnancy

Influence Offspring Asthma”. Frontiers In Immunology 8.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fimmu.2017.00365.

Gupta, V., et al. (2020). Therapeutic prospects for manipulating gut microbiota in type 2

diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice.

Hayashi, Hidenori, Mitsuo Sakamoto, and Yoshimi Benno. (2002). ”Fecal Microbial

Diversity In A Strict Vegetarian As Determined By Molecular Analysis And

Cultivation”. Microbiology And Immunology 46 (12): 819-831.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1348-0421.2002.tb02769.x.

Haynes, M., Rohwer, F., & Nelson, K. E. (2011). Metagenomics of the human body.
Jain, A., Li, X. H., & Chen, W. N. (2018). Similarities and differences in gut microbiome

composition correlate with dietary patterns of Indian and Chinese adults. Amb

Express, 8(1), 1-12.

Johnson, K. V., et al. (2018). Gut microbiome composition and diversity are related to

human personality traits. Human Microbiome Journal.

Jones, C. I., et al. (2020). The gut microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: Lessons

learned from other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. American Journal

of Gastroenterology.

Kovatcheva-Datchary, Petia, Nilsson A., Akrami R., Ying Shiuan Lee, De Vadder F.,

Arora T., Hallen A., Martens E., Björck I, and Bäckhed F. (2015). ”Dietary

Fiber-Induced Improvement In Glucose Metabolism Is Associated With Increased

Abundance Of Prevotella”. Cell Metabolism 22 (6): 971-982.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2015.10.001.

Mayer, E. A., et al. (2014). Gut/brain axis and the microbiota.Journal of Clinical

Investigation.

Mayer, E. A., Knight, R., Mazmanian, S. K., Cryan, J. F., & Tillisch, K. (2015). Gut

microbes and the brain: paradigm shift in neuroscience. Journal of Neuroscience,

35(41), 14107-14117.

Na Zhang, M.D. et al. (2018). Time for food: The impact of diet on gut microbiota and

human health. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nut.2017.12.005.

O'Hara, A. M., & Shanahan, F. (2006). The gut flora as a forgotten organ. EMBO

reports, 7(7), 688–693. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.embor.7400731

Qin, J., Li, R., Raes, J., Arumugam, M., Burgdorf, K. S., Manichanh, C., ... & Wang, J.

(2010). A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic

sequencing. nature, 464(7285), 59-65.

Rothschild, D., Weissbrod, O., Barkan, E., Kurilshikov, A., Korem, T., Zeevi, D., ... &

Segal, E. (2018). Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human

gut microbiota. Nature, 555(7695), 210-215.

Sakkas, H. et al. (2020). Nutritional Status and the Influence of the Vegan Diet on the

Gut Microbiota and Human Health. Medicina 2020, 56(2), 88;

https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina56020088

Sharon, G., Sampson, T. R., Geschwind, D. H., & Mazmanian, S. K. (2019). The central

nervous system and the gut microbiome. Cell, 167(4), 915-932.

Shen, Qing, Yin An Chen, and Tuohy K. (2010). ”A Comparative In Vitro Investigation

Into The Effects Of Cooked Meats On The Human Faecal Microbiota”. Anaerobe

16 (6): 572-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anaerobe.2010.09.007.

Shendure, J., & Ji, H. (2008). Next-generation DNA sequencing. Nature biotechnology,

26(10), 1135-1145.

Smith, A. B., et al. (2019). Factors influencing the gut microbiota, inflammation, and type

2 diabetes. Journal of Nutrition.

Syromyatnikov, M. et al. (2022). Characteristics of the Gut Bacterial Composition in

People of Different Nationalities and Religions. Microorganisms 2022, 10(9),

1866; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms10091866

Walker, A., Ince, J., Duncan, S. et al. (2011). Dominant and diet-responsive groups of

bacteria within the human colonic microbiota. ISME J 5, 220–230.

https://doi.org/10.1038/ismej.2010.118

Wang, Z., et al. (2022). Gut microbiota dysbiosis and its potential role in the

pathogenesis of cardiometabolic diseases. Genome Medicine.

Whitman, W. B., Coleman, D. C., & Wiebe, W. J. (1998). Prokaryotes: the unseen

majority. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 95(12), 6578-6583.

Xu, J., Lawley, B., Wong, G., Otal, A., Chen, L., Ying, T. J., ... & Karnani, N. (2020).

Ethnic diversity in infant gut microbiota is apparent before the introduction of

complementary diets. Gut Microbes, 11(5), 1362-1373.

Zeevi, D., Korem, T., Godneva, A. et al. (2019). Structural variation in the gut

microbiome associates with host health. Nature 568, 43–48.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1065-y