Next Article in Journal
A Study of Mobile Medical App User Satisfaction Incorporating Theme Analysis and Review Sentiment Tendencies
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Outdoor Environmental Exposure on Readmission Rates for Children and Adolescents with Asthma—A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 12
10.3390/ijerph19127464
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Association between Gut Microbiota and Body Composition in Japanese General Population: A Focus on Gut Microbiota and Skeletal Muscle

by
Yoshikuni Sugimura
1,2,
Akira Kanda
3,
Kaori Sawada
2,
Kyi Mar Wai
2,
Asano Tanabu
2,
Naoki Ozato
4,
Tatsuyuki Midorikawa
2,5,
Takayoshi Hisada
6,
Shigeyuki Nakaji
1,2 and
Kazushige Ihara
2,*
1
Department of Innovation Center for Health Promotion, Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki University 5 Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki 036-8562, Japan
2
Department of Social Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, Hirosaki University 5 Zaifu-cho, Hirosaki 036-8562, Japan
3
Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aomori University of Health and Welfare, 58-1 Mase, Hamadate, Aomori 030-8505, Japan
4
Health & Wellness Products Research Laboratories, Kao Corporation, 2-1-3 Bunka, Sumida-ku, Tokyo 131-8501, Japan
5
Research and Development Headquarters, Lion Corporation, Odawara 256-0811, Japan
6
TechnoSuruga Laboratory Co., Ltd., 388-1 Nagasaki, Shimizu-ku, Shizuoka 424-0065, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(12), 7464; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127464
Submission received: 10 May 2022 / Revised: 14 June 2022 / Accepted: 16 June 2022 / Published: 17 June 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to investigate the gut microbial genera associated with skeletal muscle mass, using a large-scale survey from the standpoint of preventing sarcopenia. A total of 848 participants were included in the analysis. The mean (SD) ages of men (n = 353) and women (n = 495) were 50.0 (12.9) years and 50.8 (12.8) years, respectively. Body composition was assessed using appendicular skeletal muscle mass/body weight (ASM/BW), ASM, and BW. Additionally, the relationship between gut microbial genera and body composition was analyzed. The means (SD) of ASM/BW were 34.9 (2.4) % in men and 29.4 (2.9) % in women. Blautia and Bifidobacterium were positively associated with ASM/BW only in men (Blautia: β = 0.0003, Bifidobacterium: β = 0.0001). However, Blautia was negatively associated with BW (β = −0.0017). Eisenbergiella was positively associated with ASM/BW (β = 0.0209) and negatively associated with BW (β = −0.0769) only in women. Our results indicate that Blautia, Bifidobacterium and Eisenbergiella, which are positively associated with ASM/BW, might help increase skeletal muscle mass. ASM/BW may clarify the relationship between gut microbiota and skeletal muscle mass without being affected by obesity or excess body fat mass.

1. Introduction

Sarcopenia is a symptomatic condition characterized by decreased muscle strength and physical function due to excessive loss of skeletal muscle mass with aging. Sarcopenia is accompanied by poor physical balance, gait disturbances, cane use, and falls [1]. Skeletal muscle mass has been reported to decrease by 5–10% of its youthful level by the age of 50 and decrease by 30–40% between the age of 50–80 years [2]. Functional impairment (inability to stand up from a chair or lift an object) may occur when skeletal muscle mass is reduced by 20–30% of its youthful level [3]. Moreover, such a decrease in skeletal muscle mass is associated with an increase in future all-cause mortality; therefore, a decrease in skeletal muscle must be prevented [4].
Recent studies have reported that gut microbiota is associated with skeletal muscle mass in animals [5]. Siddharth et al. reported that the amount of gastrocnemius muscle was reduced to a greater extent in aged rats with sarcopenia than in normal adult rats. This reduction occurs with changes in the composition of gut microbiota [6]. Munukka et al. reported that inoculation with Faecalibacterium prausnitzii increases muscle mass in mice [7]. Lahiri et al. reported that transplantation of stool from mice with gut microbiota into germ-free mice increased skeletal muscle mass [8].
Some studies in humans have also suggested an association between gut microbiota and skeletal muscle mass [9,10,11]. Among the residents of welfare facilities for older adults, those who were frailer had a lower relative abundance of the major gut microbiota [9]. The sarcopenia group and possible sarcopenia group had a lower relative abundance of Roseburia and Eubacterium compared to the healthy control group [10]. Furthermore, it was reported that when frail older adults took LactbacillusTWK10, the muscle mass increased without increasing body fat percentage [12]. One study in younger adults reported that male athletes had a higher diversity of gut microbiota than male non-athletes, with a higher relative abundance of Akkermansia muciniphila [13]. Another study of women aged 18 to 40 years with normal BMI reported that the relative abundance of Coprococcus was positively correlated with the skeletal muscle index [11].
Previous studies examining a small number of frail older adults [9,10] and younger adults (18–40 years old) [11] were conducted for the establishment of microbial genera that affect skeletal muscle mass. Therefore, a large-scale study of the general population considering individuals’ various health conditions is needed to overcome the previous limitation of a smaller population.
Each skeletal muscle mass index has its own special characteristics; therefore, it was selected according to the purpose of the research and evaluation. Some studies of skeletal muscle in relation to gut microbiota used the appendicular skeletal muscle mass index (ASMI), calculated as the appendicular skeletal muscle mass (ASM) divided by height squared (ASM/height2) (kg/m2) [10,14]. However, ASMI is highly correlated with body weight (BW). Therefore, body fat should be considered in overweight and obese individuals [15]. In addition, the height of adults gradually shortens with age. Therefore, ASMI values increase, even if BW and muscle mass remain constant. The appendicular skeletal muscle mass divided by BW (ASM/BW) is a marker considered for studying the practical definition of sarcopenia. Sarcopenia categorized by ASM/BW had a worse physiological status than that categorized by ASMI [16]. In addition, a previous report showed that ASM/BW was negatively associated with insulin resistance, whereas ASMI was positively associated with insulin resistance [17]. These studies suggest that ASM/BW indicates the relationship between skeletal muscle mass and health status better than ASMI [16,17]. In addition, the values of ASM/BW were not affected by body fat or change in height. Thus, ASM/BW may be a more accurate marker for the assessment of skeletal muscle mass than ASMI in studies involving participants with a wider age range.
More comprehensive knowledge of the gut microbiota that lead to an increase in skeletal muscle mass will contribute to the prevention of sarcopenia. However, to our knowledge, no previous studies have used ASM/BW to investigate the relationship be-tween gut microbiota and skeletal muscle mass. Although there are several methods to measure ASM, such as magnetic resonance, computed tomography, dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA), and bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA), we adopted the BIA method to assess ASM in this study [18]. BIA is a non-invasive, relatively less costly, and technologically friendly method with high reliability and validity. It is widely used in clinical and practical settings, and is suitable for large-scale surveys [19]. We conducted a large-scale survey of local residents of a wide range of ages to establish the gut microbial genera associated with skeletal muscle mass using ASW/BW as an index of sarcopenia by a non-invasive measurement.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Participants

This cross-sectional study focused on the relationship between gut microbiota and skeletal muscle mass in 1073 healthy residents aged between 19 and 93 years who were living in the Iwaki area of Hirosaki City, Aomori Prefecture, and participated in the 2017 Iwaki Health Promotion Project [20]. One hundred eighty-four participants aged 70 years or older were excluded from the analysis because healthy gut microbiota was affected by age-related physiological and behavioral changes after age 70 [21]. Participants in the following categories were also excluded: (i) younger than 19 years (n = 1), (ii) lack of body composition measures (n = 8), (iii) lack of gut microbiota measures (n = 30), and (iv) lack of a self-administered questionnaire (n = 2). Finally, a total of 848 participants were included in the analysis (Figure 1).

2.2. Measurements of Body Composition

Body composition in this study was measured by BIA using MC-190 (Tanita, Tokyo, Japan) in a standing position. The BIA is a multi-frequency, 8-electrode system that can provide estimates of muscle mass and body fat content for the entire body, trunk, and extremities [22]. Participants were asked to stand barefoot on toe-and-heel electrodes, and to hold the handgrips with arms hanging down a few centimeters from the body. Multiple frequencies (5, 50, 250, 500 kHz, 90 µA or less) were supplied, and values of resistance (75–1500 Ω) and reactance were measured between hands and feet in the device [23]. A prediction model setting height, weight, age, body type information (standard/athlete), value of reactance extracted from BIA, and the outcome from BIA using multiple frequencies as explanatory variables was implemented to estimate the muscle mass that could be measured using DXA and dilution methods [23]. The values of muscle mass were highly correlated with the measurements by DXA (total muscle mass: r = 0.96) [23]. Previous studies reported that the intraclass correlation of total fat-free mass (kg) was 0.95 [24]. However, the values are somewhat affected by changes in body water percentage and body temperature during the day. Values are also affected by activities such as eating, sleeping, sweating, urinating, and drinking alcohol [23]. Therefore, participants were asked to skip breakfast on the day of body composition measurements to minimize diurnal behavioral variation in values obtained by BIA. To adjust the condition of body water, body composition measurements were obtained soon after urine sampling. The BIA readings differ by different BIA instruments, as the instruments are dependent on different technologies [18,25,26,27] and predictive equations [28]. To minimize the variabilities by measuring instrument, the same instrument was used throughout the study.
Body composition was assessed based on ASM/BW, ASM, and BW. ASM/BW was used as the skeletal muscle index [3,16]. ASM (kg) and ASM/BW (%) were calculated as follows: ASM (kg) = right arm muscle (kg) + left arm muscle (kg) + right leg muscle (kg) + left leg muscle (kg); ASM/BW (%) = ASM (kg)/BW (kg) × 100.

2.3. Measurements of the Gut Microbiota

Fecal sampling kits were distributed to the participants before the health examination. Sampling kits contained guanidine thiocyanate solution (100 mM Tris-HCl (pH 8.0), 40 mM Tris-EDTA (pH 8.0), 4 M guanidine thiocyanate, and 0.001% bromothymol blue) for the stability of the gut microbiota composition (Techno Suruga Laboratory Co., Ltd., Shizuoka, Japan). Fecal samples were collected at home by the participants using the kit within 3 days prior to the health examination and handed in on the day of the health examination. Participants were instructed to defecate on toilet paper, scoop the stool with the provided spoon, and return it to the container. They were instructed to keep the samples in their home refrigerators until the day of the health examination. Fecal samples were stored at 4 °C until DNA extraction for 3 months at Techno Suruga Laboratory [29,30,31]. DNA of the gut microbiota in the fecal cell suspension was extracted using the zirconium bead disruption method. For DNA purification, an automated nucleic acid extraction system (Precision System Science, Chiba, Japan) and MagDEA DNA200 (Precision System Science) were used. For DNA amplification, the concentration of the purified DNA was adjusted to 10 ng/μL using the NanoDrop absorption method.
The V3-V4 region of the prokaryotic 16S rRNA in the gut microbiota was amplified using universal primer sets [32]. Amplified DNA was sequenced using the Illumina MiSeq sequencing system and MiSeq Reagent Kit v3 (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA).
The partial base sequence of 16SrDNA (approximately 380–430 bp) clustered at a homology rate of more than 97% using VSEARCH (version 2.4.3). The clusters identified with a confidence value of less than 0.8 were grouped as an unclassified taxon. The taxa of clusters were identified using the standard classification predicted by the RDP classifier (commit hash: 701e229dde7cbe53d4261301e23459d91615999d). The numbers of each taxon were calculated as read counts of the partial base sequence of 16SrDNA. Regarding intra-individual variations, no time trend was observed in response to both seasonal and diurnal alterations [33].

2.4. Self-Reported Questionnaire

Daily intakes of protein, fat, carbohydrates, alcohol, and total dietary fiber were calculated from the results of the brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaire (BDHQ) [34]. Smoking habits (c/d), physical activity (min/week), sleep time (min/day), and habitual medicine use (yes/no) were surveyed using self-administered questionnaires.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All data analyses were conducted according to sex. The characteristics of the participants are shown as mean ± standard deviation for numerical variables and percentage for nominal variables. Analyses of gut microbiota were performed at the phylum and genus levels of read counts. Subsequent analyses were conducted for genera whose mean read counts were 1.0 or higher. Finally, 90 of the 319 identified genera were included in the analysis. Univariate associations of the read counts of gut microbial genera with ASM/BW, ASM, and BW were analyzed using Spearman’s correlation. In addition, false discovery rate (FDR) correction was used to determine the gut microbial genera associated with body composition. FDR was controlled by the Benjamini–Hochberg procedure in order to correct for multiple testing, and was considered significant at <0.05 [35]. The relationship between the read counts of gut microbial genera (outcome) and ASM/BW, ASM, and BW (exposure) was investigated by multivariate analysis using a linear regression model (stepwise method). This multivariate analysis was adjusted for age, nutrient intake (protein, fat, carbohydrate, total dietary fiber, and alcohol), habitual medicine use, smoking habits, physical activity, and sleep duration. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS (version 25; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of participants

The characteristics of the study participants are presented in Table 1. The mean age of men (n = 353) was 50.0 ± 12.9 years, and the mean age of women (n = 495) was 50.8 ± 12.8 years. Approximately half of both men and women were taking medications for lifestyle-related diseases.
We examined the correlation between body composition variables. BW was negatively correlated with ASM/BW (men: r = −0.372, women: r = −0.683). BW showed a strong positive correlation with ASM (men: r = 0.861, women: r = 0.750). ASM and ASM/BW showed a weak positive correlation (r = 0.142) in men but not in women.

3.2. Gut Microbiota Composition of the Participants

Table 2 shows the mean read counts of the phyla and genera of the gut microbiota, which were significantly correlated with body composition. The mean read count of Firmicutes was the highest (approximately 10,700), followed by Bacteroidetes (approximately 6000), Actinobacteria (approximately 2200), and Proteobacteria (approximately 550). The mean read count of Firmicutes was significantly higher in women than in men (p = 0.014), whereas Bacteroidetes (p = 0.056) and Proteobacteria (p < 0.001) were lower in women than in men.
At the genus level, the mean read count of Bacteroides was the highest (approximately 3800), followed by Blautia (approximately 1600) and Bifidobacterium (approximately 1550). The mean read count of Bacteroides was significantly higher in women than in men (p = 0.014), whereas those of Blautia and Bifidobacterium did not significantly differ between men and women (Blautia: p = 0.063, Bifidobacterium: p = 0.189).

3.3. Association between Gut Microbiota and Body Composition

The correlation coefficients between ASM/BW and the genera with the three highest mean read counts are shown in Figure 2. ASM/BW was positively correlated with Blautia and Bifidobacterium in men (Blautia; r = 0.172, p = 0.001, Bifidobacterium; r = 0.244, p < 0.001).
Details of other correlations of gut microbiota with body composition are shown in Table 3. The significant correlation of two genera in men, and five genera in women, with ASM/BW, remained after FDR was corrected to <0.05. The highest positive correlation of ASM/BW was shown with Bifidobacterium (r = 0.244, p < 0.001) in men and with Eisenbergiella (r = 0.183, p < 0.001) in women. The highest negative correlation of ASM/BW was observed with Dorea (r = −0.136, p < 0.002) in women. In addition, the highest positive correlation of BW was observed with Dorea (r = 0.158, p < 0.001).
Multiple linear regression analyses (stepwise method) were performed, with each body composition as a dependent variable. Each of the seven genera was entered as an independent variable, with possible confounders. Significant results for the genera are shown in Table 4. Blautia (β = 0.0003, p = 0.010) and Bifidobacterium (β = 0.0001, p = 0.038) in men were associated with ASM/BW. Dorea (β = −0.0016, p = 0.014) and Eisenbergiella (β = 0.0209, p = 0.038) in women were associated with ASM/BW. Blautia in men (β = −0.0017, p = 0.006), and Dorea (β = 0.0056, p = 0.016) and Eisenbergiella (β = −0.0769, p = 0.034) in women, were associated with BW.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study was to clarify the gut microbiota associated with skeletal muscle mass and skeletal muscle index, in relation to the prevention of sarcopenia. Our study revealed that the read counts of Blautia, Bifidobacterium, Dorea and Eisenbergiella were associated with ASM/BW in a large-scale survey. In particular, the increased read counts of Blautia, Bifidobacterium, and Eisenbergiella appeared to be associated with a larger skeletal muscle mass in men. These gut microbial genera were different from those reported in previous studies, in which skeletal muscle was assessed with ASMI.
The higher read count of Blautia in men was accompanied by a higher ASM/BW. Blautia, a dominant bacterium in the intestine, produces acetic acid. Maruta et al. reported that acetic acid activates G-protein receptors and increases production of muscle-related proteins using myoblasts [36]. In human studies, an association of Blautia with skeletal muscle has not been reported. However, the association of Blautia with inflammatory and metabolic disorders has been reported [37]. The relative abundance of Blautia was lower in patients with type 2 diabetes and was negatively correlated with HbA1c [38]. An increase in the relative abundance of Blautia was positively correlated with the maintenance of glucose and lipid homeostasis [39]. However, loss of skeletal muscle mass, such as sarcopenia, was reported to lower efficiency of glucose uptake from the blood, leading to type 2 diabetes [40]. Therefore, the higher read count of Blautia was possibly associated with an increased skeletal muscle mass, leading to the prevention of sarcopenia and inflammatory and metabolic diseases.
A higher read count of Bifidobacterium was associated with a higher ASM/BW in men in the multivariate analysis. In mice transplanted with Bifidobacterium longum BL986, the muscle mass/body weight ratio and grip strength increased without weight gain, suggesting that Bifidobacterium can regulate muscle mass in mice [41]. Obese human participants who were fed Bifidobacterium breve B-3 showed a decrease in body fat and an increase in muscle mass without a significant change in BMI [42]. These results support the significant association between Bifidobacterium and ASM/BW in men in our study. The association, however, was not shown in women; therefore, further studies on sex differences of such functional mechanisms are needed in the future.
A higher read count of Eisenbergiella was associated with a higher ASM/BW in women, as well as with a lower BW in women. Eisenbergiella is a bacterial genus that could be related to the development of obesity and other pro-inflammatory diseases in women [43]. In addition, the relative abundance of Eisenbergiella in male bodybuilders was higher than in distance runners and healthy sedentary men [44]. Our results suggest that Eisenbergiella is associated with skeletal muscle mass, strengthening previous findings on this topic.
A higher read count of Dorea in women was accompanied by lower ASM/BW. The association of Dorea with skeletal muscle has not yet been studied, but the decrease in the relative abundance of Dorea has prevented cardiac risk factors, such as higher BMI, abdominal circumference, blood pressure, and triglycerides [45]. A higher relative abundance of Dorea was associated with higher fasting blood glucose levels [46]. Therefore, Dorea may be associated with metabolic diseases. Our results, which strengthen previous findings, suggest that Dorea is associated with skeletal muscle mass.
The gut microbial genera and composition associated with ASM/BW differed between men and women [47,48], and sex hormones are considered major determinants of the composition of the gut microbiota [49]. Sex hormones also contribute to differences in muscle synthesis and fat distribution between men and women [50]. The sex difference in the association between gut microbial genera and ASM/BW might be explained by adjusting for confounders, such as sex hormones.
This study has two advantages. First, our large-scale survey of community dwellers enabled us to examine the association of gut microbiota with ASM/BW stratified by sex. Second, we used ASM/BW, which can indicate healthy skeletal muscle mass. To the best of our knowledge, previous studies on gut microbiota and skeletal muscle mass were conducted in less than 100 individuals, irrespective of sex. In addition, participants in previous studies were over 70 years of age in institutions or professional rugby athletes.
Our study has some limitations. First, this study was cross-sectional and could not evaluate cause and effect relationships. Second, the gut microbiota may affect skeletal muscle mass and muscle function through inflammation, immunity, energy metabolism, and insulin sensitivity. We are ready to investigate the effect of inflammatory substances on gut microbiota by blood test. Third, our study was conducted in one community, and results from other communities or regions are necessary. Fourth, comparisons among different age groups with large numbers of participants are necessary because gut microbiota and skeletal muscle mass change with age. Fifth, nutrient intake was estimated using a self-administered food frequency questionnaire. Chemical analyses of nutrients in meals are recommended to obtain more accurate results. The use of portable electric devices to measure nutritional intake and physical activity will help obtain further results. Sixth, our study could not be analyzed at the strain or species level. Bacterial strains and species are diverse within the genus, and analyses at and below the species level may identify more specific species or strains relating to skeletal muscle.

5. Conclusions

Our study with participants of a large-scale health check-up revealed that Blautia and Bifidobacterium were positively correlated with ASM/BW only in men. In addition, Eisenbergiella was positively correlated with ASM/BW only in women. The relationship of ASM/BW with Blautia, Bifidobacterium and Eisenbergiella has not been shown in previous studies. These gut microbial genera may help increase skeletal muscle mass. ASM/BW may clarify the relationship between gut microbiota and skeletal muscle mass without being affected by overweight or body fat mass, even in individuals with obesity or excess body fat mass.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.S., K.I. and S.N.; Methodology, Y.S., A.K. and K.S.; Formal analysis, Y.S. and K.I.; Investigation, K.S., K.M.W., N.O., T.H., T.M. and A.T.; Supervision, K.I.; Writing—original draft, Y.S.; Writing—review and editing, Y.S., A.K., K.S. and K.M.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the JST COI Grant Number JPMJCE1302.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hirosaki University School of Medicine (2017-026) and was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants before their participation in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to the test sample patent and the participants’ privacy and confidentiality.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the residents of Iwaki district, Hirosaki City, who voluntarily participated in the community health examination. They also thank the universities and local governments that constitute the COI Research Initiatives Organization, Hirosaki University, for their cooperation with this study.

Conflicts of Interest

Takayoshi Hisada is an employee of Techno Suruga Co., Ltd. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. The funder/employers had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Baumgartner, R.N.; Koehler, K.M.; Gallagher, D.; Romero, L.; Heymsfield, S.B.; Ross, R.R.; Garry, P.J.; Lindeman, R.D. Epidemiology of sarcopenia among the elderly in New Mexico. Am. J. Epidemiol. 1998, 147, 755–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Lexell, J.; Downham, D.; Sjöström, M. Distribution of different fibre types in human skeletal muscles. J. Neurol. Sci. 1986, 72, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Janssen, I.; Heymsfield, S.B.; Ross, R. Low relative skeletal muscle mass (sarcopenia) in older persons is associated with functional impairment and physical disability. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2002, 50, 889–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Abramowitz, M.K.; Hall, C.B.; Amodu, A.; Sharma, D.; Androga, L.; Hawkins, M. Muscle mass, BMI, and mortality among adults in the United States: A population-based cohort study. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0194697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zhao, J.; Huang, Y.; Yu, X. A narrative review of gut-muscle axis and sarcopenia: The potential role of gut microbiota. Int. J. Gen. Med. 2021, 14, 1263–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Siddharth, J.; Chakrabarti, A.; Pannérec, A.; Karaz, S.; Morin-Rivron, D.; Masoodi, M.; Feige, J.N.; Parkinson, S.J. Aging and sarcopenia associate with specific interactions between gut microbes, serum biomarkers and host physiology in rats. Aging 2017, 9, 1698–1720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Munukka, E.; Rintala, A.; Toivonen, R.; Nylund, M.; Yang, B.; Takanen, A.; Hänninen, A.; Vuopio, J.; Huovinen, P.; Jalkanen, S.; et al. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii treatment improves hepatic health and reduces adipose tissue inflammation in high-fat fed mice. ISME J. 2017, 11, 1667–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Lahiri, S.; Kim, H.; Garcia-Perez, I.; Reza, M.M.; Martin, K.A.; Kundu, P.; Cox, L.M.; Selkrig, J.; Posma, J.M.; Zhang, H.; et al. The gut microbiota influences skeletal muscle mass and function in mice. Sci. Transl. Med. 2019, 11, eaan5662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Van Tongeren, S.P.; Slaets, J.P.; Harmsen, H.J.; Welling, G.W. Fecal microbiota composition and frailty. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 71, 6438–6442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Kang, L.; Li, P.; Wang, D.; Wang, T.; Hao, D.; Qu, X. Alterations in intestinal microbiota diversity, composition, and function in patients with sarcopenia. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 4628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bressa, C.; Bailén-Andrino, M.; Pérez-Santiago, J.; González-Soltero, R.; Pérez, M.; Montalvo-Lominchar, M.G.; Maté-Muñoz, J.L.; Domínguez, R.; Moreno, D.; Larrosa, M. Differences in gut microbiota profile between women with active lifestyle and sedentary women. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0171352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Lee, M.C.; Tu, Y.T.; Lee, C.C.; Tsai, S.C.; Hsu, H.Y.; Tsai, T.Y.; Liu, T.H.; Young, S.L.; Lin, J.S.; Huang, C.C. Lactobacillus plantarum TWK10 improves muscle mass and functional performance in frail older adults: A randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Clarke, S.F.; Murphy, E.F.; O’Sullivan, O.; Lucey, A.J.; Humphreys, M.; Hogan, A.; Hayes, P.; O’Reilly, M.; Jeffery, I.B.; Wood-Martin, R.; et al. Exercise and associated dietary extremes impact on gut microbial diversity. Gut 2014, 63, 1913–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Canfora, E.E.; Jocken, J.W.; Blaak, E.E. Short-chain fatty acids in control of body weight and insulin sensitivity. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 2015, 11, 577–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khawaja, A.; Sabbagh, P.; Prioux, J.; Zunquin, G.; Baquet, G.; Maalouf, G.; Hage, Z.E.; Antoun, A.; El Hage, R. The relationships between skeletal muscle index and bone variables in a group of young adults. J. Clin. Densitom. 2021, 24, 78–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lim, S.; Kim, J.H.; Yoon, J.W.; Kang, S.M.; Choi, S.H.; Park, Y.J.; Kim, K.W.; Lim, J.Y.; Park, K.S.; Jang, H.C. Sarcopenic obesity: Prevalence and association with metabolic syndrome in the Korean Longitudinal Study on Health and Aging (KLoSHA). Diabetes Care 2010, 33, 1652–1654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Bijlsma, A.Y.; Meskers, C.G.; van Heemst, D.; Westendorp, R.G.; de Craen, A.J.; Maier, A.B. Diagnostic criteria for sarcopenia relate differently to insulin resistance. Age 2013, 35, 2367–2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Campa, F.; Toselli, S.; Mazzilli, M.; Gobbo, L.A.; Coratella, G. Assessment of body composition in athletes: A narrative review of available methods with special reference to quantitative and qualitative bioimpedance analysis. Nutrients 2021, 13, 1620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lukaski, H.; Raymond-Pope, C.J. New frontiers of body composition in sport. Int. J. Sports Med. 2021, 42, 588–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Nakaji, S.; Ihara, K.; Sawada, K.; Parodi, S.; Umeda, T.; Takahashi, I.; Murashita, K.; Kurauchi, S.; Tokuda, I. Social innovation for life expectancy extension utilizing a platform-centered system used in the Iwaki Health Promotion Project: A protocol paper. SAGE Open Med. 2021, 9, 20503121211002606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Odamaki, T.; Kato, K.; Sugahara, H.; Hashikura, N.; Takahashi, S.; Xiao, J.Z.; Abe, F.; Osawa, R. Age-related changes in gut microbiota composition from newborn to centenarian: A cross-sectional study. BMC Microbiol. 2016, 16, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Pietrobelli, A.; Rubiano, F.; St-Onge, M.P.; Heymsfield, S.B. New bioimpedance analysis system: Improved phenotyping with whole-body analysis. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 58, 1479–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Tanita, M.C. Instruction Manual. Available online: www.tanita.co.jp/cms/common/pdf/support/mc_series/mc190.pdf (accessed on 28 February 2022).
  24. Verney, J.; Schwartz, C.; Amiche, S.; Pereira, B.; Thivel, D. Comparisons of a multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance analysis to the dual-energy X-Ray absorptiometry scan in healthy young adults depending on their physical activity level. J. Hum. Kinet 2015, 47, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Silva, A.M.; Matias, C.N.; Nunes, C.L.; Santos, D.A.; Marini, E.; Lukaski, H.C.; Sardinha, L.B. Lack of agreement of in vivo raw bioimpedance measurements obtained from two single and multi-frequency bioelectrical impedance devices. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 73, 1077–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Stratton, M.T.; Smith, R.W.; Harty, P.S.; Rodriguez, C.; Johnson, B.A.; Dellinger, J.R.; Williams, A.D.; White, S.J.; Benavides, M.L.; Tinsley, G.M. Longitudinal agreement of four bioimpedance analyzers for detecting changes in raw bioimpedance during purposeful weight gain with resistance training. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 75, 1060–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tinsley, G.M.; Moore, M.L.; Silva, A.M.; Sardinha, L.B. Cross-sectional and longitudinal agreement between two multifrequency bioimpedance devices for resistance, reactance, and phase angle values. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2020, 74, 900–911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Coratella, G.; Campa, F.; Matias, C.N.; Toselli, S.; Koury, J.C.; Andreoli, A.; Sardinha, L.S.B.; Silva, A.M. Generalized bioelectric impedance-based equations underestimate body fluids in athletes. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2021, 31, 2123–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Hosomi, K.; Ohno, H.; Murakami, H.; Natsume-Kitatani, Y.; Tanisawa, K.; Hirata, S.; Suzuki, H.; Nagatake, T.; Nishino, T.; Mizuguchi, K.; et al. Method for preparing DNA from feces in guanidine thiocyanate solution affects 16S rRNA-based profiling of human microbiota diversity. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kawada, Y.; Naito, Y.; Andoh, A.; Ozeki, M.; Inoue, R. Effect of storage and DNA extraction method on 16S rRNA-profiled fecal microbiota in Japanese adults. J. Clin. Biochem. Nutr. 2019, 64, 106–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Ozato, N.; Saito, S.; Yamaguchi, T.; Katashima, M.; Tokuda, I.; Sawada, K.; Katsuragi, Y.; Kakuta, M.; Imoto, S.; Ihara, K.; et al. Blautia genus associated with visceral fat accumulation in adults 20–76 years of age. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes 2019, 5, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Takahashi, S.; Tomita, J.; Nishioka, K.; Hisada, T.; Nishijima, M. Development of a prokaryotic universal primer for simultaneous analysis of bacteria and archaea using next-generation sequencing. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e105592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Hisada, T.; Endoh, K.; Kuriki, K. Inter- and intra-individual variations in seasonal and daily stabilities of the human gut microbiota in Japanese. Arch. Microbiol. 2015, 197, 919–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Kobayashi, S.; Murakami, K.; Sasaki, S.; Okubo, H.; Hirota, N.; Notsu, A.; Fukui, M.; Date, C. Comparison of relative validity of food group intakes estimated by comprehensive and brief-type self-administered diet history questionnaires against 16 d dietary records in Japanese adults. Public Health Nutr. 2011, 14, 1200–1211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Series B Stat. Methodol. 1995, 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Maruta, H.; Yamashita, H. Acetic acid stimulates G-protein-coupled receptor GPR43 and induces intracellular calcium influx in L6 myotube cells. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0239428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Liu, X.; Mao, B.; Gu, J.; Wu, J.; Cui, S.; Wang, G.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, H.; Chen, W.; New, B.-A. Functional genus with potential probiotic properties? Gut Microbes 2021, 13, 1875796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Inoue, R.; Ohue-Kitano, R.; Tsukahara, T.; Tanaka, M.; Masuda, S.; Inoue, T.; Yamakage, H.; Kusakabe, T.; Hasegawa, K.; Shimatsu, A.; et al. Prediction of functional profiles of gut microbiota from 16S RRNA metagenomic data provides a more robust evaluation of gut dysbiosis occurring in Japanese type 2 diabetic patients. J. Clin. Biochem. Nutr. 2017, 61, 217–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Tong, X.; Xu, J.; Lian, F.; Yu, X.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, L.; Zhang, M.; Zhao, X.; Shen, J.; Wu, S.; et al. Structural alteration of gut microbiota during the amelioration of human type 2 diabetes with hyperlipidemia by metformin and a traditional Chinese herbal formula: A multicenter, randomized, open label clinical trial. mBio 2018, 9, e02392-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Mesinovic, J.; Zengin, A.; De Courten, B.; Ebeling, P.R.; Scott, D. Sarcopenia and type 2 diabetes mellitus: A bidirectional relationship. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Obes. 2019, 12, 1057–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Ni, Y.; Yang, X.; Zheng, L.; Wang, Z.; Wu, L.; Jiang, J.; Yang, T.; Ma, L.; Fu, Z. Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium improves physiological function and cognitive ability in aged mice by the regulation of gut microbiota. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2019, 63, e1900603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Minami, J.; Iwabuchi, N.; Tanaka, M.; Yamauchi, K.; Xiao, J.Z.; Abe, F.; Sakane, N. Effects of Bifidobacterium breve B-3 on body fat reductions in pre-obese adults: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health 2018, 37, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Bailén, M.; Bressa, C.; Martínez-López, S.; González-Soltero, R.; Montalvo Lominchar, M.G.; San Juan, C.; Larrosa, M. Microbiota features associated with a high-fat/low-fiber diet in healthy adults. Front. Nutr. 2020, 7, 583608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Jang, L.G.; Choi, G.; Kim, S.W.; Kim, B.Y.; Lee, S.; Park, H. The combination of sport and sport-specific diet is associated with characteristics of gut microbiota: An observational study. J. Int. Soc. Sports Nutr. 2019, 16, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Wang, Y.; Ames, N.P.; Tun, H.M.; Tosh, S.M.; Jones, P.J.; Khafipour, E. High molecular weight barley β-glucan alters gut microbiota toward reduced cardiovascular disease risk. Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Naderpoor, N.; Mousa, A.; Gomez-Arango, L.F.; Barrett, H.L.; Dekker Nitert, M.; de Courten, B. Faecal microbiota are related to insulin sensitivity and secretion in overweight or obese adults. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Haro, C.; Rangel-Zúñiga, O.A.; Alcalá-Díaz, J.F.; Gómez-Delgado, F.; Pérez-Martínez, P.; Delgado-Lista, J.; Quintana-Navarro, G.M.; Landa, B.B.; Navas-Cortés, J.A.; Tena-Sempere, M.; et al. Intestinal microbiota is influenced by gender and body mass index. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Takagi, T.; Naito, Y.; Inoue, R.; Kashiwagi, S.; Uchiyama, K.; Mizushima, K.; Tsuchiya, S.; Dohi, O.; Yoshida, N.; Kamada, K.; et al. Differences in gut microbiota associated with age, sex, and stool consistency in healthy Japanese subjects. J. Gastroenterol. 2019, 54, 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Markle, J.G.; Frank, D.N.; Mortin-Toth, S.; Robertson, C.E.; Feazel, L.M.; Rolle-Kampczyk, U.; von Bergen, M.; McCoy, K.D.; Macpherson, A.J.; Danska, J.S. Sex differences in the gut microbiome drive hormone-dependent regulation of autoimmunity. Science 2013, 339, 1084–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Stevens, J.; Katz, E.G.; Huxley, R.R. Associations between gender, age and waist circumference. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2010, 64, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Ijerph 19 07464 g001 550
Figure 1. Participant flow diagram.
Figure 1. Participant flow diagram.
Ijerph 19 07464 g001
Ijerph 19 07464 g002 550
Figure 2. Spearman’s correlation between mean read count and ASM/BW of the three genera with the highest read counts. † p-values that passed the FDR 0.05 threshold.
Figure 2. Spearman’s correlation between mean read count and ASM/BW of the three genera with the highest read counts. † p-values that passed the FDR 0.05 threshold.
Ijerph 19 07464 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the study participants.
Table 1. Characteristics of the study participants.
MenWomen
n = 353n = 495
Mean ± SDMean ± SD
Age (years)50.0 ± 12.950.8 ± 12.8
Body composition
Body weight (kg)69.4 ± 11.354.7 ± 9.4
ASM (kg)24.1 ± 3.515.9 ± 1.9
ASM/BW (%)34.9 ± 2.429.4 ± 2.9
Nutrition
Protein intake (g/d)75.8 ± 25.864.4 ± 21.7
Fat intake (g/d)56.3 ± 19.550.6 ± 16.7
Carbohydrate intake (g/d)290.4 ± 85.9217.4 ± 64.4
Total dietary fiber intake (g/d)11.3 ± 4.610.3 ± 3.9
Alcohol intake (g/d)22.6 ± 26.45.4 ± 12.2
Lifestyle
Smoking (s/d)7.4 ± 13.62.3 ± 7.9
Physical activity (min/wk)52.8 ± 149.235.7 ± 103.6
Sleep time (min/d)419.1 ± 64.3400.6 ± 64.5
Habitual medicine use (No, %)194 (55.0)245 (49.5)
         (Yes, %)159 (45.0)250 (50.5)
All values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation unless indicated otherwise. There were 20 deficiencies in physical activity. Abbreviations: SD: standard deviation, ASM = appendicular skeletal muscle mass, ASM/BW (%) = appendicular skeletal muscle mass/body weight × 100, g/d: grams per day, s/d: sticks per day, min/wk: minutes per week, min/d: minutes per day.
Table
Table 2. Gut microbiota composition.
Table 2. Gut microbiota composition.
Men (n = 353)Women (n = 495)p-Value
Mean ± SDMean ± SD
Phylum
Firmicutes10442.9 ± 3334.010986.7 ± 3103.60.014
Bacteroidetes6324.0 ± 3264.85802.2 ± 2645.70.056
Actinobacteria2214.3 ± 1944.52232.3 ± 1813.70.782
Proteobacteria632.1 ± 873.4460.7 ± 560.7<0.001
Genera
B_Bacteroides3663.8 ± 2595.03993.9 ± 2442.80.014
F_Blautia1550.8 ± 937.91658.4 ± 1001.20.063
A_Bifidobacterium1498.5 ± 1685.81619.7 ± 1609.30.189
F_Fusicatenibacter521.1 ± 510.5536.1 ± 556.40.707
B_Parabacteroides420.2 ± 597.9437.1 ± 509.90.019
F_Gemmiger345.3 ± 400.9461.1 ± 443.4<0.001
F_Ruminococcus2343.2 ± 391.6341.0 ± 384.80.500
F_Dorea203.0 ± 184.7177.1 ± 180.10.009
F_Clostridium XlVa145.6 ± 140.5170.7 ± 153.00.002
F_Clostridium IV100.8 ± 184.9178.5 ± 309.5<0.001
F_Holdemanella147.0 ± 306.3120.3 ± 306.20.081
F_Clostridium XVIII122.1 ± 204.0130.8 ± 186.80.071
F_Coprococcus119.2 ± 155.7124.3 ± 176.30.429
P_Escherichia/Shigella91.5 ± 408.7110.1 ± 358.20.752
F_Dialister82.1 ± 165.8106.0 ± 193.30.001
F_Lactobacillus114.0 ± 540.140.5 ± 142.90.855
P_Parasutterella66.5 ± 135.977.1 ± 151.20.708
B_Paraprevotella63.2 ± 145.045.8 ± 125.50.002
F_Bacillus38.1 ± 119.741.1 ± 95.90.071
F_Clostridium XlVb40.7 ± 61.339.1 ± 72.80.964
B_Acidaminococcus42.6 ± 107.529.7 ± 101.90.001
F_Flavonifractor29.6 ± 39.541.6 ± 42.9<0.001
B_Barnesiella23.1 ± 62.135.9 ± 78.70.338
A_Eggerthella23.0 ± 43.236.6 ± 54.1<0.001
F_Odoribacter21.9 ± 47.630.1 ± 42.4<0.001
F_Erysipelotrichaceae_incertae_sedis20.1 ± 46.228.5 ± 84.70.195
P_Bilophila21.9 ± 37.927.2 ± 37.30.109
P_Enterobacter21.0 ± 146.65.8 ± 56.80.291
F_Terrisporobacter14.6 ± 57.314.0 ± 57.60.290
B_Butyricimonas12.1 ± 30.013.7 ± 26.30.158
A_Senegalimassilia12.7 ± 39.08.9 ± 30.4<0.001
B_Allisonella9.3 ± 17.55.3 ± 12.5<0.001
P_Raoultella6.7 ± 39.06.9 ± 67.90.800
F_Intestinimonas5.1 ± 13.88.6 ± 16.8<0.001
P_Succinivibrio8.2 ± 88.81.5 ± 23.00.219
P_Desulfovibrio4.4 ± 21.52.2 ± 12.60.389
A_Olsenella3.0 ± 12.01.9 ± 8.40.003
A_Gordonibacter1.6 ± 3.63.0 ± 4.9<0.001
A_Rothia2.4 ± 5.61.9 ± 3.70.131
F_Eisenbergiella1.0 ± 4.13.3 ± 11.6<0.001
P_Serratia0.0 ± 0.32.3 ± 48.20.410
F_Pseudoflavonifractor1.1 ± 8.71.0 ± 2.80.001
Only the human gut microbiota genera significantly associated with body composition in men and women are shown. Mean ± standard deviations are presented for continuous variables. p-values are presented for the differences between men and women. p < 0.05, Mann–Whitney U-test.
Table
Table 3. Spearman’s correlation between gut microbiota and body composition.
Table 3. Spearman’s correlation between gut microbiota and body composition.
Men (n = 353)Women (n = 353)
ASM/BW (%)ASM (kg)Body Weight (kg)ASM/BW (%)ASM (kg)Body Weight (kg)
rprprprprprp
B_Bacteroides0.0290.5840.0860.1050.0790.1400.0700.118−0.0650.147−0.0940.037
F_Blautia0.1720.001 †−0.0140.800−0.1000.0610.0610.172−0.0820.068−0.0940.036
A_Bifidobacterium0.2440.000 †0.1150.031−0.0170.7450.1050.0200.1250.0050.0120.792
F_Fusicatenibacter0.0070.8980.1090.0410.0740.165−0.090.0450.0300.5030.0940.036
B_Parabacteroides0.1080.0430.0050.933−0.0290.5830.1080.0160.0960.033−0.0030.939
F_Gemmiger0.1130.0330.0970.0690.0230.6670.0660.1440.0110.811−0.0350.442
F_Ruminococcus2−0.0820.1220.1170.0280.1370.010−0.0680.1290.090.0460.1210.007
F_Dorea−0.0110.8300.1030.0530.1020.056−0.1360.002 †0.0860.0540.1580.000 †
F_Clostridium XlVa−0.0390.4610.0460.3870.0620.2480.0660.145−0.0740.101−0.1060.018
F_Clostridium IV0.0320.5440.0180.738−0.0020.9650.0420.3490.1220.0070.0760.092
F_Holdemanella−0.0990.0620.0450.4040.1040.051−0.1110.0130.0210.6340.0770.087
F_Clostridium XVIII0.0660.219−0.0400.455−0.0610.251−0.0280.530−0.1080.016−0.0510.254
F_Coprococcus−0.0440.4130.0830.1200.1130.033−0.1180.0090.0280.5270.0930.039
P_Escherichia/Shigella−0.0480.3640.0050.9250.0310.5680.1220.0070.0220.622−0.0610.173
F_Dialister0.0320.5530.0500.3450.0360.505−0.1070.0170.0830.0660.1260.005
F_Lactobacillus−0.140.008−0.0350.5080.0500.353−0.0760.0930.0700.1180.0990.027
P_Parasutterella0.0240.6580.1150.0310.0880.0970.0140.7600.0680.1310.0410.362
B_Paraprevotella0.0130.812−0.0020.9720.0070.901−0.0990.0270.0490.2730.0940.036
F_Bacillus−0.0340.521−0.0530.319−0.0210.695−0.0430.342−0.1020.024−0.0300.512
F_Clostridium XlVb−0.1210.0230.0430.4200.0910.0890.0140.7580.0630.1640.0460.308
F_Acidaminococcus−0.0170.7570.0960.0710.1370.010−0.0880.0500.0240.5990.0730.103
F_Flavonifractor0.1380.0090.0610.255−0.0070.8910.1570.000 †0.0040.930−0.0890.047
B_Barnesiella−0.0330.5380.0320.5430.0410.4420.0040.9360.0960.0320.0800.077
A_Eggerthella0.1340.011−0.0100.851−0.0870.1020.1430.001 †−0.0120.793−0.0930.038
B_Odoribacter0.0140.7860.0780.1420.0600.2590.0860.0550.1360.0030.0520.245
F_Erysipelotrichaceae_incertae_sedis0.1100.0380.0140.792−0.0300.5720.1460.001 †−0.0060.902−0.1040.020
P_Bilophila0.0140.7870.0580.2800.0780.1440.0560.2110.1150.0100.0590.192
F_Eisenbergiella0.0490.3630.0190.717−0.0040.9350.1830.000 †−0.0250.585−0.1350.003
The correlated gut microbiota and body composition of men and women are shown. r: Spearman’s correlation coefficient. † p values that passed the FDR 0.05 threshold. Abbreviations: ASM (kg) = appendicular skeletal muscle mass, ASM/BW (%) = appendicular skeletal muscle mass/body weight × 100.
Table
Table 4. Association between gut microbiota and body composition.
Table 4. Association between gut microbiota and body composition.
Explanatory VariablesASM/BW (%)ASM (kg)Body Weight (kg)
(95%Cl)(95%Cl)(95%Cl)
MenF_Blautia0.0003 (0.0001, 0.0006) * −0.0017 (−0.0029, −0.0005) **
age−0.08 (−0.1, −0.06) *** −0.16 (−0.25, −0.07) **
sleep time −0.03 (−0.05, −0.01) **
fat intake 0.09 (0.03, 0.15) **
A_Bifidobacterium0.0001 (0.00001, 0.0003) *
age−0.08 (−0.1, −0.06) ***
WomenF_Dorea−0.0016 (−0.0029, −0.0003) * 0.0056 (0.001, 0.0102) *
age−0.11 (−0.13, −0.09) ***
F_Flavonifractor −0.0056 (−0.0094, −0.0018) **−0.0271 (−0.0463, −0.0079) **
age −0.06 (−0.08, −0.05) ***
A_Eggerthella −0.0044 (−0.0073, −0.0015) **−0.0207 (−0.0358, −0.0055) **
age −0.062 (−0.07, −0.05) ***
F_Erysipelotrichaceae_incertae_sedis −0.0022 (−0.0041, −0.0004) *
age −0.06 (−0.07, −0.05) ***
F_Eisenbergiella0.0209 (0.0011, 0.0407) * −0.0769 (−0.1481, −0.0057) *
age−0.113 (−0.132, −0.094) ***
total fiber0.063 (0.002, 0.125) *
Abbreviations: F, Firmicutes; A, Actinobacteria; β, standardized regression; Cl, Confidence interval. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sugimura, Y.; Kanda, A.; Sawada, K.; Wai, K.M.; Tanabu, A.; Ozato, N.; Midorikawa, T.; Hisada, T.; Nakaji, S.; Ihara, K. Association between Gut Microbiota and Body Composition in Japanese General Population: A Focus on Gut Microbiota and Skeletal Muscle. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127464

AMA Style

Sugimura Y, Kanda A, Sawada K, Wai KM, Tanabu A, Ozato N, Midorikawa T, Hisada T, Nakaji S, Ihara K. Association between Gut Microbiota and Body Composition in Japanese General Population: A Focus on Gut Microbiota and Skeletal Muscle. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(12):7464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127464

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sugimura, Yoshikuni, Akira Kanda, Kaori Sawada, Kyi Mar Wai, Asano Tanabu, Naoki Ozato, Tatsuyuki Midorikawa, Takayoshi Hisada, Shigeyuki Nakaji, and Kazushige Ihara. 2022. "Association between Gut Microbiota and Body Composition in Japanese General Population: A Focus on Gut Microbiota and Skeletal Muscle" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 12: 7464. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19127464

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop