The effect of domestication on the gut microbiota has been revealed

With the domestication of animal species, numerous lifestyle changes occurred, related to diet, the environment, and social interactions. These factors have inevitably shaped the gut microbiota. According to a Harvard University study, domestication and industrialization—though fundamentally different processes—have had a similar impact on the microbiota of both animals and humans, likely through shared ecological changes.   Industrialization and the domestication of species have brought about profound changes intrinsic to the lifestyles of both animals and humans. The environment and diet have changed, and social interactions have been disrupted. These transformations have had numerous consequences, including upheavals in the gut microbiota. The microorganisms that make up the gut microbiota actively participate in many bodily functions, including digestion, metabolism, and immunity. Now considered a key component of the body, the gut microbiota plays a decisive role in human health. While the composition of the gut microbiota is unique to each individual and evolves throughout life, its balance is essential for health. Many bacteria are considered beneficial, but others, on the contrary, are harmful. Much of our current understanding of the gut microbiota comes from animal studies, particularly in domestic mice, which have gut bacteria that are very different from those of their wild counterparts. The reasons for this difference are unknown: it may be due to domestication itself, the associated lifestyle, or some entirely different cause. Previous studies had already examined pairs of wild and domesticated animals, such as pigs and wild boars or dogs and wolves. However, research on isolated pairs does not allow us to identify the factors responsible for changes in the microbiota of domesticated animals in general. Researchers at Harvard University therefore sequenced and compared microbial DNA in the feces of eighteen related species of domestic and wild mammals. The results show that the effect of domestication is universal. Leaving the natural wild state changes the gut microbiota in a similar way, regardless of the animal species involved. Diet appears to be largely responsible for these changes. By swapping the diets of domesticated and wild pairs, it is possible to reverse the gut bacteria populations. The microbiota of domesticated species becomes more similar to that of their wild counterparts, and vice versa. And this holds true for humans and chimpanzees as well. The gut microbial communities of individuals from industrialized populations share more similarities with those of domesticated animals than with the microorganisms found in humans or chimpanzees from non-industrialized populations. Industrialization and domestication, although fundamentally different events, appear to have had similar effects on the gut microbiota, likely through shared ecological and environmental changes. Given this parallel between domestication and industrialization, insights gained from domestic/wild animal pairs could inform research on the human gut microbiota. These findings highlight both the usefulness and the limitations of domestic animal models, which should be supplemented by studies on wild animals to investigate the coevolution between host and microbial population, with potential benefits for the health and animal welfare of both animals and humans.