MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296106929 · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.885588

Human milk microbiome is shaped by breastfeeding practices

2022· article· en· W4296106929 on OpenAlexafffund
Lilian Lopez Leyva, Emmanuel González, Noel W. Solomons, Kristine G. Koski

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Microbiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsMcGill Genome CentreMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConsejo Mexiquense de Ciencia y TecnologíaMcGill University
KeywordsFirmicutesBacteroidetesLactationBreastfeedingActinobacteriaBiologyProteobacteriaAbundance (ecology)MicrobiomeEcologyMedicinePregnancyBacteriaPediatricsBioinformatics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is evidence that breastfeeding practices may impact the milk microbiota diversity and differential abundance at the genera level; however, the possibility that distinct feeding practices, such as exclusive (EBF) and non-exclusive breastfeeding (non-EBF), might alter the milk microbiome at the species level has not been explored. This cross-sectional study analyzed the milk microbiome of 64 Mam-Mayan indigenous mothers from San Juan Ostuncalco in Guatemala. Two breastfeeding practices [exclusive (EBF) vs non-exclusive (non-EBF)] were analyzed at two stages of lactation [early (5–46 days post-partum) vs late (109–184 days post-partum)]. EBF was defined as offering only human milk and non-EBF was defined as feeding the infant herbal teas (agüitas) and/or complementary foods while continuing to breastfeed. Results identified four clusters with distinct microbial communities that segregated bacterial species by both breastfeeding practices and stage of lactation. Comparison among these clusters identified several notable patterns. First, during EBF, the microbiome differed by stage of lactation where there was a shift in differential abundance from Actinobacteria and Firmicutes in early to Bacteroidetes and Proteobacteria species in late lactation. Second, a similar comparison between non-EBF mothers by stage of lactation also identified a higher differential abundance of Actinobacteria and Firmicutes species in early lactation, but only Proteobacteria and not Bacteroidetes in late lactation, indicating a further shift in the milk microbial ecosystem with fewer oral bacteria present in late lactation. Third, comparisons between EBF and non-EBF mothers at both early and late lactation showed that mothers who exclusively breastfed had more differentially abundant species in early (11 vs 1) and late (13 vs 2) lactation. Fourth, EBF at early and late lactation had more commensal and lactic acid bacteria, including Lactobacillus gasseri, Granulicatella elegans, Streptococcus mitis, and Streptococcus parasanguinis, compared to those who did not exclusively breastfeed. Collectively, these results show that EBF has more differentially abundant bacteria, including commensal and lactic acid bacteria, and that the addition of agüitas (herbal teas) and/or complementary foods modify the milk microbiome composition by reducing the oral bacteria and introducing more environmentally sourced bacteria to the ecosystem.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.260 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Microbiology→Same topicGut microbiota and health→French-language works237,207→