Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar 6:10:458.
doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.00458. eCollection 2019.

The Effects of Unfermented and Fermented Cow and Sheep Milk on the Gut Microbiota

Affiliations

The Effects of Unfermented and Fermented Cow and Sheep Milk on the Gut Microbiota

Elizabeth A Rettedal et al. Front Microbiol. .

Abstract

A variety of fermented foods have been linked to improved human health, but their impacts on the gut microbiome have not been well characterized. Dairy products are one of the most popular fermented foods and are commonly consumed worldwide. One area we currently lack data on is how the process of fermentation changes the gut microbiota upon digestion. What is even less well characterized are the possible differences between cow and other mammals' milks. Our aim was to compare the impact of unfermented skim milk and fermented skim milk products (milk/yogurt) originating from two species (cow/sheep) on the gut microbiome using a rat model. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were fed a dairy-free diet supplemented with one of four treatment dairy drinks (cow milk, cow yogurt, sheep milk, sheep yogurt) for 2 weeks. The viable starter culture bacteria in the yogurts were depleted in this study to reduce their potential influence on gut bacterial communities. At the end of the study, cecal samples were collected and the bacterial community profiles determined via 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing. Fermentation status drove the composition of the bacterial communities to a greater extent than their animal origin. While overall community alpha diversity did not change among treatment groups, the abundance of a number of taxa differed. The cow milk supplemented treatment group was distinct, with a higher intragroup variability and a distinctive taxonomic composition. Collinsella aerofaciens was of particularly high abundance (9%) for this group. Taxa such as Firmicutes and Lactobacillus were found in higher abundance in communities of rats fed with milk, while Proteobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Parabacteroides were higher in yogurt fed rats. Collinsella was also found to be of higher abundance in both milk (vs. yogurt) and cows (vs. sheep). This research provides new insight into the effects of unfermented vs. fermented milk (yogurt) and animal origin on gut microbial composition in a healthy host. A number of differences in taxonomic abundance between treatment groups were observed. Most were associated with the effects of fermentation, but others the origin species, or in the case of cow milk, unique to the treatment group. Future studies focusing on understanding microbial metabolism and interactions, should help unravel what drives these differences.

Keywords: cecal microbiota; cow; fermentation; gut microbiome; sheep.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
A PCA plot of the differences in bacterial community composition between the four dairy drink treatment groups [CM, cow milk; CY, cow yogurt; SM, sheep milk; SY, sheep yogurt] as calculated using the Bray-Curtis index. The analysis was based on OTU-level taxonomic data.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Taxonomic graphs representing the (A) phylum and (B) family level bacterial communities (group average) found in each dairy drink treatment group [CM, cow milk; CY, cow yogurt; SM, sheep milk; SY, sheep yogurt].
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
A bar graph of the taxonomic groups indicated by LEfSe analysis to be the most likely to explain the differences between the four dairy drink treatment groups [CM, cow milk; CY, cow yogurt; SM, sheep milk; SY, sheep yogurt] (p < 0.05, LDA score ≥ 2). The bars represent the abundance of the taxa found in each treatment group. The LDA scores are listed on the right.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
A bar graph of the taxonomic groups indicated by LEfSe analysis to be the most likely to explain the differences between the product types (milk vs. yogurt) (p < 0.05, LDA score ≥ 2). The bars represent the abundance of the taxa found in each group. The LDA scores are listed on the right.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
A bar graph of the taxonomic groups indicated by LEfSe analysis to be the most likely to explain the differences in product origins (cow vs. sheep) (p < 0.05, LDA score ≥ 2). The bars represent the abundance of the taxa found in each group. The LDA scores are listed on the right.

References

    1. Adolfsson O., Meydani S. N., Russell R. M. (2004). Yogurt and gut function. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 80 245–256. 10.1093/ajcn/80.2.245 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alm L. (1982). Effect of fermentation on lactose, glucose, and galactose content in milk and suitability of fermented milk products for lactose intolerant individuals. J. Dairy Sci. 65 346–352. 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(82)82198-X - DOI - PubMed
    1. Altschul S. F., Gish W., Miller W., Myers E. W., Lipman D. J. (1990). Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215 403–410. 10.1016/S0022-2836(05)80360-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Atanasova J., Moncheva P., Ivanova I. (2014). Proteolytic and antimicrobial activity of lactic acid bacteria grown in goat milk. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 28 1073–1078. 10.1080/13102818.2014.971487 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Azcarate-Peril M. A., Ritter A. J., Savaiano D., Monteagudo-Mera A., Anderson C., Magness S. T., et al. (2017). Impact of short-chain galactooligosaccharides on the gut microbiome of lactose-intolerant individuals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114 E367–E375. 10.1073/pnas.1606722113 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources