Table 1.
Diet compositions.
Fig 1.
Average mice weight gain for the three diets over the duration of behavioral testing.
The weights of the mice were determined every other day for the duration of testing. Values represent the mean weight in each group ± SEM, n = 16/group.
Fig 2.
Taxonomic distribution of the bacterial phyla.
The average relative distribution of the most abundant phyla is shown for mice fed control and RS diets are shown by each vertical bar. Bacterial phyla are as indicated on the right.
Fig 3.
p-values for phyla with significant changes (Kruskal-Wallis) in relative abundance within the feces for each diet over time.
Phyla with p-values >0.05 are given for comparison. Arrows indicate if members of the phyla are more (↑) or less (↓) abundant over the time course.
Fig 4.
p-values for the differences (Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests) in relative abundance of phyla.
Samples from feces (4A) and cecal contents (4B) were analyzed from weeks 1, 3, and 6 for each diet. Arrows indicate if members of the phyla are more (↑) or less (↓) abundant in pairwise comparisons.
Fig 5.
Taxonomic distribution of the bacterial classes.
The average relative distribution of the most abundant classes is shown for mice fed control and RS diets are shown by each vertical bar. Bacterial classes are as indicated on the right.
Fig 6.
p-values for the differences (Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests) in relative abundance of class.
Samples from feces (6A) and cecal contents (6B) were analyzed from weeks 1, 3, and 6 for each diet. Only those taxa with significant p-values are shown. Arrows indicate if members of the phyla are more (↑) or less (↓) abundant in pairwise comparisons.
Fig 7.
Taxonomic distribution of the bacterial genera.
The average relative distribution of the most abundant genera is shown for mice fed control and RS diets are shown by each vertical bar. Bacterial genera are as indicated on the right.
Fig 8.
p-values for the differences (Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon Rank Sum tests) in relative abundance of genus (or family).
Samples from feces (8A) and cecal contents (8B) were analyzed from weeks 1, 3, and 6 for each diet. Only those taxa with significant p-values are shown. Arrows indicate if members of the phyla are more (↑) or less (↓) abundant.
Fig 9.
Global effects of diet on mouse gut microbiota.
Unweighted UniFrac distance PCoA plots comparing three principal components are shown. Samples representing each diet and time point of collection are indicated by distinct symbols.
Fig 10.
Behavioral and locomotion tests.
10A. The number of entries to the open arm for the three groups. There were no significant differences detected between NCS and OS-HA7 or HA7 and OS-HA7, but there were significant differences between NCS and HA7. Values represent the mean number of entries to open arm in each group ± SEM, n = 16/group. *p<0.05. 10B. Time spent in the open arm for the three groups. There were no significant differences detected between NCS and OS-HA7, but there were significant differences between NCS and HA7 and OS-HA7 and HA7. Values represent the mean time spent in the open arm in each group ± SEM, n = 16/group. *p<0.05. 10C. Time spent in the closed arm for the three groups. There were no significant differences detected between NCS and OS-HA7, but there were significant differences between NCS and HA7 and OS-HA7 and HA7. Values represent the mean time spent in the closed arm in each group ± SEM, n = 16/group. *p<0.05. 10D. Overall locomotion of mice during the open field test (10D). Values represent the mean time spent in each quadrant in each group ± SEM, n = 16/group. *p<0.05. 10E. Overall locomotion of mice during the open field test (10E). Values represent the mean distance travelled ± SEM, n = 16/group.
Table 2.
Hormone profiles in murine hair according to diet group.