Evidence Hub

Functional Equivalence and Conserved Sexual Dimorphism in the Gut Microbiome: A Cross-Species Meta-analysis

Jorge Luis Gutiérrez-Ávila, Gabriel Alfonso Gutiérrez-Rebolledo, Rodolfo Gamaliel Avila-Bonilla, María Elena Sánchez Pardo

Journal of Molecular Evolution, 2026

243 participants

Abstract

The murine model is a standard system in translational microbiome research, yet its functional equivalence to the human microbiome remains debated. To evaluate its translational validity, we conducted a comparative whole-genome shotgun (WGS) metagenomic meta-analysis, integrating an initial retrieval of 520 datasets from 5 independent cohorts (BioProjects) across Homo sapiens (n = 202), Mus musculus (n = 75), and Drosophila melanogaster (n = 243) samples. Taxonomic and functional profiles were evaluated using strict bioinformatic quality control and batch-effect mitigation. Taxonomic profiling revealed pronounced divergence driven by host-specific ecological constraints and filtering. However, metabolic reconstruction demonstrated substantial functional equivalence, supporting the functional redundancy hypothesis for core mammalian metabolic circuits. We also noted a methodological vulnerability in our dataset: a low-depth murine sample clustered with invertebrate profiles, suggesting that technical noise or insufficient depth might artificially compress mammalian functional diversity. Comparative analysis identified sex-biased metabolic pathways conserved across mammalian hosts. Specifically, we observed a consistent enrichment of steroid metabolism in females and mineralocorticoid regulation in males. These findings indicate that functional conservation between humans and mice is modular rather than global. Consequently, the translational value of the murine model lies in…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 243 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free