Baby’s First Bacteria Depend on Birth Route

C-section newborns may harbor fewer helpful microbes than infants born vaginally

June 22, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (21)

By Rachel Ehrenberg, Science News

It’s the journey, not the destination,that determines the quality of bacteria a newborn encounters in life’s first moments.

A new survey finds that babies born via cesarean section had markedly different bacteria on their skin, noses mouths and rectums than babies born vaginally. The research adds to evidence that babies born via C-section may miss out on beneficial bacteria passed on by their mothers.

 “We know from lots and lots of other ecosystems that how you set up the house has a real impact for all the later guests,” says medical microbiologist David Relman of the Stanford University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study.

Previous research suggests that babies born via C-section are more likely to develop allergies, asthma and other immune system–related troubles than are babies born the traditional way. The new study, to be published online the week of June 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, offers a detailed look at the early stages of the body’s colonization by microbes, critters that shape the developing immune system, help extract nutrients from food and keep harmful microbes at bay.

Babies born vaginally were colonized predominantly by Lactobacillus, microbes that aid in milk digestion, the research team from the University of Puerto Rico, the University of Colorado in Boulder and two Venezuelan institutes report. The C-section babies were colonized by a mixture of potentially nasty bacteria typically found on the skin and in hospitals, such as Staphylococcus and Acinetobacter.

The new work may improve understanding of the early immune system, says Gary Huffnagle of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. While C-sections can be lifesaving in some cases, the procedure appears to shift a baby’s first bacterial community. A better understanding of this early colonization, which is also influenced by events such as breast-feeding, may lead to medical practices for establishing healthy bacterial colonization.

“This isn’t damning the C-section, but it may be important to make sure your child gets a mouthful of vaginal material,” says Huffnagle.

The study included nine women and their 10 newborns (including one set of twins) born at the Puerto Ayacucho Hospital in the state of Amazonas, Venezuela. The mothers’ skin, mouths and vaginas were sampled an hour before delivery. Babies’ mouths and skin were swabbed immediately after birth, and their rectums were swabbed after their first bowel movement. DNA analysis revealed that the four babies born vaginally carried bacterial populations that matched those of their mothers’ vaginas, while the C-section babies had a more generic mixture of skin bacteria, similar to that found on the skin of all the moms.

“The vaginal birth was like a fingerprint of mom,” says study coauthor María Domínguez-Bello of the University of Puerto Rico in San Juan.

First-comers to the body are critical for establishing the microbial scene, says pediatrician Josef Neu of the University of Florida in Gainesville. “It’s like a garden where few, if any, seeds have been planted. If you push in one direction you might get a lot of weeds, a lack of diversity,” Neu says. “That can be associated with immune system problems.”

Some work suggests colonization may begin even earlier. While the paradigm has been that babies are sterile until birth, Neu’s recent work found a microbial community already dwelling in the first poop of some babies born prematurely. While a baby is in the uterus, it typically swallows 400 to 500 milliliters of amniotic fluid, which may harbor some of the mother’s microbes, Neu speculates.

---

 Follow U.S. News Science on Twitter.

Tags:
birth,
infants,
bacteria

Reader Comments Read all comments (21)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

It's such an interesting topic. I'm particularly interested because of the fact that I had my daughter by the "age-old" method, no drugs, no intervention. After breastfeeding for two weeks, I got mastitis, was put on antibiotics, and via the breastmilk, inadvertently passed on the antibiotics to my two week old child. I wondered why I couldn't get rid of her "nappy rash" using every method under the sun, and after multiple trips to the doctor who told me to "persist", the rash was identified by a nurse -whose house we went to for a social event- as THRUSH. We then had to put our child on a course of cortisone cream, and the rash radically disappeared. We were SO upset. Now, as a result, we're convinced that the imbalance in the gut flora from infancy has led to ezcema, which we now control through complete eradication of milk and milk-products (such as ice-cream and cream) from the diet. Yet, yoghurt is fine. As is cheese.

Why does this relate to the above topic??

Well, my sister had a C-section, has given her child antibiotics, has had her child immunised conventionally, and there are absolutely no issues with her child's health.

I think there are so many factors that contribute to a child's wellbeing. I believe that I did everything right, and therefore, I can pinpoint that antibiotics course and the subsequent cortisone as the only non-natural type of intervention my child has ever had. Yet, the anomaly exists because my sister did the total opposite - including formula feeding - and there are no apparent health issues.

I think that this study needs to be investigated further, and I agree that a much larger sample population from across multiple socio-economic demographics should be investigated. I think contributors such as inheritance need to be considered too.

I really believe that there are reasons that the body has been created to function the way that it does - across all areas. Naturopathy is vastly under-rated, and I believe that modern life has removed us from natural symbiosis with the planet, from birth to death. I also believe that it's a systemic issue - with political factors that contribute too. The midwife has been ignored for too long, the hospital systems (birthing wards) have been mechanised, risk-averse-modelled and time regulated, women are being told that they are unable to birth (for example the story below where a woman was told that her child's skull would be crushed by passing through her pelvis. - That's why the skull is soft and made up of plates that move and flex, and the pelvis has cartilage that softens so that the pelvis can widen enough to pass the baby's head through during birth.) And the list goes on.

We have so much to learn about ourselves, and the place we can learn is from time-old practices - think developing world, and indigenous cultures...

AffirmativeFeminine of NY 3:50AM February 19, 2013

''The study included nine women and their 10 newborns (including one set of twins) born at the Puerto Ayacucho Hospital in the state of Amazonas, Venezuela.'' This is not a big enough sample polulation to reach any conclusion.

Druik of FL 11:02PM May 24, 2012

So... rub the baby all over with yogurt and kefir? As the grandmother of two C-section babies whose mother could not take care of them, much less breastfeed them, due to mental illness, that's what I did with the second. There's no harm in it and possibly a lot of good. If you're interested in the subject, The Gut and Psychology Syndrome by Dr. Campbell-McBride is a must-read.

Odddlycrunchy of NY 12:07PM February 03, 2012

National Science Foundation

NSF

Hydrogen Gas in the Universe

Researcher believes it is key ingredient to Universe.

Chemistry and Clouds

Researchers look at water droplets and chemical reactions.

Learning and Play

Researcher studies children's unstructured playtime.

advertisement

Science Discoveries

Science Discoveries

iTunes icon RSS icon

advertisement