Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 24, 2026.

Elevated Fecal pH Indicates a Profound Change in the Breastfed Infant Gut Microbiome Due to Reduction of Bifidobacterium over the Past Century

Bethany M. Henrick, Andra A. Hutton, Michelle C. Palumbo and 5 more

mSphere · 2018 · CC BY

doi:10.1128/msphere.00041-18

Abstract

Historically, Bifidobacterium species were reported as abundant in the breastfed infant gut. However, recent studies in resource-rich countries show an increased abundance of taxa regarded as signatures of dysbiosis.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 24, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

IMPLICATIONS

There is clear evidence that the infant gut microbiome has important long-term health implications, but changing the gut microbiome is challenging. We recently observed changes in fecal pH resulting from Bifidobacterium infantis EVC001 colonization owing to this bacterium’s selective and acidic fermentation of human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), which was associated with a reduction in taxa that are signatures of dysbiosis. Although remodeling of the gut microbiome in breastfed infants fed B. infantis EVC001 improved gut function and ecosystem productivity, questions remain about whether differences in Bifidobacterium abundance and species between resource-rich and resource-poor countries are due to host genetics, geography, medical interventions, and/or demographics. Here, we show evidence for an increase in infant fecal pH over the past century, corresponding to an observed reduction of Bifidobacterium, the keystone infant gut symbiont. This may have implications for epidemic human immunological dysfunctions as perturbations in microbiota composition can lead to chronic inflammation and immune-mediated diseases.

EARLY DESCRIPTIONS OF THE INFANT MICROBIOME

In 1913, Logan described the breastfed infant gut microbiome as being an “almost pure culture” of a Gram-positive, acidiphilic “Bacillus bifidus” (Bifidobacterium). This early microscopic characterization of diet-dependent infant microbiomes is in stark contrast to modern reports from resource-rich countries of unstable and highly diverse microbiomes. Recent comparisons of the infant gut microbiome from genetically similar but demographically diverse backgrounds indicated that Bifidobacterium was more abundant among infants from resource-poor locations, consistent with infants in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. These differences are also notable at the species level, in that the Bifidobacterium in the feces of infants in Gambia and Bangladesh were shown to be predominantly Bifidobacterium longum subsp. infantis (B. infantis), whereas the Bifidobacterium species in stool samples from infants in the United States and Europe consisted predominantly of B. breve and B. longum subsp. longum (B. longum). Substantial differences in Bifidobacterium composition and abundance among populations have led to questions as to whether medical interventions (e.g., caesarean section, antibiotic use) and formula feeding, or geographic and genetic differences alone, results in these differences.

FECAL pH IN BREASTFED INFANTS IS DRIVEN BY BIFIDOBACTERIUM ABUNDANCE

Recently, we found that breastfed infants fed B. infantis EVC001 developed a stable population of this strain and experienced substantial changes in intestinal biochemistry. Notably, fermentation of HMOs resulted in the increased production of lactate and acetate, which was markedly lower in infants who lacked populations of Bifidobacterium or were colonized by other Bifidobacterium species. This was concurrent with significantly higher fecal excretion of HMOs than that of infants fed B. infantis. Using data published by Frese et al., we compared fecal pH measurements with bacterial taxa by using a Spearman correlation. Importantly, only one family was significantly associated with reduced fecal pH, i.e., Bifidobacteriaceae (P < 0.0004), indicating that while other bacteria can consume HMOs (e.g., Bacteroidaceae), only members of the family Bifidobacteriaceae convert them to acidic end products with a meaningful effect on fecal pH (Fig. 1). This corroborates previous findings linking infant fecal pH to Bifidobacteriaceae abundance. This is a critical connection because although other bacteria (e.g., Lactobacillus, Clostridiaceae, Lachnospiraceae, and Ruminococcaceae) may produce organic acids during fermentation (e.g., lactate, acetate, butyrate, propionate), they were not significantly associated with the acidic fecal pH in breastfed infants. Infants colonized by B. infantis EVC001 had negligible levels of HMOs in their feces and an average fecal pH of 5.15, whereas infants lacking B. infantis had 10-fold higher levels of HMOs in their feces and a fecal pH of 5.97. Further, quantitative PCR confirmed the association of low fecal pH with an increased abundance of Bifidobacterium, in agreement with another study.

INFANT FECAL pH CHANGES OVER GENERATIONS

Early 1900s reports suggest a rapid reduction in the fecal pH of breastfed infants during the first week after birth. Gyorgy and others identified a “bifidus factor,” whose abundance contributed to this reduction in fecal pH and an increase in Bifidobacterium in infant feces. This “bifidus factor” (now collectively described as HMOs), is selectively consumed by infant-associated Bifidobacterium; therefore, pH may be a reliable proxy of the breastfed infant gut microbiome. Infant fecal pH reported over the past century is independent of microbiological methodologies (e.g., microscopic examination versus 16S rRNA gene sequencing); thus, we speculated that historical reports of fecal pH could be used as an indirect measure of Bifidobacterium abundance.

Fourteen peer-reviewed studies published between 1926 and 2017 and reporting 312 measurements from healthy, breastfed infants were found and included. A least-squares linear regression model revealed a strong positive trend with a high association between the publication year and fecal pH (slope = 0.014, adjusted r2 = 0.61; Fig. 2). These data suggest that the mean fecal pH of breastfed infants has increased from about 5.0 in 1926 to 6.5 in recent years (Table 1). Given our previous finding linking fecal pH to Bifidobacterium abundance and reported differences in Bifidobacterium abundance across populations today, this longitudinal change is consistent with a generational loss of Bifidobacterium in developed countries, most notably among infants born after 1980.

FACTORS LEADING TO THIS CHANGE IN INFANT FECAL pH

The absence of Bifidobacterium as a keystone symbiont in infants may explain the increase in fecal pH and can be linked to unintended historical and generational consequences of certain interventions that have otherwise significantly improved infant and maternal health. First, a rapid increase in the use of human milk replacers (e.g., evaporated milk and infant formula), which lack the bacterial selectivity of human milk, beginning in the 1920s may have resulted in the inability to foster high levels of specialized infant-associated Bifidobacterium in the infant gut among nonbreastfed infants. This may also explain why B. infantis, which is highly specialized for the consumption of HMOs, is now exceptionally rare among infants in the United States and Europe, whereas B. longum and B. breve, which can access mucin glycans and plant carbohydrates, remain relatively abundant. Second, increased caesarean section delivery since the 1980s further limits the natural fecal-oral transfer of Bifidobacterium from mother to infant associated with vaginal delivery. Third, antibiotic use has become increasingly common during labor and many infant-associated species of bifidobacteria are sensitive to antibiotics. For example, the use of antibiotics to prevent the transmission of group B Streptococcus during delivery and the use of caesarean section as the mode of delivery are both critically important interventions in public health but can alter the acquisition of gut microbes by the infant that begins at birth. Together, these barriers may have played a role in the loss of Bifidobacterium over time and across generations, which is reflected in a higher fecal pH.

ARE THERE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS TO THIS CHANGE?

There is clear evidence that the infant gut microbiome has important long-term health implications, and perturbations of the microbiome composition may lead to chronic inflammation and immune-mediated diseases. These data highlight an increase in infant intestinal dysbiosis. Thus, the loss of Bifidobacterium and the profound change in the gut environment, as measured by fecal pH, present a compelling explanation for the increased incidence of allergic and autoimmune diseases observed in resource-rich nations. Longitudinal analyses studies comparing the incidence of autoimmune disorders with restored Bifidobacterium populations in the infant gut microbiome are essential to establish the role of Bifidobacterium in early immune development in the infant gut.

References 33

  1. 1.

    Logan WR 1913 The intestinal flora of infants and young children. J Pathol 18:527–551. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1002/path.1700180154

  2. 2.

    Tannock GW, Lee PS, Wong KH, Lawley B 2016 Why don’t all infants have bifidobacteria in their stool? Front Microbiol 7:834. doi:.

    Not in our library10.3389/fmicb.2016.00834

  3. 3.

    Vatanen T, Kostic AD, d’Hennezel E, Siljander H, Franzosa EA, Yassour M, Kolde R, Vlamakis H, Arthur TD, Hämäläinen A-M, Peet A, Tillmann V, Uibo R, Mokurov S, Dorshakova N, Ilonen J, Virtanen SM, Szabo SJ, Porter JA, Lähdesmäki H, Huttenhower C, Gevers D, Cullen TW, Knip M, DIABIMMUNE Study Group, Xavier RJ 2016 Variation in microbiome LPS immunogenicity contributes to autoimmunity in humans. Cell 165:842–853. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2016.04.007

  4. 4.

    Zivkovic AM, German JB, Lebrilla CB, Mills DA 2011 Human milk glycobiome and its impact on the infant gastrointestinal microbiota. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:4653–4658. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1000083107

  5. 5.

    Huda MN, Lewis Z, Kalanetra KM, Rashid M, Ahmad SM, Raqib R, Qadri F, Underwood MA, Mills DA, Stephensen CB 2014 Stool microbiota and vaccine responses of infants. Pediatrics 134:e362–e372. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1542/peds.2013-3937

  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.

    Norton RC, Shohl AT 1926 The hydrogen ion concentration of the stools of the new-born infants. Am J Dis Child 32:183–191.

    Not in our library

  10. 10.

    Gyorgy P, Norris RF, Rose CS 1954 A variant of Lactobacillus bifidus requiring a special growth factor. Arch Biochem Biophys 48:193–201. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1016/0003-9861(54)90323-9

  11. 11.

    Pokusaeva K, Fitzgerald GF, van Sinderen D 2011 Carbohydrate metabolism in bifidobacteria. Genes Nutr 6:285–306. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1007/s12263-010-0206-6

  12. 12.
  13. 13.

    Duranti S, Lugli GA, Mancabelli L, Turroni F, Milani C, Mangifesta M, Ferrario C, Anzalone R, Viappiani A, van Sinderen D, Ventura M 2017 Prevalence of antibiotic resistance genes among human gut-derived bifidobacteria. Appl Environ Microbiol 83:e02894-16. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1128/aem.02894-16

  14. 14.

    Stearns JC, Simioni J, Gunn E, McDonald H, Holloway AC, Thabane L, Mousseau A, Schertzer JD, Ratcliffe EM, Rossi L, Surette MG, Morrison KM, Hutton EK 2017 Intrapartum antibiotics for GBS prophylaxis alter colonization patterns in the early infant gut microbiome of low risk infants. Sci Rep 7:16527. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41598-017-16606-9

  15. 15.

    Sommer F, Bäckhed F 2013 The gut microbiota—masters of host development and physiology. Nat Rev Microbiol 11:227–238. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrmicro2974

  16. 16.

    Knip M, Honkanen J 2017 Modulation of type 1 diabetes risk by the intestinal microbiome. Curr Diab Rep 17:105. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1007/s11892-017-0933-9

  17. 17.

    Knip M, Siljander H 2016 The role of the intestinal microbiota in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol 12:154–167. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1038/nrendo.2015.218

  18. 18.

    Arrieta MC, Stiemsma LT, Dimitriu PA, Thorson L, Russell S, Yurist-Doutsch S, Kuzeljevic B, Gold MJ, Britton HM, Lefebvre DL, Subbarao P, Mandhane P, Becker A, McNagny KM, Sears MR, Kollmann T, CHILD Study, Mohn WW, Turvey SE, Finlay BB 2015 Early infancy microbial and metabolic alterations affect risk of childhood asthma. Sci Transl Med 7:307ra152. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1126/scitranslmed.aab2271

  19. 19.

    Eitel H 1917 Die wahre Reaktion der Stühle gesunder Säuglinge bei verschiedener Ernährung. Z Kinderheilkd 16:13–62. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1007/bf02222668

  20. 20.

    Freudenberg E, Heller O 1921 Über Darmgärung II. Über den Einfluss von Eiweiss und Kalk auf die Gärung. Jahresber Kinderheilkd 95:314.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.

    Tisdall FF 1924 Studies of the acidity (hydrogen ion concentration) of infants’ stools. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 27:312–331. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1001/archpedi.1924.01920100017003

  22. 22.

    Uldall C 1942 Comparative studies on feces of healthy breast, bottle and spoon-fed infants. Acta Paediatr 29:339–366. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1651-2227.1942.tb16393.x

  23. 23.

    Barbero GJ, Runge G, Fischer D, Crawford MN, Torres FE, Gyorgy P 1952 Investigations on the bacterial flora, pH, and sugar content in the intestinal tract of infants. J Pediatr 40:152–163. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0022-3476(52)80176-3

  24. 24.

    Pratt AG, Read WT 1955 Influence of type of feeding on pH of stool, pH of skin, and incidence of perianal dermatitis in the newborn infant. J Pediatr 46:539–543. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0022-3476(55)80259-4

  25. 25.

    Nagai T 1960 Clinical and experimental studies of ethyl-N-acetyl-d-glucosamine as bifidus factor. Pediatr Int 3:83–102. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1111/j.1442-200x.1960.tb01617.x

  26. 26.

    Bullen CL, Willis AT 1971 Resistance of the breast-fed infant to gastroenteritis. Br Med J iii:338–343.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.3.5770.338

  27. 27.

    Bullen CL, Tearle PV, Stewart MG 1977 The effect of “humanised” milks and supplemented breast feeding on the faecal flora of infants. J Med Microbiol 10:403–413. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1099/00222615-10-4-403

  28. 28.

    Simhon A, Douglas JR, Drasar BS, Soothill JF 1982 Effect of feeding on infants’ faecal flora. Arch Dis Child 57:54–58.

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    Balmer SE, Wharton BA 1989 Diet and faecal flora in the newborn: breast milk and infant formula. Arch Dis Child 64:1672–1677. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1136/adc.64.12.1672

  30. 30.

    Ogawa K, Ben RA, Pons S, de Paolo MI, Bustos Fernández L 1992 Volatile fatty acids, lactic acid, and pH in the stools of breast-fed and bottle-fed infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 15:248–252. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1097/00005176-199210000-00004

  31. 31.

    Knol J, Scholtens P, Kafka C, Steenbakkers J, Gro S, Helm K, Klarczyk M, Schöpfer H, Böckler HM, Wells J 2005 Colon microflora in infants fed formula with galacto- and fructo-oligosaccharides: more like breast-fed infants. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 40:36–42. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1097/00005176-200501000-00007

  32. 32.

    Mohan R, Koebnick C, Schildt J, Mueller M, Radke M, Blaut M 2008 Effects of Bifidobacterium lactis Bb12 supplementation on body weight, fecal pH, acetate, lactate, calprotectin, and IgA in preterm infants. Pediatr Res 64:418–422. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1203/pdr.0b013e318181b7fa

  33. 33.

    Holscher HD, Faust KL, Czerkies LA, Litov R, Ziegler EE, Lessin H, Hatch T, Sun S, Tappenden KA 2012 Effects of prebiotic-containing infant formula on gastrointestinal tolerance and fecal microbiota in a randomized controlled trial. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr 36:95S–105S. doi:.

    Not in our library10.1177/0148607111430087

Cited by papers we hold 3

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.