Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
Gut microbiome and human health: Exploring how the probiotic genus Lactobacillus modulate immune responses
Rastogi S, Singh A.. Frontiers in pharmacology, 2022-10-24
Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet
The highest density of microbes resides in human gastrointestinal tract, known as "Gut microbiome". Of note, the members of the genus Lactobacillus that belong to phyla Firmicutes are the most important probiotic bacteria of the gut microbiome. These gut-residing Lactobacillus species not only communicate with each other but also with the gut epithelial lining to balance the gut barrier integrity, mucosal barrier defence and ameliorate the host immune responses. The human body suffers from several inflammatory diseases affecting the gut, lungs, heart, bone or neural tissues. Mounting evidence supports the significant role of Lactobacillus spp. and their components (such as metabolites, peptidoglycans, and/or surface proteins) in modulatingimmune responses, primarily through exchange of immunological signals between gastrointestinal tract and distant organs. This bidirectional crosstalk which is mediated by Lactobacillus spp. promotes anti-inflammatory response, thereby supporting the improvement of symptoms pertaining to asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), neuroinflammatory diseases (such as multiple sclerosis, alzheimer's disease, parkinson's disease), cardiovascular diseases, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and chronic infections in patients. The metabolic disorders, obesity and diabetes are characterized by a low-grade inflammation. Genus Lactobacillus alleviates metabolic disorders by regulating the oxidative stress response and inflammatory pathways. Osteoporosis is also associated with bone inflammation and resorption. The Lactobacillus spp. and their metabolites act as powerful immune cell controllers and exhibit a regulatory role in bone resorption and formation, supporting bone health. Thus, this review demonstrated the mechanisms and summarized the evidence of the benefit of Lactobacillus spp. in alleviating inflammatory diseases pertaining to different organs from animal and clinical trials. The present narrative review explores in detail the complex interactions between the gut-dwelling Lactobacillus spp. and the immune components in distant organs to promote host's health.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Rastogi, S., & Singh, A. (2022). Gut microbiome and human health: Exploring how the probiotic genus Lactobacillus modulate immune responses. Frontiers in pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1042189
Vancouver
Rastogi S, Singh A. Gut microbiome and human health: Exploring how the probiotic genus Lactobacillus modulate immune responses. Frontiers in pharmacology. 2022. doi:10.3389/fphar.2022.1042189. PMID: 36353491.
BibTeX
@article{rastogi2022-36353491,
author = {Rastogi, S. and Singh, A.},
title = {{Gut microbiome and human health: Exploring how the probiotic genus Lactobacillus modulate immune responses}},
journal = {Frontiers in pharmacology},
year = {2022},
doi = {10.3389/fphar.2022.1042189},
pmid = {36353491},
url = {https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.1042189}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Mounting evidence supports the significant role of Lactobacillus spp. and their components (such as metabolites, peptidoglycans, and/or surface proteins) in modulatingimmune responses, primarily through exchange of immunological signals between gastrointestinal tract and distant organs.
- Osteoporosis is also associated with bone inflammation and resorption.
- Thus, this review demonstrated the mechanisms and summarized the evidence of the benefit of Lactobacillus spp. in alleviating inflammatory diseases pertaining to different organs from animal and clinical trials.
Study details
- Study designnarrative review
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 43/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 43 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Frontiers in pharmacology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | Design recorded as “narrative review”, which our rubric does not rank (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 3 / 5 | 2022 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 36353491) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 25 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 25 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 43 out of 100. |
| Total | 43 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Disease mechanisms
Also tagged “dysbiosis”
173 studies in the library carry the topic tag “dysbiosis”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 173 tagged studies.