Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
Gut Microbiota–Host Metabolic Networks in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathological Mechanisms to Modulation by Traditional Chinese Medicine
Chen J, Dong W, Chen Y, Jia S, Dong P, Han H.. Authorea Preprints, 2026-09-29
Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet
Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder characterized primarily by progressive cognitive impairment. Growing evidence suggests that gut–brain communication mediated by the gut microbiota and microbiota-related metabolic signals is closely associated with AD pathology. AD-related microbial alterations extend beyond changes in community composition and involve remodeling of microbial functions and host–microbiota co-metabolic networks. Microbiota-related signals, including short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), bile acids, tryptophan-derived metabolites, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), and lipopolysaccharide (LPS), may contribute to disease progression by affecting barrier homeostasis, immune and inflammatory responses, oxidative stress, and Aβ/tau proteostasis. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulas, single-herb Chinese medicines, and TCM-derived bioactive substances may simultaneously modulate microbial composition, metabolic functions, and multiple host pathological processes, thereby exhibiting multi-module and multi-node regulatory effects. This review summarizes AD-associated alterations in gut microbial metabolism and their potential pathological roles, with particular emphasis on how TCM and TCM-derived bioactive substances modulate SCFA metabolism, tryptophan and other aromatic amino acid metabolism, TMAO/LPS-related signaling, and bile acid and lipid metabolic networks, while also discussing current limitations in causal inference and clinical translation. On this basis, we propose a continuous functional validation framework linking “TCM and TCM-derived bioactive substances–microbial functions–key metabolites–host targets–AD pathological phenotypes.” Such a framework may help clarify the mechanisms by which TCM modulates host–microbiota co-metabolic networks in AD and provide a stronger basis for the clinical translation of TCM-based interventions.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Chen, J., Dong, W., Chen, Y., Jia, S., Dong, P., & Han, H. (2026). Gut Microbiota–Host Metabolic Networks in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathological Mechanisms to Modulation by Traditional Chinese Medicine. Authorea Preprints. https://doi.org/10.22541/authorea.15009570/v1
Vancouver
Chen J, Dong W, Chen Y, Jia S, Dong P, Han H. Gut Microbiota–Host Metabolic Networks in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathological Mechanisms to Modulation by Traditional Chinese Medicine. Authorea Preprints. 2026. doi:10.22541/authorea.15009570/v1.
BibTeX
@article{chen2026-fa59447e,
author = {Chen, J. and Dong, W. and Chen, Y. and Jia, S. and Dong, P. and Han, H.},
title = {{Gut Microbiota–Host Metabolic Networks in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathological Mechanisms to Modulation by Traditional Chinese Medicine}},
journal = {Authorea Preprints},
year = {2026},
doi = {10.22541/authorea.15009570/v1},
url = {https://doi.org/10.22541/authorea.15009570/v1}
}
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
- Growing evidence suggests that gut–brain communication mediated by the gut microbiota and microbiota-related metabolic signals is closely associated with AD pathology.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 16/100
Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. It scored 21 on the same rubric, but non-peer-reviewed sources are capped at 16, so it shows as 16. 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 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 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on, which is 21 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 2 / 10 | Tier 4 — not a peer-reviewed journal (Authorea Preprints) |
| Journal's citation record | 0 / 4 | Not a journal article, so the journal's record does not count |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 4 / 10 | Preprint — not yet peer-reviewed. Hosted on a preprint server. |
| How recent | 5 / 5 | 2026 — within 1 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 | 1 / 2 | Not in PubMed, but has a DOI |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 13 / 62 | Scored on 12 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 13 of the 62 points we could judge it on is 21 out of 100. |
| Total | 21 / 100 | Capped to 16 because this is not a peer-reviewed article. |
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 the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
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.