Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
Gut mycobiome and its interaction with diet, gut bacteria and alzheimer's disease markers in subjects with mild cognitive impairment: A pilot study
Nagpal R, Neth BJ, Wang S, Mishra SP, Craft S, Yadav H.. EBioMedicine, 2020-08-30
Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet
Background Recently, we reported that patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) harbor specific signature of bacteria in their gut and that a modified Mediterranean ketogenic diet (MMKD) improves Alzheimer's disease (AD) markers in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and the signatures of gut bacteria. However, other microbial population such as gut fungi (mycobiome) in relation to MCI/AD pathology, gut bacteria and diet remain unknown. Methods We measure gut mycobiome by sequencing of the fungal rRNA ITS1 gene in 17 older adults (11 MCI; 6 cognitively normal [CN]) in a single-center, randomized, double-blind, crossover pilot study, before and after 6 weeks intervention of MMKD and American Heart Association Diet (AHAD), and determine its correlation with AD markers in CSF and gut bacteria. Findings Compared to CN counterparts, patients with MCI have higher proportion of families Sclerotiniaceae, Phaffomyceteceae, Trichocomaceae, Cystofilobasidiaceae, Togniniaceae and genera Botrytis, Kazachstania, Phaeoacremonium and Cladosporium and lower abundance of Meyerozyma. Specific fungal taxa exhibit distinct correlation arrays with AD markers and gut bacteria in subjects with versus without MCI. MMKD induces broader effect on fungal diversity in subjects with MCI and increases Agaricus and Mrakia while decreasing Saccharomyces and Claviceps with differential response in subjects with or without MCI. Interpretation The study reveals MCI-specific mycobiome signatures and demonstrates that distinct diets modulate the mycobiome in association with AD markers and fungal-bacterial co-regulation networks in patients with MCI. The findings corroborate the notion of considering gut mycobiome as a unique factor that can affect cognitive health/AD by interacting with gut bacteria and diet and facilitate better understanding of the AD and related microbiome, using unique diet or microbiome modulators.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Nagpal, R., Neth, B. J., Wang, S., Mishra, S. P., Craft, S., & Yadav, H. (2020). Gut mycobiome and its interaction with diet, gut bacteria and alzheimer's disease markers in subjects with mild cognitive impairment: A pilot study. EBioMedicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102950
Vancouver
Nagpal R, Neth BJ, Wang S, Mishra SP, Craft S, Yadav H. Gut mycobiome and its interaction with diet, gut bacteria and alzheimer's disease markers in subjects with mild cognitive impairment: A pilot study. EBioMedicine. 2020. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102950. PMID: 32861197.
BibTeX
@article{nagpal2020-32861197,
author = {Nagpal, R. and Neth, B. J. and Wang, S. and Mishra, S. P. and Craft, S. and Yadav, H.},
title = {{Gut mycobiome and its interaction with diet, gut bacteria and alzheimer's disease markers in subjects with mild cognitive impairment: A pilot study}},
journal = {EBioMedicine},
year = {2020},
doi = {10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102950},
pmid = {32861197},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2020.102950}
}
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
- Findings Compared to CN counterparts, patients with MCI have higher proportion of families Sclerotiniaceae, Phaffomyceteceae, Trichocomaceae, Cystofilobasidiaceae, Togniniaceae and genera Botrytis, Kazachstania, Phaeoacremonium and Cladosporium and lower abundance of Meyerozyma.
- Specific fungal taxa exhibit distinct correlation arrays with AD markers and gut bacteria in subjects with versus without MCI.
Study details
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 48/100
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 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 48 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (EBioMedicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2020 — within 10 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 32861197) |
| Free to read | 2 / 2 | Free to read |
| Points | 28 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 28 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 48 out of 100. |
| Total | 48 / 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 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.