Home › Research › Disease mechanisms
Identification of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strains for gut microbiome-based intervention in Alzheimer's-type dementia
Atsushi Ueda, Shoji Shinkai, Hirotsugu Shiroma, Yu Taniguchi, Sayaka Tsuchida, Takahiro Kariya, Tomohiro Kawahara, Yodai Kobayashi et al.. Cell reports. Medicine, 2021-09-14
Topic: Gut, metabolism and diet
Evidence linking the gut-brain axis to Alzheimer's disease (AD) is accumulating, but the characteristics of causally important microbes are poorly understood. We perform a fecal microbiome analysis in healthy subjects and those with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and AD. We find that Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii) correlates with cognitive scores and decreases in the MCI group compared with the healthy group. Two isolated strains from the healthy group, live Fp360 and pasteurized Fp14, improve cognitive impairment in an AD mouse model. Whole-genome comparison of isolated strains reveals specific orthologs that are found only in the effective strains and are more abundant in the healthy group compared with the MCI group. Metabolome and RNA sequencing analyses of mouse brains provides mechanistic insights into the relationship between the efficacy of pasteurized Fp14, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial function. We conclude that F. prausnitzii strains with these specific orthologs are candidates for gut microbiome-based intervention in Alzheimer's-type dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Ueda, A., Shinkai, S., Shiroma, H., Taniguchi, Y., Tsuchida, S., Kariya, T., et al. (2021). Identification of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strains for gut microbiome-based intervention in Alzheimer's-type dementia. Cell reports. Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100398
Vancouver
Ueda A, Shinkai S, Shiroma H, Taniguchi Y, Tsuchida S, Kariya T, et al. Identification of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strains for gut microbiome-based intervention in Alzheimer's-type dementia. Cell reports. Medicine. 2021. doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100398. PMID: 34622235.
BibTeX
@article{ueda2021-34622235,
author = {Ueda, Atsushi and Shinkai, Shoji and Shiroma, Hirotsugu and Taniguchi, Yu and Tsuchida, Sayaka and Kariya, Takahiro and Kawahara, Tomohiro and Kobayashi, Yodai and others},
title = {{Identification of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strains for gut microbiome-based intervention in Alzheimer's-type dementia}},
journal = {Cell reports. Medicine},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100398},
pmid = {34622235},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100398}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- We find that Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii) correlates with cognitive scores and decreases in the MCI group compared with the healthy group.
- Whole-genome comparison of isolated strains reveals specific orthologs that are found only in the effective strains and are more abundant in the healthy group compared with the MCI group.
- We conclude that F. prausnitzii strains with these specific orthologs are candidates for gut microbiome-based intervention in Alzheimer's-type dementia.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 41/100
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, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 41 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Cell reports. Medicine) |
| 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 | 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 | 2021 — 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 34622235) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 23 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 41 out of 100. |
| Total | 41 / 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.