4.6 Article

Gut virome dysbiosis following focal cerebral ischemia in mice

Journal

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
Volume 42, Issue 9, Pages 1597-1602

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X221107702

Keywords

Bacteriophage; stroke; virus; virome protein networks; virome metabolism

Funding

  1. NIH [NS099531, NS109459, NS101960]
  2. Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin-Madison
  3. US Department of Veterans Affairs [IK6BX005690]
  4. National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the NIH [R35GM143024]
  5. Wisconsin Distinguished Graduate Fellowship Award from the University of Wisconsin-Madison
  6. William H. Peterson Fellowship Award from the Department of Bacteriology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study shows that the gut virome responds acutely to stroke, with changes in viral taxa abundances observed following focal ischemia.
Stroke leads to gut bacterial dysbiosis that impacts the post-stroke outcome. The gut microbiome also contains a high abundance of viruses which might play a crucial role in disease progression and recovery by modulating the metabolism of both host and host's gut bacteria. We presently analyzed the virome composition (viruses and phages) by shotgun metagenomics in the fecal samples obtained at 1 day of reperfusion following transient focal ischemia in adult mice. Viral genomes, viral auxiliary metabolic genes, and viral protein networks were compared between stroke and sham conditions (stroke vs sham, exclusive to sham and exclusive to stroke). Following focal ischemia, abundances of 2 viral taxa decreased, and 5 viral taxa increased compared with the sham. Furthermore, the abundance of Clostridia-like phages and Erysipelatoclostridiaceae-like phages were altered in the stroke compared with the sham cohorts. This is the first report to show that the gut virome responds acutely to stroke.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available