4.6 Article

Methionine Restriction Improves Gut Barrier Function by Reshaping Diurnal Rhythms of Inflammation-Related Microbes in Aged Mice

期刊

FRONTIERS IN NUTRITION
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fnut.2021.746592

关键词

methionine restriction; aging; microbiome diurnal rhythmicity; gut barrier; inflammation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dietary methionine restriction (MR) reduces inflammatory factors in aged mice, decreases gut permeability, and increases tight junction protein levels; moreover, MR promotes short-chain fatty acid production and dampens oscillations of inflammation-related microbes.
Age-related gut barrier dysfunction and dysbiosis of the gut microbiome play crucial roles in human aging. Dietary methionine restriction (MR) has been reported to extend lifespan and reduce the inflammatory response; however, its protective effects on age-related gut barrier dysfunction remain unclear. Accordingly, we focus on the effects of MR on inflammation and gut function. We found a 3-month methionine-restriction reduced inflammatory factors in the serum of aged mice. Moreover, MR reduced gut permeability in aged mice and increased the levels of the tight junction proteins mRNAs, including those of occludin, claudin-1, and zona occludens-1. MR significantly reduced bacterial endotoxin lipopolysaccharide concentration in aged mice serum. By using 16s rRNA sequencing to analyze microbiome diurnal rhythmicity during 24 h, we found MR moderately recovered the cyclical fluctuations of the gut microbiome which was disrupted in aged mice, leading to time-specific enhancement of the abundance of short-chain fatty acid-producing and lifespan-promoting microbes. Moreover, MR dampened the oscillation of inflammation-related TM7-3 and Staphylococcaceae. In conclusion, the effects of MR on the gut barrier were likely related to alleviation of the oscillations of inflammation-related microbes. MR can enable nutritional intervention against age-related gut barrier dysfunction.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据