4.6 Article

Gut Microbiota as a Potential Predictive Biomarker in Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis

期刊

GENES
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes13050930

关键词

gut microbiota; microbiome; active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis; Ezakiella; Bilophila

资金

  1. European Union [867463]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed the gut microbiota of patients with RRMS and found differences compared to a healthy control group. Analysis of the microbiota components revealed the potential of certain genera as predictive factors for RRMS prognosis and diagnosis.
Background: The influence of the microbiome on neurological diseases has been studied for years. Recent findings have shown a different composition of gut microbiota detected in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). The role of this dysbiosis is still unknown. Objective: We analyzed the gut microbiota of 15 patients with active relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS), comparing with diet-matched healthy controls. Method: To determine the composition of the gut microbiota, we performed high-throughput sequencing of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. The specific amplified sequences were in the V3 and V4 regions of the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Results: The gut microbiota of RRMS patients differed from healthy controls in the levels of the Lachnospiraceae, Ezakiella, Ruminococcaceae, Hungatella, Roseburia, Clostridium, Shuttleworthia, Poephyromonas, and Bilophila genera. All these genera were included in a logistic regression analysis to determine the sensitivity and the specificity of the test. Finally, the ROC (receiver operating characteristic) and AUC with a 95% CI were calculated and best-matched for Ezakiella (AUC of 75.0 and CI from 60.6 to 89.4) and Bilophila (AUC of 70.2 and CI from 50.1 to 90.4). Conclusions: There is a dysbiosis in the gut microbiota of RRMS patients. An analysis of the components of the microbiota suggests the role of some genera as a predictive factor of RRMS prognosis and diagnosis.

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