4.7 Article

Gut microbiota composition as a candidate risk factor for dimethyl fumarate-induced lymphopenia in multiple sclerosis

期刊

GUT MICROBES
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2022.2147055

关键词

Multiple sclerosis; microbiome; dimethyl fumarate; lymphopenia; metabolomics; therapeutic biomarker

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effects of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) on gut microbiota composition and host/microbial metabolomics in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. The results revealed longitudinal changes in gut microbiota composition and an increase in citric acid cycle metabolites under DMF treatment. Furthermore, the study found a correlation between DMF-induced lymphopenia and distinct baseline microbiome signatures in MS patients, providing insights into the role of microbiota in mediating clinical side-effects.
Mounting evidence points towards a pivotal role of gut microbiota in multiple sclerosis (MS) pathophysiology. Yet, whether disease-modifying treatments alter microbiota composition and whether microbiota shape treatment response and side-effects remain unclear. In this prospective observational pilot study, we assessed the effect of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) on gut microbiota and on host/microbial metabolomics in a cohort of 20 MS patients. Combining state-of-the-art microbial sequencing, metabolome mass spectrometry, and computational analysis, we identified longitudinal changes in gut microbiota composition under DMF-treatment and an increase in citric acid cycle metabolites. Notably, DMF-induced lymphopenia, a clinically relevant safety concern, was correlated with distinct baseline microbiome signatures in MS patients. We identified gastrointestinal microbiota as a key therapeutic target for metabolic properties of DMF. By characterizing gut microbial composition as a candidate risk factor for DMF-induced lymphopenia, we provide novel insights into the role of microbiota in mediating clinical side-effects.

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

4.7
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