4.7 Article

Bifidobacterium as a Potential Biomarker of Sarcopenia in Elderly Women

期刊

NUTRIENTS
卷 15, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu15051266

关键词

bifidobacterium; sarcopenia; gut microbiota; elderly women

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gut microbial dysbiosis affects sarcopenia development. This case-control study examined gut microbiota composition in elderly Chinese women with sarcopenia. Information from 50 cases and 50 controls was collected. Grip strength, body weight, body mass index, skeletal muscle mass, energy intake, and protein intake were lower in cases than in controls. Gut microbiota metagenomic sequencing revealed significant differences in the abundance of Bacteroides and Prevotella. Linear discriminant analysis identified distinct microbial taxa enriched in the case and control groups, including Prevotella copri and Bifidobacterium longum. Elderly women with sarcopenia showed significantly different gut microbiota compositions compared to healthy controls.
Gut microbial dysbiosis influences the development of sarcopenia. This case-control study explored the gut microbiota composition in elderly Chinese women with sarcopenia. The information from 50 cases and 50 controls was collected. Grip strength, body weight, body mass index, skeletal muscle mass, energy intake, and total and high-quality protein intake were lower in cases than in controls (p < 0.05). Gut microbiota metagenomic sequencing showed that phylum Bacteroides was significantly reduced in the case group, whereas genus Prevotella was more abundant (p < 0.05). Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) effect size showed that 9 and 13 distinct microbial taxa were enriched in the case and control groups, respectively (LDA > 2, p < 0.05), among which Prevotella copri and Bifidobacterium longum were significantly different (LDA > 4, p < 0.05). The AUC of Bifidobacterium longum was 0.674 (95% CI: 0.539-0.756). Elderly women with sarcopenia exhibited significantly different gut microbiota compositions than healthy controls.

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