Evidence Hub

Meta-analysis reveals reproducible rapamycin-induced shifts in the mouse gut microbiome

Asiri Ortega-Matienzo, Franziska Meiners, P. Newels, Ingmar Zude, Georg Fuellen, I. Barrantes

bioRxiv, 2025

54 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

Rapamycin is a geroprotective compound that extends lifespan and is well characterised in systemic physiology. However, due to heterogeneous methodologies, its effects on the gut microbiome, an emerging regulator of ageing and health, remain poorly defined. Here, we systematically assessed these effects in mice using a harmonised meta-analysis workflow, reprocessing raw sequence data end-to-end. We conducted a harmonised meta-analysis of the gut microbiome using 16S rRNA gene amplicon data from three independent mouse studies (n = 54) spanning dietary and intraperitoneal rapamycin interventions with matched controls. All samples were uniformly processed using a standardised 16S rRNA bioinformatics workflow. Genus-level abundances were modelled using two complementary approaches: a per-study zero-inflated beta modelling framework with random-effects meta-analysis, and a batch-corrected linear modelling framework incorporating correction prior to meta-analysis. Dose-response meta-regression assessed whether rapamycin-associated changes scaled with dose (42–990 mg/kg), integrating presence and magnitude of effects across heterogeneous study designs. Rapamycin treatment induced reproducible shifts in specific taxa across studies, with a subset of core responders consistently altered regardless of dose. Among the core responders, Bacteroides increased (OR = 1.59, q = 0.042) and Muribaculum decreased (OR = 0.55, q = 0.042), each significant in both frameworks. Whereas Ruminococcus…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 54 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free