Evidence Hub

The Effect of Gut Microbiota-Targeted Interventions on Neuroinflammation and Motor Function in Parkinson’s Disease Animal Models—A Systematic Review

P. Panaitescu, Vlad Răzniceanu, Ștefania-Maria Mocrei-Rebrean, V. Neculicioiu, Hanna-Maria Dragoș, C. Costache, G. A. Filip

Current Issues in Molecular Biology, 2024

15 citations

Abstract

Gut microbiome-targeted interventions such as fecal transplant, prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics, and antibiotic gut depletion are speculated to be of potential use in delaying the onset and progression of Parkinson’s disease by rebalancing the gut microbiome in the context of the gut–brain axis. Our study aims to organize recent findings regarding these interventions in Parkinson’s disease animal models to identify how they affect neuroinflammation and motor outcomes. A systematic literature search was applied in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and SCOPUS for gut microbiome-targeted non-dietary interventions. Studies that investigated gut-targeted interventions by using in vivo murine PD models to follow dopaminergic cell loss, motor tests, and neuroinflammatory markers as outcomes were considered to be eligible. A total of 1335 studies were identified in the databases, out of which 29 were found to be eligible. A narrative systematization of the resulting data was performed, and the effect direction for the outcomes was represented. Quality assessment using the SYRCLE risk of bias tool was also performed. Out of the 29 eligible studies, we found that a significant majority report that the intervention reduced the dopaminergic cell loss (82.76%, 95% CI [64.23%, 94.15%]) produced by the induction of the disease model. Also, most studies reported a reduction in microglial (87.5%, 95% CI [61.65%, 98.45%]) and astrocytic activation (84,62%, 95% CI [54.55%, 98.08%]) caused by…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, 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.

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