Progression of Parkinson's disease is associated with gut dysbiosis: Two-year follow-up study
From BugSigDB
Jump to:navigation, search
Study information
-
Quality control
- Retracted paper
- Contamination issues suspected
- Batch effect issues suspected
- Uncontrolled confounding suspected
- Results are suspect (various reasons)
- Tags applied
study design
Citation
PMID PubMed identifier for scientific articles.
DOI Digital object identifier for electronic documents.
URI
Authors
Minato T, Maeda T, Fujisawa Y, Tsuji H, Nomoto K, Ohno K, Hirayama M
Journal
PloS one
Year
2017
BACKGROUND: We previously reported gut dysbiosis in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine whether gut dysbiosis correlates with the progression of PD. METHODS: We examined changes in gut microbiota and demographic features in 2 years in 36 PD patients. RESULTS: A change of total UPDRS scores in 2 years was predicted by the counts of Bifidobacterium and Atopobium cluster at year 0 with a correlation coefficient of 0.52. Correlation analysis additionally revealed that low counts of Bifidobacterium and Bacteroides fragilis at year 0 were associated with worsening of UPDRS I scores in 2 years. In addition, low counts of Bifidobacterium at year 0 were associated with worsening of hallucinations/delusions in 2 years. Similarly, low counts of B. fragilis at year 0 were associated with worsening of motivation/initiative in 2 years. The patients were evenly divided into the deteriorated and stable groups based on the degree of worsening of total UPDRS scores. The deteriorated group had lower counts of Bifidobacterium, B. fragilis, and Clostridium leptium than the stable group at year 0 but not at year 2, suggesting that the deteriorated group may demonstrate accelerated lowering of these bacteria at year 0. CONCLUSIONS: The total counts of intestinal bacterial decrease in the course of PD progression. Temporal profiles of lowering of bacterial counts are likely to be different from bacteria to bacteria, and also between the deteriorating and stable groups, which may be able to be exploited to differentiate patients with rapidly and slowly progressive PD pathology.
Experiment 1
Needs review
Subjects
- Location of subjects
- Japan
- Host species Species from which microbiome was sampled. Contact us to have more species added.
- Homo sapiens
- Body site Anatomical site where microbial samples were extracted from according to the Uber Anatomy Ontology
- Feces Cow dung,Cow pat,Droppings,Dung,Excrement,Excreta,Faeces,Fecal material,Fecal matter,Fewmet,Frass,Guano,Matières fécales@fr,Merde@fr,Ordure,Partie de la merde@fr,Piece of shit,Porción de mierda@es,Portion of dung,Portion of excrement,Portion of faeces,Portion of fecal material,Portion of fecal matter,Portion of feces,Portion of guano,Portion of scat,Portionem cacas,Scat,Spoor,Spraint,Stool,Teil der fäkalien@de,Feces,feces
- Condition The experimental condition / phenotype studied according to the Experimental Factor Ontology
- Disease staging disease_staging,Disease staging,disease staging
- Group 0 name Corresponds to the control (unexposed) group for case-control studies
- Stable Group at year 0
- Group 1 name Corresponds to the case (exposed) group for case-control studies
- Deteriorated Group at year 0
- Group 1 definition Diagnostic criteria applied to define the specific condition / phenotype represented in the case (exposed) group
- The Deteriorated Group is the group of patients with significantly higher UPDRS(United Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) score at year 0
- Group 0 sample size Number of subjects in the control (unexposed) group
- 18
- Group 1 sample size Number of subjects in the case (exposed) group
- 18
Lab analysis
- Sequencing type
- PCR
- 16S variable region One or more hypervariable region(s) of the bacterial 16S gene
- Not specified
- Sequencing platform Manufacturer and experimental platform used for quantifying microbial abundance
- RT-qPCR
Statistical Analysis
- Data transformation Data transformation applied to microbial abundance measurements prior to differential abundance testing (if any).
- relative abundances
- Statistical test
- Mann-Whitney (Wilcoxon)
- Significance threshold p-value or FDR threshold used for differential abundance testing (if any)
- 0.05
- MHT correction Have statistical tests be corrected for multiple hypothesis testing (MHT)?
- Yes
Signature 1
Needs review
Source: figure 1A
Description: Abundance of Bifidobacterium at year 0 in the deteriorated and stable groups.
Abundance in Group 1: decreased abundance in Deteriorated Group at year 0
| NCBI | Quality Control | Links |
|---|---|---|
| Bifidobacterium |
Revision editor(s): Idiaru angela
Experiment 2
Needs review
Differences from previous experiment shown
Subjects
- Condition The experimental condition / phenotype studied according to the Experimental Factor Ontology
- Timepoint Timepoint,timepoint
- Group 0 name Corresponds to the control (unexposed) group for case-control studies
- Parkinson's disease patients at year 0
- Group 1 name Corresponds to the case (exposed) group for case-control studies
- Parkinson's disease patients at year 2
- Group 1 definition Diagnostic criteria applied to define the specific condition / phenotype represented in the case (exposed) group
- Patients with Parkinson's disease followed up after year 2
- Group 0 sample size Number of subjects in the control (unexposed) group
- 36
- Group 1 sample size Number of subjects in the case (exposed) group
- 28
Lab analysis
Statistical Analysis
Signature 1
Needs review
Source: Table 2 & supplementary Table 2
Description: Difference of bacterial counts between years 0 and 2 in Parkinson's disease patients
Abundance in Group 1: decreased abundance in Parkinson's disease patients at year 2
Revision editor(s): Idiaru angela
Experiment 3
Needs review
Differences from previous experiment shown
Subjects
- Group 0 name Corresponds to the control (unexposed) group for case-control studies
- Deteriorated Group at year 0
- Group 1 name Corresponds to the case (exposed) group for case-control studies
- Deteriorated Group at year 2
- Group 1 definition Diagnostic criteria applied to define the specific condition / phenotype represented in the case (exposed) group
- The Deteriorated Group is the group of patients with significantly higher UPDRS(United Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) score at year 2
- Group 0 sample size Number of subjects in the control (unexposed) group
- 18
- Group 1 sample size Number of subjects in the case (exposed) group
- 11
Lab analysis
Statistical Analysis
Signature 1
Needs review
Source: Table 2 & supplementary Table 2
Description: Difference of bacterial counts between years 0 and 2 in the Deteriorated group.
Abundance in Group 1: decreased abundance in Deteriorated Group at year 2
| NCBI | Quality Control | Links |
|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | ||
| Lactobacillus gasseri subgroupLactobacillus gasseri subgroup |
Revision editor(s): Idiaru angela
Experiment 4
Needs review
Differences from previous experiment shown
Subjects
- Group 0 name Corresponds to the control (unexposed) group for case-control studies
- Stable group at year 0
- Group 1 name Corresponds to the case (exposed) group for case-control studies
- Stable group at year 2
- Group 1 definition Diagnostic criteria applied to define the specific condition / phenotype represented in the case (exposed) group
- The Stable Group is the group of patients with significantly lower UPDRS(United Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale) score at year 2
- Group 1 sample size Number of subjects in the case (exposed) group
- 17
Lab analysis
Statistical Analysis
Signature 1
Needs review
Source: Table 2 & supplementary Table 2
Description: Difference of bacterial counts between years 0 and 2 in the Stable group.
Abundance in Group 1: decreased abundance in Stable group at year 2
Revision editor(s): Idiaru angela
Retrieved from "https://bugsigdb.org/w/index.php?title=Study_948&oldid=130058"
Hidden category:
