SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Microbiota Dysbiosis in Parkinson Disease-In Search of a Biomarker.

Biomedicines · 2022-08-23

DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10092057PMID: 36140158

Open accessreview-article; Review; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Numerous studies have highlighted the role of the gastrointestinal system in Parkinson disease pathogenesis. It is likely triggered by proinflammatory markers produced by specific gut bacteria. This review's aim is to identify gut bacterial biomarkers of Parkinson disease. A comprehensive search for original research papers on gut microbiota composition in Parkinson disease was conducted using the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Research papers on intestinal permeability, nasal and oral microbiomes, and interventional studies were excluded. The yielded results were categorized into four groups: Parkinson disease vs. healthy controls; disease severity; non-motor symptoms; and clinical phenotypes. This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement. A total of 51 studies met the eligibility criteria. In the Parkinson disease vs. healthy controls group, 22 bacteria were deemed potentially important. In the disease severity category, two bacteria were distinguished. In the non-motor symptoms and clinical phenotypes categories, no distinct pathogen was identified. The studies in this review report bacteria of varying taxonomic levels, which prevents the authors from reaching a clear conclusion. Future research should follow a unified methodology in order to identify potential biomarkers for Parkinson disease.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.