SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

<i>Lactiplantibacillus (Lactobacillus) plantarum</i> as a Complementary Treatment to Improve Symptomatology in Neurodegenerative Disease: A Systematic Review of Open Access Literature.

Int J Mol Sci · 2024-03-05

DOI: 10.3390/ijms25053010PMID: 38474254

Open accessSystematic Review; review-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

This systematic review addresses the use of Lactiplantibacillus (Lactobacillus) plantarum in the symptomatological intervention of neurodegenerative disease. The existence of gut microbiota dysbiosis has been associated with systemic inflammatory processes present in neurodegenerative disease, creating the opportunity for new treatment strategies. This involves modifying the strains that constitute the gut microbiota to enhance synaptic function through the gut-brain axis. Recent studies have evaluated the beneficial effects of the use of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum on motor and cognitive symptomatology, alone or in combination. This systematic review includes 20 research articles (n = 3 in human and n = 17 in animal models). The main result of this research was that the use of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum alone or in combination produced improvements in symptomatology related to neurodegenerative disease. However, one of the studies included reported negative effects after the administration of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum. This systematic review provides current and relevant information about the use of this probiotic in pathologies that present neurodegenerative processes such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and Multiple Sclerosis.

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.