Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundWith differences apparent in the gut microbiome in mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, and risk factors of dementia linked to alterations of the gut microbiome, the question remains if gut microbiome characteristics may mediate associations of education with MCI.ObjectivesWe sought to examine potential mediation of the association of education and MCI by gut microbiome diversity or composition.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingLuxembourg, the Greater Region (surrounding areas in Belgium, France, Germany).ParticipantsControl participants of the Luxembourg Parkinson's Study.MeasurementsGut microbiome composition, ascertained with 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing. Differential abundance, assessed across education groups (0-10, 11-16, 16+ years of education). Alpha diversity (Chao1, Shannon and inverse Simpson indices). Mediation analysis with effect decomposition was conducted with education as exposure, MCI as outcome and gut microbiome metrics as mediators.ResultsAfter exclusion of participants below 50, or with missing data, n=258 participants (n=58 MCI) were included (M [SD] Age=64.6 [8.3] years). Higher education (16+ years) was associated with MCI (Odds ratio natural direct effect=0.35 [95% CI 0.15-0.81]. Streptococcus and Lachnospiraceae-UCG-001 genera were more abundant in higher education.ConclusionsEducation is associated with gut microbiome composition and MCI risk without clear evidence for mediation. However, our results suggest signatures of the gut microbiome that have been identified previously in AD and MCI to be reflected in lower education and suggest education as important covariate in microbiome studies.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.