Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
BackgroundAging underlies numerous diseases, including Parkinson's disease (PD) and constipation. A large proportion of patients with PD often suffer from constipation; however, it remains unclear whether older patients with constipation and those with Parkinson's disease share common gut microbiota characteristics.AimThis study analyzed the characteristics of the gut microbiota in older adults with constipation or PD to identify differences and similarities and to evaluate the possible role of the microbiota in PD and constipation.MethodsRaw data from fecal samples of 860 selected older adults from the Gut Microbiota Database (GMrepo) were analyzed, including patients with PD (n=378), constipation (CP, n=189), and healthy participants (CON, n=293).ResultsThe CP group displayed a higher relative abundance of Bacteroides and Akkermansia, and a decreased relative abundance of Prevotella, Faecalibacterium, and Agathobacterium than the CON group. Similarly, the PD group exhibited an increased relative abundance of Bacteroides, Akkermansia, Parabacteroides, Phascolarctobacterium, and Bifidobacterium, and a decreased relative abundance of Escherichia-Shigella, Faecalibacterium, Agathobacterium, and Prevotella. Further analysis revealed that, compared with the CON group, most bacteria were enriched or deficient in the CP and PD groups, such as Bacteroides, Akkermansia, Faecalibacterium, Agathobacterium, and Prevotella.ConclusionThe microbiota composition and structure of older adults with constipation or PD were similar and significantly different from those of healthy controls. This may partially explain the coexistence of constipation and PD in terms of the gut microbiota.
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.