SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · PPR

Microbiome signature of Parkinson disease in healthy and genetically at-risk individuals

· 2025-05-19

DOI: 10.1101/2025.05.19.25327907

Check source for accessPreprintOriginal source ↗

Research overview

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

Summary Parkinson disease (PD) is a major cause of disability with significant personal and system financial implications 1,2 . GBA1 variants are the commonest genetic risk factor for PD and increase the risk up to 30-fold 3,4 . Why only ∼20% of GBA1 variant carriers develop PD remains unknown. Here, by combining clinical and faecal metagenomics data from PD individuals carrying or not GBA1 variants, carriers of GBA1 variants not manifesting PD symptoms (GBA-NMC) and healthy controls, and using an innovative microbiome analysis, we show that a large component of the gut microbiome evolves from healthy across GBA-NMC towards PD and is strongly correlated with disease progression in patients, and prodromal symptoms suggestive of future development of PD in GBA-NMC. By using species altered in PD and GBA-NMC, we detect healthy individuals with the strongest prodromal PD clinical profile. These findings indicate that gut microbiome alterations can identify individuals with GBA1 variants most prone to develop PD and individuals in the general population that may be progressing towards PD. Healthy nutrition mitigates microbiome alterations associated with disease severity, suggesting that it could modify disease progression in PD patients and decrease the risk of disease development in healthy individuals including those with GBA1 variants.

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.