Tagged: Prevotellaceae

Trying to digest gut research

2015-02-16-BrainvsStomachImage.png

Our first ever posting here on the SoPD dealt with the curious relationship between the gut and Parkinson’s disease (Click here to see that post). Since then, there have been a string of interesting research reports adding to the idea that the gastrointestinal system may be somehow influencing the course of Parkinson’s disease.

In today’s post we will review the most recent helpings and discuss how they affect our understanding of Parkinson’s disease.


Qz

Source: Qz

Interesting fact: The human digestive system is about 26 feet long – approximately 8 meters – from mouth to anus.

Recent research indicates that our brains are heavily influenced by the activities of this food consuming tract. Not just the nutrients that it takes in, but also by the bugs that live within those 26 feet.

Another interesting fact: The human gut hosts tens of trillions of microorganisms, including at least 1000 species of bacteria (which is a guess-timate as we are not really sure how many species there are). They make up as much as 2 kg of your total weight.

And those bacteria have influence!

In December of last year, we reviewed a study in which the researchers demonstrated that mice genetically engineered to display features of Parkinson’s disease performed as well as normal mice if they were raised with reduced levels of bacteria in their gut (either in a germ-free environment or using antibiotics). That study also showed that transplanting bacteria from the gut of people with Parkinson’s disease into mice raised in a germ-free environment resulted in those mice performing worse on the behavioural tasks than mice injected with gut samples from healthy human subjects (Click here to read that post).

Wow, so what new gut research has been reported?

A little bit of history first:

Two years ago, some Danish researchers published this research report:

Gut3

Title: Vagotomy and Subsequent Risk of Parkinson’s Disease.
Authors: Svensson E, Horváth-Puhó E, Thomsen RW, Djurhuus JC, Pedersen L, Borghammer P, Sørensen HT.
Journal: Annals of Neurology, 2015, May 29. doi: 10.1002/ana.24448.
PMID: 26031848

In their report, the researchers highlighted the reduced risk of Parkinson’s disease following a truncal vagotomy.

So what’s a truncal vagotomy?

A vagotomy is a surgical procedure in which the vagus nerve is cut. It is typically due to help treat stomach ulcers.

The vagus nerve runs from the lining of the stomach to the brain stem, near the base of the brain.

gut_aid_in_PD
A diagram illustrating the vagal nerve connection with the enteric nervous system which lines the stomach. Source: NCBI

A vagotomy comes in two forms: it can be ‘truncal‘ (in which the main nerve is cut) or ‘superselective’ (in which specific branches of the nerve are cut, which the main nerve is left in tact).

Vagotomy

A schematic demonstrating the vagal nerve surrounding the stomach. Image A. indicates a ‘truncal’ vagotomy, where the main vagus nerves are cut above the stomach; while image B. illustrates the ‘superselective’ vagotomy, cutting specific branches of the vagus nerve connecting with the stomach. Source: Score

And what did the Danish scientists find?

Exploring the public health records, the Danish researcher found that between 1975 and 1995, 5339 individuals had a truncal vagotomy and 5870 had superselective vagotomy. Using the Danish National registry (which which stores all of Denmark’s medical information), they then looked for how many of these individuals went on to be diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. They compared these vagotomy subjects with more than 60,000 randomly-selected, age-matched controls.

They found that subjects who had a superselective vagotomy had the same chance of developing Parkinson’s disease as anyone else in the general public (a hazard ratio (or HR) of 1 or very close to 1).

But when they looked at the number of people in the truncal vagotomy group who were later diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, the risk had dropped by 35%. Furthermore, when they followed up the truncal group 20 years later, checking to see who had been diagnosed with Parkinson’s in 2012, they found that their rate was half that of both the superselective group and the control group (see table below; HR=0.53). The researchers concluded that a truncal vagotomy reduces the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

Svensson_Table2

Source: Svensson et al (2015) Annals of Neurology – Table 2.

Then last year, at the meeting in Berlin, data was presented that failed to replicate the findings in a separate group of people (Sweds).

Vagotomy

Title: Vagotomy and Parkinson’s disease risk: A Swedish register-based matched cohort study
Authors: B. Liu, F. Fang, N.L. Pedersen, A. Tillander, J.F. Ludvigsson, A. Ekbom, P. Svenningsson, H. Chen, K. Wirdefeldt
Abstract Number: 476 (click here to see the original abstract – OPEN ACCESS)

The Swedish researchers collected information regarding 8,279 individuals born in Sweden between 1880 and 1970 who underwent vagotomy between 1964 and 2010 (3,245 truncal and 5,029 selective). For each vagotomized individual, they  collected medical information for 40 control subjects matched for sex and year of birth (at the date of surgery). They found that vagotomy was not associated with Parkinson’s disease risk.

Truncal vagotomy was associated with a lower risk more than five years after the surgery, but that result was not statistically significant. The researcher suggested that the findings needs to be verified in larger samples.

The results of that study have now been published (this week):

Swedish
Title: Vagotomy and Parkinson disease: A Swedish register-based matched-cohort study
Authors: Liu B, Fang F, Pedersen NL, Tillander A, Ludvigsson JF, Ekbom A, Svenningsson P, Chen H, Wirdefeldt K.
Journal: Neurology. 2017 Apr 26. pii: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000003961.
PMID: 28446653             (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)

In this report, the researchers suggest that “there was a suggestion of lower risk among patients with truncal vagotomy” and they note that the hazard ratio (or HR) is 0.78 for this group (ranging between 0.55-1.09), compared to the HR of 0.96 (ranging between 0.78-1.17) for all of the vagotomy group combined. And they not that this trend is further apparent when the truncal vagotomy was conducted at least 5 years before Parkinson’s disease diagnosis (HR = 0.59, ranging between 0.37-0.93). These numbers are not statistically significant, so the investigators could only suggest that there was a trend towards truncal vagotomy lowering the risk of Parkinson’s disease.

What are the differences between the studies?

The Danish researcher analysed medical records between 1975 and 1995 from 5339 individuals had a truncal vagotomy and 5870 had superselective vagotomy. The Sweds on the other hand, looked over a longer period (1964 – 2010) but at a smaller sample size for the truncal group (3,245 truncal and 5,029 selective). Perhaps if the truncal group in the Swedish study was higher, the trend may have become significant.

So should we all rush out and ask our doctors for a vagotomy?

No.

That would not be advised (though I’d love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation!).

It is important to understand that a vagotomy can have very negative side-effects, such as vomiting and diarrhoea (Click here to read more on this).

Plus, while the results are interesting, we really need a much larger study for definitive conclusions to be made. You see, in the Danish study (the first report above) the number of people that received a truncal vagotomy (total = 5339) who then went on develop Parkinson’s disease 20 years later was just 10 (compared with 29 in the superselective group). And while that may seem like a big difference between those two numbers, the numbers are still too low to be truly conclusive. We really need the numbers to be in the hundreds.

Plus, it is important to determine whether this result can be replicated in other countries. Or is it simply a Scandinavian trend?

Mmm, interesting. So what does it all mean?

No, stop. We’re not summing up yet. This is one of those ‘but wait there’s more!’ moments.

It has been a very busy week for Parkinson’s gut research.

A German research group published a report about their analysis of the microbes in the gut and how they differ in Parkinson’s disease (when compared to normal healthy controls).

maxresdefault

Microbes. Source: Youtube

Regular readers of this blog will realise that we have discussed this kind of study before in a previous post (Click here for that post).

This type of study – analysing the bacteria of the gut – has now been done not just once:

biota-title

Title: Gut microbiota are related to Parkinson’s disease and clinical phenotype.
Authors: Scheperjans F, Aho V, Pereira PA, Koskinen K, Paulin L, Pekkonen E, Haapaniemi E, Kaakkola S, Eerola-Rautio J, Pohja M, Kinnunen E, Murros K, Auvinen P.
Journal: Mov Disord. 2015 Mar;30(3):350-8.
PMID: 25476529

Nor twice:

Fecal3

Title: Short chain fatty acids and gut microbiota differ between patients with Parkinson’s disease andage-matched controls.
Authors: Unger MM, Spiegel J, Dillmann KU, Grundmann D, Philippeit H, Bürmann J, Faßbender K, Schwiertz A, Schäfer KH.
Journal: Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2016 Nov;32:66-72.
PMID: 27591074

Not three times:

Kesh1

Title: Colonic bacterial composition in Parkinson’s disease
Authors: Keshavarzian A, Green SJ, Engen PA, Voigt RM, Naqib A, Forsyth CB, Mutlu E, Shannon KM.
Journal: Mov Disord (2015) 30, 1351-1360.
PMID: 26179554

Not even four times:

Plos1

Title: Intestinal Dysbiosis and Lowered Serum Lipopolysaccharide-Binding Protein in Parkinson’s Disease.
Authors: Hasegawa S, Goto S, Tsuji H, Okuno T, Asahara T, Nomoto K, Shibata A, Fujisawa Y, Minato T, Okamoto A, Ohno K, Hirayama M.
Journal: PLoS One. 2015 Nov 5;10(11):e0142164.
PMID: 26539989                    (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)

But FIVE times now (all the results published in the 2 years):

gut-title

Title: Parkinson’s disease and Parkinson’s disease medications have distinct signatures of the gut microbiome.
Authors: Hill-Burns EM, Debelius JW, Morton JT, Wissemann WT, Lewis MR, Wallen ZD, Peddada SD, Factor SA, Molho E, Zabetian CP, Knight R, Payami H.
Journal: Mov Disord. 2017 Feb 14. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 28195358

(And we apologies to any researchers not mentioned here – these are simply the studies we are aware of).

The researchers in the study published this week, however, did something different to these previous studies:

Gut1
Title: Functional implications of microbial and viral gut metagenome changes in early stage L-DOPA-naïve Parkinson’s disease patients
Authors: Bedarf JR, Hildebrand F, Coelho LP, Sunagawa S, Bahram M, Goeser F, Bork P, Wüllner U.
Journal: Genome Med. 2017 Apr 28;9(1):39.
PMID: 28449715            (This article is OPEN ACCESS if you would like to read it)

The researchers in this study focused their analysis on 31 people with early stage Parkinson’s disease. In addition, all of those subjects were not taking any L-DOPA. The fecal samples collected from these subjects was compared with samples from 28 age-matched controls.

And what did they find?

In the early-stage, L-dopa-naïve Parkinson’s disease fecal samples, the researchers found increased levels of two families of microbes (Verrucomicrobiaceae and unclassified Firmicutes) and lower levels of two other familes (Prevotellaceae and Erysipelotrichaceae). And these differences could be used to reliably differentiate between the two groups (PD and control) to an accuracy of 84%.

In addition, the investigators found that the total virus abundance was decreased in the Parkinsonian participants. The researchers concluded that their study provides evidence of differences in the microbiome of the gut in Parkinson’s disease at a very early stage in the course of the condition, and that exploration of the Parkinson’s viral populations “is a promising avenue to follow up with more specific research” (we here at SoPD are particularly intrigued with this statement!).

So is there a a lot of consensus between the studies? Any new biomarkers?

(Big sigh) Yes….. and no on the consensus question.

The good news is that all of the studies agree that there is a difference between the abundance of different groups of bacteria in the Parkinsonian gut.

BUT only three of the six studies studies demonstrate any agreement as to which groups of bacteria. And those three studies could only agree on one family of bacteria. The recent study (Bedarf et al) agreed with the Scheperjans et al and Unger et al studies in that they all observed found reduced levels of Prevotellaceae bacteria in the gut of people with Parkinson’s disease.

216-5198-1-pb

The Prevotellaceae family of bacteria. Source: MindsofMalady

Unfortunately, the reduction in abundance of this particular bacteria does not appear to be specific to Parkinson’s disease, as similar reduced levels have been observed in Japanese multiple sclerosis patients and in autistic children (Click here and here to read more about those studies).

This lack of agreement between the studies with regards to the difference in the abundance of the families of bacteria may reflect the complexity of the gut microbiome. Alternatively, it could also reflect regional differences (the Keshavarzian et al. study was conducted in Chicago, the Bedarf et al and Unger et al studies were in Germany, Scheperjans et al was in Finland, Hill-Burn et al in Alabama, and the Hasegawa et al study was in conducted in Japan).

Either way, it leaves the field lacking agreement as to which families of bacteria should be followed up in future research.

 

So what does it all mean?

Right, so summing up, researchers are trying to determine what role the gut may play the course of Parkinson’s disease. There is evidence that the nerves connecting the digestive organ to the brain may act as some kind of gate way for an unknown agent or simply a provocative element in the condition. Severing those nerves to the gut appears to reduce the risk of developing Parkinson’s disease.

And the bacteria populating the gut appears to be different in people with Parkinson’s disease, but there does not seem to be consistency between studies, leaving the search for biomarkers in this organ sadly lacking. Maybe it reflects regional differences, perhaps it reflects the complexity of Parkinson’s disease. Hopefully as follow up research into this particular field continues, a consensus will begin to appear. Admittedly, most of these studies are based on single fecal samples collected from individuals at just one time point. A better experimental design would be to collect multiple samples over time, allowing for variability within and between individuals to be ironed out.

Despite all of these cautionary comments, there does appear to be some smoke here. And we will be watching the gut with great interest as more research comes forward.


The banner for today’s post was sourced from the HuffingtonPost

Confirmation about that gut feeling?

maxresdefault

Very interesting results published last week regarding the bacteria in the intestinal system of people with Parkinson’s disease.

This is an important piece of research because the gut is increasingly being seen as one of the potential start sites for Parkinson’s disease.

In today’s post we will review the results and discuss what they mean.


o-gut-bacteria-facebook

Bacteria in the gut. Source: Huffington Post

Before you go to bed tonight, contemplate this:

The human gut hosts tens of trillions of microorganisms, including at least 1000 species of bacteria (which is a guess-timate as we are not really sure how many species there are).

And whenever you feel like you are all alone, know that you are not.

You are never alone: tens of trillions of microorganisms are with you!

And there is sooooooo many of these microorganisms, that they can make up as much as 2 kg of your total weight.

What do the microorganisms do?

Ours bodies are made up of microbiota – that is,  collections of microbes or microorganisms inhabiting particular environments (or region of our body) and creating “mini-ecosystems”. And whether you like this idea or not, you need them.

The microorganisms in the human gut, for example, perform all manner of tasks for you to make your life easier. From helping to break down food, to aiding with the production of some vitamins (in particular B and K).

That’s great, but what does the bacteria in our gut have to do with Parkinson’s disease?

People with Parkinson’s disease quite often have issues associated with the gastrointestinal tract (or the gut), such as constipation for example. Some people believe that some of these gut related symptoms may actually pre-date a diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease, which has led many researchers to speculate as to whether the gut could be a starting point for the condition.

We have previously discussed the gut and Parkinson’s disease in several posts (click here, here and here to read them).

Today we re-address this topic because a group of scientists from the USA have determined that the populations of bacteria in the guts of people with Parkinson’s disease are different to those of healthy individuals.

Sounds interesting. What exactly is the difference?

Well, before we discuss that, we need a little bit of background.

In 2015, a group of scientists from Finland, published this research paper:

biota-title

Title: Gut microbiota are related to Parkinson’s disease and clinical phenotype.
Authors: Scheperjans F, Aho V, Pereira PA, Koskinen K, Paulin L, Pekkonen E, Haapaniemi E, Kaakkola S, Eerola-Rautio J, Pohja M, Kinnunen E, Murros K, Auvinen P.
Journal: Mov Disord. 2015 Mar;30(3):350-8.
PMID: 25476529

In this study the researchers compared the fecal microbiomes of 72 people with Parkinson’s disease and 72 control subjects by sequencing the V1-V3 regions of the bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene.

Hang on a minute. What does… any of that mean?

Yeah. Ok, that was a bit technical.

The microbiome refers to the genetics of the microorganisms – that is their genomes (or DNA). When researchers want to look at the microbiome of your gut, they do so by collecting fecal samples (delightful job, huh?).

Interesting facts: Fresh feces is made up of approx. 75% water. Of the remaining solid fraction, 84–93% is organic solids. These organic solids consist of: 25–55% gut bacterial matter, 2–25% protein, 25% carbohydrates, and 2–15% fat (Source: Wikipedia).

Still with me?

After collecting the fecal samples, researchers will extract the DNA from the gut bacterial material, which they can then analyse.

And what are the V1-V3 regions of the bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene?

The 16S ribosomal RNA gene is universal in bacteria – it is present in all of their genomes/DNA. The genetic sequence of this particular gene is approximately 1,550 base pairs long, and contains regions that are highly conserved (that is they are shared between species) and highly variable (very different between species).

M_00-06 DNA based kuva 3.jpg

The 16S ribosomal RNA gene. Source: Alimetrics

The gene contains nine of these highly variable regions (called V1 – V9) that display considerable differences in the genetic sequence between different groupings of bacteria. The V2 and V3 regions are considered the most suitable for distinguishing all bacterial species to the genus level (‘genus‘ being a method of classification).

Now scientist can amplify the 16S ribosomal RNA gene by making lots of copies of the highly conserved regions (using PCR) which are shared between bacteria, but then they will genetic sequence the variable sections in between (in this case V2 & V3), which will allow them to discriminate and quantify the different species of microorganisms (such as bacteria) within a particular sample.

16s-ribosomal-dna-sequence-analysis-13-638

16S rRNA gene analysis – looks complicated. Source: Slideshare

And this is what the scientists in this study did.

They took fecal samples of 72 people with Parkinson’s disease and 72 control subjects, amplified the V1-V3 regions of the bacterial 16S ribosomal RNA gene, and then sequenced the variables regions in between to determine what sorts of bacteria were present (and/or different) in the guts of people with Parkinson’s disease.

The researchers found that there was a reduced abundance of Prevotellaceae in the guts of people with Parkinson’s disease (Prevotellaceae are commonly found in the gastric system of people who maintain a diet low in animal fats and high in carbohydrates, for example vegetarians).

216-5198-1-pb

Prevotella multisaccharivorax which belongs to the Prevotellaceae family. Source: MindsofMalady

In addition, the investigators also reported a positive association between the abundance of Enterobacteriaceae and postural instability and gait difficulty symptoms – that is to say, people with Parkinson’s disease who also had postural instability and gait difficulties had significantly more Enterobacteriaceae in their guts than people with Parkinson’s disease who were more tremor dominant.

Due to the design of the study, the researchers were not able to make conclusions about causality from their study. Neither could they tell whether the microbiome changes were present before the onset of Parkinson’s disease or whether they simply developed afterwards. All they could really say was at the time of analysis, they did see a difference in the gut microbiota between people with and without Parkinson’s disease.

And while these same researchers are currently conducting a two year follow up study to determine the stability of these differences over time in the same subjects, they admit that much larger prospective studies are required to address such issues as causality.

Which brings us to the new research published last week:

gut-title

Title: Parkinson’s disease and Parkinson’s disease medications have distinct signatures of the gut microbiome.
Authors: Hill-Burns EM, Debelius JW, Morton JT, Wissemann WT, Lewis MR, Wallen ZD, Peddada SD, Factor SA, Molho E, Zabetian CP, Knight R, Payami H.
Journal: Mov Disord. 2017 Feb 14. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID: 28195358

The researchers in this study (completely independent from the previous study) applied the same study design as the previous study, but on a much larger scale:

They took samples from a total of 197 people with Parkinson’s disease and 130 healthy controls. And importantly, none of the individual subjects in the study were related (this was an attempt to reduce the effect of shared microbiota between people who live together). Participants were enrolled from the NeuroGenetics Research Consortium in the cities of Seattle (Washington), Atlanta (Georgia) and Albany (New York).

So what did they find?

The researcher’s data revealed alterations in at least 7 families of bacteria: Bifidobacteriaceae, Christensenellaceae, Tissierellaceae, Lachnospiraceae, Lactobacillaceae, Pasteurellaceae, and Verrucomicrobiaceae families

Of particular interest was their observation of reduced levels of Lachnospiraceae in Parkinson’s disease subjects. Lachnospiraceae is involved with the production of short chain fatty acids (SCFA) in the gut. Depletion of SCFA has been implicated in the pathogenesis of Parkinson’s disease (Click here for more on this), and it could potentially explain the inflammation and microglial cell activation observed in the brain (Click here for more on this).

Importantly, they did not replicate the association of Parkinson’s disease with Prevotellaceae (see the previous study above).

The investigators also looked at the medication that the subjects were taking and they found a significant difference in the gut microbiome in relation to treatment with COMT inhibitors and anticholinergics. The effects of COMT inhibitors and anticholinergics on hte microbiome was independent of the effect that Parkinson’s disease was having.

The investigators concluded that Parkinson’s disease is accompanied by ‘dysbiosis of gut microbiome’ (that is, microbial imbalance). Again they could not determine whether the ‘chicken came before the egg’ so to speak, but it will be interesting to see what follow up work in this study highlights.

What does it all mean?

The studies that we have reviewed today provide us with evidence that the bacteria in the guts of people with Parkinson’s disease are different to that of healthy control subjects. Whether the differences between the studies results are due to regional effects (Finland vs USA) will require further investigation. But given that so much attention is now focused on the role of the gut in Parkinson’s disease, it is interesting that there are differences in the gut microbiome between people with and without Parkinson’s disease.

One issue that both studies do not address is whether this difference is specific to Parkinson’s disease and not other neurodegenerative conditions. That is to say, it would have been very interesting if the investigators had included a small set of samples from people with Alzheimer’s disease, for example. This would indicate which differences are specific to Parkinson’s disease as opposed to differences that a general to individuals who have a neurodegenerative condition. If they can tease out medication-related differences (in the second study), then this should be a do-able addition to any future studies.

One would also hope that the researchers will go back and dig a little deeper with future analyses. Using 16S ribosomal RNA gene analysis to determine and quantify the different families of bacteria is analogous to dividing people according to hair and eye colour. The bacteria of our gut is a lot more complicated than this review has suggested. For example, future studies and follow up research could include some genetic techniques that go beyond simply sequencing the 16S ribosomal RNA gene. The investigators could sequence the entire genomes of these species of bacteria to see if genetic mutations within a particular family of bacteria is present in people with Parkinson’s disease.

Easy to say of course. A lot of work, in practise.

There is most likely going to be more of a focus on the gastrointestinal tract in Parkinson’s disease research as a result of these studies. It will be interesting to see where this research leads.


The banner for today’s post was sourced from Youtube