You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
  • Review
  • Open Access

24 February 2023

What the Gut Tells the Brain—Is There a Link between Microbiota and Huntington’s Disease?

,
,
and
1
Laboratory of Mammalian Model Organisms, Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry Polish Academy of Sciences, Noskowskiego 12/14, 61-704 Poznan, Poland
2
Department of Molecular Neurooncology, Institute of Bioorganic Chemistry Polish Academy of Sciences, Noskowskiego 12/14, 61-704 Poznan, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Molecular Research in Human Microbiome

Abstract

The human intestinal microbiota is a diverse and dynamic microenvironment that forms a complex, bi-directional relationship with the host. The microbiome takes part in the digestion of food and the generation of crucial nutrients such as short chain fatty acids (SCFA), but is also impacts the host’s metabolism, immune system, and even brain functions. Due to its indispensable role, microbiota has been implicated in both the maintenance of health and the pathogenesis of many diseases. Dysbiosis in the gut microbiota has already been implicated in many neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, not much is known about the microbiome composition and its interactions in Huntington’s disease (HD). This dominantly heritable, incurable neurodegenerative disease is caused by the expansion of CAG trinucleotide repeats in the huntingtin gene (HTT). As a result, toxic RNA and mutant protein (mHTT), rich in polyglutamine (polyQ), accumulate particularly in the brain, leading to its impaired functions. Interestingly, recent studies indicated that mHTT is also widely expressed in the intestines and could possibly interact with the microbiota, affecting the progression of HD. Several studies have aimed so far to screen the microbiota composition in mouse models of HD and find out whether observed microbiome dysbiosis could affect the functions of the HD brain. This review summarizes ongoing research in the HD field and highlights the essential role of the intestine-brain axis in HD pathogenesis and progression. The review also puts a strong emphasis on indicating microbiome composition as a future target in the urgently needed therapy for this still incurable disease.

1. Introduction

1.1. Intestinal Microbiome

The intestinal microbiome is the largest and most active group of microorganisms in the human body. It plays an essential role in health and disease, but due to its complexity, it is challenging to elucidate the specific interactions between the bacterial species and the impact on host metabolism. The large intestine (colon) is the main place inhabited by microbiota. It is built up by several tissue types, including lumen-facing colonocytes that form the inner epithelial layer. A healthy microbiome is advantageous to the host due to its ability to digest various large molecules, like long plant-derived polysaccharides, into smaller nutrients, like short chain fatty acids (SCFA), that can be absorbed and utilized by the host. It also produces various other molecules, such as amino acids, vitamins, and neurotransmitters, that contribute to the host’s health [1,2]. Over 1000 different bacterial species colonize the human gut, the vast majority of which have yet to be functionally characterized. The microbiota composition is dynamic and influenced by a variety of environmental factors such as diet, physical activity, host genetics, age, and antibiotic treatment, all of which contribute to the great diversity observed in healthy individuals. It is thus a challenge to accurately characterize a healthy microbiome [3]. We took a closer look at several large-scale studies that point to the genera Bacteroides and Clostridium as being the most prevalent, with Clostridium being less abundant than Bacteroides in the human intestine. Several genera, including Bifidobacterium, Eubacterium, Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, and Escherichia, were also present but in much lower abundance [3]. Determining a clear definition of a “healthy” microbiome is challenging, and many various factors need to be considered. The microbiome composition is dependent on a multitude of factors that may seem insignificant at first glance. In 2010, studies conducted by the MetaHIT consortium made an attempt to quantify microbiome diversity. According to the obtained results, there are 3.3 million non-redundant genes in the human gut microbiome [4], however, it had been known until early 2000s that the human genome consists of about 22,000 genes [5]. Further research confirms that the diversity of the microbiome is enormous between individuals and can differ by up to 90% in terms of microbiome localization (e.g., those found on the hands vs. those present in the gut) [6,7]. These findings drive scientists and physicians towards developing a highly personalized treatment plan. The profile and microbiota composition changes with the host’s lifespan, starting from embryos which were thought to be sterile till now. The microbiota colonizes newborns’ intestines, but studies have also revealed the microbiome’s presence in semen, placenta, amniotic fluid, umbilical cord blood, and meconium [8]. Moreover, factors such as delivery and feeding methods are essential for microbiota composition in infants and adults. Further, when children start to ingest solid food, their intestinal microbiome becomes more diversified, and during puberty, the release of sex hormones also contributes to microbiome maturation [9]. Next, diversification of the microbiome occurs naturally with the physiological development of the organism, i.e., the increase in length and volume of the intestines provides the microbiome with appropriate niches. Numerous studies indicate that there is a correlation between aging and microbiome composition. In 2011, a pioneering study was conducted to compare the composition of the microbiome in fecal samples from people aged 64 to 102 (study group) and young adults with an average age of 36 (control group). The results showed that the “core” microbiome—defined as the specific species found in the microbiome of at least 50% of study participants—was significantly different between the groups [10,11]. So far, the main function of the intestinal microbiome has been identified as maintaining body homeostasis. Researchers emphasize that despite the fact that technological progress is at a high level, the individual composition of the microbiome, functional characteristics, or interactions between the host and microbes have not yet been established [12]. Data collected by the Human Microbiome Project [13,14] and MetaHIT [4,15] report that 2776 species of prokaryotic microorganisms isolated from human feces have been identified (data for 2019) [16]. They have been classified into 11 different phyla, including Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes, which make up over 90% of the microbiome, [15,17,18], while Fusobacteria and Verrucomicrobia are present in trace amounts [19]. As mentioned earlier, microbiota are essential for the proper function and homeostasis of the intestines. Interactions between gut colonocytes, immune cells, and microbiota are heavily involved in shaping the immune response throughout the body [20]. In support of this, gut microbiota transplants from healthy individuals have been found to alleviate symptoms and reduce inflammation in disorders like ulcerative colitis, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), and hepatic encephalopathy [21,22].

1.2. Short Chain Fatty Acid Production and Their Importance

Key end products of microbial fermentation in the large intestine are short chain fatty acids. They are saturated carboxylic acids containing less than six carbons in their chain structure. The main sources of SCFAs are dietary macromolecules, especially fiber-rich plant-derived polysaccharides that are indigestible to humans due to the lack of enzymes required for breaking the glycosidic bonds. Thus, they are available to microbes in the intestinal lumen, which ferment them and make them available to the host. SCFAs are transported into the colonic epithelial cells by solute transporters or by simple diffusion across the membranes [23]. 95% of the total SCFAs in the human gut are acetate, propionate, and butyrate, and their levels are largely dependent on the diet and the amount of fiber, which affect the microbiota composition. The main species involved in the production of acetate are Akkermansia muciniphila, Bacteroidetes spp., and Prevetolla spp. Propionate is mostly produced by Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes, with the latter also producing butyrate. SCFAs are an important energy source for colonocytes and hepatocytes, but they also enter the systemic circulation and act as signaling molecules to exert a variety of regulatory functions. The presence of SCFAs is closely linked to gut integrity, not only through increased expression of tight junction (TJ) proteins but also through modulation of the host immune system. They act as ligands for G-protein-coupled receptors (GPR), their main targets being GPR43 and GPR41, also called free fatty acid receptor-2 (FFAR2) and free fatty acid receptor-3 (FFAR3), respectively. It has also been reported that butyrate can interact with GPR109/HCA2 (hydroxycarboxylic acid receptor 2). These receptors are involved in the glucose metabolism, lipid regulation, and gut homeostasis, as well as being expressed on immune cells, where they can influence the inflammation. Indeed, acetate has been implicated in resolving enteritis through GPR43 signaling [24]. Propionate, butyrate, and valerate can influence gene transcription by inhibiting histone deacetylase (HDAC) and thus making chromatin more accessible to transcription factors. Butyrate has been shown to be a potent suppressor of CD4+ T cell activation, acting through GPR43 and HDAC inhibition to decrease proliferation and production of proinflammatory cytokines (IFN-γ, IL-17) [25,26]. Studies show that butyrate-mediated inhibition of class II HDAC in the gut CD4+ T cells epigenetically induces the transcription of genes responsible for regulatory T cell (Treg) function [27]. There are many examples of the anti-inflammatory roles of SCFAs, but some studies report a dual effect, inducing both Treg and cytotoxic effector T cells, which points out the need for further studies [23].
Importantly, SCFAs can also cross the blood-brain barrier and affect the brain, which renders them as a potential target in neuroinflammatory diseases [20]. Supplementation of sodium butyrate has been tested on the R6/2 mouse model of HD, yielding positive results. When compared to untreated controls, the supplemented group showed improved motor performance, increased brain weight, and decreased striatal neuronal atrophy. However, sodium butyrate supplementation had no effect on the formation of mutant huntingtin (mHTT) aggregates or weight loss [28]. The study conducted on the YAC128 mouse HD model has also shown a beneficial effect of sodium butyrate supplementation, as the treated group displayed improved learning and motor skills, as well as improved cortical energy levels and increased histone 3 acetylation, suggesting that butyrate acting as an HDAC inhibitor can improve mitochondrial and transcriptional dysfunctions present in HD [29].

1.3. Tryptophan Metabolism

Tryptophan is an essential amino acid, since in mammals it is mainly derived from diet and used for protein synthesis or converted through two main pathways: serotonin or kynurenine. In the body, there are two pools of serotonin: the brain and the gut. In the brain, serotonin is synthesized in the midbrain by neurons of the raphe nucleus, although the vast majority of serotonin is produced in the gut and can impact the brain through the stimulation of the vagus nerve. Other microbial metabolites, such as butyrate, can also impact serotonin production by stimulating the activity of the tryptophan hydroxylase 1 (TPH1) enzyme. The serotonin pathway can also lead to the synthesis of melatonin, which regulates the biological rhythm and can have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects [30].
The kynurenine pathway utilizes the vast majority of available tryptophan and leads to the synthesis of NAD+, which is essential for the proper functioning of the cells. There are two enzymes responsible for the conversion of tryptophan into kynurenine: IDO1 and IDO2. The IDO1 enzyme has been implicated as a key molecule regulating the host-microbiome symbiotic relationship and immune responses. L-kynurenine acts as a ligand for the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR), which is expressed in lymphoid tissues and has been linked to promoting Treg development in the periphery, thus stimulating homeostasis and immune tolerance. AhR signaling is also responsible for promoting IL-22 expression in gut-resident type 3 innate lymphoid cells (ILC3) [31]. There are two major metabolites synthesized along this pathway that have neuroactive properties: kynurenic acid (KYNA) and quinolinic acid (QUIN). KYNA has a neuroprotective function and is mainly produced by astrocytes, while QUIN has neurotoxic effects and is synthesized by microglia. The presence of IFN-γ and a proinflammatory environment has been found to promote QUIN production and skew the balance towards neurotoxicity.
Additionally, the gut microbiome can metabolize tryptophan along the indole pathway. Escherichia coli, Clostridium spp., and Bacteroides spp. are known to utilize this pathway. About 5% of ingested tryptophan is used by microbes for a variety of physiological processes, like biofilm formation, drug resistance, virulence, and others, which are required for the maintenance of a variable microbial community, but indole and its derivatives also influence the host [30,32]. Similar to kynurenine, several indole derivatives can act as ligands for AhR and have been linked to promoting IL-22 expression. A study has shown that regulation of gut IL-22 expression by indole-3-aldehyde allows for the survival of a varied microbial community while providing resistance to opportunistic fungi (C. albicans) infection [31].

1.4. Gut-Brain Axis

The gut-brain axis is the main link between the digestive tract and the central nervous system (CNS). It is a specific two-way communication system consisting of neural pathways such as the enteric nervous system (ENS), the sympathetic and spinal vagus nerves, and the humoral pathways involving cytokines, hormones, and neuropeptides [33]. The factors regulating the work of the axis include cortisol, SCFAs, neurotransmitters, neuromodulators, and the intestinal microbiota, which has been recognized relatively recently and is still gaining popularity. For a long time, the gut-brain axis has been known to play a role in maintaining homeostasis in the body. Disturbances of the brain-gut axis are believed to lead to systemic disorders, such as dysregulation of the intestinal system and CNS disorders, e.g., depression [34,35]. The direct impact of the microbiome on the CNS is still poorly understood. The gut microbiome is known to produce neurotransmitters such as gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), histamine, dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin, as well as most likely other neuroactive molecules [16]. The ENS is the internal nervous system of the gastrointestinal tract, where neurons organized in microarrays enable modulation of gastrointestinal function independently from the CNS, although the systems are interconnected and interact with each other [36]. This combination is also believed to allow the neurodegenerative diseases to progress. In 80% of individuals affected by Parkinson’s disease, the symptoms of neurodegeneration were preceded by digestive system symptoms. It has been suggested that alpha-synucleopathy of the gastrointestinal nervous system is an early indicator of Parkinson’s disease. The regular expression of the APP gene in the ENS indicates that it is also involved in the pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease [37,38].

3. Discussion and Future Prospects

Increasing advancement in research on neurodegenerative diseases indicates that these pathologies are very complex processes with often forgotten microbiome- and immune-related components. The publications and studies mentioned in this review present evidence for the relationship between neurodegenerative diseases, mainly HD, and the intestinal microbiome. So far, the focus has been on understanding the pathology of the disease based on molecular biomarkers, which hopefully could effectively contribute to the development of future therapies [97]. Recent studies on the effect of the intestinal microbiome and its metabolites also pave the way for new branches in the field of HD. Microbial metabolites have the potential to modulate the pathogenesis of HD. SCFAs can influence the immune system and ameliorate inflammation, both in the CNS and the peripheral nerves. Studies on mouse models that were supplemented with sodium butyrate showed a beneficial effect on their motor skills, mitochondrial and transcriptional dysfunction [28,29]. This suggests that therapeutic interventions promoting butyrate production by patients’ microbiota have the potential to ameliorate disease symptoms. However, there are still many open questions regarding the bacteria inhabiting healthy and diseased digestive systems. The results of research involving microbiota carried out so far are still not entirely conclusive due to microbiome complexity and numerous contributing factors. Therefore, there is still a long way to go to fully understand the communication in the gut—brain axis, including in pathological conditions like HD.
Moreover, the microbiome results are not always consistent. The large amount of data generated in experiments is hard to compile, and one needs to be attentive when analyzing and drawing conclusions based on it. Insufficiently known taxonomies of species inhabiting the intestines and inaccurate and non-standardized terminology related to the subject of the microbiome are often misleading and generate mistakes when classifying individual bacteria into appropriate classes, groups, or families. Furthermore, the choice of mouse model, its strain, sex, or age is essential in the studies concerning the microbiome. For example, two studies in a mouse model of HD confirm an increase in Bacteriodetes and a decrease in Firmicutes [88,90]. The first one was carried out on the R6/1 line, and the second on the R6/2 mouse model. Additionally, the study conducted on another HD model contradicts these results. At 3 months of age, BACHD mice exhibit the opposite trend of increased Firmicutes and decreased Bacteriodetes. Interestingly, re-analysis on 6-month-old mice showed the opposite, which rather confirms the results of the previous two studies [93]. The presented results display certain consistency, despite the use of different models, but only when using older mice from the BACHD line. It can be assumed that the microbiome diversity changes in the same fashion as organisms mature. It is also worth noting that some of the results show statistical significance only in the group of males, both in animal and human studies [88,95]. On the other hand, only female mice showed a positive reaction to the transplant of a healthy microbiome [87]. These findings also indicate the effect of female hormones on microbiome composition. In the study conducted by the Hannan group, the body weight of WT and HD mice differed significantly, as HD mice lost weight with age. This could be due to differences in the composition of the microbiome and the level of food absorption, which is inversely proportional to body weight [98]. Increased thirst was also noted, possibly due to xerostomia, which both patients and HD mice suffer from, or hypothalamic degeneration, which is associated with increased thirst [99]. Interestingly, increased water intake by the animals did not change the water content of the feces. The reason could be the microbiological environment in the intestines. This result may suggest a very precise regulation of water absorption [100]. Some of the cited studies indicate an increased level of alpha diversity compared to other groups [88,91,96]. A higher level of this index is believed to indicate a healthier and more resilient microbial environment [101]. Studies in other models of neurodegenerative diseases, such as AD and PD, have also linked movement deficits with lower levels of alpha diversity in patients compared to controls [102,103,104]. Human HD studies have shown lower [95] and higher [96] values of alpha diversity in CAG repeat overexpressors compared to healthy controls. Recent extensive meta-analyses have found no associations between alpha diversity and neurological disorders, particularly in PD and MS [105]. Interestingly, there are also studies that prove that increased diversity does not always correlate with better patient conditions [106,107]. According to Coyte et al., a decrease in the stability of the microbiome environment may also result in higher alpha diversity [108]. Research also shows that the alpha level of diversity may also be related to diet, body weight, and gastrointestinal physiology [109].
Another essential factor that should be considered when conducting experiments related to the microbiome and neurodegeneration in humans is the environment. Each of the mentioned experiments was performed under slightly different conditions, especially in humans. Environmental changes are noticeable among the participants of a project, despite the fact that the control group was chosen from the close family members of the patients [96]. The composition of the gut microbiome is also influenced by various factors, such as physical activity [110,111]. The difference in this respect between healthy and disease-affected individuals certainly existed during the project. This proves how difficult it is to compose appropriate groups in experiments assuming the study of the microbiome. In addition to differences in physical activity, each person has different nutritional preferences, which certainly influence the composition of the microbiome and are a burden for bioinformaticians to be leveled in statistical analyses [112,113]. In addition, the quoted research was performed on distinct continents, which results in diametrically different environmental conditions such as climate or local food accessibility that affect diet [114]. Sampling for testing is an extremely important point in the whole experiment. Typically, the collected samples are snap frozen to eliminate the adverse effect of air on aerophobic bacteria in the samples. In both of these experiments [95,96], the samples were obtained in a different way, and the patients were responsible for collecting and delivering the samples to the laboratory, which might have affected the composition of the microbiome in the samples. Conducting research on mouse models can be better standardized and reproducible by applying a specific sampling and storage protocol. Collection should be as quick as possible, with a caution not to contaminate the sample with other DNA or with bacteria residing on fur.
Animal experiments also have the advantage of breeding in more standardized conditions, typically SPF, though the microbiome may vary slightly. On the other hand, the place of origin of the animal, lineage, strain, age, disease model, maintenance method, or even environmental enrichment in the cages are all aspects that should be considered when studying the microbiome. Mice are also known to be coprophages to reabsorb essential nutrients such as vitamins; thus, when housing a few mice in the same cage, one should consider the natural microbiome transfer between them and dodge the “cage effect” [91]. Additionally, all existing mouse models of HD differ from each other by the dynamics of disease progression or the degree of interference in the animal’s genome [115,116]. At this point, it is worth considering at what age and on what model such tests should be carried out. The studies we quoted were based on various models and were carried out on animals of different ages. As with human studies, comparing results obtained in mouse experiments is equally problematic, although the experiments were more standardized.
Animal models of HD provide us with tools to study the mammalian microbiome and its possible implications for disease progression in a highly controlled environment. Most studies presented in this review used R6/1 or R6/2 models, which are well established for HD; however, they are characterized by early onset, rapid disease progression, and premature death. As previously mentioned, in humans, the symptoms of HD occur well into adulthood, at 35–40 years of age, with continuous progression for the next 10–15 years, which points to a need for other models with slower disease progression, such as YAC128, Hu128/21, or BACHD. Aging is also closely linked to changes in microbiome composition, so these models might be more applicable for long term studies of changes in microbiome composition and possible dietary or therapeutic interventions that might better translate to humans. There was only one study utilizing the BACHD model that showed pronounced differences in microbiota composition at different ages [93]. Long-term studies on both pre- and post-symptomatic animals are important for a better understanding of the microbiome and HD pathology, but they also have the unique ability to find the most suitable timepoints for therapeutic interventions. Using these models might also be relevant in fecal microbiota transfer studies, as the R6/2 model used by Gubert and colleagues has shown that the engraftment was unsuccessful in male mice [87]. Using models with slower disease progression might provide the researchers with a variety of timepoints and disease phenotypes to choose from, which might impact the success of the microbiota transplant.
There is also a fruit fly model of HD (FL-HD) that exhibits similar symptoms such as motor deficits, mHTT aggregates, disrupted gene expression, and dysbiosis in the gut. The Drosophila microbiome is, however, much less complex than the mammalian microbiome, which can help in analyzing single species and their impact on dysbiosis. A study conducted on female fruit flies has found that gut colonization by E. coli worsened the HD symptoms, as there was an increase in aggregate buildup and earlier death. A therapy using crocin was used in Drosophila with beneficial effects. This therapy ameliorated motor deficits and extended the lifespan, but what is more interesting is that it provided resistance to E. coli colonization and had positive effects on the microbiome [117]. Crocin is a carotenoid exhibiting anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and neuroprotective properties. Crocin, or its major byproduct, crocetin, has been suggested to act in the gut and modulate the gut microbiome. Another study has shown that oral administration of crocin was beneficial for cerebral ischemic/reperfusion (I/R) injuries in rats, while the intravenous route of administration was not. It suggests that the therapeutic effects are mediated through the gut microbiota [118]. As such, crocin might provide beneficial effects in HD, ameliorating inflammation, oxidative stress, and gut dysbiosis, which makes it a promising target for further studies.
Interestingly, a few studies have found that prion infection can also lead to dysbiosis and significant changes in microbial metabolites. The microbial richness (alpha diversity) was higher in healthy controls, and the microbiome structure was significantly different between healthy and infected groups. Prion diseases are linked to neuroinflammation, and while the mechanism underlying the gut dysbiosis in this type of disease is not well understood, it is nonetheless an interesting topic to further examine the relationship between the gut and the brain [119,120].
According to the latest research, taking pro- and pre-biotics can help with nervous system diseases. So far, the effect of taking these substances on the progression of HD has not been proven, but it has been studied in other neurodegenerative diseases. There are several studies confirming the psychophysiological effect of prebiotics on the body. Chitosan oligosaccharide (COS) has been shown to have a positive effect on cognitive deficits in a rat model of AD by reducing oxidative stress and neuroinflammatory responses [121]. In studies on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, it was proven that the use of galactooligosaccharides (GOS) reduced the activation of microglia and astrocytes and caused less death of motor neurons [122]. Other studies conducted in a mouse model of PD showed that long-term intake of probiotics resulted in a neuroprotective effect on dopaminergic neurons, effectively counteracting motor disorders in animals [123]. Unfortunately, few similar studies have been conducted in humans so far. The examples of research cited above prove that the use of products containing both pro- and prebiotic bacterial strains could act as an effective supporting therapy in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases. Perhaps in the future, effective and personalized drugs based solely on these compounds will be developed.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.P.; writing—original draft preparation, L.P., A.K., D.W. and J.O.M.; writing—review and editing, L.P., A.K., D.W. and J.O.M.; visualization, A.K.; supervision, L.P.; funding acquisition, L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Anna Zimniewicz for her support in gathering material for this review article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Magnúsdóttir, S.; Thiele, I. Modeling Metabolism of the Human Gut Microbiome. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2018, 51, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sochocka, M.; Donskow-Łysoniewska, K.; Diniz, B.S.; Kurpas, D.; Brzozowska, E.; Leszek, J. The Gut Microbiome Alterations and Inflammation-Driven Pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s Disease—A Critical Review. Mol. Neurobiol. 2019, 56, 1841–1851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lloyd-Price, J.; Abu-Ali, G.; Huttenhower, C. The Healthy Human Microbiome. Genome Med. 2016, 8, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Qin, J.; Li, R.; Raes, J.; Arumugam, M.; Burgdorf, K.S.; Manichanh, C.; Nielsen, T.; Pons, N.; Levenez, F.; Yamada, T.; et al. A Human Gut Microbial Gene Catalogue Established by Metagenomic Sequencing. Nature 2010, 464, 59–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium Finishing the Euchromatic Sequence of the Human Genome. Nature 2004, 431, 931–945. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Fierer, N.; Hamady, M.; Lauber, C.L.; Knight, R. The Influence of Sex, Handedness, and Washing on the Diversity of Hand Surface Bacteria. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 17994–17999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Turnbaugh, P.J.; Hamady, M.; Yatsunenko, T.; Cantarel, B.L.; Duncan, A.; Ley, R.E.; Sogin, M.L.; Jones, W.J.; Roe, B.A.; Affourtit, J.P.; et al. A Core Gut Microbiome in Obese and Lean Twins. Nature 2009, 457, 480–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Collado, M.C.; Rautava, S.; Aakko, J.; Isolauri, E.; Salminen, S. Human Gut Colonisation May Be Initiated in Utero by Distinct Microbial Communities in the Placenta and Amniotic Fluid. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 23129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Koenig, J.E.; Spor, A.; Scalfone, N.; Fricker, A.D.; Stombaugh, J.; Knight, R.; Angenent, L.T.; Ley, R.E. Succession of Microbial Consortia in the Developing Infant Gut Microbiome. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 4578–4585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Claesson, M.J.; Jeffery, I.B.; Conde, S.; Power, S.E.; O’Connor, E.M.; Cusack, S.; Harris, H.M.B.; Coakley, M.; Lakshminarayanan, B.; O’Sullivan, O.; et al. Gut Microbiota Composition Correlates with Diet and Health in the Elderly. Nature 2012, 488, 178–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kundu, P.; Blacher, E.; Elinav, E.; Pettersson, S. Our Gut Microbiome: The Evolving Inner Self. Cell 2017, 171, 1481–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Ruan, W.; Engevik, M.A.; Spinler, J.K.; Versalovic, J. Healthy Human Gastrointestinal Microbiome: Composition and Function After a Decade of Exploration. Dig. Dis. Sci. 2020, 65, 695–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Human Microbiome Jumpstart Reference Strains Consortium; Nelson, K.E.; Weinstock, G.M.; Highlander, S.K.; Worley, K.C.; Creasy, H.H.; Wortman, J.R.; Rusch, D.B.; Mitreva, M.; Sodergren, E.; et al. A Catalog of Reference Genomes from the Human Microbiome. Science 2010, 328, 994–999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Huttenhower, C.; Gevers, D.; Knight, R.; Abubucker, S.; Badger, J.H.; Chinwalla, A.T.; Creasy, H.H.; Earl, A.M.; FitzGerald, M.G.; Fulton, R.S.; et al. Structure, Function and Diversity of the Healthy Human Microbiome. Nature 2012, 486, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Li, J.; Jia, H.; Cai, X.; Zhong, H.; Feng, Q.; Sunagawa, S.; Arumugam, M.; Kultima, J.R.; Prifti, E.; Nielsen, T.; et al. An Integrated Catalog of Reference Genes in the Human Gut Microbiome. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32, 834–841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cryan, J.F.; O’Riordan, K.J.; Cowan, C.S.M.; Sandhu, K.V.; Bastiaanssen, T.F.S.; Boehme, M.; Codagnone, M.G.; Cussotto, S.; Fulling, C.; Golubeva, A.V.; et al. The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis. Physiol. Rev. 2019, 99, 1877–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bilen, M.; Dufour, J.-C.; Lagier, J.-C.; Cadoret, F.; Daoud, Z.; Dubourg, G.; Raoult, D. The Contribution of Culturomics to the Repertoire of Isolated Human Bacterial and Archaeal Species. Microbiome 2018, 6, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Hugon, P.; Dufour, J.-C.; Colson, P.; Fournier, P.-E.; Sallah, K.; Raoult, D. A Comprehensive Repertoire of Prokaryotic Species Identified in Human Beings. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2015, 15, 1211–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Eckburg, P.B.; Bik, E.M.; Bernstein, C.N.; Purdom, E.; Dethlefsen, L.; Sargent, M.; Gill, S.R.; Nelson, K.E.; Relman, D.A. Diversity of the Human Intestinal Microbial Flora. Science 2005, 308, 1635–1638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rebeaud, J.; Peter, B.; Pot, C. How Microbiota-Derived Metabolites Link the Gut to the Brain during Neuroinflammation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 10128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Costello, S.P.; Hughes, P.A.; Waters, O.; Bryant, R.V.; Vincent, A.D.; Blatchford, P.; Katsikeros, R.; Makanyanga, J.; Campaniello, M.A.; Mavrangelos, C.; et al. Effect of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation on 8-Week Remission in Patients with Ulcerative Colitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 2019, 321, 156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ooijevaar, R.E.; Terveer, E.M.; Verspaget, H.W.; Kuijper, E.J.; Keller, J.J. Clinical Application and Potential of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. Annu. Rev. Med. 2019, 70, 335–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Park, J.; Kim, M.; Kang, S.G.; Jannasch, A.H.; Cooper, B.; Patterson, J.; Kim, C.H. Short-Chain Fatty Acids Induce Both Effector and Regulatory T Cells by Suppression of Histone Deacetylases and Regulation of the MTOR–S6K Pathway. Mucosal Immunol. 2015, 8, 80–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Maslowski, K.M.; Vieira, A.T.; Ng, A.; Kranich, J.; Sierro, F.; Yu, D.; Schilter, H.C.; Rolph, M.S.; Mackay, F.; Artis, D.; et al. Regulation of Inflammatory Responses by Gut Microbiota and Chemoattractant Receptor GPR43. Nature 2009, 461, 1282–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rekha, K.; Venkidasamy, B.; Samynathan, R.; Nagella, P.; Rebezov, M.; Khayrullin, M.; Ponomarev, E.; Bouyahya, A.; Sarkar, T.; Shariati, M.A.; et al. Short-Chain Fatty Acid: An Updated Review on Signaling, Metabolism, and Therapeutic Effects. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2022, 62, 1–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Kibbie, J.J.; Dillon, S.M.; Thompson, T.A.; Purba, C.M.; McCarter, M.D.; Wilson, C.C. Butyrate Directly Decreases Human Gut Lamina Propria CD4 T Cell Function through Histone Deacetylase (HDAC) Inhibition and GPR43 Signaling. Immunobiology 2021, 226, 152126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Furusawa, Y.; Obata, Y.; Fukuda, S.; Endo, T.A.; Nakato, G.; Takahashi, D.; Nakanishi, Y.; Uetake, C.; Kato, K.; Kato, T.; et al. Commensal Microbe-Derived Butyrate Induces the Differentiation of Colonic Regulatory T Cells. Nature 2013, 504, 446–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Ferrante, R.J.; Kubilus, J.K.; Lee, J.; Ryu, H.; Beesen, A.; Zucker, B.; Smith, K.; Kowall, N.W.; Ratan, R.R.; Luthi-Carter, R.; et al. Histone Deacetylase Inhibition by Sodium Butyrate Chemotherapy Ameliorates the Neurodegenerative Phenotype in Huntington’s Disease Mice. J. Neurosci. 2003, 23, 9418–9427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Naia, L.; Cunha-Oliveira, T.; Rodrigues, J.; Rosenstock, T.R.; Oliveira, A.; Ribeiro, M.; Carmo, C.; Oliveira-Sousa, S.I.; Duarte, A.I.; Hayden, M.R.; et al. Histone Deacetylase Inhibitors Protect Against Pyruvate Dehydrogenase Dysfunction in Huntington’s Disease. J. Neurosci. 2017, 37, 2776–2794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lukić, I.; Ivković, S.; Mitić, M.; Adžić, M. Tryptophan Metabolites in Depression: Modulation by Gut Microbiota. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 987697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zelante, T.; Iannitti, R.G.; Cunha, C.; De Luca, A.; Giovannini, G.; Pieraccini, G.; Zecchi, R.; D’Angelo, C.; Massi-Benedetti, C.; Fallarino, F.; et al. Tryptophan Catabolites from Microbiota Engage Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor and Balance Mucosal Reactivity via Interleukin-22. Immunity 2013, 39, 372–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Lee, J.-H.; Lee, J. Indole as an Intercellular Signal in Microbial Communities. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2010, 34, 426–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bercik, P.; Collins, S.M.; Verdu, E.F. Microbes and the Gut-Brain Axis: Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2012, 24, 405–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liang, S.; Wu, X.; Jin, F. Gut-Brain Psychology: Rethinking Psychology from the Microbiota–Gut–Brain Axis. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Margolis, K.G.; Cryan, J.F.; Mayer, E.A. The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis: From Motility to Mood. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 1486–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Spencer, N.J.; Hu, H. Enteric Nervous System: Sensory Transduction, Neural Circuits and Gastrointestinal Motility. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 17, 338–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kowalski, K.; Mulak, A. Brain-Gut-Microbiota Axis in Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2019, 25, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mulak, A.; Koszewicz, M.; Panek-Jeziorna, M.; Koziorowska-Gawron, E.; Budrewicz, S. Fecal Calprotectin as a Marker of the Gut Immune System Activation Is Elevated in Parkinson’s Disease. Front. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Antony, P.M.A.; Diederich, N.J.; Krüger, R.; Balling, R. The Hallmarks of Parkinson’s Disease. FEBS J. 2013, 280, 5981–5993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lane, C.A.; Hardy, J.; Schott, J.M. Alzheimer’s Disease. Eur. J. Neurol. 2018, 25, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Chen, S.-J.; Chen, C.-C.; Liao, H.-Y.; Lin, Y.-T.; Wu, Y.-W.; Liou, J.-M.; Wu, M.-S.; Kuo, C.-H.; Lin, C.-H. Association of Fecal and Plasma Levels of Short-Chain Fatty Acids with Gut Microbiota and Clinical Severity in Patients with Parkinson Disease. Neurology 2022, 98, e848–e858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bedarf, J.R.; Hildebrand, F.; Coelho, L.P.; Sunagawa, S.; Bahram, M.; Goeser, F.; Bork, P.; Wüllner, U. Functional Implications of Microbial and Viral Gut Metagenome Changes in Early Stage L-DOPA-Naïve Parkinson’s Disease Patients. Genome Med. 2017, 9, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Sampson, T.R.; Debelius, J.W.; Thron, T.; Janssen, S.; Shastri, G.G.; Ilhan, Z.E.; Challis, C.; Schretter, C.E.; Rocha, S.; Gradinaru, V.; et al. Gut Microbiota Regulate Motor Deficits and Neuroinflammation in a Model of Parkinson’s Disease. Cell 2016, 167, 1469–1480.e12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Uyar, G.Ö.; Yildiran, H. A Nutritional Approach to Microbiota in Parkinson’s Disease. Biosci. Microbiota Food Health 2019, 38, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Bullich, C.; Keshavarzian, A.; Garssen, J.; Kraneveld, A.; Perez-Pardo, P. Gut Vibes in Parkinson’s Disease: The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis. Mov. Disord. Clin. Pract. 2019, 6, 639–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Kim, M.-S.; Kim, Y.; Choi, H.; Kim, W.; Park, S.; Lee, D.; Kim, D.K.; Kim, H.J.; Choi, H.; Hyun, D.-W.; et al. Transfer of a Healthy Microbiota Reduces Amyloid and Tau Pathology in an Alzheimer’s Disease Animal Model. Gut 2020, 69, 283–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yan, Y.; Gao, Y.; Fang, Q.; Zhang, N.; Kumar, G.; Yan, H.; Song, L.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Sun, J.; et al. Inhibition of Rho Kinase by Fasudil Ameliorates Cognition Impairment in APP/PS1 Transgenic Mice via Modulation of Gut Microbiota and Metabolites. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2021, 13, 755164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gu, X.; Zhou, J.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, H.; Si, N.; Ren, W.; Zhao, W.; Fan, X.; Gao, W.; Wei, X.; et al. Huanglian Jiedu Decoction Remodels the Periphery Microenvironment to Inhibit Alzheimer’s Disease Progression Based on the “Brain-Gut” Axis through Multiple Integrated Omics. Alzheimers Res. Ther. 2021, 13, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Liu, P.; Wu, L.; Peng, G.; Han, Y.; Tang, R.; Ge, J.; Zhang, L.; Jia, L.; Yue, S.; Zhou, K.; et al. Altered Microbiomes Distinguish Alzheimer’s Disease from Amnestic Mild Cognitive Impairment and Health in a Chinese Cohort. Brain Behav. Immun. 2019, 80, 633–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ling, Z.; Zhu, M.; Yan, X.; Cheng, Y.; Shao, L.; Liu, X.; Jiang, R.; Wu, S. Structural and Functional Dysbiosis of Fecal Microbiota in Chinese Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Front. Cell Dev. Biol. 2021, 8, 634069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zhang, X.; Wang, Y.; Liu, W.; Wang, T.; Wang, L.; Hao, L.; Ju, M.; Xiao, R. Diet Quality, Gut Microbiota, and MicroRNAs Associated with Mild Cognitive Impairment in Middle-Aged and Elderly Chinese Population. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2021, 114, 429–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Li, B.; He, Y.; Ma, J.; Huang, P.; Du, J.; Cao, L.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, Q.; Tang, H.; Chen, S. Mild Cognitive Impairment Has Similar Alterations as Alzheimer’s Disease in Gut Microbiota. Alzheimers Dement. 2019, 15, 1357–1366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Rawlings, A.M.; Sharrett, A.R.; Schneider, A.L.C.; Coresh, J.; Albert, M.; Couper, D.; Griswold, M.; Gottesman, R.F.; Wagenknecht, L.E.; Windham, B.G.; et al. Diabetes in Midlife and Cognitive Change over 20 Years: A Cohort Study. Ann. Intern. Med. 2014, 161, 785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ott, A.; Stolk, R.P.; van Harskamp, F.; Pols, H.A.P.; Hofman, A.; Breteler, M.M.B. Diabetes Mellitus and the Risk of Dementia: The Rotterdam Study. Neurology 1999, 53, 1937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. De la Monte, S.M.; Wands, J.R. Review of Insulin and Insulin-like Growth Factor Expression, Signaling, and Malfunction in the Central Nervous System: Relevance to Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2005, 7, 45–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Yahr, T.L.; Vallis, A.J.; Hancock, M.K.; Barbieri, J.T.; Frank, D.W. ExoY, an Adenylate Cyclase Secreted by the Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Type III System. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 13899–13904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Ochoa, C.D.; Alexeyev, M.; Pastukh, V.; Balczon, R.; Stevens, T. Pseudomonas Aeruginosa Exotoxin Y Is a Promiscuous Cyclase That Increases Endothelial Tau Phosphorylation and Permeability. J. Biol. Chem. 2012, 287, 25407–25418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Xi, J.; Ding, D.; Zhu, H.; Wang, R.; Su, F.; Wu, W.; Xiao, Z.; Liang, X.; Zhao, Q.; Hong, Z.; et al. Disturbed Microbial Ecology in Alzheimer’s Disease: Evidence from the Gut Microbiota and Fecal Metabolome. BMC Microbiol. 2021, 21, 226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Soriano, S.; Curry, K.; Wang, Q.; Chow, E.; Treangen, T.J.; Villapol, S. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Derived from Alzheimer’s Disease Mice Worsens Brain Trauma Outcomes in Wild-Type Controls. Int. J. Mol. Sci 2022, 23, 4476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Paulson, H. Repeat Expansion Diseases. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 147, pp. 105–123. ISBN 978-0-444-63233-3. [Google Scholar]
  61. Stoyas, C.A.; La Spada, A.R. The CAG–Polyglutamine Repeat Diseases: A Clinical, Molecular, Genetic, and Pathophysiologic Nosology. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 147, pp. 143–170. ISBN 978-0-444-63233-3. [Google Scholar]
  62. Orr, H.T.; Zoghbi, H.Y. Trinucleotide Repeat Disorders. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 2007, 30, 575–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Cohen-Carmon, D.; Meshorer, E. Polyglutamine (PolyQ) Disorders: The Chromatin Connection. Nucleus 2012, 3, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ghosh, R.; Tabrizi, S.J. Huntington Disease. In Handbook of Clinical Neurology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; Volume 147, pp. 255–278. ISBN 978-0-444-63233-3. [Google Scholar]
  65. Baine, F.K.; Kay, C.; Ketelaar, M.E.; Collins, J.A.; Semaka, A.; Doty, C.N.; Krause, A.; Jacquie Greenberg, L.; Hayden, M.R. Huntington Disease in the South African Population Occurs on Diverse and Ethnically Distinct Genetic Haplotypes. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2013, 21, 1120–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Kay, C.; Tirado-Hurtado, I.; Cornejo-Olivas, M.; Collins, J.A.; Wright, G.; Inca-Martinez, M.; Veliz-Otani, D.; Ketelaar, M.E.; Slama, R.A.; Ross, C.J.; et al. The Targetable A1 Huntington Disease Haplotype Has Distinct Amerindian and European Origins in Latin America. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2017, 25, 332–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Warby, S.C.; Visscher, H.; Collins, J.A.; Doty, C.N.; Carter, C.; Butland, S.L.; Hayden, A.R.; Kanazawa, I.; Ross, C.J.; Hayden, M.R. HTT Haplotypes Contribute to Differences in Huntington Disease Prevalence between Europe and East Asia. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 2011, 19, 561–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Paulsen, J.S.; Langbehn, D.R.; Stout, J.C.; Aylward, E.; Ross, C.A.; Nance, M.; Guttman, M.; Johnson, S.; MacDonald, M.; Beglinger, L.J.; et al. Detection of Huntington’s Disease Decades before Diagnosis: The Predict-HD Study. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2008, 79, 874–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tabrizi, S.J.; Scahill, R.I.; Durr, A.; Roos, R.A.; Leavitt, B.R.; Jones, R.; Landwehrmeyer, G.B.; Fox, N.C.; Johnson, H.; Hicks, S.L.; et al. Biological and Clinical Changes in Premanifest and Early Stage Huntington’s Disease in the TRACK-HD Study: The 12-Month Longitudinal Analysis. Lancet Neurol. 2011, 10, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tabrizi, S.J.; Scahill, R.I.; Owen, G.; Durr, A.; Leavitt, B.R.; Roos, R.A.; Borowsky, B.; Landwehrmeyer, B.; Frost, C.; Johnson, H.; et al. Predictors of Phenotypic Progression and Disease Onset in Premanifest and Early-Stage Huntington’s Disease in the TRACK-HD Study: Analysis of 36-Month Observational Data. Lancet Neurol. 2013, 12, 637–649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Quigley, J. Juvenile Huntington’s Disease: Diagnostic and Treatment Considerations for the Psychiatrist. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2017, 19, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Sassone, J.; Colciago, C.; Cislaghi, G.; Silani, V.; Ciammola, A. Huntington’s Disease: The Current State of Research with Peripheral Tissues. Exp. Neurol. 2009, 219, 385–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Van der Burg, J.M.M.; Winqvist, A.; Aziz, N.A.; Maat-Schieman, M.L.C.; Roos, R.A.C.; Bates, G.P.; Brundin, P.; Björkqvist, M.; Wierup, N. Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Contributes to Weight Loss in Huntington’s Disease Mice. Neurobiol. Dis. 2011, 44, 9478630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jurcau, A. Molecular Pathophysiological Mechanisms in Huntington’s Disease. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Jesse, S.; Bayer, H.; Alupei, M.C.; Zügel, M.; Mulaw, M.; Tuorto, F.; Malmsheimer, S.; Singh, K.; Steinacker, J.; Schumann, U.; et al. Ribosomal Transcription Is Regulated by PGC-1alpha and Disturbed in Huntington’s Disease. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 8513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Yablonska, S.; Ganesan, V.; Ferrando, L.M.; Kim, J.; Pyzel, A.; Baranova, O.V.; Khattar, N.K.; Larkin, T.M.; Baranov, S.V.; Chen, N.; et al. Mutant Huntingtin Disrupts Mitochondrial Proteostasis by Interacting with TIM23. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 16593–16602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Valadão, P.A.C.; Santos, K.B.S.; e Vieira, T.H.F.; e Cordeiro, T.M.; Teixeira, A.L.; Guatimosim, C.; de Miranda, A.S. Inflammation in Huntington’s Disease: A Few New Twists on an Old Tale. J. Neuroimmunol. 2020, 348, 577380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Björkqvist, M.; Wild, E.J.; Thiele, J.; Silvestroni, A.; Andre, R.; Lahiri, N.; Raibon, E.; Lee, R.V.; Benn, C.L.; Soulet, D.; et al. A Novel Pathogenic Pathway of Immune Activation Detectable before Clinical Onset in Huntington’s Disease. J. Exp. Med. 2008, 205, 1869–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Khoshnan, A.; Ko, J.; Watkin, E.E.; Paige, L.A.; Reinhart, P.H.; Patterson, P.H. Activation of the IκB Kinase Complex and Nuclear Factor-ΚB Contributes to Mutant Huntingtin Neurotoxicity. J. Neurosci. 2004, 24, 7999–8008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Miller, J.R.C.; Träger, U.; Andre, R.; Tabrizi, S.J. Mutant Huntingtin Does Not Affect the Intrinsic Phenotype of Human Huntington’s Disease T Lymphocytes. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0141793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Palpagama, T.H.; Waldvogel, H.J.; Faull, R.L.M.; Kwakowsky, A. The Role of Microglia and Astrocytes in Huntington’s Disease. Front. Mol. Neurosci. 2019, 12, 258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Sapp, E.; Kegel, K.B.; Aronin, N.; Hashikawa, T.; Uchiyama, Y.; Tohyama, K.; Bhide, P.G.; Vonsattel, J.P.; Difiglia, M. Early and Progressive Accumulation of Reactive Microglia in the Huntington Disease Brain. J. Neuropathol. Exp. Neurol. 2001, 60, 161–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Politis, M.; Lahiri, N.; Niccolini, F.; Su, P.; Wu, K.; Giannetti, P.; Scahill, R.I.; Turkheimer, F.E.; Tabrizi, S.J.; Piccini, P. Increased Central Microglial Activation Associated with Peripheral Cytokine Levels in Premanifest Huntington’s Disease Gene Carriers. Neurobiol. Dis. 2015, 83, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Cekanaviciute, E.; Buckwalter, M.S. Astrocytes: Integrative Regulators of Neuroinflammation in Stroke and Other Neurological Diseases. Neurotherapeutics 2016, 13, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Von Essen, M.R.; Hellem, M.N.N.; Vinther-Jensen, T.; Ammitzbøll, C.; Hansen, R.H.; Hjermind, L.E.; Nielsen, T.T.; Nielsen, J.E.; Sellebjerg, F. Early Intrathecal T Helper 17.1 Cell Activity in Huntington Disease. Ann. Neurol. 2020, 87, 246–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Farshim, P.P.; Bates, G.P. Mouse Models of Huntington’s Disease. In Huntington’s Disease; Precious, S.V., Rosser, A.E., Dunnett, S.B., Eds.; Methods in Molecular Biology; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 1780, pp. 97–120. ISBN 978-1-4939-7824-3. [Google Scholar]
  87. Gubert, C.; Choo, J.M.; Love, C.J.; Kodikara, S.; Masson, B.A.; Liew, J.J.M.; Wang, Y.; Kong, G.; Narayana, V.K.; Renoir, T.; et al. Faecal Microbiota Transplant Ameliorates Gut Dysbiosis and Cognitive Deficits in Huntington’s Disease Mice. Brain Commun. 2022, 4, fcac205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Kong, G.; Cao, K.-A.L.; Judd, L.M.; Li, S.; Renoir, T.; Hannan, A.J. Microbiome Profiling Reveals Gut Dysbiosis in a Transgenic Mouse Model of Huntington’s Disease. Neurobiol. Dis. 2020, 135, 104268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Clairembault, T.; Leclair-Visonneau, L.; Coron, E.; Bourreille, A.; Le Dily, S.; Vavasseur, F.; Heymann, M.-F.; Neunlist, M.; Derkinderen, P. Structural Alterations of the Intestinal Epithelial Barrier in Parkinson’s Disease. Acta Neuropathol. Commun. 2015, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Stan, T.L.; Soylu-Kucharz, R.; Burleigh, S.; Prykhodko, O.; Cao, L.; Franke, N.; Sjögren, M.; Haikal, C.; Hållenius, F.; Björkqvist, M. Increased Intestinal Permeability and Gut Dysbiosis in the R6/2 Mouse Model of Huntington’s Disease. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 18270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Gubert, C.; Love, C.J.; Kodikara, S.; Mei Liew, J.J.; Renoir, T.; Lê Cao, K.-A.; Hannan, A.J. Gene-Environment-Gut Interactions in Huntington’s Disease Mice Are Associated with Environmental Modulation of the Gut Microbiome. iScience 2022, 25, 103687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hoban, A.E.; Stilling, R.M.; Ryan, F.J.; Shanahan, F.; Dinan, T.G.; Claesson, M.J.; Clarke, G.; Cryan, J.F. Regulation of Prefrontal Cortex Myelination by the Microbiota. Transl. Psychiatry 2016, 6, e774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Radulescu, C.I.; Garcia-Miralles, M.; Sidik, H.; Bardile, C.F.; Yusof, N.A.B.M.; Lee, H.U.; Ho, E.X.P.; Chu, C.W.; Layton, E.; Low, D.; et al. Manipulation of Microbiota Reveals Altered Callosal Myelination and White Matter Plasticity in a Model of Huntington Disease. Neurobiol. Dis. 2019, 127, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kong, G.; Ellul, S.; Narayana, V.K.; Kanojia, K.; Ha, H.T.T.; Li, S.; Renoir, T.; Cao, K.-A.L.; Hannan, A.J. An Integrated Metagenomics and Metabolomics Approach Implicates the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis in the Pathogenesis of Huntington’s Disease. Neurobiol. Dis. 2021, 148, 105199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wasser, C.I.; Mercieca, E.-C.; Kong, G.; Hannan, A.J.; McKeown, S.J.; Glikmann-Johnston, Y.; Stout, J.C. Gut Dysbiosis in Huntington’s Disease: Associations among Gut Microbiota, Cognitive Performance and Clinical Outcomes. Brain Commun. 2020, 2, fcaa110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Du, G.; Dong, W.; Yang, Q.; Yu, X.; Ma, J.; Gu, W.; Huang, Y. Altered Gut Microbiota Related to Inflammatory Responses in Patients With Huntington’s Disease. Front. Immunol. 2021, 11, 603594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Przybyl, L.; Wozna-Wysocka, M.; Kozlowska, E.; Fiszer, A. What, When and How to Measure—Peripheral Biomarkers in Therapy of Huntington’s Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 1561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Liot, G.; Valette, J.; Pépin, J.; Flament, J.; Brouillet, E. Energy Defects in Huntington’s Disease: Why “in Vivo” Evidence Matters. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2017, 483, 1084–1095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Wood, N.I.; Goodman, A.O.G.; van der Burg, J.M.M.; Gazeau, V.; Brundin, P.; Björkqvist, M.; Petersén, Å.; Tabrizi, S.J.; Barker, R.A.; Jennifer Morton, A. Increased Thirst and Drinking in Huntington’s Disease and the R6/2 Mouse. Brain Res. Bull. 2008, 76, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Vandeputte, D.; Falony, G.; Vieira-Silva, S.; Tito, R.Y.; Joossens, M.; Raes, J. Stool Consistency Is Strongly Associated with Gut Microbiota Richness and Composition, Enterotypes and Bacterial Growth Rates. Gut 2016, 65, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lozupone, C.A.; Stombaugh, J.I.; Gordon, J.I.; Jansson, J.K.; Knight, R. Diversity, Stability and Resilience of the Human Gut Microbiota. Nature 2012, 489, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Keshavarzian, A.; Green, S.J.; Engen, P.A.; Voigt, R.M.; Naqib, A.; Forsyth, C.B.; Mutlu, E.; Shannon, K.M. Colonic Bacterial Composition in Parkinson’s Disease. Mov. Disord. 2015, 30, 1351–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Rowin, J.; Xia, Y.; Jung, B.; Sun, J. Gut Inflammation and Dysbiosis in Human Motor Neuron Disease. Physiol. Rep. 2017, 5, e13443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Vogt, N.M.; Kerby, R.L.; Dill-McFarland, K.A.; Harding, S.J.; Merluzzi, A.P.; Johnson, S.C.; Carlsson, C.M.; Asthana, S.; Zetterberg, H.; Blennow, K.; et al. Gut Microbiome Alterations in Alzheimer’s Disease. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 13537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Plassais, J.; Gbikpi-Benissan, G.; Figarol, M.; Scheperjans, F.; Gorochov, G.; Derkinderen, P.; Cervino, A.C.L. Gut Microbiome Alpha-Diversity Is Not a Marker of Parkinson’s Disease and Multiple Sclerosis. Brain Commun. 2021, 3, fcab113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Cardinale, B.J.; Srivastava, D.S.; Emmett Duffy, J.; Wright, J.P.; Downing, A.L.; Sankaran, M.; Jouseau, C. Effects of Biodiversity on the Functioning of Trophic Groups and Ecosystems. Nature 2006, 443, 989–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Shade, A. Diversity Is the Question, Not the Answer. ISME J. 2017, 11, 1118–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Coyte, K.Z.; Schluter, J.; Foster, K.R. The Ecology of the Microbiome: Networks, Competition, and Stability. Science 2015, 350, 663–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Reese, A.T.; Dunn, R.R. Drivers of Microbiome Biodiversity: A Review of General Rules, Feces, and Ignorance. mBio 2018, 9, e01294-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Magzal, F.; Shochat, T.; Haimov, I.; Tamir, S.; Asraf, K.; Tuchner-Arieli, M.; Even, C.; Agmon, M. Increased Physical Activity Improves Gut Microbiota Composition and Reduces Short-Chain Fatty Acid Concentrations in Older Adults with Insomnia. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 2265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Wegierska, A.E.; Charitos, I.A.; Topi, S.; Potenza, M.A.; Montagnani, M.; Santacroce, L. The Connection Between Physical Exercise and Gut Microbiota: Implications for Competitive Sports Athletes. Sport. Med. 2022, 52, 2355–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Horn, J.; Mayer, D.E.; Chen, S.; Mayer, E.A. Role of Diet and Its Effects on the Gut Microbiome in the Pathophysiology of Mental Disorders. Transl. Psychiatry 2022, 12, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Yeşilyurt, N.; Yılmaz, B.; Ağagündüz, D.; Capasso, R. Microbiome-Based Personalized Nutrition as a Result of the 4.0 Technological Revolution: A Mini Literature Review. Process. Biochem. 2022, 121, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Huang, G.; Qu, Q.; Wang, M.; Huang, M.; Zhou, W.; Wei, F. Global Landscape of Gut Microbiome Diversity and Antibiotic Resistomes across Vertebrates. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 838, 156178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Brooks, S.P.; Jones, L.; Dunnett, S.B. Comparative Analysis of Pathology and Behavioural Phenotypes in Mouse Models of Huntington’s Disease. Brain Res. Bull. 2012, 88, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Brooks, S.P.; Dunnett, S.B. Mouse Models of Huntington’s Disease. In Behavioral Neurobiology of Huntington’s Disease and Parkinson’s Disease; Nguyen, H.H.P., Cenci, M.A., Eds.; Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 101–133. ISBN 978-3-662-46344-4. [Google Scholar]
  117. Chongtham, A.; Yoo, J.H.; Chin, T.M.; Akingbesote, N.D.; Huda, A.; Marsh, J.L.; Khoshnan, A. Gut Bacteria Regulate the Pathogenesis of Huntington’s Disease in Drosophila Model. Front. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 830. [Google Scholar]
  118. Zhang, Y.; Geng, J.; Hong, Y.; Jiao, L.; Li, S.; Sun, R.; Xie, Y.; Yan, C.; Aa, J.; Wang, G. Orally Administered Crocin Protects Against Cerebral Ischemia/Reperfusion Injury through the Metabolic Transformation of Crocetin by Gut Microbiota. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 10, 440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Trichka, J.; Zou, W.-Q. Modulation of Neuroinflammation by the Gut Microbiota in Prion and Prion-like Diseases. Pathogens 2021, 10, 887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Yang, D.; Zhao, D.; Shah, S.Z.A.; Wu, W.; Lai, M.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Guan, Z.; Zhao, H.; Li, W.; et al. Implications of Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis and Metabolic Changes in Prion Disease. Neurobiol. Dis. 2020, 135, 104704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Jia, S.; Lu, Z.; Gao, Z.; An, J.; Wu, X.; Li, X.; Dai, X.; Zheng, Q.; Sun, Y. Chitosan Oligosaccharides Alleviate Cognitive Deficits in an Amyloid-Β1-42-Induced Rat Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2016, 83, 416–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Schmidt, K.; Cowen, P.J.; Harmer, C.J.; Tzortzis, G.; Errington, S.; Burnet, P.W.J. Prebiotic Intake Reduces the Waking Cortisol Response and Alters Emotional Bias in Healthy Volunteers. Psychopharmacology 2015, 232, 1793–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Hsieh, T.-H.; Kuo, C.-W.; Hsieh, K.-H.; Shieh, M.-J.; Peng, C.-W.; Chen, Y.-C.; Chang, Y.-L.; Huang, Y.-Z.; Chen, C.-C.; Chang, P.-K.; et al. Probiotics Alleviate the Progressive Deterioration of Motor Functions in a Mouse Model of Parkinson’s Disease. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.