Next Article in Journal
WHO Critical- and High-Priority Fungal Pathogens Beyond Human Medicine: Expanding One Health Surveillance
Previous Article in Journal
Baseline Characterization of the Gut Microbiota of Field and Colony Populations of Phlebotomus tobbi and Preliminary Assessment of the Anti-Leishmanial Activity of Cultivable Bacteria
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Comprehensive Review of the Gut–Microbiota–Brain Axis in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathophysiology to Potential Therapies

Department of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital, University Hospital, University of Bern, 3010 Bern, Switzerland
Pathogens 2026, 15(7), 659; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15070659
Submission received: 11 May 2026 / Revised: 10 June 2026 / Accepted: 18 June 2026 / Published: 23 June 2026

Abstract

The gut–microbiota–brain axis (GMBA), an intricate network connecting the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and the brain, plays a pivotal role in maintaining overall health and influencing disease processes. The human gut microbiota, comprising over 3000 bacterial species, regulates immune responses, hormonal signals, and metabolite production, maintaining homeostasis under normal conditions. Dysbiosis, or microbial imbalance, has been linked to various central nervous system (CNS) disorders, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), Parkinson’s disease (PD), multiple sclerosis (MS), and autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Given the growing interest in this topic and the limited effectiveness of current therapeutic strategies for managing patients with AD, the purpose of the current narrative review is to analyze the pathophysiological role of the GMBA in the pathogenesis of AD and assess potential therapeutic strategies targeting the GMBA, particularly the microbiome and its metabolites. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify clinical studies, experimental research, and review articles examining the GMBA in health and AD, as well as related therapeutic strategies. The search terms included “Alzheimer’s disease”, “neuroinflammation”, “amyloid-beta”, “tau”, “gut–brain axis”, “microbiome”, “short-chain fatty acids”, “probiotics”, “prebiotics”, and “fecal microbiota transplantation”. In AD, altered gut microbiota composition is associated with neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, and exacerbation of disease progression. Probiotics have shown potential in enhancing cognitive function and reducing neuroinflammation by modulating microbiota composition and influencing brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels. Prebiotics, through their impact on gut microbiota and metabolite production, also offer therapeutic promise by improving cognitive function and mitigating neuroinflammation. With its historical and modern applications, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) may represent a potential strategy for addressing dysbiosis and its neurological implications. This manuscript focuses on GMBA and its effects on neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, and CNS health while emphasizing the need for further research into microbiome-based therapies and the gut–brain relationship in patients with AD.

1. Introduction

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disorder of the central nervous system (CNS) characterized by progressive cognitive decline, with its diagnosis primarily based on the accumulation of extracellular amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and intracellular neurofibrillary tangles (NFTs) formed by hyperphosphorylated tau proteins [1,2]. The accumulation of these deposits triggers neuroinflammation through activation of immune pathways, leading to synapse loss and neuronal death [3]. Furthermore, disruptions to central immune homeostasis caused by infections or traumatic brain injuries can further accelerate the progression of the disease [4]. On the other hand, accumulating evidence indicates that the gut microbiota plays a crucial role in this process. Recent studies have demonstrated an association between AD and gut microbiota dysbiosis, with gut microbes influencing brain function through inflammatory, metabolic, and neuroimmune pathways. This connection, termed gut–microbiota–brain axis (GMBA), highlights the role of inflammation in the development and progression of AD [5,6,7,8].
The intestinal microbiota, a complex ecosystem mainly consisting of bacteria but also comprising viruses, fungi, protozoa, and archaea, plays a crucial role in maintaining health by regulating host immunity and supporting intestinal barrier functions [9,10,11]. Recently, the gut microbiota has been identified as a crucial element in both sustaining CNS homeostasis and contributing to its dysfunction [12,13]. The reciprocal communication between the intestine and the brain is complex and involves various pathways, including the vagus nerve, immune system interactions, endocrine signaling, and microbial metabolites [14,15,16], including short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), proteins, and tryptophan metabolites [17].
Experimental research has shown that AD mice exhibit more pronounced age-related microbiome changes, including increased Bacteroides colonization linked to amyloid accumulation. At the same time, sodium butyrate, a SCFA, has been found to alleviate AD pathology in mouse models [18]. Moreover, differences in gut microbiota between AD models and wild-type mice are highlighted, notably a decrease in SCFA-producing bacteria [19,20]. In addition, fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) from wild-type to AD mice has led to reduced amyloid deposits, supporting a contributory role of gut microbes in AD pathogenesis [19,21]. Consistent with these findings, human studies have also shown that patients with AD or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) exhibit alterations in microbiota composition compared to controls, including reduced diversity of SCFA-producing species [22,23,24,25,26]. However, clinical studies in patients with AD and MCI have reported inconsistent findings and are subject to several methodological limitations, highlighting the need for cautious interpretation of the available evidence.
Although the mechanisms underlying the gut–microbiota–brain interaction are not yet fully understood [27], the limited effectiveness of current therapeutic options for managing AD suggests that targeting the microbiota and its metabolites could offer new diagnostic and therapeutic opportunities. This work aims to comprehensively explore the GMBA in AD and assess potential therapeutic strategies. It evaluates the benefits of interventions such as probiotics, prebiotics, and FMT in modulating this axis and their impact on disease management.

2. Search Strategy

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify studies focusing on the GMBA in health and AD, as well as associated therapeutic strategies. Search terms included “Alzheimer’s Disease”, “neuroinflammation”, “amyloid-beta”, “tau”, “gut-brain axis”, “microbiome”, “short chain fatty acids”, “probiotics”, “prebiotics”, “fecal microbiota transplantation” and “therapeutic targets” either individually or in combination. Boolean operators (AND, OR) and truncation techniques were applied to improve the precision and relevance of the search results. The search was restricted to articles published in English from 2014 to 2026, although key seminal studies published before this period were also included to provide historical context and foundational insights. The final literature search was performed on 7 June 2026.
Titles and abstracts were initially screened for relevance, followed by a full-text review of eligible studies. The final selection included primary research studies, alongside systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and narrative reviews to provide historical context, highlight key themes and trends, and identify seminal works. Narrative reviews, authored by experts, offer critical analysis, synthesized interpretations, and expert perspectives, helping to identify research gaps and controversies that inform the research questions addressed in this review. This narrative review qualitatively synthesizes and thematically organizes preclinical, translational, and clinical studies on the GMBA in AD, without application of a formal systematic synthesis framework.
The inclusion criteria comprised:
  • Peer-reviewed studies investigating the interplay between the gut microbiome and AD, particularly its influence on inflammation, Aβ, and tau pathologies.
  • Research exploring therapeutic interventions targeting the GMBA, such as probiotics, prebiotics, or FMT.
  • Clinical, preclinical, or translational studies relevant to AD and GMBA.
  • Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, case-control studies, and animal models with translational value.
Studies were excluded if they:
  • Primarily focused on unrelated neurodegenerative diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease (PD) or Huntington’s disease.
  • Lacked direct relevance to the GMBA in AD pathophysiology or treatment.
  • Were conference abstracts or non-peer-reviewed publications.

3. The Gut–Brain Axis in Health and Disease

3.1. Gut–Microbiota–Brain Axis

The human microbiota, consisting of a diverse community of commensal and symbiotic microorganisms, reaches concentrations of over 1013 to 1014 cells per gram of content in the large intestine [28,29,30]. Among the 3000 bacterial species present in the mammalian gut, the predominant phyla include Bacteroidetes, Firmicutes, Verrucomicrobia, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria [31,32,33,34]. A well-balanced gut microbiota under normal physiological conditions plays a crucial role in maintaining homeostasis by enhancing immune function, regulating hormonal signals, and producing a wide array of metabolites, whereas in pathological states, shifts in the relative abundance of bacterial species disrupt this balance, resulting in a condition described as “dysbiosis” [35,36]. In recent years, accumulating evidence has highlighted the intricate link between gut and brain health, revealing several potential mechanisms (Figure 1); gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction and symptoms are increasingly associated with various CNS disorders, with some conditions, such as AD, PD, multiple sclerosis (MS), and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), showing GI disturbances that may precede the onset of central neurological symptoms [11,37,38].
The GMBA describes a complex network connecting the gut and brain, integrating the CNS, enteric nervous system (ENS), and gut microbiota [39]. This connection operates through neural, endocrine, and immune pathways, with the vagus nerve as the main neural link and the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis handling stress responses through hormonal signals [40,41,42,43,44,45]. Immune components like cytokines and chemokines interact with microbial signals, while the gut microbiota produces metabolites such as SCFAs, neurotransmitters, and neuromodulators that impact brain function and behavior [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53]. Moreover, recent findings suggest that alterations in gut microbiota can influence neuroinflammation, affecting microglial activity and overall CNS health (Figure 1) [54,55].

3.2. Gut–Microbiota–Brain Axis in Alzheimer’s Disease

The composition of gut bacteria significantly influences age-related neurological disorders, including mood disorders and AD. Various factors affect gut microbiota, such as internal components like genetic variations, immunity, and metabolites, as well as external influences such as diet, lifestyle, and inflammatory insults. The gut microbiota produces crucial signaling molecules, including choline, tryptophan, and SCFAs, and regulates the secretion of hormones like leptin and ghrelin, which play essential roles in regulating CNS functions [56,57]. Aging significantly alters gut microbiota, increasing pro-inflammatory bacteria like Bacillus fragilis and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii while decreasing anti-inflammatory species such as Eubacterium rectale (E. rectale), Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium, and Ruminococcus. This imbalance leads to local inflammation, greater GI permeability, and compromised blood-brain barrier (BBB) function, ultimately fostering neuroinflammation (Figure 1) [58,59]. Particularly, in patients with AD, Cattaneo et al. [60] identified a higher abundance of pro-inflammatory bacteria, such as Escherichia/Shigella, and a lower abundance of anti-inflammatory bacteria, like E. rectale, compared to healthy controls, using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) to analyze stool samples from cognitively impaired older adults with amyloidosis [60]. The findings from Vogt et al. [25] corroborate these results, as they employed 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) gene sequencing to examine and categorize the bacterial profiles in fecal samples from both AD patients and healthy controls. Their research revealed that individuals with AD had a markedly reduced diversity in their gut microbiota compared to those without the disease. Specifically, they observed a decrease in Firmicutes and an increase in Bacteroidetes at the phylum level among AD patients [25]. Finally, the findings from the research above are further reinforced by experimental studies, which demonstrate that animal models have consistently shown a link between altered gut microbiota and AD manifestations [61,62].
Given the complexity of AD pathophysiology and the unclear mechanisms underlying both its generation and progression, experimental research has employed methods such as antibiotic treatments, germ-free or gnotobiotic models, and FMT. These studies have demonstrated that administering antibiotics or maintaining amyloidosis model mice (APP/PS1) in germ-free conditions can reduce cerebral amyloid plaque deposition [63,64]. However, although studies in animal models indicate that microbiota transfer can modulate disease-related phenotypes, these findings do not establish causality in humans.
Building on these findings, another area of research explores how peripheral amyloid proteins might contribute to amyloid accumulation in the brain. Experimental studies propose that these proteins could retrogradely transport via the vagal nerve or bloodstream, leading to brain amyloid deposition [65,66,67]. This theory is supported by preclinical research showing that certain bacteria produce extracellular amyloid fibers, such as curli, which have a similar beta-sheet structure to amyloid proteins and for which robust, well-established evidence exists. Specifically, bacterial-derived amyloids, including those from Pseudomonas fluorescens (FapC), Escherichia coli (E. coli) (curli), Staphylococcus aureus (phenol-soluble modulins), Salmonella typhimurium (S. typhimurium) (CsgA), and Bacillus subtilis (TasA), have been linked to AD pathology through their role in promoting Aβ oligomer and fibril formation [68]. Although the amino acid sequences of human and bacterial amyloid proteins are not identical, they exhibit a conserved cross-β-sheet quaternary structure characteristic of all amyloid proteins [69]. During infections-particularly those caused by E. coli or S. typhimurium, such as sepsis, GI inflammation, and urinary tract infections-curli fibers are recognized by the immune system, leading to the release of cytokines and chemokines, as suggested by experimental and clinical evidence [70,71,72]. Moreover, curli fibers have been identified as ligands recognized by Toll-like receptor 2 (TLR2) [69]. In addition, based on growing evidence that amyloid-induced activation of the NLRP3 (NOD-, LRR- and pyrin domain-containing protein 3) inflammasome upregulates caspase-1 and leads to the production of interleukin (IL)-1β [73,74,75,76], recent experimental research has used curli fibers produced by Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and E. coli to study bacterial amyloid-induced activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome. The authors reported that stimulation by curli fibers results in caspase-1–mediated IL-1β production and that TLR2 is a major contributor to this pathophysiological process [70].
Current understanding points to neuroinflammation as a crucial factor linking gut microbiota alterations to AD progression. Aberrant activation of glial cells in AD is thought to disrupt brain homeostasis and may contribute to disease worsening. These hyperactive glial cells are associated with increased Aβ toxicity and accumulation and are suggested to promote the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines and reactive oxygen species. These inflammatory cascades may damage neurons, aggravate tau pathology, and accelerate disease progression [77,78,79,80,81,82]. Essential for Aβ clearance, microglia frequently form clusters around amyloid deposits, which helps mitigate neurotoxic damage and limits the addition of new Aβ to existing plaques [83,84,85,86,87]. Importantly, microglia’s proper maturation and functioning rely on the gut microbiota under normal conditions, emphasizing its crucial role in maintaining neuroinflammatory balance [88]. Indeed, research indicates that decreased gut microbiota complexity, resulting from germ-free conditions or antibiotic treatments, negatively impacts microglial development and function. Both germ-free and specific pathogen-free mice with compromised gut microbiota display immature microglial characteristics and altered cell proportions. This developmental impairment can be alleviated by supplementing with SCFAs or reintroducing a diverse microbiota, highlighting the crucial role of microbial metabolites in maintaining microglial health [88].
Changes in gut microbiota can also affect the permeability of both the intestinal and the BBB. Increased permeability facilitates the entry of gut-derived molecules, such as lipopolysaccharides (LPS) and SCFAs, into systemic circulation and potentially the brain. This breach can lead to a shift from a balanced state to a pro-inflammatory environment, potentially contributing to the development of neurodegenerative diseases such as AD (Figure 2) [89]. The gut microbiota composition critically influences the gut mucosa’s protective function against pathogens. In AD, the balance of gut bacteria is disrupted, leading to a reduction in strains that normally support intestinal barrier integrity, such as Bifidobacterium infantis and Akkermansia muciniphila. Conversely, bacteria that undermine epithelial cell integrity, such as E. coli, Shigella, and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori), become more prevalent in these individuals [90,91]. In addition, in AD, the reduction in butyrate-producing bacteria contributes to T-cell imbalance, increased epithelial barrier permeability, and elevated bacterial translocation [3,92,93,94,95]. This disruption leads to elevated levels of circulating LPS from Gram-negative bacteria, known as metabolic endotoxemia, which activates systemic inflammation through TLR4 signaling and contributes to BBB disruption, thereby exacerbating neuroinflammation [96,97]. Finally, common comorbidities observed in patients with AD, such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and GI disorders including H. pylori infection, inflammatory bowel disease, and periodontitis, as well as commonly used medications such as proton pump inhibitors, also contribute to microbiome alterations associated with impaired intestinal permeability, BBB disruption, and neuroinflammation, indicating that microbiome-related therapeutic interventions may influence the progression of both conditions [98,99].

3.3. The Vagus Nerve

The vagus nerve arises from the medulla oblongata and is of mixed composition, consisting of approximately 80% sensory (afferent) fibers and 20% motor (efferent) fibers, including parasympathetic fibers [100,101,102,103]. It mediates communication between the CNS and peripheral organs, including the lungs, heart, GI tract, and immune system. It regulates a wide range of physiological processes, including heart rate, cardiac contractility, and blood pressure regulation [104]; bronchoconstriction [105]; intestinal peristalsis, gastric secretion, and pancreatic function [106]; immune responses and neuro-immune interactions [107]; and mood and stress responses [108,109,110]. In addition, vagal afferents, which are considered multimodal, are capable of detecting diverse stimuli, including mechanical (e.g., tension and stretch), chemical (e.g., neurotransmitters and bacterial metabolites such as SCFAs, indoles, bile acids, and LPS via cytokine signaling), and hormonal signals [55,111,112,113,114,115,116].
Accumulating evidence highlights the anti-inflammatory capacities of the vagus nerve, which are mediated through several physiological pathways [107]. First, vagal afferent fiber–mediated activation of the HPA axis leads to the secretion of adrenocorticotropic hormone and the subsequent production of cortisol by the adrenal glands, thereby mitigating immune responses and exerting an anti-inflammatory effect [117,118,119]. Second, the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway involves vagal efferent fibers that synapse onto enteric neurons, leading to the release of acetylcholine at synaptic junctions. Acetylcholine then binds to α7-nicotinic acetylcholine receptors (α7nAChR) on local macrophages, inhibiting the release of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α [108,119]. Moreover, it has been convincingly demonstrated in recent years that the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway, through activation of α7nAChR, contributes to the suppression of inflammatory and immune-mediated pathological processes [120,121] by inhibiting nuclear factor kappa-B (NF-κB) signaling pathways [122] and activating other immunomodulatory pathways, such as Jak/STAT3 (janus kinases/signal transducer and activator of transcription 3) [123,124,125] triggering the secretion of anti-inflammatory mediators including IL-10 [126]. Lastly, the splenic sympathetic anti-inflammatory pathway contributes to this effect. In this pathway, the vagus nerve stimulates the splenic sympathetic nerve, resulting in the release of noradrenaline at the distal end of the splenic nerve [127,128,129]. Noradrenaline binds to β2-adrenergic receptors on splenic lymphocytes, which then release acetylcholine. Similar to the second pathway, this mechanism mitigates TNF-α release from splenic macrophages via α7nAChR [119,129]. Furthermore, the trafficking of vagally modulated intestinal immune cells from the gut to the spleen may influence splenic immune responses [130]. Moreover, catecholamine-mediated activation of vagal afferent fibers modulates sympathoadrenal activity by providing a negative feedback mechanism [131,132]. Circulating epinephrine, and to a lesser extent norepinephrine, from the adrenal glands enhances adrenergic signaling on splenic immune cells and blood vessels, supporting the systemic stress response [131,133].
Acetylcholine and forebrain cholinergic neurons play a significant role in brain functions such as learning, memory, and cognition [134,135]. Moreover, acetylcholine has been shown to regulate consolidation, reconsolidation, extinction, encoding, memory recall, and acquisition [136]. Basal forebrain cholinergic neurons originate in the basal forebrain and project to brain regions such as the hippocampus and cortex, which are involved in processes like memory and learning [137]. It is well established through experimental research that damage to basal forebrain cholinergic neurons that innervate the cortex can lead to cognitive dysfunction and attention deficits [138,139]. Additionally, as highlighted by clinical and experimental research, patients with AD exhibit severe neurodegeneration, loss of cholinergic neurons, a marked insufficiency of acetylcholine, and impaired choline acetyltransferase activity [140,141,142]. This is further supported by evidence showing that potentiation of cholinergic transmission in individuals receiving cholinesterase inhibitors is associated with improvements in attention [2]. Thus, therapies that enhance acetylcholine levels and activity, such as cholinergic treatments combined with other interventions, may represent effective strategies for improving symptomatic outcomes and functional performance [143].
Activation of vagus nerve afferent fibers also leads to the release of catecholamines from the locus coeruleus, which is one of the earliest sites affected by tau, into multiple brain regions, including areas involved in cognitive functions such as memory, as well as regions severely affected in AD, such as the hippocampus [144,145,146,147]. The released noradrenaline exerts its effects on neuroglia and astrocytes by exhibiting anti-inflammatory and neurotrophic properties [147]. It also regulates synaptic plasticity and function, with pleiotropic effects that vary according to brain region and cellular subpopulations. Furthermore, stimulation of the locus coeruleus promotes dopamine release in the hippocampus, influencing neuronal plasticity and excitability, and contributing to the consolidation of routine or “everyday” memory [144,148,149].
Growing evidence highlights the vagus nerve as a central player in the gut–brain axis, contributing significantly to the pathophysiology of various disorders, including neurodegenerative diseases such as AD [109,110]. Indeed, experimental studies highlight the interaction between the gut microbiome and the vagus nerve, which conveys signals from the GI tract to the nucleus tractus solitarius and then to the central autonomic network, including the hypothalamus, thalamus, amygdala, insula, and prefrontal cortex, thereby influencing emotion and motivation [150,151].
As early as the 2000s, it was demonstrated that alterations in the gut microbiome can induce emotional and behavioral changes through increased c-Fos expression in neurons of the vagal ganglia, for example, following oral inoculation with Campylobacter jejuni [152]. Experimental research in male mice receiving Lactobacillus rhamnosus (L. rhamnosus) following sham surgery demonstrated a reduction in anxiety-like behavior and suppression of the HPA axis. These effects were associated with an increase in splenic T regulatory (Treg) cells and a decrease in activated hippocampal microglia. Interestingly, vagotomy eliminated the anxiolytic effects and the suppression of the HPA axis, and resulted in a significant increase in activated microglia in the hippocampus [153]. Lee et al. [154] investigated the effects of FMT from geriatric humans and aged mice into young mice and observed significant cognitive decline compared with transplants derived from young adults and young mice. Paenalcaligenes hominis and E. coli were associated with significant cognitive impairment and colitis in specific pathogen–free mice. In contrast, celiac vagotomy significantly alleviated the development of cognitive deficits in mice exposed to Paenalcaligenes hominis, but not in those exposed to E. coli [154]. Bravo et al. [155] demonstrated that chronic administration of L. rhamnosus to healthy male BALB/c mice resulted in increased gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor expression in cortical regions, including the cingulate and prelimbic cortex, and decreased expression in the hippocampus, amygdala, and locus coeruleus. Moreover, L. rhamnosus-treated mice exhibited reduced stress-induced corticosterone levels as well as decreased anxiety- and depression-like behaviors. These effects were not observed in mice that had undergone vagotomy [155]. Moreover, activation of the vagus nerve by non-pathogenic bacteria such as Lactobacillus lactis results in increased activity of the sympathetic nervous system, effects that are eliminated by subdiaphragmatic vagotomy [156,157]. Additionally, cell-specific transneuronal tracing has shown that signals from the right vagal afferent ganglion are transmitted via glutamatergic neurons of the dorsolateral parabrachial nucleus, potentially reaching the substantia nigra, where activation of this neural circuit induces dopamine release and reward-related behaviors [150].
BBB dysfunction contributes significantly to the pathophysiology of a variety of CNS inflammatory diseases, including AD, by promoting pathological vascular leakage of pathogenic molecules such as pro-inflammatory mediators and reactive oxygen species, and by permitting the infiltration of inflammatory cells into the CNS [158]. It has been suggested that the vagus nerve plays a major role in transmitting signals from the gut microbiota to the choroid plexus, thereby maintaining the integrity of the BBB [159]. This is consistent with multiple studies showing that vagus nerve stimulation can restore BBB integrity by suppressing inflammatory responses and by limiting the upregulation of the transcellular transport pathway [160,161,162]. Furthermore, vagus nerve stimulation activates α7nAChRs, thereby inhibiting the activity of pro-inflammatory cells and the production of pro-inflammatory mediators, primarily protecting the BBB from their deleterious effects [163].
The vagus nerve is implicated in intestinal-to-cerebral seeding and spreading of neurodegenerative molecules, such as Aβ and misfolded α-synuclein, as well as in the cellular mechanisms and receptor pathways that contribute to the development of a “bottom-up” signaling axis [42,66,164,165,166]. Within this signaling cascade, sensitive receptors on vagal afferent terminals detect changes in the intestinal microenvironment and mediate the transmission of signals associated with inflammatory responses, pathological protein species, and metabolic alterations to the brain [42]. Gut microbiota alterations, intestinal barrier dysfunction, and activation of intestinal immune mechanisms are associated with vagal nerve dysfunction, leading to neurochemical and behavioral consequences [155,167]. Indeed, experimental evidence highlights that chronic treatment with Lactobacillus strains modulates mRNA expression of GABA receptors in the hippocampus, an effect that was absent in vagotomized control animals [155]. In addition, dysbiosis is associated with cognitive dysfunction through the local, direct, or indirect production of pathogenic proteins such as LPS and amyloid proteins, which can trigger neurodegenerative mechanisms, particularly via intestinal and BBB dysfunction. Indeed, the intestinal accumulation of harmful α-synuclein is directly influenced by bacterial amyloid in a “cross-seeding” manner, subsequently entering the brain via the vagus nerve and contributing to neurodegenerative cascades [168]. Furthermore, given the prion-like properties of Aβ, it has been suggested that extracranial Aβ, specifically Aβ of intestinal origin, may contribute to the cerebral Aβ load. Experimental research in ICR mice, in which Aβ was injected into the GI tract, revealed the presence of Aβ in the vagus nerve and brain after one year, which was associated with intestinal dysfunction and cognitive decline [66]. In a similar manner, Aβ and tau fibril formation, mediated by intestinal and cerebral activation of the CCAAT/EBPβ/AEP pathway and followed by transmission to the brain via the vagus nerve, may also contribute to cognitive dysfunction in patients with AD [165].
Targeted stimulation of specific neural networks has been investigated as a potential neuromodulatory strategy to improve cognition and functional impairment in patients with neurodegenerative diseases [169,170]. Experimental and clinical studies demonstrate the beneficial effects of modulating the gut–brain axis, such as through vagus nerve stimulation (VNS), in neuropsychiatric disorders and conditions involving inflammatory processes [108,171,172,173], including AD [2]. Available research highlights that vagal activity is involved in the pathophysiology of cognitive disturbances, such as memory decline, and that VNS can enhance these functions by promoting neural plasticity in brain regions associated with memory consolidation, such as the hippocampus [174,175,176,177]. A systematic review analyzing the effects of VNS in experimental and clinical studies, while noting that VNS is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for refractory epilepsy, depression, migraine, and post-ischemic stroke rehabilitation, reported that VNS resulted in improved cognition as well as enhanced mobility and balance. These effects were attributed to multiple mechanisms, including increased dopaminergic neuron activity, upregulation of α7nAChR expression, attenuation of neuroinflammation, reduced apoptotic mediators, and modulation of microglial and astrocytic populations [178]. Moreover, Yuan et al. [179] demonstrated, in an experimental model of abdominal surgery–induced intestinal ileus, that abdominal surgery upregulates M1 macrophages and elevates pro-inflammatory cytokines, processes that could be suppressed with central vagal activation, highlighting its implication in modulating dysbiosis and intestinal function [179].

4. Potential Gut Microbiome-Targeted Therapies in the Management of Alzheimer’s Disease

4.1. Probiotics

Classified as “live organisms that confer health benefits to the host when administered in adequate doses”, probiotics, which include species such as Lactobacilli, Bacillus species, various strains of Bifidobacteria, Streptococcus thermophilus, E. coli strain Nissle 1917, and yeasts like Saccharomyces boulardii and Saccharomyces cerevisiae [180], offer numerous health benefits by balancing the body’s pH levels, protecting the gut lining, promoting competitive exclusion, producing antimicrobial metabolites, modulating immune responses, and enhancing brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), which is crucial for brain health (Figure 2) [181]. BDNF represents a well-studied growth factor in the mammalian brain, very important for supporting nerve growth and maturation during developmental stages, while also playing a significant role in regulating synaptic transmission and plasticity in adulthood [182,183]. Patients with AD show markedly reduced levels of serum BDNF when compared to healthy individuals [184], whereas the reduction in BDNF levels is associated with several detrimental processes, including tau protein phosphorylation, the buildup of Aβ, increased neuroinflammation, and the onset of neuronal apoptosis [185]. The interplay between inflammation and neuroplasticity, mediated by BDNF, regulates neurotransmitter release, such as glutamate and GABA, through the activation of NF-κB [186,187]. Evidence suggests that combining Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium can effectively raise BDNF levels in individuals suffering from neurological conditions [184]. Moreover, a double-blind clinical trial showed that AD patients who received a probiotic mixture of Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium experienced significant improvements in cognitive function compared to those given a placebo [188]. Beyond their effects on BDNF, probiotics can directly influence CNS biochemistry by altering levels of GABA, serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT), and dopamine (DA), which may in turn affect mood and behavior [155,189,190].
Furthermore, probiotics can provide health benefits when given in sufficient quantities, potentially through their anti-inflammatory or antioxidant effects, with evidence indicating that they may also influence the CNS and behavior by modulating the GMBA, thereby addressing neuroinflammation [16,191,192,193]. Experimental studies using mouse models have highlighted that the Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota can effectively reduce neuroinflammation, showing potential benefits in reducing AD [194]. Leblhuber et al. [195] observed that probiotic administration increased serum kynurenine, likely due to the activation of immune cells, which could help remove amyloid aggregates and damaged cells but might also impair gut barrier function and aggravate neurodegenerative conditions [195]. Indeed, kynurenine, a marker of immune system activation linked to tryptophan metabolism through indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-1, serves as a protective mechanism against inflammation by stimulating Tregs that reduce inflammation and provide antiproliferative and immunosuppressive effects [196,197,198]. Furthermore, early-stage AD 3xTg-AD mice treated with the SLAB51 probiotic formulation showed changes in gut microbiota and its metabolites, which in turn affected plasma levels of inflammatory cytokines and key metabolic hormones targeted in neurodegeneration. This treatment led to partial restoration of two impaired neuronal proteolytic pathways-the ubiquitin-proteasome system and autophagy-and resulted in reduced cognitive decline, decreased brain damage, and lower accumulation of Aβ aggregates compared to control mice [199]. In a recent study, AD rats treated with probiotics (Lactobacillus reuteri, L. rhamnosus, and Bifidobacterium infantis) showed significant improvements in spatial memory, reduced Aβ plaques, decreased oxidative stress, and lower inflammation markers IL-1β and TNF-α compared to controls [200]. Studies show that probiotics with Bifidobacterium breve and Bifidobacterium infantis decrease Aβ deposition, IL-1β, and TNF-α while increasing superoxide dismutase [63] levels in the hippocampus of Aβ-induced AD mice. Some strains of Bifidobacterium also improve cognitive function and reduce immune responses and inflammation by raising plasma acetate levels, demonstrating their ability to suppress Aβ-induced toxicity and normalize gene expression, particularly BDNF, which promotes neuronal survival in AD [200,201,202]. Bonfili et al. [199] conducted a preclinical study on AD mice and discovered that the lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria (SLAB51) probiotic blend, which includes Streptococcus thermophilus, Lactobacilli, and Bifidobacteria, was effective in reducing Aβ burden, alleviating cortical atrophy, and restoring the ubiquitin proteolytic system and autophagy [199]. Furthermore, Lactobacillus plantarum C29 was found to regulate microglia activation and reduce Aβ deposition in 5xFAD transgenic mice [203].
Age-related diseases, including AD, are influenced by genetic factors and stress management, with the combination of genetic vulnerabilities and environmental stressors contributing to inflammatory conditions like AD [204]. Thevaranjan et al. [205] found that microbial dysbiosis associated with aging can lead to increased gut permeability and inflammation. As mentioned above, with advancing age, the gut microbiota undergoes significant changes, including an increase in Proteobacteria, a decline in beneficial bacteria such as Bifidobacteria, and a decrease in neuroprotective SCFAs [206]. Indeed, these findings are in accordance with the findings of a meta-analysis suggesting that probiotics, due to their anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties, may improve cognitive function in patients with AD and MCI [207]. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter trial, probiotics were shown to modify the gut microbiome, enhance mental flexibility, and reduce stress in healthy older adults. At the same time, another study demonstrated that probiotic milk significantly improved cognitive scores, reduced oxidative stress, and lowered inflammation markers in AD patients over a 12-week period, findings which are further supported by experimental research [207,208,209]. An uncontrolled clinical study found that 90 days of probiotic-fermented milk supplementation (2 mL/kg daily) improved cognitive deficits in Alzheimer’s patients by addressing systemic inflammation, oxidative stress, and blood cell damage, suggesting kefir could be a promising adjunct therapy for slowing disease progression [82].
Immunoregulatory microbes are increasingly recognized for their ability to induce Tregs, crucial for maintaining immune balance and limiting harmful inflammatory processes [210,211,212]. Indeed, clinical and experimental studies have shown that certain commensal bacteria, including Bifidobacteria infantis and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, can promote the induction of Tregs and IL-10 in the gut [213,214]. As mentioned above, dietary components such as probiotics and prebiotics have the ability to impact health by altering the composition and function of the mucosal immune system and gut microbiota. They can increase pathogen exclusion and enhance intestinal epithelial integrity through competition or inhibition of adherence [215,216,217,218,219,220]. Furthermore, these dietary factors can influence both the gut and systemic immune systems, particularly by stimulating various components of innate and adaptive immune responses. This involves the activation of Tregs and regulatory B cells (Breg), T helper cell type (Th)1, Th2, and Th17 responses, alongside the humoral response [221,222,223,224,225].

4.2. Prebiotics

Prebiotics, defined as “a substrate selectively utilized by host microorganisms to confer a health benefit” [226], typically include nutrients like fiber, oligosaccharides, and polyphenols. While the definition remains a topic of debate, prebiotics are generally recognized as dietary carbohydrates that are selectively fermented by gut microbiota, influencing their composition and, in turn, offering health benefits to the host [227,228]. They have been shown to enhance the growth of beneficial bacteria [229,230,231], stimulate the immune system [54], improve intestinal barrier function, and promote the production of metabolites that benefit the host [92,95,232,233]. Rodent studies increasingly highlight the neurobiological benefits of prebiotic intake, showing significant anti-inflammatory and neuroprotective effects in disease models, along with positive impacts on behavioral outcomes like anxiety, learning, and memory (Figure 2) [234].
Prebiotic supplementation has been found to induce gene expression of both BDNF and N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor (NMDAR) in the hippocampus and dentate gyrus. Similarly, in neonatal rats, B-galactooligosaccharides (GOS) treatment led to increased hippocampal BDNF and NMDAR expression compared to placebo, with these effects still observable 26 days after the treatment was discontinued [235]. An experimental study investigating the impact of chitosan oligosaccharides (COS) on cognitive deficits and their underlying molecular mechanisms revealed that COS effectively improves cognitive impairments in an Aβ1–42-induced AD model by reducing oxidative stress and neuroinflammatory reactions [236]. Similarly, fructooligosaccharides (FOS) enhanced spatial learning and memory in a D-galactose rat model of AD [237]. However, dietary supplementation with GOS did not lead to significant differences in latency or correct choices in piglets, as measured by the T-maze [238].
SCFAs and secondary bile acids produced by gut microbiota significantly affect serotonin production in enterochromaffin cells. This serotonin synthesis, in turn, influences gut motility and brain serotonergic systems. Consequently, prebiotics that increase SCFAs and bile acid production could enhance neurological function and behavior by raising serotonin levels [239,240,241]. Despite the ongoing debate regarding systemic inflammation’s effect on central 5-HT receptors, experimental research has shown that LPS-induced inflammation leads to increased cortical 5-HT2A receptor transcripts and higher hippocampal 5-HT release. Recent findings indicate that non-digestible GOS (Bimuno®, BGOS) administration can reverse these changes by normalizing elevated 5-HT2A receptor expression and reducing IL-1β and TNF-α levels linked to LPS-induced inflammation [242,243,244]. In addition, the association of neurotransmitter production, particularly serotonin and GABA, with Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus genera underscores the potential of prebiotics that foster these microbes to reduce gut dysbiosis and improve intestinal neurotransmitter levels such as GABA, thereby potentially enhancing gut health and mitigating neurobehavioral disorders associated with AD [245,246,247,248,249].

4.3. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation

FMT refers to the procedure of transferring fecal material, which contains a diverse array of gut microbiota from a healthy donor, into the GI tract of an individual with a condition related to dysbiosis or an imbalance in their gut microbiota [220,250]. The earliest recorded use of FMT, referred to as “yellow soup” dates back to the 4th century for treating diarrhea and food poisoning, while modern scientific documentation of FMT as a treatment for pseudomembranous colitis first appeared in 1958 [251,252]. Interest in FMT surged significantly in 2013 following the publication of an RCT highlighting its remarkable effectiveness in treating recurrent Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) compared to conventional therapies. This trial demonstrated a success rate of nearly 90% for FMT in severe CDI cases, which not only renewed interest in the procedure but also provided substantial validation for its potential application in modern medical practice [94,253,254,255,256].
Beyond recurrent CDI, FMT has demonstrated notable effectiveness in treating other GI disorders, such as inflammatory bowel disease [257], and is also showing promise in addressing non-GI conditions, including neurological and psychiatric disorders like acute ischemic stroke [258,259], autism [260,261], and PD [262]. Given the observed dysbiosis in the gut microbiota of AD patients, with a reduction in microbial diversity compared to healthy individuals, and the beneficial effects of prebiotics, probiotics, and antibiotics on AD prognosis, there is growing interest in exploring gut microbiota regulation, including FMT, as a potentially effective new treatment strategy for AD (Figure 2) [263]. Indeed, in an experimental study, Sun and co-workers [19] examined the impact of FMT in APP/PS1 mice, a well-established AD model. Mice receiving FMT from wild-type donors exhibited notable cognitive enhancements, reduced Aβ plaque accumulation, and lower soluble Aβ40 and Aβ42 levels compared to untreated controls. Additionally, there was an increase in proteins linked to synaptic plasticity and a significant rise in the advantageous SCFA butyrate in the gut [19]. Zhan et al. [264] found that while broad-spectrum antibiotics impaired cognitive function in wild-type mice, FMT from senescence-resistant mice restored spatial learning and memory, indicating that FMT can reverse cognitive deficits induced by antibiotics [264]. Recently, Elangovan et al. [265] explored the effectiveness of FMT for AD using a well-established mouse model, finding that a short 7-day treatment notably reduced plaque accumulation and improved behavior in familial AD (5xFAD) mice. Additionally, the study highlighted that the donor’s age significantly impacts the treatment’s effectiveness [265]. Furthermore, a study using reciprocal FMT between healthy and AD mice demonstrated that transfer of fecal material from AD mice caused memory impairment and cognitive decline in healthy hosts through increased oxidative stress and local and systemic inflammatory responses. In contrast, FMT from healthy donors to AD mice improved behavior, memory function, and cognitive outcomes [266]. Recently, using an experimental model of familial AD, Jiang et al. [267] reported that the efficacy of FMT in modulating Aβ pathophysiology, including reductions in Aβ burden via inhibition of the TLR-4-inhibitor of κB kinase-β/NF-κB signaling pathway, decreased LPS levels in the colon and hippocampus, and restoration of gut dysbiosis-is both dose- and time-dependent [267].
The data on FMT for patients with AD are limited, primarily comprising case reports and a single case series study. A case report on an 82-year-old man with recurrent CDI and AD revealed initial mild cognitive impairment, with a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of 20 and significant memory deficits. After FMT, his MMSE score improved to 26 within four months, indicating enhanced cognition and mood, and further increased to 29, along with notable improvements in memory and social interactions, six months post-FMT [268]. Similarly, FMT in a 90-year-old woman with AD dementia, who received FMT for severe CDI, was associated with improved cognitive function as assessed by the MMSE, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Clinical Dementia Rating, along with alterations in gut microbiota composition and significant changes in SCFAs [269]. Furthermore, a recent study involving ten patients with dementia and severe CDI explored the effects of FMT on cognitive function and gut microbiota, revealing significant cognitive improvements and shifts in gut microbiota composition from higher Proteobacteria to increased Bacteroidetes, along with changes in amino acid metabolism pathways, suggesting that FMT could be a promising approach for delaying cognitive decline in dementia by modifying gut microbiota [270]. In a single-arm clinical study including five patients with cognitive impairment (three with severe and two with mild impairment), Chen et al. [271] demonstrated improved or maintained scores on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment-B (MoCA-B), Activities of Daily Living (ADL), and the cognitive section of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog) after FMT. In patients with severe cognitive dysfunction, the authors reported no worsening of cognitive performance [271]. Similarly, Kim et al. [272] reported significant improvements in cognitive function tests in five patients with AD three months after FMT, which were associated with alterations in gut microbiome composition, particularly an increase in Bacteroidaceae and a decrease in Enterococcaceae [272].
Despite probiotics, prebiotics, and FMT representing promising strategies in the management of AD, this review primarily emphasizes these interventions, while other GMBA-targeted strategies such as dietary patterns, synbiotics, postbiotics and microbial metabolites, lifestyle and exercise interventions, neuromodulatory approaches, and emerging microbiome-engineering technologies are not discussed in depth. Consequently, the therapeutic framework presented is not fully comprehensive, highlighting the need for future integrative, multimodal approaches.

5. Limitations and Area of Future Research

Current evidence should be interpreted with caution, as existing clinical studies demonstrate notable heterogeneity in therapeutic interventions, including antibiotic therapy and FMT, as well as in the definitions of key terminology such as microbiome alterations, dysbiosis, diversity, and systemic and cerebral inflammatory responses. These limitations highlight the urgent need for standardized protocols, consistent clinical outcomes, randomized studies involving larger and more homogeneous patient populations, and thorough safety assessments and long-term outcomes [220,273]. Moreover, although gut microbiome–modifying therapies represent promising therapeutic options for patients with AD, many of the available studies have small sample sizes, which may result in random error, short durations, and variable outcomes. Long-term outcomes are also often lacking, thereby limiting the ability to draw clear conclusions regarding the association between microbiome alterations and prognosis. In addition, the effectiveness of these interventions should be evaluated across different stages of AD, as their efficacy appears to be limited in advanced stages of the disease when neurodegeneration is irreversible [220,274,275]. Indeed, as AD represents a continuum that begins prior to symptomatic manifestation, studies of the GMBA should focus on different disease stages. Human studies highlight that patients with MCI, a predementia stage, exhibit less pronounced microbiome alterations than patients with established AD. Specifically, in MCI, a decrease in Bacteroides and Bacteroidetes and an increase in Phascolarctobacterium are observed; additionally, a progressive intestinal enrichment of Gammaproteobacteria, Enterobacteriales, and Enterobacteriaceae is also observed as the disease progresses from MCI to AD, which may influence the therapeutic efficacy of microbiome-modifying interventions [23,276]. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that studies with negative or statistically non-significant results may remain unpublished, leading to publication bias and an overestimation of the therapeutic potential of gut microbiome–regulating therapies [220,274]. Additionally, despite the generally favorable safety profile of gut microbiome–regulating therapies, particularly in healthy individuals, rare but severe adverse effects, such as systemic infections, may occur in older patients [275,276]. Nonetheless, available research on the long-term effects of FMT remains limited, particularly with respect to the persistence and behavior of specific bacterial species [277,278,279]. Moreover, the longevity of the transplanted microbiome and its immune interactions with the host remain matters of concern, especially given that host gut microbiome alterations may occur long after FMT and that the long-term consequences, such as the potential development of chronic diseases and the transfer of antibiotic resistance genes, are not yet fully defined [220,280,281,282,283]. Future research should focus on addressing these issues by designing large, randomized, long-term trials and by using standardized strains, dosages, treatment durations, and well-defined assessment protocols. Particularly for FMT, the existing data are poorly defined regarding donor properties, as well as variations in preparation procedures, including sample processing, sample storage, dosage, routes of administration, and delivery methods [220]. Moreover, the study of advanced methodologies to modify the intestinal microbiome-such as microbial encapsulation, the use of bacteriophages, microbial enzyme modulators, and other bioengineered microbes producing beneficial metabolic products-could support the development of efficacious therapeutic interventions in the field [273]. Future research may also benefit from the integration of artificial intelligence and machine-learning approaches to accelerate advances in the gut–brain axis field. These tools could enable the integration of multi-omics data, including microbiome, metabolomics, inflammatory, neuroimaging, and clinical datasets, to identify robust microbiome-derived biomarkers, stratify responder and non-responder subgroups, and prioritize candidate microbial strains or metabolites for therapeutic development [284,285,286,287,288,289,290].

6. Conclusions

Exploring the role of the gut microbiota in AD has revealed significant links between intestinal microbial alterations and disease pathology. Evidence indicates that changes in gut microbiota can influence neuroinflammation, neurodegeneration, and CNS homeostasis through the GMBA. Emerging therapies such as probiotics, prebiotics, and FMT have shown potential in modulating disease outcomes. Despite these promising developments, the complex relationship between gut microbiota and brain homeostasis in AD requires further investigation. In particular, the long-term effects of microbiome modulation, including the persistence and stability of specific bacterial species, as well as safety concerns such as the potential transfer of unknown pathogens and the spread of antibiotic resistance, need to be carefully evaluated. Key parameters such as dosage, timing of administration, and host microbiome heterogeneity, as well as intestinal conditions and potential synergistic effects with existing AD treatments, also remain to be clarified. Continued research, particularly across different disease stages, is essential to validate these interactions, elucidate underlying mechanisms, and support the development of effective therapeutic strategies for this vulnerable patient population.

Funding

Publication costs for this article were funded by the authors’ institutions.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Figure 1 and Figure 2 created with BioRender.com. This manuscript was edited for language clarity using AI-assisted tools (GrammarlyPro version 1.2.267.1898, ChatGPT GPT-5.5). After using this tool, the author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full responsibility for the content of the published article.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

References

  1. Long, J.M.; Holtzman, D.M. Alzheimer Disease: An Update on Pathobiology and Treatment Strategies. Cell 2019, 179, 312–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Topalis, V.; Voros, C.; Ziaka, M. Targeting Inflammation in Alzheimer’s Disease: Insights Into Pathophysiology and Therapeutic Avenues-A Comprehensive Review. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry Neurol. 2026, 39, 115–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Köhler, C.A.; Maes, M.; Slyepchenko, A.; Berk, M.; Solmi, M.; Lanctôt, K.L.; Carvalho, A.F. The Gut-Brain Axis, Including the Microbiome, Leaky Gut and Bacterial Translocation: Mechanisms and Pathophysiological Role in Alzheimer’s Disease. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2016, 22, 6152–6166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Ashraf, G.M.; Tarasov, V.V.; Makhmutova, A.; Chubarev, V.N.; Avila-Rodriguez, M.; Bachurin, S.O.; Aliev, G. The Possibility of an Infectious Etiology of Alzheimer Disease. Mol. Neurobiol. 2019, 56, 4479–4491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Calsolaro, V.; Edison, P. Neuroinflammation in Alzheimer’s disease: Current evidence and future directions. Alzheimers Dement. J. Alzheimers Assoc. 2016, 12, 719–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Gareau, M.G. Microbiota-gut-brain axis and cognitive function. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2014, 817, 357–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Jagust, W. Imaging the evolution and pathophysiology of Alzheimer disease. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2018, 19, 687–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Quigley, E.M.M. Microbiota-Brain-Gut Axis and Neurodegenerative Diseases. Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 2017, 17, 94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Kamada, N.; Chen, G.Y.; Inohara, N.; Núñez, G. Control of pathogens and pathobionts by the gut microbiota. Nat. Immunol. 2013, 14, 685–690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Leclercq, S.; Matamoros, S.; Cani, P.D.; Neyrinck, A.M.; Jamar, F.; Stärkel, P.; Windey, K.; Tremaroli, V.; Bäckhed, F.; Verbeke, K.; et al. Intestinal permeability, gut-bacterial dysbiosis, and behavioral markers of alcohol-dependence severity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, E4485–E4493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Ziaka, M.; Exadaktylos, A. Pathophysiology of acute lung injury in patients with acute brain injury: The triple-hit hypothesis. Crit. Care 2024, 28, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Agus, A.; Planchais, J.; Sokol, H. Gut Microbiota Regulation of Tryptophan Metabolism in Health and Disease. Cell Host Microbe 2018, 23, 716–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Zhu, S.; Jiang, Y.; Xu, K.; Cui, M.; Ye, W.; Zhao, G.; Jin, L.; Chen, X. The progress of gut microbiome research related to brain disorders. J. Neuroinflamm. 2020, 17, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Cryan, J.F.; Dinan, T.G. Mind-altering microorganisms: The impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2012, 13, 701–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Mayer, E.A.; Knight, R.; Mazmanian, S.K.; Cryan, J.F.; Tillisch, K. Gut microbes and the brain: Paradigm shift in neuroscience. J. Neurosci. 2014, 34, 15490–15496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Sharon, G.; Sampson, T.R.; Geschwind, D.H.; Mazmanian, S.K. The Central Nervous System and the Gut Microbiome. Cell 2016, 167, 915–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Doifode, T.; Giridharan, V.V.; Generoso, J.S.; Bhatti, G.; Collodel, A.; Schulz, P.E.; Forlenza, O.V.; Barichello, T. The impact of the microbiota-gut-brain axis on Alzheimer’s disease pathophysiology. Pharmacol. Res. 2021, 164, 105314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Cox, L.M.; Schafer, M.J.; Sohn, J.; Vincentini, J.; Weiner, H.L.; Ginsberg, S.D.; Blaser, M.J. Calorie restriction slows age-related microbiota changes in an Alzheimer’s disease model in female mice. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 17904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Sun, J.; Xu, J.; Ling, Y.; Wang, F.; Gong, T.; Yang, C.; Ye, S.; Ye, K.; Wei, D.; Song, Z.; et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation alleviated Alzheimer’s disease-like pathogenesis in APP/PS1 transgenic mice. Transl. Psychiatry 2019, 9, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Zhang, L.; Wang, Y.; Xia, X.; Shi, C.; Chen, W.; Song, N.; Fu, X.; Zhou, R.; Xu, Y.-F.; Huang, L.; et al. Altered Gut Microbiota in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2017, 60, 1241–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. 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] [PubMed]
  22. Haran, J.P.; Bhattarai, S.K.; Foley, S.E.; Dutta, P.; Ward, D.V.; Bucci, V.; McCormick, B.A. Alzheimer’s Disease Microbiome Is Associated with Dysregulation of the Anti-Inflammatory P-Glycoprotein Pathway. mBio 2019, 10, e00632-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. 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]
  24. Ueda, A.; Shinkai, S.; Shiroma, H.; Taniguchi, Y.; Tsuchida, S.; Kariya, T.; Kawahara, T.; Kobayashi, Y.; Kohda, N.; Ushida, K.; et al. Identification of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii strains for gut microbiome-based intervention in Alzheimer’s-type dementia. Cell Rep. Med. 2021, 2, 100398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. 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] [PubMed]
  26. Zhuang, Z.-Q.; Shen, L.-L.; Li, W.-W.; Fu, X.; Zeng, F.; Gui, L.; Lü, Y.; Cai, M.; Zhu, C.; Tan, Y.-L.; et al. Gut Microbiota is Altered in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2018, 63, 1337–1346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Cerovic, M.; Forloni, G.; Balducci, C. Neuroinflammation and the Gut Microbiota: Possible Alternative Therapeutic Targets to Counteract Alzheimer’s Disease? Front. Aging Neurosci. 2019, 11, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Bäckhed, F.; Ley, R.E.; Sonnenburg, J.L.; Peterson, D.A.; Gordon, J.I. Host-bacterial mutualism in the human intestine. Science 2005, 307, 1915–1920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Cani, P.D.; Delzenne, N.M. The role of the gut microbiota in energy metabolism and metabolic disease. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2009, 15, 1546–1558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Kim, S.; Kim, H.; Yim, Y.S.; Ha, S.; Atarashi, K.; Tan, T.G.; Longman, R.S.; Honda, K.; Littman, D.R.; Choi, G.B.; et al. Maternal gut bacteria promote neurodevelopmental abnormalities in mouse offspring. Nature 2017, 549, 528–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. 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] [PubMed]
  32. Fujio-Vejar, S.; Vasquez, Y.; Morales, P.; Magne, F.; Vera-Wolf, P.; Ugalde, J.A.; Navarrete, P.; Gotteland, M. The Gut Microbiota of Healthy Chilean Subjects Reveals a High Abundance of the Phylum Verrucomicrobia. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Hansen, N.W.; Sams, A. The Microbiotic Highway to Health-New Perspective on Food Structure, Gut Microbiota, and Host Inflammation. Nutrients 2018, 10, 1590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Rosenberg, E. Diversity of bacteria within the human gut and its contribution to the functional unity of holobionts. npj Biofilm. Microbiomes 2024, 10, 134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Hou, K.; Wu, Z.-X.; Chen, X.-Y.; Wang, J.-Q.; Zhang, D.; Xiao, C.; Zhu, D.; Koya, J.B.; Wei, L.; Li, J.; et al. Microbiota in health and diseases. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 2022, 7, 135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Pluznick, J.L. Gut microbes and host physiology: What happens when you host billions of guests? Front. Endocrinol. 2014, 5, 91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Bove, C.; Travagli, R.A. Neurophysiology of the brain stem in Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurophysiol. 2019, 121, 1856–1864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Ullah, H.; Arbab, S.; Tian, Y.; Liu, C.-Q.; Chen, Y.; Qijie, L.; Khan, M.I.U.; Hassan, I.U.; Li, K. The gut microbiota-brain axis in neurological disorder. Front. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 1225875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Post, Z.; Manfready, R.A.; Keshavarzian, A. Overview of the Gut-Brain Axis: From Gut to Brain and Back Again. Semin. Neurol. 2023, 43, 506–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Marcondes Ávila, P.R.; Fiorot, M.; Michels, M.; Dominguini, D.; Abatti, M.; Vieira, A.; de Moura, A.B.; Behenck, J.P.; Borba, L.A.; Botelho, M.E.M.; et al. Effects of microbiota transplantation and the role of the vagus nerve in gut-brain axis in animals subjected to chronic mild stress. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 277, 410–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Ohara, T.E.; Hsiao, E.Y. Microbiota-neuroepithelial signalling across the gut-brain axis. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2025, 23, 371–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Luo, S.; Pan, M.; Fu, G.; Meng, X.; Zhao, Z.; Yu, H.; Yue, G.; Lei, T. Vagus nerve and brain-gut communication in neurodegenerative diseases: Mechanism and therapeutic perspectives. Pharmacol. Res. 2025, 221, 107974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Rusch, J.A.; Layden, B.T.; Dugas, L.R. Signalling cognition: The gut microbiota and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1130689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Kasarello, K.; Cudnoch-Jedrzejewska, A.; Czarzasta, K. Communication of gut microbiota and brain via immune and neuroendocrine signaling. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1118529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Sudo, N.; Chida, Y.; Aiba, Y.; Sonoda, J.; Oyama, N.; Yu, X.-N.; Kubo, C.; Koga, Y. Postnatal microbial colonization programs the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal system for stress response in mice. J. Physiol. 2004, 558, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Zhou, L.; Wu, Q.; Jiang, L.; Rao, J.; Gao, J.; Zhao, F.; Wang, X. Role of the microbiota in inflammation-related related psychiatric disorders. Front. Immunol. 2025, 16, 1613027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ray, D.; Bose, P.; Mukherjee, S.; Roy, S.; Kaity, S. Recent drug delivery systems targeting the gut-brain-microbiome axis for the management of chronic diseases. Int. J. Pharm. 2025, 680, 125776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Goswami, C.; Iwasaki, Y.; Yada, T. Short-chain fatty acids suppress food intake by activating vagal afferent neurons. J. Nutr. Biochem. 2018, 57, 130–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Matteoli, G.; Boeckxstaens, G.E. The vagal innervation of the gut and immune homeostasis. Gut 2013, 62, 1214–1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Cox, L.M.; Weiner, H.L. Microbiota Signaling Pathways that Influence Neurologic Disease. Neurother. J. Am. Soc. Exp. Neurother. 2018, 15, 135–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Nankova, B.B.; Agarwal, R.; MacFabe, D.F.; La Gamma, E.F. Enteric bacterial metabolites propionic and butyric acid modulate gene expression, including CREB-dependent catecholaminergic neurotransmission, in PC12 cells--possible relevance to autism spectrum disorders. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e103740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Stilling, R.M.; van de Wouw, M.; Clarke, G.; Stanton, C.; Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F. The neuropharmacology of butyrate: The bread and butter of the microbiota-gut-brain axis? Neurochem. Int. 2016, 99, 110–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. El-Ansary, A.; Bhat, R.S.; Al-Daihan, S.; Al Dbass, A.M. The neurotoxic effects of ampicillin-associated gut bacterial imbalances compared to those of orally administered propionic acid in the etiology of persistent autistic features in rat pups: Effects of various dietary regimens. Gut Pathog. 2015, 7, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ahlawat, S.; Asha; Sharma, K.K. Gut-organ axis: A microbial outreach and networking. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 72, 636–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. 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] [PubMed]
  56. Fasano, A. The Physiology of Hunger. N. Engl. J. Med. 2025, 392, 372–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Mancuso, C.; Santangelo, R. Alzheimer’s disease and gut microbiota modifications: The long way between preclinical studies and clinical evidence. Pharmacol. Res. 2018, 129, 329–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Varesi, A.; Pierella, E.; Romeo, M.; Piccini, G.B.; Alfano, C.; Bjørklund, G.; Oppong, A.; Ricevuti, G.; Esposito, C.; Chirumbolo, S.; et al. The Potential Role of Gut Microbiota in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Diagnosis to Treatment. Nutrients 2022, 14, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Wang, S.-S.; Li, X.-H.; Liu, P.; Li, J.; Liu, L. The relationship between Alzheimer’s disease and intestinal microflora structure and inflammatory factors. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2022, 14, 972982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Cattaneo, A.; Cattane, N.; Galluzzi, S.; Provasi, S.; Lopizzo, N.; Festari, C.; Ferrari, C.; Guerra, U.P.; Paghera, B.; Muscio, C.; et al. Association of brain amyloidosis with pro-inflammatory gut bacterial taxa and peripheral inflammation markers in cognitively impaired elderly. Neurobiol. Aging 2017, 49, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Brandscheid, C.; Schuck, F.; Reinhardt, S.; Schäfer, K.-H.; Pietrzik, C.U.; Grimm, M.; Hartmann, T.; Schwiertz, A.; Endres, K. Altered Gut Microbiome Composition and Tryptic Activity of the 5xFAD Alzheimer’s Mouse Model. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2017, 56, 775–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Sun, B.-L.; Li, W.-W.; Wang, J.; Xu, Y.-L.; Sun, H.-L.; Tian, D.-Y.; Wang, Y.-J.; Yao, X.-Q. Gut Microbiota Alteration and Its Time Course in a Tauopathy Mouse Model. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2019, 70, 399–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Dodiya, H.B.; Kuntz, T.; Shaik, S.M.; Baufeld, C.; Leibowitz, J.; Zhang, X.; Gottel, N.; Zhang, X.; Butovsky, O.; Gilbert, J.A.; et al. Sex-specific effects of microbiome perturbations on cerebral Aβ amyloidosis and microglia phenotypes. J. Exp. Med. 2019, 216, 1542–1560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Harach, T.; Marungruang, N.; Duthilleul, N.; Cheatham, V.; Mc Coy, K.D.; Frisoni, G.; Neher, J.J.; Fåk, F.; Jucker, M.; Lasser, T.; et al. Reduction of Abeta amyloid pathology in APPPS1 transgenic mice in the absence of gut microbiota. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 41802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Friedland, R.P.; Chapman, M.R. The role of microbial amyloid in neurodegeneration. PLoS Pathog. 2017, 13, e1006654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Sun, Y.; Sommerville, N.R.; Liu, J.Y.H.; Ngan, M.P.; Poon, D.; Ponomarev, E.D.; Lu, Z.; Kung, J.S.C.; Rudd, J.A. Intra-gastrointestinal amyloid-β1-42 oligomers perturb enteric function and induce Alzheimer’s disease pathology. J. Physiol. 2020, 598, 4209–4223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Song, H.-L.; Shim, S.; Kim, D.-H.; Won, S.-H.; Joo, S.; Kim, S.; Jeon, N.L.; Yoon, S.-Y. β-Amyloid is transmitted via neuronal connections along axonal membranes. Ann. Neurol. 2014, 75, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Kesika, P.; Suganthy, N.; Sivamaruthi, B.S.; Chaiyasut, C. Role of gut-brain axis, gut microbial composition, and probiotic intervention in Alzheimer’s disease. Life Sci. 2021, 264, 118627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Tükel, C.; Raffatellu, M.; Humphries, A.D.; Wilson, R.P.; Andrews-Polymenis, H.L.; Gull, T.; Figueiredo, J.F.; Wong, M.H.; Michelsen, K.S.; Akçelik, M.; et al. CsgA is a pathogen-associated molecular pattern of Salmonella enterica serotype Typhimurium that is recognized by Toll-like receptor 2. Mol. Microbiol. 2005, 58, 289–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Rapsinski, G.J.; Wynosky-Dolfi, M.A.; Oppong, G.O.; Tursi, S.A.; Wilson, R.P.; Brodsky, I.E.; Tükel, Ç. Toll-like receptor 2 and NLRP3 cooperate to recognize a functional bacterial amyloid, curli. Infect. Immun. 2015, 83, 693–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Bian, Z.; Brauner, A.; Li, Y.; Normark, S. Expression of and cytokine activation by Escherichia coli curli fibers in human sepsis. J. Infect. Dis. 2000, 181, 602–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Hung, C.; Marschall, J.; Burnham, C.-A.D.; Byun, A.S.; Henderson, J.P. The bacterial amyloid curli is associated with urinary source bloodstream infection. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e86009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Halle, A.; Hornung, V.; Petzold, G.C.; Stewart, C.R.; Monks, B.G.; Reinheckel, T.; Fitzgerald, K.A.; Latz, E.; Moore, K.J.; Golenbock, D.T. The NALP3 inflammasome is involved in the innate immune response to amyloid-beta. Nat. Immunol. 2008, 9, 857–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Heneka, M.T.; McManus, R.M.; Latz, E. Inflammasome signalling in brain function and neurodegenerative disease. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2018, 19, 610–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Lučiūnaitė, A.; McManus, R.M.; Jankunec, M.; Rácz, I.; Dansokho, C.; Dalgėdienė, I.; Schwartz, S.; Brosseron, F.; Heneka, M.T. Soluble Aβ oligomers and protofibrils induce NLRP3 inflammasome activation in microglia. J. Neurochem. 2020, 155, 650–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Niemi, K.; Teirilä, L.; Lappalainen, J.; Rajamäki, K.; Baumann, M.H.; Öörni, K.; Wolff, H.; Kovanen, P.T.; Matikainen, S.; Eklund, K.K. Serum amyloid A activates the NLRP3 inflammasome via P2X7 receptor and a cathepsin B-sensitive pathway. J. Immunol. 2011, 186, 6119–6128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Yan, S.D.; Chen, X.; Fu, J.; Chen, M.; Zhu, H.; Roher, A.; Slattery, T.; Zhao, L.; Nagashima, M.; Morser, J.; et al. RAGE and amyloid-beta peptide neurotoxicity in Alzheimer’s disease. Nature 1996, 382, 685–691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Wendt, T.; Tanji, N.; Guo, J.; Hudson, B.I.; Bierhaus, A.; Ramasamy, R.; Arnold, B.; Nawroth, P.P.; Yan, S.F.; D’Agati, V.; et al. Glucose, glycation, and RAGE: Implications for amplification of cellular dysfunction in diabetic nephropathy. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2003, 14, 1383–1395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Liu, Y.; Tan, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Li, H.; Yi, M.; Zhang, Z.; Hui, S.; Peng, W. Neuroimmune mechanisms underlying Alzheimer’s disease: Insights into central and peripheral immune cell crosstalk. Ageing Res. Rev. 2023, 84, 101831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Athari Nik Azm, S.; Djazayeri, A.; Safa, M.; Azami, K.; Ahmadvand, B.; Sabbaghziarani, F.; Sharifzadeh, M.; Vafa, M. Lactobacilli and bifidobacteria ameliorate memory and learning deficits and oxidative stress in β-amyloid (1–42) injected rats. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2018, 43, 718–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Chen, D.; Yang, X.; Yang, J.; Lai, G.; Yong, T.; Tang, X.; Shuai, O.; Zhou, G.; Xie, Y.; Wu, Q. Prebiotic Effect of Fructooligosaccharides from Morinda officinalis on Alzheimer’s Disease in Rodent Models by Targeting the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2017, 9, 403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Ton, A.M.M.; Campagnaro, B.P.; Alves, G.A.; Aires, R.; Côco, L.Z.; Arpini, C.M.; Guerra E Oliveira, T.; Campos-Toimil, M.; Meyrelles, S.S.; Pereira, T.M.C.; et al. Oxidative Stress and Dementia in Alzheimer’s Patients: Effects of Synbiotic Supplementation. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2020, 2020, 2638703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Brandebura, A.N.; Paumier, A.; Onur, T.S.; Allen, N.J. Astrocyte contribution to dysfunction, risk and progression in neurodegenerative disorders. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2023, 24, 23–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Condello, C.; Yuan, P.; Schain, A.; Grutzendler, J. Microglia constitute a barrier that prevents neurotoxic protofibrillar Aβ42 hotspots around plaques. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Du, L.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Zhu, J.; Yang, Y.; Zhang, H.-L. Role of Microglia in Neurological Disorders and Their Potentials as a Therapeutic Target. Mol. Neurobiol. 2017, 54, 7567–7584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Hansen, D.V.; Hanson, J.E.; Sheng, M. Microglia in Alzheimer’s disease. J. Cell Biol. 2018, 217, 459–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Shi, Y.; Holtzman, D.M. Interplay between innate immunity and Alzheimer disease: APOE and TREM2 in the spotlight. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2018, 18, 759–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Erny, D.; Hrabě de Angelis, A.L.; Jaitin, D.; Wieghofer, P.; Staszewski, O.; David, E.; Keren-Shaul, H.; Mahlakoiv, T.; Jakobshagen, K.; Buch, T.; et al. Host microbiota constantly control maturation and function of microglia in the CNS. Nat. Neurosci. 2015, 18, 965–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Roy Sarkar, S.; Banerjee, S. Gut microbiota in neurodegenerative disorders. J. Neuroimmunol. 2019, 328, 98–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Kowalski, K.; Mulak, A. Brain-Gut-Microbiota Axis in Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2019, 25, 48–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Seo, D.-O.; Holtzman, D.M. Gut Microbiota: From the Forgotten Organ to a Potential Key Player in the Pathology of Alzheimer’s Disease. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2020, 75, 1232–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Fuke, N.; Nagata, N.; Suganuma, H.; Ota, T. Regulation of Gut Microbiota and Metabolic Endotoxemia with Dietary Factors. Nutrients 2019, 11, 2277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Morris, G.; Berk, M.; Carvalho, A.; Caso, J.R.; Sanz, Y.; Walder, K.; Maes, M. The Role of the Microbial Metabolites Including Tryptophan Catabolites and Short Chain Fatty Acids in the Pathophysiology of Immune-Inflammatory and Neuroimmune Disease. Mol. Neurobiol. 2017, 54, 4432–4451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Ziaka, M.; Exadaktylos, A. Gut-derived immune cells and the gut-lung axis in ARDS. Crit. Care 2024, 28, 220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Ziaka, M.; Exadaktylos, A. Exploring the lung-gut direction of the gut-lung axis in patients with ARDS. Crit. Care 2024, 28, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Bonfili, L.; Cecarini, V.; Gogoi, O.; Gong, C.; Cuccioloni, M.; Angeletti, M.; Rossi, G.; Eleuteri, A.M. Microbiota modulation as preventative and therapeutic approach in Alzheimer’s disease. FEBS J. 2021, 288, 2836–2855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Browne, T.C.; McQuillan, K.; McManus, R.M.; O’Reilly, J.-A.; Mills, K.H.G.; Lynch, M.A. IFN-γ Production by amyloid β-specific Th1 cells promotes microglial activation and increases plaque burden in a mouse model of Alzheimer’s disease. J. Immunol. 2013, 190, 2241–2251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Kuźniar, J.; Kozubek, P.; Czaja, M.; Leszek, J. Correlation between Alzheimer’s Disease and Gastrointestinal Tract Disorders. Nutrients 2024, 16, 2366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. L, K.; Ng, T.K.S.; Wee, H.N.; Ching, J. Gut-brain axis through the lens of gut microbiota and their relationships with Alzheimer’s disease pathology: Review and recommendations. Mech. Ageing Dev. 2023, 211, 111787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Dorr, A.E.; Debonnel, G. Effect of vagus nerve stimulation on serotonergic and noradrenergic transmission. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 2006, 318, 890–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Groves, D.A.; Brown, V.J. Vagal nerve stimulation: A review of its applications and potential mechanisms that mediate its clinical effects. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2005, 29, 493–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Kaniusas, E.; Kampusch, S.; Tittgemeyer, M.; Panetsos, F.; Gines, R.F.; Papa, M.; Kiss, A.; Podesser, B.; Cassara, A.M.; Tanghe, E.; et al. Current Directions in the Auricular Vagus Nerve Stimulation I—A Physiological Perspective. Front. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Bonaz, B.; Sinniger, V.; Pellissier, S. The Vagus Nerve in the Neuro-Immune Axis: Implications in the Pathology of the Gastrointestinal Tract. Front. Immunol. 2017, 8, 1452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Karemaker, J.M. The multibranched nerve: Vagal function beyond heart rate variability. Biol. Psychol. 2022, 172, 108378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Ottaviani, M.M.; Macefield, V.G. Structure and Functions of the Vagus Nerve in Mammals. Compr. Physiol. 2022, 12, 3989–4037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Xing, T.; Ozkaya, K.S.; Nassrallah, Z.; Travagli, R.A. The vagus connection: Exploring the neurobiology of brain-gut communication. J. Neurophysiol. 2026, 135, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Liu, L.; Lou, S.; Fu, D.; Ji, P.; Xia, P.; Shuang, S.; Dong, W.; Yuan, X.; Wang, J.; Xie, K.; et al. Neuro-immune interactions: Exploring the anti-inflammatory role of the vagus nerve. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2025, 159, 114941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Breit, S.; Kupferberg, A.; Rogler, G.; Hasler, G. Vagus Nerve as Modulator of the Brain-Gut Axis in Psychiatric and Inflammatory Disorders. Front. Psychiatry 2018, 9, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Ma, L.; Wang, H.-B.; Hashimoto, K. The vagus nerve: An old but new player in brain-body communication. Brain Behav. Immun. 2025, 124, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Kakinuma, Y. Significance of vagus nerve function in terms of pathogenesis of psychosocial disorders. Neurochem. Int. 2021, 143, 104934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Buckley, M.M.; O’Brien, R.; Brosnan, E.; Ross, R.P.; Stanton, C.; Buckley, J.M.; O’Malley, D. Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Secreting L-Cells Coupled to Sensory Nerves Translate Microbial Signals to the Host Rat Nervous System. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 2020, 14, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Cawthon, C.R.; Kirkland, R.A.; Pandya, S.; Brinson, N.A.; de La Serre, C.B. Non-neuronal crosstalk promotes an inflammatory response in nodose ganglia cultures after exposure to byproducts from gram positive, high-fat-diet-associated gut bacteria. Physiol. Behav. 2020, 226, 113124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Egerod, K.L.; Petersen, N.; Timshel, P.N.; Rekling, J.C.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Q.; Schwartz, T.W.; Gautron, L. Profiling of G protein-coupled receptors in vagal afferents reveals novel gut-to-brain sensing mechanisms. Mol. Metab. 2018, 12, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  114. Pradhananga, S.; Tashtush, A.A.; Allen-Vercoe, E.; Petrof, E.O.; Lomax, A.E. Protease-dependent excitation of nodose ganglion neurons by commensal gut bacteria. J. Physiol. 2020, 598, 2137–2151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Riley, T.P.; Neal-McKinney, J.M.; Buelow, D.R.; Konkel, M.E.; Simasko, S.M. Capsaicin-sensitive vagal afferent neurons contribute to the detection of pathogenic bacterial colonization in the gut. J. Neuroimmunol. 2013, 257, 36–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Zanos, T.P.; Silverman, H.A.; Levy, T.; Tsaava, T.; Battinelli, E.; Lorraine, P.W.; Ashe, J.M.; Chavan, S.S.; Tracey, K.J.; Bouton, C.E. Identification of cytokine-specific sensory neural signals by decoding murine vagus nerve activity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E4843–E4852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Ghia, J.E.; Blennerhassett, P.; Kumar-Ondiveeran, H.; Verdu, E.F.; Collins, S.M. The vagus nerve: A tonic inhibitory influence associated with inflammatory bowel disease in a murine model. Gastroenterology 2006, 131, 1122–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Cuberos Paredes, E.; Goyes, D.; Mak, S.; Yardimian, R.; Ortiz, N.; McLaren, A.; Stauss, H.M. Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation inhibits mental stress-induced cortisol release-Potential implications for inflammatory conditions. Physiol. Rep. 2025, 13, e70251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Bonaz, B.; Sinniger, V.; Pellissier, S. Anti-inflammatory properties of the vagus nerve: Potential therapeutic implications of vagus nerve stimulation. J. Physiol. 2016, 594, 5781–5790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Kimura, K.; Inaba, Y.; Watanabe, H.; Matsukawa, T.; Matsumoto, M.; Inoue, H. Nicotinic alpha-7 acetylcholine receptor deficiency exacerbates hepatic inflammation and fibrosis in a mouse model of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. J. Diabetes Investig. 2019, 10, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Rana, M.; Fei-Bloom, Y.; Son, M.; La Bella, A.; Ochani, M.; Levine, Y.A.; Chiu, P.Y.; Wang, P.; Chavan, S.S.; Volpe, B.T.; et al. Constitutive Vagus Nerve Activation Modulates Immune Suppression in Sepsis Survivors. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Zhu, X.; Dai, S.; Xia, B.; Gong, J.; Ma, B. Activation of the alpha 7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor mitigates osteoarthritis progression by inhibiting NF-κB/NLRP3 inflammasome activation and enhancing autophagy. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0256507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. de Jonge, W.J.; van der Zanden, E.P.; The, F.O.; Bijlsma, M.F.; van Westerloo, D.J.; Bennink, R.J.; Berthoud, H.-R.; Uematsu, S.; Akira, S.; van den Wijngaard, R.M.; et al. Stimulation of the vagus nerve attenuates macrophage activation by activating the Jak2-STAT3 signaling pathway. Nat. Immunol. 2005, 6, 844–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Guerra-Álvarez, M.; Moreno-Ortega, A.J.; Navarro, E.; Fernández-Morales, J.C.; Egea, J.; López, M.G.; Cano-Abad, M.F. Positive allosteric modulation of alpha-7 nicotinic receptors promotes cell death by inducing Ca(2+) release from the endoplasmic reticulum. J. Neurochem. 2015, 133, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Tracey, K.J. The inflammatory reflex. Nature 2002, 420, 853–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Murray, P.J. STAT3-mediated anti-inflammatory signalling. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2006, 34, 1028–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Huston, J.M.; Ochani, M.; Rosas-Ballina, M.; Liao, H.; Ochani, K.; Pavlov, V.A.; Gallowitsch-Puerta, M.; Ashok, M.; Czura, C.J.; Foxwell, B.; et al. Splenectomy inactivates the cholinergic antiinflammatory pathway during lethal endotoxemia and polymicrobial sepsis. J. Exp. Med. 2006, 203, 1623–1628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Vida, G.; Peña, G.; Deitch, E.A.; Ulloa, L. α7-cholinergic receptor mediates vagal induction of splenic norepinephrine. J. Immunol. 2011, 186, 4340–4346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Wang, H.; Yu, M.; Ochani, M.; Amella, C.A.; Tanovic, M.; Susarla, S.; Li, J.H.; Wang, H.; Yang, H.; Ulloa, L.; et al. Nicotinic acetylcholine receptor alpha7 subunit is an essential regulator of inflammation. Nature 2003, 421, 384–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Bellinger, D.L.; Lorton, D. Sympathetic Nerve Hyperactivity in the Spleen: Causal for Nonpathogenic-Driven Chronic Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases (IMIDs)? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Dong, W.; Li, Y.; Fei, Q.; Li, S.; He, X.; Chai, Y.; Zhou, J.; Zong, Y.; Geng, J.; Li, Z. Targeted spleen modulation: A novel strategy for next-generation disease immunotherapy. Theranostics 2025, 15, 4416–4445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Mravec, B. Role of catecholamine-induced activation of vagal afferent pathways in regulation of sympathoadrenal system activity: Negative feedback loop of stress response. Endocr. Regul. 2011, 45, 37–41. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  133. Tanaka, S.; Abe, C.; Abbott, S.B.G.; Zheng, S.; Yamaoka, Y.; Lipsey, J.E.; Skrypnyk, N.I.; Yao, J.; Inoue, T.; Nash, W.T.; et al. Vagus nerve stimulation activates two distinct neuroimmune circuits converging in the spleen to protect mice from kidney injury. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2021, 118, e2021758118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  134. Bekdash, R.A. The Cholinergic System, the Adrenergic System and the Neuropathology of Alzheimer’s Disease. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Hu, Y.; Qu, Z.-Y.; Cao, S.-Y.; Li, Q.; Ma, L.; Krencik, R.; Xu, M.; Liu, Y. Directed differentiation of basal forebrain cholinergic neurons from human pluripotent stem cells. J. Neurosci. Methods 2016, 266, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Ferreira-Vieira, T.H.; Guimaraes, I.M.; Silva, F.R.; Ribeiro, F.M. Alzheimer’s disease: Targeting the Cholinergic System. Curr. Neuropharmacol. 2016, 14, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Latina, V.; Caioli, S.; Zona, C.; Ciotti, M.T.; Borreca, A.; Calissano, P.; Amadoro, G. NGF-Dependent Changes in Ubiquitin Homeostasis Trigger Early Cholinergic Degeneration in Cellular and Animal AD-Model. Front. Cell. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Bucci, D.J.; Holland, P.C.; Gallagher, M. Removal of cholinergic input to rat posterior parietal cortex disrupts incremental processing of conditioned stimuli. J. Neurosci. 1998, 18, 8038–8046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Voytko, M.L.; Olton, D.S.; Richardson, R.T.; Gorman, L.K.; Tobin, J.R.; Price, D.L. Basal forebrain lesions in monkeys disrupt attention but not learning and memory. J. Neurosci. 1994, 14, 167–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Bowen, D.M.; Smith, C.B.; White, P.; Davison, A.N. Neurotransmitter-related enzymes and indices of hypoxia in senile dementia and other abiotrophies. Brain J. Neurol. 1976, 99, 459–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  141. Mesulam, M.; Shaw, P.; Mash, D.; Weintraub, S. Cholinergic nucleus basalis tauopathy emerges early in the aging-MCI-AD continuum. Ann. Neurol. 2004, 55, 815–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Mufson, E.J.; Counts, S.E.; Perez, S.E.; Ginsberg, S.D. Cholinergic system during the progression of Alzheimer’s disease: Therapeutic implications. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2008, 8, 1703–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Hampel, H.; Mesulam, M.-M.; Cuello, A.C.; Khachaturian, A.S.; Vergallo, A.; Farlow, M.R.; Snyder, P.J.; Giacobini, E.; Khachaturian, Z.S. Revisiting the Cholinergic Hypothesis in Alzheimer’s Disease: Emerging Evidence from Translational and Clinical Research. J. Prev. Alzheimers Dis. 2019, 6, 2–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Farahani, F.; Anaclet, C.; Azizi, H.; Gompf, H.S. The locus coeruleus, a blue spot for early diagnosis and prognosis of Alzheimer’s disease. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2025, 17, 1632236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Roosevelt, R.W.; Smith, D.C.; Clough, R.W.; Jensen, R.A.; Browning, R.A. Increased extracellular concentrations of norepinephrine in cortex and hippocampus following vagus nerve stimulation in the rat. Brain Res. 2006, 1119, 124–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  146. Shen, H.; Fuchino, Y.; Miyamoto, D.; Nomura, H.; Matsuki, N. Vagus nerve stimulation enhances perforant path-CA3 synaptic transmission via the activation of β-adrenergic receptors and the locus coeruleus. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 2012, 15, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Vargas-Caballero, M.; Warming, H.; Walker, R.; Holmes, C.; Cruickshank, G.; Patel, B. Vagus Nerve Stimulation as a Potential Therapy in Early Alzheimer’s Disease: A Review. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2022, 16, 866434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  148. Li, S.; Cullen, W.K.; Anwyl, R.; Rowan, M.J. Dopamine-dependent facilitation of LTP induction in hippocampal CA1 by exposure to spatial novelty. Nat. Neurosci. 2003, 6, 526–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Takeuchi, T.; Duszkiewicz, A.J.; Sonneborn, A.; Spooner, P.A.; Yamasaki, M.; Watanabe, M.; Smith, C.C.; Fernández, G.; Deisseroth, K.; Greene, R.W.; et al. Locus coeruleus and dopaminergic consolidation of everyday memory. Nature 2016, 537, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  150. Han, W.; Tellez, L.A.; Perkins, M.H.; Perez, I.O.; Qu, T.; Ferreira, J.; Ferreira, T.L.; Quinn, D.; Liu, Z.-W.; Gao, X.-B.; et al. A Neural Circuit for Gut-Induced Reward. Cell 2018, 175, 665–678.e23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  151. Han, Y.; Wang, B.; Gao, H.; He, C.; Hua, R.; Liang, C.; Zhang, S.; Wang, Y.; Xin, S.; Xu, J. Vagus Nerve and Underlying Impact on the Gut Microbiota-Brain Axis in Behavior and Neurodegenerative Diseases. J. Inflamm. Res. 2022, 15, 6213–6230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Goehler, L.E.; Gaykema, R.P.A.; Opitz, N.; Reddaway, R.; Badr, N.; Lyte, M. Activation in vagal afferents and central autonomic pathways: Early responses to intestinal infection with Campylobacter jejuni. Brain Behav. Immun. 2005, 19, 334–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Liu, Y.; Sanderson, D.; Mian, M.F.; McVey Neufeld, K.-A.; Forsythe, P. Loss of vagal integrity disrupts immune components of the microbiota-gut-brain axis and inhibits the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on behavior and the corticosterone stress response. Neuropharmacology 2021, 195, 108682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Lee, K.-E.; Kim, J.-K.; Han, S.-K.; Lee, D.Y.; Lee, H.-J.; Yim, S.-V.; Kim, D.-H. The extracellular vesicle of gut microbial Paenalcaligenes hominis is a risk factor for vagus nerve-mediated cognitive impairment. Microbiome 2020, 8, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Bravo, J.A.; Forsythe, P.; Chew, M.V.; Escaravage, E.; Savignac, H.M.; Dinan, T.G.; Bienenstock, J.; Cryan, J.F. Ingestion of Lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108, 16050–16055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Bliss, E.S.; Whiteside, E. The Gut-Brain Axis, the Human Gut Microbiota and Their Integration in the Development of Obesity. Front. Physiol. 2018, 9, 900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  157. Tanida, M.; Yamano, T.; Maeda, K.; Okumura, N.; Fukushima, Y.; Nagai, K. Effects of intraduodenal injection of Lactobacillus johnsonii La1 on renal sympathetic nerve activity and blood pressure in urethane-anesthetized rats. Neurosci. Lett. 2005, 389, 109–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Coisne, C.; Engelhardt, B. Tight junctions in brain barriers during central nervous system inflammation. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 2011, 15, 1285–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  159. Xie, J.; Bruggeman, A.; De Nolf, C.; Vandendriessche, C.; Van Imschoot, G.; Van Wonterghem, E.; Vereecke, L.; Vandenbroucke, R.E. Gut microbiota regulates blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier function and Aβ pathology. EMBO J. 2023, 42, e111515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Kaya, M.; Orhan, N.; Karabacak, E.; Bahceci, M.B.; Arican, N.; Ahishali, B.; Kemikler, G.; Uslu, A.; Cevik, A.; Yilmaz, C.U.; et al. Vagus nerve stimulation inhibits seizure activity and protects blood-brain barrier integrity in kindled rats with cortical dysplasia. Life Sci. 2013, 92, 289–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  161. Lopez, N.E.; Krzyzaniak, M.J.; Costantini, T.W.; Putnam, J.; Hageny, A.-M.; Eliceiri, B.; Coimbra, R.; Bansal, V. Vagal nerve stimulation decreases blood-brain barrier disruption after traumatic brain injury. J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012, 72, 1562–1566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Yang, Y.; Yang, L.Y.; Orban, L.; Cuylear, D.; Thompson, J.; Simon, B.; Yang, Y. Non-invasive vagus nerve stimulation reduces blood-brain barrier disruption in a rat model of ischemic stroke. Brain Stimul. 2018, 11, 689–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Chen, X.; He, X.; Luo, S.; Feng, Y.; Liang, F.; Shi, T.; Huang, R.; Pei, Z.; Li, Z. Vagus Nerve Stimulation Attenuates Cerebral Microinfarct and Colitis-induced Cerebral Microinfarct Aggravation in Mice. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Chandra, R.; Sokratian, A.; Chavez, K.R.; King, S.; Swain, S.M.; Snyder, J.C.; West, A.B.; Liddle, R.A. Gut mucosal cells transfer α-synuclein to the vagus nerve. JCI Insight 2023, 8, e172192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Chen, C.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, H.; Alam, A.; Kang, S.S.; Ahn, E.H.; Liu, X.; Jia, J.; Ye, K. Gut inflammation triggers C/EBPβ/δ-secretase-dependent gut-to-brain propagation of Aβ and Tau fibrils in Alzheimer’s disease. EMBO J. 2021, 40, e106320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Singh, A.; Dawson, T.M.; Kulkarni, S. Neurodegenerative disorders and gut-brain interactions. J. Clin. Investig. 2021, 131, e143775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Vanuytsel, T.; Bercik, P.; Boeckxstaens, G. Understanding neuroimmune interactions in disorders of gut-brain interaction: From functional to immune-mediated disorders. Gut 2023, 72, 787–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Wei, W.; Wang, S.; Xu, C.; Zhou, X.; Lian, X.; He, L.; Li, K. Gut microbiota, pathogenic proteins and neurodegenerative diseases. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 959856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  169. Menardi, A.; Rossi, S.; Koch, G.; Hampel, H.; Vergallo, A.; Nitsche, M.A.; Stern, Y.; Borroni, B.; Cappa, S.F.; Cotelli, M.; et al. Toward noninvasive brain stimulation 2.0 in Alzheimer’s disease. Ageing Res. Rev. 2022, 75, 101555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  170. Vonck, K.; Raedt, R.; Naulaerts, J.; De Vogelaere, F.; Thiery, E.; Van Roost, D.; Aldenkamp, B.; Miatton, M.; Boon, P. Vagus nerve stimulation…25 years later! What do we know about the effects on cognition? Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2014, 45, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Berry, D.; Stecher, B.; Schintlmeister, A.; Reichert, J.; Brugiroux, S.; Wild, B.; Wanek, W.; Richter, A.; Rauch, I.; Decker, T.; et al. Host-compound foraging by intestinal microbiota revealed by single-cell stable isotope probing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 4720–4725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  172. George, M.S.; Ward, H.E.; Ninan, P.T.; Pollack, M.; Nahas, Z.; Anderson, B.; Kose, S.; Howland, R.H.; Goodman, W.K.; Ballenger, J.C. A pilot study of vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) for treatment-resistant anxiety disorders. Brain Stimul. 2008, 1, 112–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Koopman, F.A.; Chavan, S.S.; Miljko, S.; Grazio, S.; Sokolovic, S.; Schuurman, P.R.; Mehta, A.D.; Levine, Y.A.; Faltys, M.; Zitnik, R.; et al. Vagus nerve stimulation inhibits cytokine production and attenuates disease severity in rheumatoid arthritis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2016, 113, 8284–8289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  174. Boyce, R.; Glasgow, S.D.; Williams, S.; Adamantidis, A. Causal evidence for the role of REM sleep theta rhythm in contextual memory consolidation. Science 2016, 352, 812–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Broncel, A.; Bocian, R.; Kłos-Wojtczak, P.; Konopacki, J. Medial septal cholinergic mediation of hippocampal theta rhythm induced by vagal nerve stimulation. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0206532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. Buzsáki, G.; Moser, E.I. Memory, navigation and theta rhythm in the hippocampal-entorhinal system. Nat. Neurosci. 2013, 16, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Yamaguchi, Y.; Aota, Y.; Sato, N.; Wagatsuma, H.; Wu, Z. Synchronization of neural oscillations as a possible mechanism underlying episodic memory: A study of theta rhythm in the hippocampus. J. Integr. Neurosci. 2004, 3, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  178. Edelbach, B.; Huang, L.; Boling, W. Vagus Nerve Stimulation in the Management of Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Systematic Review of Advances in Animal Research and Clinical Applications. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 2026; in press. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Yuan, P.-Q.; Taché, Y. Abdominal surgery induced gastric ileus and activation of M1-like macrophages in the gastric myenteric plexus: Prevention by central vagal activation in rats. Am. J. Physiol. Gastrointest. Liver Physiol. 2017, 313, G320–G329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Liu, Y.; Tran, D.Q.; Lindsey, J.W.; Rhoads, J.M. The Association of Gut Microbiota and Treg Dysfunction in Autoimmune Diseases. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 2021, 1278, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  181. Larroya-García, A.; Navas-Carrillo, D.; Orenes-Piñero, E. Impact of gut microbiota on neurological diseases: Diet composition and novel treatments. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 59, 3102–3116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  182. Edelmann, E.; Cepeda-Prado, E.; Franck, M.; Lichtenecker, P.; Brigadski, T.; Leßmann, V. Theta Burst Firing Recruits BDNF Release and Signaling in Postsynaptic CA1 Neurons in Spike-Timing-Dependent LTP. Neuron 2015, 86, 1041–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  183. Mizui, T.; Ishikawa, Y.; Kumanogoh, H.; Lume, M.; Matsumoto, T.; Hara, T.; Yamawaki, S.; Takahashi, M.; Shiosaka, S.; Itami, C.; et al. BDNF pro-peptide actions facilitate hippocampal LTD and are altered by the common BDNF polymorphism Val66Met. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, E3067–E3074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  184. Ng, T.K.S.; Ho, C.S.H.; Tam, W.W.S.; Kua, E.H.; Ho, R.C.-M. Decreased Serum Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) Levels in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD): A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Wang, Z.-H.; Xiang, J.; Liu, X.; Yu, S.P.; Manfredsson, F.P.; Sandoval, I.M.; Wu, S.; Wang, J.-Z.; Ye, K. Deficiency in BDNF/TrkB Neurotrophic Activity Stimulates δ-Secretase by Upregulating C/EBPβ in Alzheimer’s Disease. Cell Rep. 2019, 28, 655–669.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  186. Di Filippo, M.; Chiasserini, D.; Gardoni, F.; Viviani, B.; Tozzi, A.; Giampà, C.; Costa, C.; Tantucci, M.; Zianni, E.; Boraso, M.; et al. Effects of central and peripheral inflammation on hippocampal synaptic plasticity. Neurobiol. Dis. 2013, 52, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  187. Gao, L.; Zhang, Y.; Sterling, K.; Song, W. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor in Alzheimer’s disease and its pharmaceutical potential. Transl. Neurodegener. 2022, 11, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  188. Tamtaji, O.R.; Heidari-Soureshjani, R.; Mirhosseini, N.; Kouchaki, E.; Bahmani, F.; Aghadavod, E.; Tajabadi-Ebrahimi, M.; Asemi, Z. Probiotic and selenium co-supplementation, and the effects on clinical, metabolic and genetic status in Alzheimer’s disease: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Clin. Nutr. 2019, 38, 2569–2575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  189. Bercik, P.; Park, A.J.; Sinclair, D.; Khoshdel, A.; Lu, J.; Huang, X.; Deng, Y.; Blennerhassett, P.A.; Fahnestock, M.; Moine, D.; et al. The anxiolytic effect of Bifidobacterium longum NCC3001 involves vagal pathways for gut-brain communication. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2011, 23, 1132–1139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  190. Liu, W.-H.; Chuang, H.-L.; Huang, Y.-T.; Wu, C.-C.; Chou, G.-T.; Wang, S.; Tsai, Y.-C. Alteration of behavior and monoamine levels attributable to Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 in germ-free mice. Behav. Brain Res. 2016, 298, 202–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Chunchai, T.; Thunapong, W.; Yasom, S.; Wanchai, K.; Eaimworawuthikul, S.; Metzler, G.; Lungkaphin, A.; Pongchaidecha, A.; Sirilun, S.; Chaiyasut, C.; et al. Decreased microglial activation through gut-brain axis by prebiotics, probiotics, or synbiotics effectively restored cognitive function in obese-insulin resistant rats. J. Neuroinflamm. 2018, 15, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Lynch, S.V.; Pedersen, O. The Human Intestinal Microbiome in Health and Disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 2369–2379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  193. Wallace, C.J.K.; Milev, R. The effects of probiotics on depressive symptoms in humans: A systematic review. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 2017, 16, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  194. Kobayashi, T.; Suzuki, T.; Kaji, R.; Serata, M.; Nagata, T.; Ando, M.; Iizuka, R.; Tsujibe, S.; Murakami, J.; Kiyoshima-Shibata, J.; et al. Probiotic upregulation of peripheral IL-17 responses does not exacerbate neurological symptoms in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis mouse models. Immunopharmacol. Immunotoxicol. 2012, 34, 423–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Leblhuber, F.; Steiner, K.; Schuetz, B.; Fuchs, D.; Gostner, J.M. Probiotic Supplementation in Patients with Alzheimer’s Dementia—An Explorative Intervention Study. Curr. Alzheimer Res. 2018, 15, 1106–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Abbott, A. Are infections seeding some cases of Alzheimer’s disease? Nature 2020, 587, 22–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  197. Bo, L.; Guojun, T.; Li, G. An Expanded Neuroimmunomodulation Axis: sCD83-Indoleamine 2,3-Dioxygenase-Kynurenine Pathway and Updates of Kynurenine Pathway in Neurologic Diseases. Front. Immunol. 2018, 9, 1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Vijay, N.; Morris, M.E. Role of monocarboxylate transporters in drug delivery to the brain. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2014, 20, 1487–1498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  199. Bonfili, L.; Cecarini, V.; Berardi, S.; Scarpona, S.; Suchodolski, J.S.; Nasuti, C.; Fiorini, D.; Boarelli, M.C.; Rossi, G.; Eleuteri, A.M. Microbiota modulation counteracts Alzheimer’s disease progression influencing neuronal proteolysis and gut hormones plasma levels. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 2426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Mehrabadi, S.; Sadr, S.S. Assessment of Probiotics Mixture on Memory Function, Inflammation Markers, and Oxidative Stress in an Alzheimer’s Disease Model of Rats. Iran. Biomed. J. 2020, 24, 220–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  201. Desbonnet, L.; Garrett, L.; Clarke, G.; Bienenstock, J.; Dinan, T.G. The probiotic Bifidobacteria infantis: An assessment of potential antidepressant properties in the rat. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2008, 43, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Kobayashi, Y.; Sugahara, H.; Shimada, K.; Mitsuyama, E.; Kuhara, T.; Yasuoka, A.; Kondo, T.; Abe, K.; Xiao, J.-Z. Therapeutic potential of Bifidobacterium breve strain A1 for preventing cognitive impairment in Alzheimer’s disease. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 13510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  203. Lee, H.-J.; Hwang, Y.-H.; Kim, D.-H. Lactobacillus plantarum C29-Fermented Soybean (DW2009) Alleviates Memory Impairment in 5XFAD Transgenic Mice by Regulating Microglia Activation and Gut Microbiota Composition. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2018, 62, e1800359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  204. Franceschi, C.; Bonafè, M.; Valensin, S.; Olivieri, F.; De Luca, M.; Ottaviani, E.; De Benedictis, G. Inflamm-aging. An evolutionary perspective on immunosenescence. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2000, 908, 244–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Thevaranjan, N.; Puchta, A.; Schulz, C.; Naidoo, A.; Szamosi, J.C.; Verschoor, C.P.; Loukov, D.; Schenck, L.P.; Jury, J.; Foley, K.P.; et al. Age-Associated Microbial Dysbiosis Promotes Intestinal Permeability, Systemic Inflammation, and Macrophage Dysfunction. Cell Host Microbe 2017, 21, 455–466.e4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. 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] [PubMed]
  207. Kim, C.-S.; Cha, L.; Sim, M.; Jung, S.; Chun, W.Y.; Baik, H.W.; Shin, D.-M. Probiotic Supplementation Improves Cognitive Function and Mood with Changes in Gut Microbiota in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Multicenter Trial. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2021, 76, 32–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Akbari, E.; Asemi, Z.; Daneshvar Kakhaki, R.; Bahmani, F.; Kouchaki, E.; Tamtaji, O.R.; Hamidi, G.A.; Salami, M. Effect of Probiotic Supplementation on Cognitive Function and Metabolic Status in Alzheimer’s Disease: A Randomized, Double-Blind and Controlled Trial. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2016, 8, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  209. Kim, N.; Jeon, S.H.; Ju, I.G.; Gee, M.S.; Do, J.; Oh, M.S.; Lee, J.K. Transplantation of gut microbiota derived from Alzheimer’s disease mouse model impairs memory function and neurogenesis in C57BL/6 mice. Brain Behav. Immun. 2021, 98, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  210. Konieczna, P.; Groeger, D.; Ziegler, M.; Frei, R.; Ferstl, R.; Shanahan, F.; Quigley, E.M.M.; Kiely, B.; Akdis, C.A.; O’Mahony, L. Bifidobacterium infantis 35624 administration induces Foxp3 T regulatory cells in human peripheral blood: Potential role for myeloid and plasmacytoid dendritic cells. Gut 2012, 61, 354–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  211. Lee, Y.K.; Mazmanian, S.K. Has the microbiota played a critical role in the evolution of the adaptive immune system? Science 2010, 330, 1768–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  212. Round, J.L.; Mazmanian, S.K. The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 2009, 9, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  213. O’Mahony, C.; Scully, P.; O’Mahony, D.; Murphy, S.; O’Brien, F.; Lyons, A.; Sherlock, G.; MacSharry, J.; Kiely, B.; Shanahan, F.; et al. Commensal-induced regulatory T cells mediate protection against pathogen-stimulated NF-kappaB activation. PLoS Pathog. 2008, 4, e1000112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  214. Sokol, H.; Pigneur, B.; Watterlot, L.; Lakhdari, O.; Bermúdez-Humarán, L.G.; Gratadoux, J.-J.; Blugeon, S.; Bridonneau, C.; Furet, J.-P.; Corthier, G.; et al. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii is an anti-inflammatory commensal bacterium identified by gut microbiota analysis of Crohn disease patients. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 16731–16736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Carbonne, C.; Chadi, S.; Kropp, C.; Molimard, L.; Chain, F.; Langella, P.; Martin, R. Ligilactobacillus salivarius CNCM I-4866, a potential probiotic candidate, shows anti-inflammatory properties in vitro and in vivo. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1270974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Chen, Z.; Yi, L.; Pan, Y.; Long, X.; Mu, J.; Yi, R.; Zhao, X. Lactobacillus fermentum ZS40 Ameliorates Inflammation in Mice With Ulcerative Colitis Induced by Dextran Sulfate Sodium. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 700217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  217. Hu, Y.; Aljumaah, M.R.; Azcarate-Peril, M.A. Galacto-Oligosaccharides and the Elderly Gut: Implications for Immune Restoration and Health. Adv. Nutr. 2024, 15, 100263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  218. Parhi, P.; Song, K.P.; Choo, W.S. Growth and survival of Bifidobacterium breve and Bifidobacterium longum in various sugar systems with fructooligosaccharide supplementation. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2022, 59, 3775–3786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  219. Włodarczyk, M.; Śliżewska, K.; Barczyńska, R.; Kapuśniak, J. Effects of Resistant Dextrin from Potato Starch on the Growth Dynamics of Selected Co-Cultured Strains of Gastrointestinal Bacteria and the Activity of Fecal Enzymes. Nutrients 2022, 14, 2158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  220. Ziaka, M. Targeting Gut-Lung Crosstalk in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation. Pathogens 2025, 14, 1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  221. Bermudez-Brito, M.; Plaza-Díaz, J.; Muñoz-Quezada, S.; Gómez-Llorente, C.; Gil, A. Probiotic mechanisms of action. Ann. Nutr. Metab. 2012, 61, 160–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  222. Hui, W.; Yu, D.; Cao, Z.; Zhao, X. Butyrate inhibit collagen-induced arthritis via Treg/IL-10/Th17 axis. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2019, 68, 226–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  223. Pujari, R.; Banerjee, G. Impact of prebiotics on immune response: From the bench to the clinic. Immunol. Cell Biol. 2021, 99, 255–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  224. Yan, X.; Yan, J.; Xiang, Q.; Wang, F.; Dai, H.; Huang, K.; Fang, L.; Yao, H.; Wang, L.; Zhang, W. Fructooligosaccharides protect against OVA-induced food allergy in mice by regulating the Th17/Treg cell balance using tryptophan metabolites. Food Funct. 2021, 12, 3191–3205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  225. Zhang, J.; Ma, J.; Li, Q.; Su, H.; Sun, X. Exploration of the effect of mixed probiotics on microbiota of allergic asthma mice. Cell. Immunol. 2021, 367, 104399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  226. Gibson, G.R.; Hutkins, R.; Sanders, M.E.; Prescott, S.L.; Reimer, R.A.; Salminen, S.J.; Scott, K.; Stanton, C.; Swanson, K.S.; Cani, P.D.; et al. Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics. Nat. Rev. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2017, 14, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  227. Gibson, G.R.; Roberfroid, M.B. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: Introducing the concept of prebiotics. J. Nutr. 1995, 125, 1401–1412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Hutkins, R.W.; Krumbeck, J.A.; Bindels, L.B.; Cani, P.D.; Fahey, G.; Goh, Y.J.; Hamaker, B.; Martens, E.C.; Mills, D.A.; Rastal, R.A.; et al. Prebiotics: Why definitions matter. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2016, 37, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  229. Lordan, C.; Thapa, D.; Ross, R.P.; Cotter, P.D. Potential for enriching next-generation health-promoting gut bacteria through prebiotics and other dietary components. Gut Microbes 2020, 11, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  230. Parnell, J.A.; Reimer, R.A. Prebiotic fiber modulation of the gut microbiota improves risk factors for obesity and the metabolic syndrome. Gut Microbes 2012, 3, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  231. Wiciński, M.; Gębalski, J.; Mazurek, E.; Podhorecka, M.; Śniegocki, M.; Szychta, P.; Sawicka, E.; Malinowski, B. The Influence of Polyphenol Compounds on Human Gastrointestinal Tract Microbiota. Nutrients 2020, 12, 350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  232. Darbandi, A.; Asadi, A.; Ghanavati, R.; Afifirad, R.; Emamie, A.D.; Kakanj, M.; Talebi, M. Corrigendum to “The effect of probiotics on respiratory tract infection with special emphasis on COVID-19: Systemic review 2010-20” [International Journal of Infectious Diseases 105 (April 2021) 91–104]. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2021, 110, 337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  233. Davani-Davari, D.; Negahdaripour, M.; Karimzadeh, I.; Seifan, M.; Mohkam, M.; Masoumi, S.J.; Berenjian, A.; Ghasemi, Y. Prebiotics: Definition, Types, Sources, Mechanisms, and Clinical Applications. Foods 2019, 8, 92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  234. Kao, A.C.C.; Harty, S.; Burnet, P.W.J. The Influence of Prebiotics on Neurobiology and Behavior. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 2016, 131, 21–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  235. Williams, S.; Chen, L.; Savignac, H.M.; Tzortzis, G.; Anthony, D.C.; Burnet, P.W.J. Neonatal prebiotic (BGOS) supplementation increases the levels of synaptophysin, GluN2A-subunits and BDNF proteins in the adult rat hippocampus. Synapse 2016, 70, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  236. 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] [PubMed]
  237. Yen, C.-H.; Wang, C.-H.; Wu, W.-T.; Chen, H.-L. Fructo-oligosaccharide improved brain β-amyloid, β-secretase, cognitive function, and plasma antioxidant levels in D-galactose-treated Balb/cJ mice. Nutr. Neurosci. 2017, 20, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  238. Mudd, A.T.; Alexander, L.S.; Berding, K.; Waworuntu, R.V.; Berg, B.M.; Donovan, S.M.; Dilger, R.N. Dietary Prebiotics, Milk Fat Globule Membrane, and Lactoferrin Affects Structural Neurodevelopment in the Young Piglet. Front. Pediatr. 2016, 4, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  239. Berger, M.; Gray, J.A.; Roth, B.L. The expanded biology of serotonin. Annu. Rev. Med. 2009, 60, 355–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  240. Clarke, G.; Grenham, S.; Scully, P.; Fitzgerald, P.; Moloney, R.D.; Shanahan, F.; Dinan, T.G.; Cryan, J.F. The microbiome-gut-brain axis during early life regulates the hippocampal serotonergic system in a sex-dependent manner. Mol. Psychiatry 2013, 18, 666–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  241. Yano, J.M.; Yu, K.; Donaldson, G.P.; Shastri, G.G.; Ann, P.; Ma, L.; Nagler, C.R.; Ismagilov, R.F.; Mazmanian, S.K.; Hsiao, E.Y. Indigenous bacteria from the gut microbiota regulate host serotonin biosynthesis. Cell 2015, 161, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  242. Bouhnik, Y.; Attar, A.; Joly, F.A.; Riottot, M.; Dyard, F.; Flourié, B. Lactulose ingestion increases faecal bifidobacterial counts: A randomised double-blind study in healthy humans. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 2004, 58, 462–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  243. Linthorst, A.C.; Flachskamm, C.; Müller-Preuss, P.; Holsboer, F.; Reul, J.M. Effect of bacterial endotoxin and interleukin-1 beta on hippocampal serotonergic neurotransmission, behavioral activity, and free corticosterone levels: An in vivo microdialysis study. J. Neurosci. 1995, 15, 2920–2934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  244. Savignac, H.M.; Couch, Y.; Stratford, M.; Bannerman, D.M.; Tzortzis, G.; Anthony, D.C.; Burnet, P.W.J. Prebiotic administration normalizes lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced anxiety and cortical 5-HT2A receptor and IL1-β levels in male mice. Brain Behav. Immun. 2016, 52, 120–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  245. Altaib, H.; Nakamura, K.; Abe, M.; Badr, Y.; Yanase, E.; Nomura, I.; Suzuki, T. Differences in the Concentration of the Fecal Neurotransmitters GABA and Glutamate Are Associated with Microbial Composition among Healthy Human Subjects. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  246. Ikegami, M.; Narabayashi, H.; Nakata, K.; Yamashita, M.; Sugi, Y.; Fuji, Y.; Matsufuji, H.; Harata, G.; Yoda, K.; Miyazawa, K.; et al. Intervention in gut microbiota increases intestinal γ-aminobutyric acid and alleviates anxiety behavior: A possible mechanism via the action on intestinal epithelial cells. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2024, 14, 1421791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  247. Luck, B.; Horvath, T.D.; Engevik, K.A.; Ruan, W.; Haidacher, S.J.; Hoch, K.M.; Oezguen, N.; Spinler, J.K.; Haag, A.M.; Versalovic, J.; et al. Neurotransmitter Profiles Are Altered in the Gut and Brain of Mice Mono-Associated with Bifidobacterium dentium. Biomolecules 2021, 11, 1091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  248. Monteagudo-Mera, A.; Fanti, V.; Rodriguez-Sobstel, C.; Gibson, G.; Wijeyesekera, A.; Karatzas, K.-A.; Chakrabarti, B. Gamma aminobutyric acid production by commercially available probiotic strains. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2023, 134, lxac066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  249. Strandwitz, P. Neurotransmitter modulation by the gut microbiota. Brain Res. 2018, 1693, 128–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  250. Kelly, C.R.; Yen, E.F.; Grinspan, A.M.; Kahn, S.A.; Atreja, A.; Lewis, J.D.; Moore, T.A.; Rubin, D.T.; Kim, A.M.; Serra, S.; et al. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Is Highly Effective in Real-World Practice: Initial Results From the FMT National Registry. Gastroenterology 2021, 160, 183–192.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  251. de Groot, P.F.; Frissen, M.N.; de Clercq, N.C.; Nieuwdorp, M. Fecal microbiota transplantation in metabolic syndrome: History, present and future. Gut Microbes 2017, 8, 253–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  252. Eiseman, B.; Silen, W.; Bascom, G.S.; Kauvar, A.J. Fecal enema as an adjunct in the treatment of pseudomembranous enterocolitis. Surgery 1958, 44, 854–859. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  253. Gaines, S.; Alverdy, J.C. Fecal Micobiota Transplantation to Treat Sepsis of Unclear Etiology. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 45, 1106–1107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  254. Ianiro, G.; Maida, M.; Burisch, J.; Simonelli, C.; Hold, G.; Ventimiglia, M.; Gasbarrini, A.; Cammarota, G. Efficacy of different faecal microbiota transplantation protocols for Clostridium difficile infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. United Eur. Gastroenterol. J. 2018, 6, 1232–1244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  255. Quraishi, M.N.; Widlak, M.; Bhala, N.; Moore, D.; Price, M.; Sharma, N.; Iqbal, T.H. Systematic review with meta-analysis: The efficacy of faecal microbiota transplantation for the treatment of recurrent and refractory Clostridium difficile infection. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2017, 46, 479–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  256. van Nood, E.; Vrieze, A.; Nieuwdorp, M.; Fuentes, S.; Zoetendal, E.G.; de Vos, W.M.; Visser, C.E.; Kuijper, E.J.; Bartelsman, J.F.W.M.; Tijssen, J.G.P.; et al. Duodenal infusion of donor feces for recurrent Clostridium difficile. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  257. Zhao, H.L.; Chen, S.Z.; Xu, H.M.; Zhou, Y.L.; He, J.; Huang, H.L.; Xu, J.; Nie, Y.Q. Efficacy and safety of fecal microbiota transplantation for treating patients with ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dig. Dis. 2020, 21, 534–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  258. Chen, R.; Xu, Y.; Wu, P.; Zhou, H.; Lasanajak, Y.; Fang, Y.; Tang, L.; Ye, L.; Li, X.; Cai, Z.; et al. Transplantation of fecal microbiota rich in short chain fatty acids and butyric acid treat cerebral ischemic stroke by regulating gut microbiota. Pharmacol. Res. 2019, 148, 104403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  259. Singh, V.; Roth, S.; Llovera, G.; Sadler, R.; Garzetti, D.; Stecher, B.; Dichgans, M.; Liesz, A. Microbiota Dysbiosis Controls the Neuroinflammatory Response after Stroke. J. Neurosci. 2016, 36, 7428–7440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  260. Kang, D.-W.; Adams, J.B.; Gregory, A.C.; Borody, T.; Chittick, L.; Fasano, A.; Khoruts, A.; Geis, E.; Maldonado, J.; McDonough-Means, S.; et al. Microbiota Transfer Therapy alters gut ecosystem and improves gastrointestinal and autism symptoms: An open-label study. Microbiome 2017, 5, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  261. Kang, D.-W.; Adams, J.B.; Coleman, D.M.; Pollard, E.L.; Maldonado, J.; McDonough-Means, S.; Caporaso, J.G.; Krajmalnik-Brown, R. Long-term benefit of Microbiota Transfer Therapy on autism symptoms and gut microbiota. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  262. Scheperjans, F.; Aho, V.; Pereira, P.A.B.; Koskinen, K.; Paulin, L.; Pekkonen, E.; Haapaniemi, E.; Kaakkola, S.; Eerola-Rautio, J.; Pohja, M.; et al. Gut microbiota are related to Parkinson’s disease and clinical phenotype. Mov. Disord. 2015, 30, 350–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  263. Xiang, W.; Xiang, H.; Wang, J.; Jiang, Y.; Pan, C.; Ji, B.; Zhang, A. Fecal microbiota transplantation: A novel strategy for treating Alzheimer’s disease. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1281233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  264. Zhan, G.; Yang, N.; Li, S.; Huang, N.; Fang, X.; Zhang, J.; Zhu, B.; Yang, L.; Yang, C.; Luo, A. Abnormal gut microbiota composition contributes to cognitive dysfunction in SAMP8 mice. Aging 2018, 10, 1257–1267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  265. Elangovan, S.; Borody, T.J.; Holsinger, R.M.D. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Reduces Pathology and Improves Cognition in a Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. Cells 2022, 12, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  266. Upadhyay, P.; Kumar, S.; Tyagi, A.; Tyagi, A.R.; Barbhuyan, T.; Gupta, S. Gut Microbiome rewiring via fecal transplants: Uncovering therapeutic avenues in Alzheimer’s disease models. BMC Neurosci. 2025, 26, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  267. Jiang, X.; Zheng, Y.; Sun, H.; Dang, Y.; Yin, M.; Xiao, M.; Wu, T. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation Improves Cognitive Function of a Mouse Model of Alzheimer’s Disease. CNS Neurosci. Ther. 2025, 31, e70259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  268. Hazan, S. Rapid improvement in Alzheimer’s disease symptoms following fecal microbiota transplantation: A case report. J. Int. Med. Res. 2020, 48, 300060520925930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  269. Park, S.-H.; Lee, J.H.; Shin, J.; Kim, J.-S.; Cha, B.; Lee, S.; Kwon, K.S.; Shin, Y.W.; Choi, S.H. Cognitive function improvement after fecal microbiota transplantation in Alzheimer’s dementia patient: A case report. Curr. Med. Res. Opin. 2021, 37, 1739–1744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  270. Park, S.-H.; Lee, J.-H.; Kim, J.-S.; Kim, T.J.; Shin, J.; Im, J.H.; Cha, B.; Lee, S.; Kwon, K.S.; Shin, Y.W.; et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation can improve cognition in patients with cognitive decline and Clostridioides difficile infection. Aging 2022, 14, 6449–6466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  271. Chen, X.; Zhang, W.; Lin, Z.; Zheng, C.; Chen, S.; Zhou, H.; Liu, Z. Preliminary evidence for developing safe and efficient fecal microbiota transplantation as potential treatment for aged related cognitive impairments. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2023, 13, 1103189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  272. Kim, J.-S.; Park, H.; Lee, J.-H.; Shin, J.; Cha, B.; Kwon, K.S.; Shin, Y.W.; Kim, Y.; Kim, Y.; Bae, J.S.; et al. Effect of altered gene expression in lipid metabolism on cognitive improvement in patients with Alzheimer’s dementia following fecal microbiota transplantation: A preliminary study. Ther. Adv. Neurol. Disord. 2024, 17, 17562864231218181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  273. Seo, D.-O.; Holtzman, D.M. Current understanding of the Alzheimer’s disease-associated microbiome and therapeutic strategies. Exp. Mol. Med. 2024, 56, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  274. Liu, W.; Guo, J.; Dong, Y.; Li, J.; Wang, Y. Efficacy of probiotic supplementation in influencing cognitive function in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Food Sci. 2025, 90, e70037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  275. Tabaza, R.; Hartman, R.E. Impact of Gut-Brain Axis and Probiotics on Alzheimer’s Disease. Neurol. Int. 2025, 17, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  276. Jemimah, S.; Chabib, C.M.M.; Hadjileontiadis, L.; AlShehhi, A. Gut microbiome dysbiosis in Alzheimer’s disease and mild cognitive impairment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0285346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  277. Broecker, F.; Klumpp, J.; Schuppler, M.; Russo, G.; Biedermann, L.; Hombach, M.; Rogler, G.; Moelling, K. Long-term changes of bacterial and viral compositions in the intestine of a recovered Clostridium difficile patient after fecal microbiota transplantation. Cold Spring Harb. Mol. Case Stud. 2016, 2, a000448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  278. Vrieze, A.; de Groot, P.F.; Kootte, R.S.; Knaapen, M.; van Nood, E.; Nieuwdorp, M. Fecal transplant: A safe and sustainable clinical therapy for restoring intestinal microbial balance in human disease? Best Pract. Res. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2013, 27, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  279. Zhang, F.; Zuo, T.; Yeoh, Y.K.; Cheng, F.W.T.; Liu, Q.; Tang, W.; Cheung, K.C.Y.; Yang, K.; Cheung, C.P.; Mo, C.C.; et al. Longitudinal dynamics of gut bacteriome, mycobiome and virome after fecal microbiota transplantation in graft-versus-host disease. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  280. Chu, N.D.; Crothers, J.W.; Nguyen, L.T.T.; Kearney, S.M.; Smith, M.B.; Kassam, Z.; Collins, C.; Xavier, R.; Moses, P.L.; Alm, E.J. Dynamic Colonization of Microbes and Their Functions after Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Inflammatory Bowel Disease. mBio 2021, 12, e0097521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  281. Oliva-Hemker, M.; Kahn, S.A.; Steinbach, W.J. Section on Gastroenteroloy, Hepatology, and Nutrition; Committee on Infectious Diseases. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation: Information for the Pediatrician. Pediatrics 2023, 152, e2023062922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  282. Song, Y.; Garg, S.; Girotra, M.; Maddox, C.; von Rosenvinge, E.C.; Dutta, A.; Dutta, S.; Fricke, W.F. Microbiota dynamics in patients treated with fecal microbiota transplantation for recurrent Clostridium difficile infection. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e81330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  283. Xu, H.; Liu, M.; Cao, J.; Li, X.; Fan, D.; Xia, Y.; Lu, X.; Li, J.; Ju, D.; Zhao, H. The Dynamic Interplay between the Gut Microbiota and Autoimmune Diseases. J. Immunol. Res. 2019, 2019, 7546047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  284. Oso, T.A.; Ahmed, M.M.; Okesanya, O.J.; Adebayo, U.O.; Obadeyi, K.B.; Othman, Z.K.; Lucero-Prisno, D.E. Exploring the gut-brain-microbiome axis in Alzheimer’s disease: Integrating metagenomics, metabolomics, and artificial intelligence for next-generation biomarker discovery. J. Alzheimers Dis. 2026, 109, 1542–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  285. Kaur, H.; Singh, Y.; Singh, S.; Singh, R.B. Gut microbiome-mediated epigenetic regulation of brain disorder and application of machine learning for multi-omics data analysis. Genome 2021, 64, 355–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  286. Jabeen, T.; Karimi, F.; Zomorrodi, A.R.; Khalilpour, K. Multi-modal machine learning and gut microbiome pathway analysis for Alzheimer’s risk prediction. Alzheimers Dement. 2026, 18, e70340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  287. Ren, F.; Wei, J.; Chen, Q.; Hu, M.; Yu, L.; Mi, J.; Zhou, X.; Qin, D.; Wu, J.; Wu, A. Artificial intelligence-driven multi-omics approaches in Alzheimer’s disease: Progress, challenges, and future directions. Acta Pharm. Sin. B 2025, 15, 4327–4385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  288. Huang, Z.; Kaur Sekhon, V.; Sadeghian, R.; Vaida, M.L.; Jo, C.; McCormick, B.A.; Ward, D.V.; Bucci, V.; Haran, J.P. ADAM-1: An AI Reasoning and Bioinformatics Model for Alzheimer’s Disease Detection and Microbiome-Clinical Data Integration. IEEE Access Pract. Innov. Open Solut. 2025, 13, 145953–145967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  289. Rob, M.; Yousef, M.; Lakshmanan, A.P.; Mahboob, A.; Terranegra, A.; Chaari, A. Microbial signatures and therapeutic strategies in neurodegenerative diseases. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2025, 184, 117905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  290. Marcos-Zambrano, L.J.; Karaduzovic-Hadziabdic, K.; Loncar Turukalo, T.; Przymus, P.; Trajkovik, V.; Aasmets, O.; Berland, M.; Gruca, A.; Hasic, J.; Hron, K.; et al. Applications of Machine Learning in Human Microbiome Studies: A Review on Feature Selection, Biomarker Identification, Disease Prediction and Treatment. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 634511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. The brain communicates with the gut microbiota through intricate pathways involving neuronal pathways, the immune system, and microbial metabolites. When gut dysbiosis arises, it triggers immune activation, disturbs neurotransmitter levels, and interferes with vagus nerve signaling. Disruption of the gastrointestinal barrier permits bacterial translocation and initiates inflammatory processes, which in turn lead to the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that increase the permeability of the BBB. As a result, harmful microbial byproducts may reach the brain or indirectly influence it, adversely affecting neurological function. Dysbiosis reduces the availability of beneficial metabolites like SCFAs while enhancing the production of harmful substances such as amyloids and LPS, contributing to compromised barrier integrity and enhanced inflammation.
Figure 1. The brain communicates with the gut microbiota through intricate pathways involving neuronal pathways, the immune system, and microbial metabolites. When gut dysbiosis arises, it triggers immune activation, disturbs neurotransmitter levels, and interferes with vagus nerve signaling. Disruption of the gastrointestinal barrier permits bacterial translocation and initiates inflammatory processes, which in turn lead to the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines that increase the permeability of the BBB. As a result, harmful microbial byproducts may reach the brain or indirectly influence it, adversely affecting neurological function. Dysbiosis reduces the availability of beneficial metabolites like SCFAs while enhancing the production of harmful substances such as amyloids and LPS, contributing to compromised barrier integrity and enhanced inflammation.
Pathogens 15 00659 g001
Figure 2. Dysbiosis plays a significant role in driving neuroinflammation, neuronal cell death, and the disruption of the BBB. This process is marked by the activation of astrocytes and microglia, which further exacerbate neuronal damage. Key contributors to AD pathology include amyloid plaque formation, tau hyperphosphorylation leading to NFT pathology, persistent neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and the translocation of gut-derived metabolites, inflammatory mediators, and bacterial compounds through a compromised intestinal and BBB. These factors collectively lead to synaptic dysfunction and neuronal loss. Therapeutic approaches aimed at restoring gut microbiota balance-such as FMT, prebiotics, and probiotics-hold promise in promoting neuroprotection. These interventions can help to restore gut barrier integrity, decrease peripheral inflammation, mitigate BBB disruption, regulate brain immune cell activity, and enhance cognitive function, ultimately slowing the progression of AD. By reconditioning the gut–brain axis, these strategies offer a potential pathway to mitigate the complex interplay of amyloid plaque formation, tau pathology, and neuroinflammatory processes central to AD pathophysiology.
Figure 2. Dysbiosis plays a significant role in driving neuroinflammation, neuronal cell death, and the disruption of the BBB. This process is marked by the activation of astrocytes and microglia, which further exacerbate neuronal damage. Key contributors to AD pathology include amyloid plaque formation, tau hyperphosphorylation leading to NFT pathology, persistent neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, and the translocation of gut-derived metabolites, inflammatory mediators, and bacterial compounds through a compromised intestinal and BBB. These factors collectively lead to synaptic dysfunction and neuronal loss. Therapeutic approaches aimed at restoring gut microbiota balance-such as FMT, prebiotics, and probiotics-hold promise in promoting neuroprotection. These interventions can help to restore gut barrier integrity, decrease peripheral inflammation, mitigate BBB disruption, regulate brain immune cell activity, and enhance cognitive function, ultimately slowing the progression of AD. By reconditioning the gut–brain axis, these strategies offer a potential pathway to mitigate the complex interplay of amyloid plaque formation, tau pathology, and neuroinflammatory processes central to AD pathophysiology.
Pathogens 15 00659 g002
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ziaka, M. A Comprehensive Review of the Gut–Microbiota–Brain Axis in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathophysiology to Potential Therapies. Pathogens 2026, 15, 659. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15070659

AMA Style

Ziaka M. A Comprehensive Review of the Gut–Microbiota–Brain Axis in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathophysiology to Potential Therapies. Pathogens. 2026; 15(7):659. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15070659

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ziaka, Mairi. 2026. "A Comprehensive Review of the Gut–Microbiota–Brain Axis in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathophysiology to Potential Therapies" Pathogens 15, no. 7: 659. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15070659

APA Style

Ziaka, M. (2026). A Comprehensive Review of the Gut–Microbiota–Brain Axis in Alzheimer’s Disease: From Pathophysiology to Potential Therapies. Pathogens, 15(7), 659. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens15070659

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop