FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2955334522> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2955334522 endingPage "2277" @default.
• W2955334522 startingPage "2270" @default.
• W2955334522 abstract "HomeStrokeVol. 50, No. 8Examining the Role of the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis in Stroke Free AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissionsDownload Articles + Supplements ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toSupplemental MaterialFree AccessReview ArticlePDF/EPUBExamining the Role of the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis in Stroke David J. Durgan, PhD, Juneyoung Lee, PhD, Louise D. McCullough, MD, PhD and Robert M. Bryan Jr, PhD David J. DurganDavid J. Durgan Correspondence to David J. Durgan, PhD, Department of Anesthesiology, Baylor College of Medicine, One Baylor Plaza, Room 434D, Houston, TX 77030. Email E-mail Address: [email protected] From the Department of Anesthesiology (D.J.D., R.M.B.), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics (D.J.D., R.M.B.), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX Search for more papers by this author , Juneyoung LeeJuneyoung Lee Department of Neurology, McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston (J.L., L.D.M.). Search for more papers by this author , Louise D. McCulloughLouise D. McCullough Department of Neurology, McGovern Medical School at The University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston (J.L., L.D.M.). Search for more papers by this author and Robert M. Bryan JrRobert M. Bryan Jr From the Department of Anesthesiology (D.J.D., R.M.B.), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics (D.J.D., R.M.B.), Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX Search for more papers by this author Originally published5 Jul 2019https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.025140Stroke. 2019;50:2270–2277Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: July 5, 2019: Ahead of Print Very early in the 20th century, Elie Metchnikoff, a Nobel Laureate and pioneer in immunology, hypothesized that bacteria residing in the colon were instrumental in initiating many diseases, including neurodegenerative diseases associated with aging. Metchnikoff believed some bacteria were harmful while other bacteria were beneficial and that longevity could be enhanced and senility delayed by ingesting beneficial bacteria (now known as probiotics), daily exercise, mental stimulation, and avoidance of alcohol. For much of the last century, Metchnikoff’s ideas linking gut bacteria to host health and disease sat relatively idle. Although many of his hypotheses have required modification, his ideas have now come full circle with recent findings that gut bacteria and gut health have major implications in diseases affecting the entire body. This resurgence of interest was sparked by new sequencing technologies that have allowed rapid identification of bacteria and other microorganisms in our body to the genus or species level. Our goal in this review is to summarize the recent literature as it pertains to interaction of bacteria in the gut and host health, with an emphasis on stroke and stroke recovery.The majority of bacteria, a major group of the microbiota residing in or on our bodies, are contained within the gastrointestinal tract. Under normal physiological conditions, the bacteria are instrumental in host immune development and control, act as a source for nutrients, and maintain metabolic homeostasis. Shifts in the makeup of these microbes, termed dysbiosis, can have significant pathological consequences for the host and has been linked to the development of numerous disease states.1–7 In this review, the term dysbiosis is reserved for shifts in the microbiota that are associated with a pathological state.Microbiota-Gut-Brain AxisInvestigation of the extent and mechanisms of interaction between the gut microbiota and nongastrointestinal organs remains in its infancy. However, evidence suggests that bidirectional communication exists between the gut and its microbiota and the brain. This bidirectional communication is referred to as the microbiota-gut-brain axis.Signaling between the brain and the gut occurs through both neuronal and non-neuronal mechanisms (Figures 1 and 2). For top-down signaling (brain→gut) the gut wall receives direct communication via parasympathetic and sympathetic nerve fibers, or indirectly following stimulation of the enteric nervous system, a highly developed system of neuronal connections located in the submucosa and myenteric plexi of the gut wall (Figure 2). These neuronal inputs influence gut motility, gut permeability, microbiota makeup, and resident immune cell activation. In addition to direct neural input, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis is particularly important as a communication pathway in the response to stress (Figure 1).Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 1. Routes of bidirectional communication along the microbiota-gut-brain axis. Left (blue) represents pathways for brain to gut signaling. Right (gray) represents pathways for gut to brain signaling.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 2. Neural pathways of communication between brain and gut. Black arrows represent afferent signals from gut to brain and white arrows represent efferent signals from brain to gut.Bottom-up signaling (gut→brain) is thought to occur through several different mechanisms. First, the vagus nerve, composed of 80% afferent and 20% efferent fibers, serves a dual role in conveying signals between the gut and brain (Figure 2). These afferent fibers can be stimulated by microbial compounds and metabolites as well as hormones (eg, serotonin, cholecystokinin, glucagon-like peptide-1, and peptide YY) released from enteroendocrine cells of the gut epithelial layer to initiate bottom-up signaling (Figure 1). Stimulation of these afferent projections signals throughout the brain, including hypothalamic neurons that regulate pituitary secretions and the nucleus tractus solaritarius with its downstream projections. Second, immunogenic endotoxins from the microbiota, such as lipopolysacchride (LPS), can induce neuroinflammation either directly or via activation of peripheral immune cells that can then migrate to the brain (Figure 1).6,7 Third, the microbiota generate or stimulate release of a number of metabolites, such as neurotransmitters, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs, see paragraph below), indoles, and bile acids, that are thought to enter the systemic blood and travel to the brain to modulate the function of neurons, microglia, astrocytes, and the blood-brain barrier (BBB; Figure 1).8–10 Not only do microbiota produce neurotransmitters that are capable of influencing the host but several studies have reported binding sites for neurotransmitters on bacteria that influence bacterial metabolism, proliferation, and virulence.SCFAs, such as acetate, butyrate, and propionate, are major end products of bacterial fermentation of resistant starch and fiber. These SCFAs not only serve as an energy source for the host but also have vasoactive properties. Additionally, SCFAs influence host cells through a variety of mechanisms, including altering histone acetylation and cell proliferation, and activation of G-protein coupled receptors. Loss of SCFA-producing bacteria has been described in several cardiovascular and metabolic disease models, including stroke, hypertension, obesity, and diabetes mellitus.1,3,4 SCFAs in relation to stroke and other disease states will be further discussed throughout this review.Gut Dysbiosis Influences Stroke Risk FactorsStudies examining the role of the microbiota with the onset of stroke as the final outcome are limited. However, the gut microbiota is directly linked to a number of conditions that are themselves risk factors for stroke. This list includes hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atherosclerosis, aging, vascular dysfunction, and obesity. It follows logically that if the gut microbiota is involved with the onset of these risk factors, then gut dysbiosis should indirectly increase stroke risk.Dysbiosis and HypertensionHypertension in both animal models and humans correlate with gut dysbiosis as indicated by decreased diversity of the gut microbiota and increased ratio of the bacterial phyla, Firmicutes to Bacteroidetes.1–3,5 The gut microbiota in hypertensive and prehypertensive patients was reportedly similar but differed from that in normotensive subjects. The dysbiosis and metabolite profiles in prehypertensive patients suggest that dysbiosis precedes hypertension, rather than being a consequence of hypertension.Both spontaneously hypertensive rats, a genetic model of hypertension, and rats rendered hypertensive by Ang II (angiotensin II) infusion exhibited dysbiosis when compared with corresponding normotensive rats.3 Furthermore, Ang II does not elicit hypertension in germ-free mice, which are born and raised under sterile conditions and lack any microbiota. This observation reinforces the idea that microbiota is required for the development of hypertension.The strongest evidence to date for an underlying role of the gut microbiota in the development of hypertension involves studies using fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT). When normotensive Wistar Kyoto rats were transplanted with the microbiota of a substrain of spontaneously hypertensive rats, systolic blood pressure significantly increased by 17 mm Hg compared with Wistar Kyoto rats transplanted with Wistar Kyoto microbiota.2 Thus, something in the transplant, presumably bacteria or bacterial products, was responsible for the induction of hypertension.Similarly, a causal relationship exists between the gut microbiota and hypertension in a rat model of obstructive sleep apnea–induced hypertension. Microbiota transplanted from hypertensive obstructive sleep apnea donor rats into normotensive recipients produced hypertension that otherwise would not have occurred; while microbiota transplants from normotensive sham rats (ie, obstructive sleep apnea device implanted but not activated) had no effect on blood pressure.1 In additional studies, obstructive sleep apnea–induced hypertension was shown to be accompanied by significant decreases in cecal acetate, an important SCFA signaling molecule.5 Hypertension was prevented by restoring cecal acetate concentrations through oral prebiotics or probiotics or direct infusion of acetate into the cecum.5Dysbiosis, Obesity, and Diabetes MellitusMounting evidence strongly suggests a cause and effect relationship between gut dysbiosis and metabolic diseases. For example, germ-free mice, which lack gut microbiota, exhibited reduced adiposity, improved glucose homeostasis, and were protected against high fat diet-induced glucose intolerance compared with conventionally raised mice. Transplanting gut microbiota from obese mice or humans into germ-free mice induced an obese phenotype.11 Finally, transplanting the gut microbiota from lean human donors into patients with metabolic syndrome improved insulin sensitivity. While these studies suggest a connection between the microbiota and obesity and diabetes mellitus, defining the underlying mechanisms has proven difficult.Obesity and diabetes mellitus are multifaceted metabolic disorders; and interestingly, the microbiota has been shown to influence several pathways implicated in the development of these disease states. The gut microbiota plays a key role in stimulating the release of gut hormones involved in satiety signaling, thermogenesis, and energy balance. Bile acids, which are regulated and modified by the gut microbiota, have been shown to influence appetite and energy expenditure. Finally, the gut microbiota strongly influences host immune cell maturation and activation. Obesity and diabetes mellitus are accompanied by increased plasma LPS, an endotoxin from the outer membrane of gram-negative bacteria. Reducing the bacterial sources responsible for the LPS with antibiotics not only decreased plasma LPS but also decreased body weight gain, fat mass, inflammation of adipose tissue, and improved glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity in obese mice. In summary, there is strong evidence that gut bacteria are directly involved with metabolic disorders.Dysbiosis and Vascular DysfunctionGut microbes can produce metabolites that influence the host cardiovascular system in either a beneficial or detrimental manner. As with hypertension and diabetes mellitus, gut microbiota can contribute to vascular dysfunction that, in turn, increases the risk for stroke and exacerbates severity and outcome once a stroke has occurred. Examples of bacterial metabolites that have effects on the cardiovascular system include SCFAs, nitrites, flavanol metabolites, trimethyl amine N-oxide, indoles, and H2S. Certain microbial metabolites, such as SCFAs and H2S, have been shown to have vasorelaxant properties, and bacterial species producing these compounds have been shown to be decreased in models of hypertension.1–3,5 The microbial metabolites, indole sulfate, and trimethyl amine N-oxide, increase endothelial reactive oxygen species production and impair endothelial-mediated vasodilation. In the case of trimethyl amine N-oxide, a cause and effect relationship linking this microbial metabolite to atherosclerosis has been well established.The gut microbiota may serve as a novel therapeutic target for the treatment of vascular dysfunction and associated pathologies. Selective probiotics prevented or restored endothelial dysfunction in rats, through downregulation of vascular NADPH oxidase 2 and improved endothelial nitric oxide synthase coupling.Dysbiosis and AgingThe gastrointestinal tract and resident microbiota are susceptible to the progressive functional decline associated with aging. With aging, there is a breakdown of the gut epithelial barrier, loss of enteric neurons, and altered mucosal immune function resulting in excessive production of proinflammatory cytokines. Concomitant with changes in gastrointestinal physiology, aging is also associated with significant shifts in the makeup of the gut microbiota including decreased microbial richness and diversity and a decrease in bacteria with anti-inflammatory properties. These changes likely have a major role in the persistent low levels of inflammation, often referred to as inflammaging. This state of inflammaging decreases the ability of older individuals to cope with antigenic, toxic, physical, and ischemic stress.Microbiota transplant studies have been useful in demonstrating the detrimental and proinflammatory state of the aged microbiota. Germ-free mice receiving microbiota from aged mice (17 months) exhibited significant increases in proinflammatory gene expression in the ileum, increased TH1 and TH2 cells in spleen, and increased bacterial products in the systemic circulation when compared with germ-free mice transplanted with microbiota from young mice (7–10 weeks). Exchanging the gut microbiota between aged (≈20 months) and young (≈3 months) mice demonstrated that mice receiving an aged microbiota, regardless of chronological age, exhibited impaired motor strength, and cognitive function when compared with mice receiving a young microbiota.4 Understanding of the role of dysbiosis with aging brings with it hope that altering the gut microbiota may prove effective in attenuating inflammaging and the associated causes. This becomes even more significant when considering that stroke is a disease that primarily affects the elderly.Gut Dysbiosis and StrokeAs discussed above, communication along the microbiota-gut-brain axis is bidirectional. Accordingly, mounting evidence demonstrates that stroke alters the gut microbiota in top-down signaling and the makeup of gut microbiota can influence stroke outcome in bottom-up signaling (Table). Thus, stroke may produce a feed-forward cycle for secondary damage to the brain.Table. Studies Examining Interactions Between the Gut Microbiota and StrokeStudySpeciesKey FindingsSpychala et al4MiceYoung microbiota improved stroke recovery when transplanted into aged mice.Singh et al6MiceStroke induces gut paralysis, barrier disruption, and dysbiosis.Presence of a dysbiotic microbiota at time of stroke led to larger infarct and impaired recovery.T cells, Th cells, and monocytes migrate from Peyer patches to peri-infarct brain region following stroke.Benakis et al7MiceMicrobiota contributes to activation of IL-17 producing γδ T cells after stroke.Following stroke γδ T cells migrate from gut to the brain meninges.Yamashiro et al12HumanStroke altered gut microbiota and decreased fecal acetic acid concentrations.Yin et al13HumanStroke and transient ischemic attack altered the gut microbiota, including increased abundance of pathogens and decreased beneficial commensals.Stanley et al14MiceStroke altered the mucosa-associated microbiota along the length of the intestine.Stanley et al15Human & MiceBacteria originating from the small intestine contribute to poststroke infection.Houlden et al16MiceStroke induces cecal dysbiosis, reduced mucus production, and loss of goblet cells.Increased sympathetic activity in gut wall following stroke.Crapser et al17MiceStroke increased gut permeability and bacterial translocation in young and aged mice.Winek et al18MiceAntibiotic treatment before stroke did not affect infarct volume.Stopping antibiotics 3 d before stroke significantly decreased survival.Singh et al19MiceGF mice have larger infarct compared with recolonized or specific pathogen-free mice.Gut bacterial load is important in stroke outcome.GF indicates germ free; and IL, interleukin.Effects of Stroke on the Gut and Gut MicrobiotaAlthough limited in number, existing studies in humans indicate that stroke alters the gut microbiota. Yamashiro et al12 analyzed the fecal gut microbiota and fecal organic acids in a Japanese cohort of stroke and control subjects. Ischemic stroke altered the abundance of several genera and species independent of age, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and hypertension. Increased abundance of Lactobacillus ruminis positively correlated with markers of inflammation in stroke patients. These microbiota changes were accompanied by a 13% decrease in total organic acids with the SCFAs, valeric and acetic acids, increasing and decreasing by 54% and 18%, respectively in the patients with stroke. Given that SCFAs are products of bacterial fermentation, it is presumed that the changes in SCFAs were a result of the altered microbiota after stroke. However, it is also possible that dietary changes in patients with stroke following hospital admission may have contributed to the observed microbiota and metabolite differences.In another study, patients with large-artery atherosclerotic stroke or transient ischemic attacks were compared to asymptomatic controls with and without carotid atherosclerotic plaques.13 In asymptomatic controls, the gut microbiota was similar regardless of the presence or absence of carotid plaques. The makeup of the stroke/transient ischemic attack gut microbiota exhibited increased relative abundance of several opportunistic pathogens and decreased the abundance of commensal or beneficial genera; further demonstrating the adverse effects of stroke on the makeup of the gut microbiota.Studies involving animal models of stroke have provided further evidence of stroke-induced gut dysbiosis and helped identify the mechanisms through which stroke affects the gut and gut microbiota. Creating a large hemispheric lesion by occluding blood flow at the base of the middle cerebral (ie, proximal) artery for 60 minutes produced gut dysbiosis, intestinal paralysis, increased gut permeability, a loss of cholinergic innervation in the ileum, and increased sympathetic activity (Figure 3A).6,14,15 This loss of cholinergic signaling in favor of adrenergic signaling is known to promote inflammation in the gut. Increased adrenergic stimulation of the gut following proximal middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO) was also associated with a reduced number of goblet cells in the cecum and impaired production of mucin a major glycoprotein in gastrointestinal mucus.16 The mucus layer, which acts as a protective barrier between the epithelium and gut lumen, is residence to bacteria that aid in communications between the host and the luminal microbiota. Following proximal MCAO, gut permeability, and translocation of bacteria increased in both young and aged mice (Figure 3A).17 In addition, bacterial members that normally reside in the small intestine have been shown to colonize the lung poststroke. In fact, 24 hours after proximal MCAO>60% of the lung microbiota community was predicted to have originated from the small intestine.15,20 However, increased bacterial translocation following stroke has not been observed in all studies.6 Overall, stroke-induced gut dysbiosis seems to initiate a cascade of events that lead to poststroke infections, a major cause of prolonged hospitalizations and death following stroke.Download figureDownload PowerPointFigure 3. Effects of stroke on the microbiota-gut-brain axis. A, Alterations to the gut and microbiota following stroke includes loss of enteric nerves, epithelial barrier breakdown, translocation of bacteria and bacterial toxins, loss of goblet cells, thinning of the mucus barrier, and gut dysbiosis. B, Two proposed mechanisms of gut immune cell activation and tracking to brain following stroke. a, Following stroke, a proinflammatory microbiota leads to increased TH1 cells, TH17 cells and monocytes in Peyer patches in the small intestine. b, T cells, TH cells, and monocytes migrate from Peyer patches to the peri-infarct region. c, In the presence of a proinflammatory microbiota, dendritic cells migrate to mesenteric lymph nodes to inhibit polarization of T cells into anti-inflammatory T reg cells. d, In turn, decreased T reg cells migrating to the lamina propria favors γδ T cell differentiation. e, Proinflammatory γδ T cells originating from the lamina propria of the small intestine migrate to the meninges and increase infarct size.The Makeup of the Gut Microbiota Influences Stroke OutcomeEmerging literature demonstrates that the state of the gut microbiota has important effects on the development, severity, and persistence of a number of pathological conditions affecting the brain to include anxiety and depression, Parkinson disease, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer disease, traumatic brain injury, and autism spectrum disorder.Studies to date determining if the gut microbiota can influence stroke outcome have been conducted only in animal models. The preponderance of these studies has concluded that the gut microbiota can be manipulated in a manner to either improve or worsen stroke outcomes. In general, a gut microbiota that stabilizes the gut wall and maintains inflammation at bay is protective. However, conditions that produce inflammation in the gut tend to exacerbate injury and prolong or impair recovery.Benakis et al7 demonstrated that an anti-inflammatory gut microbiome induced by antibiotics reduced infarct volume by 60% and better-preserved sensory-motor function for at least 1 week following proximal MCAO. In describing this study, we will refer to mice as having a proinflammatory microbiota or an anti-inflammatory microbiota. The anti-inflammatory microbiome used antibiotics to decrease species abundance and diversity, and the proinflammatory microbiome was developed to be antibiotic resistant.FMT from anti-inflammatory donors into naïve mice reduced the infarct volume by 54% in the recipient mice following MCAO.7 We point out to the reader that the term dysbiosis is used in different ways in the literature. Benakis et al7 used the term, dysbiosis, to mean simply a change in the gut microbiota. However, many investigators reserve the term, dysbiosis, only for those changes in the gut microbiota that are accompanied by a pathological change in the host. Thus, in the case of Benakis et al,7 dysbiosis is protective while in other studies dysbiosis is detrimental by definition.Singh et al6 also reported that the state of the gut microbiota can affect outcomes following stroke in mice. Germ-free mice received a microbiota transfer from either sham mice or mice after proximal MCAO. The proximal MCAO model used for these donor mice produced gut dysbiosis (see previous section Top-Down Signaling).6 Metagenomics analysis of feces revealed that microbiota of the recipient mice resembled that of the donor mice. Following the microbiota transfers, recipient mice underwent permanent occlusion of the distal middle cerebral artery, a model that produced smaller cortical lesions and no dysbiosis when compared to transient occlusion at the origin of the MCA. Mice receiving microbiota transplant (3 days before distal MCAO) from mice that had been previously subjected to proximal transient MCAO had larger infarct volumes and showed enhanced functional impairment when compared to mice receiving transplants from sham mice.6 In addition, FMT from control mice, initiated the day of proximal MCAO, attenuated the gut dysbiosis associated with proximal MCAO and significantly decreased infarct volume.6Winek et al18 examined lesion volumes following proximal MCAO in groups of mice with different dosing schedules of a quintuple antibiotic cocktail in the drinking water. Lesion volumes in all antibiotic groups were similar to the control group not receiving antibiotics. Of note, the lesion volumes were measured on day 1 after MCAO, a time when secondary injury from ongoing neuroinflammation may not be complete. The authors noted that severe colitis and increased mortality were observed in antibiotic-treated mice when the treatment was stopped before MCAO. The authors suggest that the increased mortality was the result of invading pathogens when antibiotics were discontinued. In humans, antibiotic treatment at the onset of stroke reduced the incidence of poststroke infections but did not significantly decrease the rate of poststroke pneumonia, change mortality, or alter functional outcomes in stroke patients. It is worth pointing out that different antibiotics and administration protocols have vastly different effects on the gut microbiota, likely contributing to differences among studies as well as complicating our understanding of the role of the microbiota in stroke recovery.Spychala et al4 exchanged gut microbial communities between young (≈3 months) and aged mice (≈20 months). Aging alone is known to produce gut dysbiosis. Having a young microbiota, regardless of mouse chronological age, decreased mortality, enhanced locomotor function and anxiety, and increased motor strength during the course of recovery from proximal MCAO.4 It is well established that MCAO lesion volumes of naïve aged mice (ie, no FMT) are smaller than lesion volumes in young naïve mice. Despite having smaller lesion volumes, recovery from stroke is significantly impaired in the aged. Regardless of having a young or aged microbiota, the lesion volumes in young mice were similar and remained larger than in aged mice. Conversely, the lesion volumes in aged mice were similar regardless of the microbiota and remained smaller than that in the young mice.4 In a follow-up to this study, Lee et al21 demonstrated the same beneficial effect of a young microbiota on recovery occurs even when the FMTs were initiated 72 hours following proximal MCAO.Interestingly, the microbiota appears to have both a protective and a detrimental component. The infarct volume following distal MCAO was 50% and 300% greater in germ-free than in recolonized germ-free and specific pathogen-free mice, respectively.19 After examining microglia, peripheral, and brain-infiltrating T cells in each of the groups, the authors concluded there is a “… lymphocyte-driven protective neuroinflammation after stroke under control of the microbiota.”19 The presence of bacteria, perhaps selected species, during maturation of the inflammatory system is required for a fully functional immune system including that of resident immune cells in brain.8 Because microbiota influence neuronal development myelination, it is not necessarily surprising that specific pathogen free mice have a smaller lesion volume than germ-free mice.19Overall, conclusions from the literature support a role for the gut microbiota in influencing outcome after stroke. Depending on how the gut microbiota is manipulated, the outcome following a stroke can be either harmful or protective. These studies in laboratory animals bring hope for altering the microbiota to limit the damage and hasten recovery from stroke in humans.Mechanism of Bottom-Up SignalingBottom-up signaling following stroke is poorly understood. The only pathway implicated at this time consists of activation of immune cells in the gut which subsequently track to the brain by way of the circulation (Figures 1 and 3B). We do emphasize that other pathways for bottom-up signaling after stroke have not been ruled out, leaving open the possibility that multiple mechanisms are at play.Benakis et al7 provided evidence that the polarization of naïve T cells in the gut is dependent on the state of the gut microbiome. Mice with an anti-inflammatory microbiome showed more favorable outcomes after proximal MCAO when compared with mice with a proinflammatory microbiome (see above section for a description of the proinflammatory and anti-inflammatory groups). The anti-inflammatory microbiome coax the polarization of naïve T cells in the lamina propria, a layer of cells on the serosal side of the gut epithelium, towards anti-inflammatory Tregs (Figure 3B). This polarization to Tregs involves dendritic cells, antigen-presenting cells in the gut wall, and the mesenteric lymph node.7 After stroke in mice with a proinflammatory microbiome, the polarization of naïve T cells to Tregs was impeded favoring the polarizati" @default.
• W2955334522 created "2019-07-12" @default.
• W2955334522 creator A5000627464 @default.
• W2955334522 creator A5035455397 @default.
• W2955334522 creator A5046974353 @default.
• W2955334522 creator A5072518517 @default.
• W2955334522 date "2019-08-01" @default.
• W2955334522 modified "2023-10-09" @default.
• W2955334522 title "Examining the Role of the Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis in Stroke" @default.
• W2955334522 cites W1515023627 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W1972723234 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2109113634 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2136344314 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2167062509 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2178133650 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2225428785 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2228779853 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2317525803 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2329924046 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2330162035 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2332044667 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2395609819 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2460079419 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2527885929 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2563012622 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2587564932 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2723747279 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2782649551 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2802894273 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2807706651 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2895999896 @default.
• W2955334522 cites W2897821307 @default.
• W2955334522 doi "https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.119.025140" @default.
• W2955334522 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/6646086" @default.
• W2955334522 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31272315" @default.
• W2955334522 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W2955334522 type Work @default.
• W2955334522 sameAs 2955334522 @default.
• W2955334522 citedByCount "84" @default.
• W2955334522 countsByYear W29553345222020 @default.
• W2955334522 countsByYear W29553345222021 @default.
• W2955334522 countsByYear W29553345222022 @default.
• W2955334522 countsByYear W29553345222023 @default.
• W2955334522 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2955334522 hasAuthorship W2955334522A5000627464 @default.
• W2955334522 hasAuthorship W2955334522A5035455397 @default.
• W2955334522 hasAuthorship W2955334522A5046974353 @default.
• W2955334522 hasAuthorship W2955334522A5072518517 @default.
• W2955334522 hasBestOaLocation W29553345221 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C177857423 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C203014093 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C2780645631 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C539455810 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C127413603 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C169760540 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C177857423 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C203014093 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C2780645631 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C539455810 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C71924100 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C78519656 @default.
• W2955334522 hasConceptScore W2955334522C86803240 @default.
• W2955334522 hasIssue "8" @default.
• W2955334522 hasLocation W29553345221 @default.
• W2955334522 hasLocation W29553345222 @default.
• W2955334522 hasLocation W29553345223 @default.
• W2955334522 hasOpenAccess W2955334522 @default.
• W2955334522 hasPrimaryLocation W29553345221 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W2006157649 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W2519453916 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W3012468462 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W3033040644 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W3088631478 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W3107364628 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W3138447570 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W3191699131 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W4308429779 @default.
• W2955334522 hasRelatedWork W4321447338 @default.
• W2955334522 hasVolume "50" @default.
• W2955334522 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2955334522 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2955334522 magId "2955334522" @default.
• W2955334522 workType "article" @default.