Skip to main content
Aging Cell logoLink to Aging Cell
. 2025 Jun 27;24(8):e70146. doi: 10.1111/acel.70146

Microbiological Foundations to Optimise Intrinsic Capacity and Promote Healthy Ageing: An Integration Into the Life Course Approach

Christoph Benner 1, Matteo Cesari 1, Ritu Sadana 1,
PMCID: PMC12341812  PMID: 40575958

ABSTRACT

The World Health Organization (WHO) defines healthy ageing as the process of developing and maintaining functional ability, comprising an individual's intrinsic capacity, the environment and the interaction of the two. The framework is based on a positive approach to ageing, giving value to the resources individuals can rely upon as they age and that they can build their physical, mental and social health, and overall well‐being. To promote healthy ageing, it is important to understand better the biological mechanisms underlying this phenomenon from this positive perspective. Our knowledge about cellular processes that drive human ageing has increased dramatically, with current evidence identifying 12 hallmarks of ageing. Dysbiosis is one of these and is broadly defined as a ‘deranged microbiological composition in and on the human body’. It is often measured by quantitatively and qualitatively evaluating the bacterial species in the gut. A major feature of dysbiosis and other markers of ageing is that these focus on age‐related impairments, contributing to the onset of adverse outcomes over time rather than highlighting features that promote healthy ageing. Scientific literature addressing the hallmarks of healthy ageing, including those potentially positively affecting intrinsic capacity, is lacking. To this end, we propose the concept of gut eubiosis, the homeostatic state of commensal gut bacteria and their metabolites, as proof of concept, serving as a hallmark of healthy ageing. Importantly, this work adopts a life course approach to explore how a person's intrinsic capacities evolve with gut microbiota modifications at different life stages.

Keywords: ageing, biology, nutrition, prevention


Gut microbiota composition may influence trajectories of intrinsic capacity throughout life. Factors that positively or negatively impact gut microbiota (determining eubiosis or dysbiosis, respectively) can affect health, potentially acting through short‐chain fatty acids and their metabolic and anti‐inflammatory functions. Created in BioRender.com (https://BioRender.com/h4sp9g2).

graphic file with name ACEL-24-e70146-g002.jpg

1. Introduction

1.1. Population Ageing, Healthy Life Expectancy and Healthy Ageing

In 2020, the global population aged 60 and over surpassed 1 billion, accounting for more than 13.5% of the world's population. According to the WHO, forecasts indicate that the number of individuals in this age group is expected to rapidly double, reaching approximately 2.1 billion (i.e., 20% of the world population) by 2050 (World Health Organization 2020). This reflects the increase in global life expectancy (LE) and the reduction of fertility rates. However, extending LE does not necessarily mean people live in good health. Evidence shows that, on average, the last 10%–15% of an individual's life (13%–16% for women and 11%–12% for men) is spent in ill health with one or more morbidities, including chronic diseases and declines in physical and mental capacities. A primary goal of population health policies is, therefore, to promote healthy ageing, preventing the clinical and social conditions impacting the ability of the individual to live a long, independent and fulfilling life.

The WHO (World Health Organization 2017) defines healthy ageing as the process of developing and maintaining functional ability for well‐being in older age. Functional ability reflects a person's intrinsic capacity, the environment (extrinsic factors surrounding the person, including social values, policies and access to programmes and services in health and other sectors) and the interactions of these two. Intrinsic capacity is the composite of an individual's physical and mental capacities, organised around the locomotion, cognition, psychology, vitality and sensory (i.e., hearing and vision) domains (Cesari et al. 2018). The constituent domains of intrinsic capacity were initially derived from a literature review adopting the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) as the operational framework. In particular, the domains of interest were identified from the body functions that, when impaired, were associated with an increased risk of incident disability in older persons. By focusing on body functions, the intrinsic capacity construct implicitly promotes a life course approach based on the biology of the individual, better reflecting the experience of ageing compared to traditional models based on age or diseases. Indeed, it emphasises a life course perspective, recognising the importance of each life stage and the intergenerational relationships in developing and maintaining health throughout life (World Health Organization 2017; United Nations 2020). Importantly, each of the domains of intrinsic capacity can be assessed and quantified by medical and scientific measures. In fact, their impairments are phenotypically expressed by conditions of risk that are frequently observed (and neglected) in clinical practice: mobility limitation, cognitive impairment, depressive symptoms, undernutrition, hearing loss and vision impairment. This opens the possibility of combining the WHO's definition of healthy ageing with scientifically defined markers of ageing and clinically meaningful markers to improve care for older persons. This symbiosis is largely understudied but may provide levers to adopt more effective global health policies.

It is noteworthy that constructs other than intrinsic capacity exist in research and clinical activities to provide surrogates of biological ageing, for example, frailty (i.e., a medical condition characterised by enhanced vulnerability to stressors due to a reduction of homeostatic reserves, exposing the individual to increased risk of adverse health outcomes) (Morley et al. 2013). Despite frailty and intrinsic capacity share several commonalities, they also differ in several perspectives (Belloni and Cesari 2019). Both were conceived to promote a different approach to the complexity of older persons and ensure tailored care according to their heterogeneous needs. However, whereas frailty focuses on capturing the individual's health deficits using diverse operational instruments, intrinsic capacity derives from a public health framework prioritising the person's capacities and reserves, also to promote a positive vision of ageing. Moreover, frailty may represent the target condition for the work (e.g., comprehensive geriatric assessment) conducted by geriatricians in their specialistic settings (Ellis et al. 2017); differently, intrinsic capacity is a construct designed to promote a different approach to older persons across settings of care (in particular, in primary health care) and among health and care workers (World Health Organization 2024). An additional major difference between the two constructs is also the predefined operational model of intrinsic capacity (i.e., its constituent domains), allowing a standardisation of the approach that is currently hampered by the different translations that the frailty concept has undergone over the years (Cesari et al. 2022; Aguayo et al. 2017).

1.2. A Hallmark of Healthy Ageing: From Dysbiosis to Eubiosis

Numerous scientific studies have shown that various positive and negative factors can influence the trajectory of ageing. Lifestyle choices, behaviours and opportunities, such as regular exercise and dietary strategies (e.g., caloric restriction), have beneficial effects on health and longevity in both animal and human models. At the same time, a wide range of research demonstrates that these results are associated with parallel improvements of the so‐called ‘hallmarks of ageing’ (López‐Otín et al. 2023). These hallmarks include genetic instability, telomere attrition, epigenetic alteration, loss of proteostasis, disabled macroautophagy, deregulated nutrient‐sensing, mitochondrial dysfunction, cellular senescence, stem cell exhaustion, altered intercellular communication, chronic inflammation and dysbiosis.

Among these hallmarks, dysbiosis stands out as a recently identified factor (as compared to those presented in the first landmark publication (López‐Otín et al. 2013) and has drawn much attention in the scientific and medical community over the last decade (Marchesi et al. 2016). Dysbiosis refers to the imbalanced composition of microbiological species in and on our body (i.e., microbiota) and the total number of genes they contain (i.e., microbiome). A dysbiotic state reflects a higher propensity towards unhealthy ageing. In contrast, eubiosis, the condition of homeostatic balance of microbiota, can be conceptualised as a state of higher propensity towards healthy ageing. Most of the research in the field has particularly focused on the approximately 2000 bacterial species in the gut and their relationships with several common diseases and conditions, such as obesity (Van Hul and Cani 2023), type 2 diabetes (Iatcu et al. 2021) or irritable bowel syndrome (Ghaffari et al. 2022).

To investigate how eubiosis may contribute to healthy ageing, it is necessary to accept the intricate relationship between bacteria and their human hosts. It has been discussed that the total number of bacteria outnumbers the cells that make up the human body (Berg 1996) (although these statements have been recently argued (Sender et al. 2016)) and that the number of non‐redundant genes within the microbiota exceeds the number of human genes by approximately 150 times (Zhu et al. 2010). Fascinatingly, gut microbiota has been indicated as a ‘virtual endocrine organ’ (Clarke et al. 2014), potentially contributing to an individual's overall health status. Some bacterial‐derived chemicals influence behavioural traits, such as food preference, via the gut–brain axis (Morais et al. 2021). This intimate relationship between bacteria and their human hosts has been developing into the notion of humans as holobionts, a functional unit of life comprising a symbiosis of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells (van de Guchte et al. 2018).

1.3. Objectives and Approach

This article explores and summarises the available scientific literature on the connection between gut microbiota and intrinsic capacity. In particular, we are interested in understanding how an eubiotic gut is defined and shaped across life stages in the development of healthy ageing. As depicted in Figure 1, we focus on three main features connecting eubiosis and intrinsic capacity:

  1. Critical events in very early life (roughly until 2 years of age) determine the initial colonisation of gut bacteria and their relative abundance. These bacterial signatures contribute to immediate and later life health outcomes, especially affecting the vitality domain of intrinsic capacity.

  2. Especially in adults, bacterial metabolites called short‐chain fatty acids (SCFAs) are positively correlated with intrinsic capacity domains locomotion and vitality. Studies also indicate alpha diversity (i.e., the variety of species and composition within an individual) to be a contributing factor, but to a lesser extent.

  3. Lifestyle changes and opportunities (e.g., diet and physical activity) can easily modify these features of gut microbiota composition, providing a potentially important intervention to improve intrinsic capacity or prevent functional decline.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Association between gut microbiota and the trajectory of intrinsic capacity over a life course. The figure illustrates the dynamic interplay between gut microbiota states (i.e., eubiosis and dysbiosis) and intrinsic capacity across life stages. Throughout life, positive factors that potentially promote eubiosis (green; e.g., vaginal delivery, breastfeeding, immune system stimulation, engaging environment) may support the development and maintenance of higher trajectories of intrinsic capacity. Differently, dysbiosis (red), associated with factors such as C‐section delivery, formula feeding and poor lifestyle, may result in lower concentrations of short‐chain fatty acids (SCFAs) and poorer trajectories of intrinsic capacity. It is noteworthy that exposure to a factor does not necessarily determine the subsequent trajectory, as this latter results from potentially multiple, simultaneous, interacting and counteracting stimuli occurring throughout life. Created using elements from BioRender.com.

To this end, a purposive literature review was conducted using PubMed. In particular, evidence was retrieved from studies conducted in the general population, and an approach was adopted that was consistent with the WHO framework of healthy ageing. Publications were included if they investigated the association between specific gut microbiota features (i.e., alpha diversity and/or SCFA content) and one of the five domains of intrinsic capacity. Studies based on clinical settings were excluded to reduce the risk that index conditions could potentially introduce a bias in the gut microbiota profile, the domains of intrinsic capacity or the relationship between the two.

2. Findings

2.1. Critical Periods Determining the Formation of an Eubiotic Gut

2.1.1. Birth, Infants and Children

The first crucial encounter between a newborn and bacteria occurs during delivery. The way of delivery, vaginal versus caesarean (‘C‐section’), provides the newborn with different sets of bacteria. As depicted in Figure 1, this is already an essential distinguishing feature concerning immediate and subsequent health trajectories. Vaginal delivery is known to provide bacteria from the genus Lactobacillus to the skin and mouth of the neonate. In contrast, the C‐section provides bacteria associated with maternal skin and the hospital environment, such as Clostridioides difficile and Staphylococcus spp. (Coelho et al. 2021). Gut colonisation with Staphylococcus aureus is relatively common, observed in up to 20% of healthy individuals and is not inherently pathogenic (Raineri et al. 2022). However, in certain contexts such as prematurity or immune immaturity, gut colonisation with Staphylococcus spp. has been associated with an elevated risk of invasive infections, including neonatal sepsis (Schwartz et al. 2023). Another key characteristic of babies born via C‐section and the related intrapartum use of antibiotics is depletion of Bacteroides spp. (Pivrncova et al. 2022). Several studies have linked the bacterial signature associated with caesarean delivery to a higher risk of developing metabolic disorders affecting the vitality domain (e.g., obesity, type 2 diabetes) and immune dysfunctions (e.g., asthma, juvenile arthritis, food allergy) at later developmental stages (Słabuszewska‐Jóźwiak et al. 2020; Sevelsted et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2021; Yang et al. 2022; Chavarro et al. 2020). To adjust for a missed health‐promoting opportunity, the practice of vaginal seeding (i.e., exposing C‐section‐delivered infants to maternal vaginal microbiota) has been explored in research settings especially given the growing number of C‐section deliveries, often conducted without medical necessity (Angolile et al. 2023). Initial pilot studies have provided promising, but partial, evidence that vaginal microbial transfer can alter the infant microbiome to more closely resemble that of vaginally delivered infants (Dominguez‐Bello et al. 2016). However, further studies have shown mixed results regarding the efficacy of vaginal seeding in restoring the microbiome of C‐section‐born infants, particularly the Bacteroides signature (Dos Santos et al. 2023; Wilson et al. 2021). Currently, major professional societies, such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (ACOG), do not recommend or encourage vaginal seeding outside of controlled research protocols, primarily citing concerns about safety and insufficient evidence of benefit (Anon 2017).

Another important driving force behind the establishment of the gut microbiota is the type of milk used as a primary food source (i.e., maternal breast milk vs. formula milk). Irrespective of the way of feeding, Bifidobacterium spp. is one of the most predominant bacteria that colonise the gut after feeding initiation (Saturio et al. 2021), as these are responsible for the fermentation of galacto‐oligosaccharides. However, breast milk feeding supplies infants with a more diverse set of Bifidobacterium spp. and other beneficial bacterial species, along with immune cells and stem cells, all of which positively contribute to neonatal health (Saturio et al. 2021; Henrick et al. 2021; Ninkina et al. 2019; Lokossou et al. 2022). Breastfeeding is also known to exert protective effects against diarrhoea during the first months after delivery (Santos et al. 2015) and produce later benefits by reducing the risk of incident obesity (Qiao et al. 2020; Li et al. 2022) and asthma (Xue et al. 2021). Of note, a recent review analysed the effect of breastfeeding on the gut microbiota of C‐section delivered infants during their first 3 months (Pivrncova et al. 2022). The authors concluded that while breastfeeding cannot reverse the reduced abundance of Bacteroidetes associated with C‐section and antibiotic exposure, it does have a positive effect on increasing Bifidobacterium spp. This is also supported by results of another publication showing that exclusive breastfeeding following caesarean delivery partially restores microbiota diversity and composition, particularly increasing Bifidobacterium spp., and is associated with a reduced incidence of respiratory infections in infancy (Liu et al. 2023). A similar result was shown in infants exclusively fed either breast milk (BF) or formula (FF) for at least 4 months. They were delivered via either vaginal delivery (VD) or caesarean section (CS). At 40 days, Bifidobacteria were significantly more abundant in the CS‐BF group compared to the CS‐FF group. No significant differences were observed between the VD‐BF and VD‐FF groups. By 3 and 6 months, Bifidobacterium spp. levels converged across all groups. In addition, the CS‐FF group had higher abundances of Enterococcus and Streptococcus compared to breastfed groups. By 3 months, Enterococcus spp. levels remained elevated in formula‐fed infants, regardless of delivery model (Ma et al. 2022). This nuanced comparison supports a gradient model where early microbial environments can enhance or diminish intrinsic capacity reserves. In addition, these studies underscore the complexity of neonatal gut microbiome development and suggest that exclusive breastfeeding after vaginal delivery most positively influences gut microbiota composition. In addition, supplementation with probiotics, prebiotics or synbiotics during pregnancy or lactation may be an effective treatment against this loss of gut microbiological biodiversity (Martín‐Peláez et al. 2022).

Other environmental factors acting on a newborn, infant or toddler may influence health outcomes later in life, including the use of probiotics, the presence of pets, the level of hygiene and, most directly, antibiotic treatments (Figure 1). From an initial low diversity and low complexity, the infant's intestinal microbiota will slowly develop and mature, reaching an adult‐like richness at around 3 years of age (Yatsunenko et al. 2012). Although matured, a child's microbiota composition during the first decade of life is still malleable. It provides a critical period to promote optimal development and healthy ageing through environmental factors, especially diet, as described in detail elsewhere (Derrien et al. 2019).

2.1.2. Adolescence

Adolescence is defined as the developmental period between childhood and adulthood, approximately spanning 11–21 years of age (Hardin et al. 2017). Sexual maturation is one of the key physiological processes during this time. Concerning the gut microbiota, a sex‐specific connection between oestrogen and testosterone levels and variations in the composition and diversity of gut microbiota has been reported (d'Afflitto et al. 2022). In addition to sex hormone fluctuation, the brain undergoes fundamental changes during adolescence; the stress‐related hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis matures to become highly responsive during adulthood (Lupien et al. 2009). This process makes this life stage highly susceptible to stress‐related psychiatric disorders (Paus et al. 2008).

A systematic review examined the relationship of the gut microbiota with cognition and anxiety during adolescence (Basso et al. 2022). Regarding cognition, 19 studies assessed cognitive outcomes, including 13 focusing on prebiotics as a possible treatment option. Using ‘psychobiotics’ as a therapeutic measure for cognitive enhancement during development appears promising, with half of the studies reporting positive results. However, the heterogeneity of study designs, interventions and participants hindered the potential for a comprehensive meta‐analysis. Additionally, the vast array of cognitive functions examined, which encompassed various aspects of attention, executive functions and working memory, further complicated the comparisons and definitive conclusions.

In the same review, 17 studies focused on anxiety, with 11 and six studies testing probiotic and prebiotic interventions, respectively. However, also in this case, the evidence supporting the efficacy of probiotic and prebiotic interventions in mitigating anxiety and stress in paediatric and adolescent populations remained limited for the same methodological reasons.

A similar complex scenario is drawn by systematic reviews reporting the association of gut microbiota with adiposity in adolescence (Vander Wyst et al. 2021; Morgado et al. 2023). Some studies reported the beneficial effects of physical exercise on alpha diversity, and positive results were also documented on the effectiveness of dietary interventions to increase SCFA‐producing bacteria (e.g., Faecalibacterium prausnitzii ). However, data are still limited, and it is premature to confirm such associations.

2.1.3. Adults

A clear‐cut definition of a healthy ageing‐promoting gut microbiota composition in adults is hampered by the fact that the phylum‐to‐species‐level composition of any given individual is highly diverse and unique (Manor et al. 2020), depending on geographical location, ethnicity (Gaulke and Sharpton 2018; Suzuki and Worobey 2014), diet and availability of food sources (Zhang 2022; Wilson et al. 2020), level of physical activity (Dziewiecka et al. 2022) and the housing situation (e.g., community‐dwellers versus residents in care facilities (Claesson et al. 2012). Therefore, it seems more appropriate to look at core traits and activities that more likely and stably characterise a gut microbiota composition and role in the promotion of healthy ageing rather than the species‐level composition. The scientific literature gathered in this investigation about domains of intrinsic capacity suggests that an overall increased concentration of SCFAs and an overall increased gut microbiota alpha diversity (potentially an underlying prerequisite for the former) represent important determinants of healthy ageing, including those noted in the subsequent sections.

2.1.3.1. Short‐Chain Fatty Acids (SCFAs) Promote an Eubiotic Gut Microbiota Composition

SCFAs are produced by certain bacterial species (e.g., Faecalibacterium prausnitzii , Eubacterium rectale , Roseburia intestinalis ) in response to metabolising undigestible complex dietary carbohydrates (e.g., soluble fibres present in nuts, seeds or legumes) (Fu et al. 2022). Other factors that increase SCFAs are probiotics, physical fitness and the density of community living (Figure 1 and Table 1). The most prominent SCFAs in the gut are butyrate, acetate and propionate (Portincasa et al. 2022), which possess many health‐promoting effects (Xiong et al. 2022). For instance, regarding the gut itself, these exert local anti‐inflammatory effects and, vice versa, decrease the richness of bacterial strains that produce proinflammatory metabolites (David et al. 2014; Meslier et al. 2020). Through the gut–brain axis (Dalile et al. 2019), SCFAs influence the feeling of hunger and satiety as well as a person's food preferences, promoting the intake of food that stimulates SCFA‐producing bacteria (Tremaroli and Bäckhed 2012). Also, SCFAs exert anti‐inflammatory effects on the brain by modulating microglial activity, protecting against neurodegenerative disorders and preserving cognitive capacity (Zhou et al. 2022; Solanki et al. 2023). As signalling molecules, SCFAs additionally affect muscle metabolism through the gut–muscle axis (Chew et al. 2022; Przewłócka et al. 2020), thus supporting the maintenance of physical performance and muscle strength (and assessed within the intrinsic capacity domains of vitality and locomotion), discussed further in the next section.

TABLE 1.

Gut microbiota and domains of intrinsic capacity.

Study Trial design Study cohort Intervention/follow‐up Main results: Alpha diversity change Main results: SCFA changes Associated intrinsic capacity
Ghosh et al. (2020) Randomised, single‐blind, controlled 612 older adults (65–79 years), Europe Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet)/follow‐up after 12 months Higher in MedDiet Group Increase in SCFA‐producing bacteria, e.g., Faecalibacterium prausnitzii Cognition and locomotion (hand grip strength, gait speed)
Lv et al. (2021) Cross‐sectional 482 Menopausal Women (41–65 years), China NA/no follow‐up NA Mendelian randomisation‐derived causative association of genetically driven butyrate synthesis and increased appendicular lean mass Locomotion (muscle mass, sarcopaenia)
Sanna et al. (2019) Observational 952 normo‐glycaemic individuals, Netherlands NA/no follow‐up NA Genetic‐driven increase in gut production of the SCFA butyrate is associated with improved insulin response following an oral glucose test.

Vitality (glucose metabolism)

Estaki et al. (2016) Observational 39 Young Adults (18–35 years), Location not specified NA/no follow‐up Higher in high fitness group compared to low fitness group Increased concentration of butyrate and abundance of butyrate‐producing bacteria

Locomotion and vitality (physical fitness, VO2 max)

Scheiman et al. (2019) Observational 15 Marathon runners, 10 sedentary controls NA/no follow‐up NA Veillonella species in abundance in marathon runners, producing SCFAs Locomotion (physical fitness and endurance)
Castro‐Mejía et al. (2020) Cross‐sectional 207 Older Individuals (> 65 years), Denmark NA/no follow‐up Higher in high fitness group compared to low fitness group No significant association to physical fitness Locomotion (muscle strength), Vitality (metabolic health)
Huang et al. (2020) Double‐blind, placebo controlled 20 Male Athletes, Taipei City University Probiotic Supplementation/follow‐up after 6 weeks Lower in probiotic group, but more SCFA‐producing bacteria Increase in faecal SCFAs butyrate, propionate, acetate Vitality (endurance capacity)

Note: Main studies showing the beneficial effects of increasing gut microbiota diversity and gut microbiota‐generated SCFAs concentrations on intrinsic capacity domains (in particular, locomotion, vitality and cognition). Included studies were selected based on outcomes that correspond to domains of intrinsic capacity as defined by the WHO, even if intrinsic capacity was not the stated framework of the original study.

2.1.3.2. Association of Gut Microbiota Composition With Intrinsic Capacity and Frailty

Intrinsic capacity. Table 1 summarises our findings regarding the association of gut microbiota compositions and domains of intrinsic capacity. An intervention study recruiting 612 non‐ or pre‐frail older individuals from five European countries highlighted the benefits of a fibre‐rich Mediterranean diet (Ghosh et al. 2020). Adherence to this diet was linked to improved physical and cognitive outcomes, correlated with attenuated loss of microbiota diversity and a higher abundance of SCFA‐producing bacteria, which may enhance anti‐inflammatory markers while reducing pro‐inflammatory markers.

Research on menopausal Chinese women revealed a significant association between the gut microbiota's ability to produce butyrate and muscle mass (Lv et al. 2021), suggesting a protective role against sarcopaenia. The health‐promoting effect of butyrate is supported by findings from the Dutch Life‐Line Deep cohort, which linked butyrate production in the gut to improved metabolic responses in 952 normoglycaemic individuals (Sanna et al. 2019).

Data indicate a bidirectional relationship between physical activity and gut microbiota composition. Studies on both younger (Estaki et al. 2016) and older (Castro‐Mejía et al. 2020) individuals' document that physical fitness positively correlates with gut microbiota diversity and SCFA concentration. In support of that, Veillonella species are more abundant in marathon runners than in sedentary controls (Scheiman et al. 2019), as these metabolise lactate into the SCFAs acetate and propionate. Probiotic supplementation with a Lactobacillus plantarum strain was found to enhance physical fitness and muscle performance. Notably, this observation was associated with an overall lower alpha diversity but a higher amount of SCFA‐producing bacteria and higher acetate, propionate and butyrate production (Huang et al. 2020).

Frailty. The concept of intrinsic capacity shares many aspects with that of frailty (Belloni and Cesari 2019), a geriatric syndrome defined by the decline of the homeostatic capacities of the individual, responsible for an increased vulnerability to endogenous and exogenous stressors (Morley et al. 2013). The two concepts aim to capture the individual's homeostatic capacities, potentially supporting the estimate of the person's biological age. In this context, our review of the literature was secondarily extended to retrieve relevant evidence exploring the relationship between gut microbiota and frailty, which is summarised in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Gut microbiota and frailty.

Study Trial design Study cohort Intervention/follow‐up Main results: Alpha diversity change Main results: SCFA changes Frailty association
Ghosh et al. (2020) Randomised, single‐blind, controlled 612 older adults (65–79 yo), Europe Mediterranean Diet (MedDiet)/follow‐up after 6 months

Higher in MedDiet Group

(associated with lower frailty)

Increase in SCFA‐producing bacteria, e.g., Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (associated with lower frailty) Lower frailty
Jackson et al. (2016) Cross‐sectional, observational 728 Female Twins (42–86 yo), UK NA/no follow‐up Lower diversity associated with higher frailty Depletion of butyrate‐producing Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (associated with higher frailty) Higher frailty
Haran et al. (2018) Longitudinal (prospective) 23 Nursing Home Residents (≥ 65 yo), USA NA/follow‐up after 6 months NA Decrease in butyrate‐producing bacteria (associated with higher frailty) Higher frailty
Claesson et al. (2012) Cross‐sectional, observational 178 Older Adults (64–102 yo), Ireland NA/no follow‐up Less diversity in long‐term care (associated with higher frailty) NA Higher frailty
Lim et al. (2021) Cross‐sectional, observational 176 older persons (70–90 yo), Japan NA/no follow‐up NA Negative association with frailty (butyrate‐producing Coprococcus eutactus associated with lower frailty) Lower frailty

Note: Studies across different populations consistently linked a decrease in gut microbiota diversity and a reduction in SCFA‐producing bacteria, particularly butyrate producers, with increased frailty and poorer health outcomes.

Similar findings regarding the association between diet and frailty scores were observed in studies involving UK female twins (Jackson et al. 2016) and US nursing home residents (Haran et al. 2018), underscoring the negative impact of poor dietary intake of fibres on butyrate‐producing bacteria. Contrarily, community‐dwelling older persons exhibited healthier gut microbiota compositions than those in long‐term care institutions (Claesson et al. 2012), aspects that were explained as resulting from better diets and exercise regimens. A Japanese cohort study further affirmed the health‐promoting effects of butyrate‐producing bacteria on frailty (Lim et al. 2021).

Although frailty and intrinsic capacity are different concepts (i.e., frailty is defined by the individual's impairments and deficits, whereas intrinsic capacity focuses on the physical and mental capacities over the life course) their similarities might still allow us to obtain additional information to describe the clinical manifestations of the gut microbiota profile with ageing, relevant to potentially delaying or reversing declines.

Overall, these studies highlight the significant role of diet, gut microbiota and probiotic supplementation in promoting healthy ageing, muscle mass maintenance and physical capacity. They suggest potential interventions to counteract frailty and enhance overall health and intrinsic capacity in different population groups.

3. Discussion

To our knowledge, this article provides the first detailed description of the association between a hallmark of healthy ageing and intrinsic capacity, adopting a life course approach. Our overview of the literature shows that eubiosis can represent a critical biological feature that promotes healthy ageing by supporting the development and maintenance of intrinsic capacity, one of the key components of functional ability, across life stages. It may serve as a denominator to measure and monitor the health status of individuals as they age.

Incorporating the biological hallmarks of ageing into the framework of intrinsic capacity and its domain offers a pathway towards more personalised interventions, essential for effective health policies, care pathways and inclusion within universal health coverage packages. In this context, the potential of direct (e.g., faecal microbiota transplantation, FMT) and indirect (e.g., healthy diet) interventions to restore or enhance eubiosis is relevant, potentially offering a promising means to increase intrinsic capacity (in particular, its cognitive, locomotion, and vitality domains). For instance, small mechanistic trials show that transferring stool from lean donors can transiently improve peripheral insulin sensitivity in adults with metabolic syndrome (Kootte et al. 2017). A larger Chinese cohort study using ‘washed microbiota transplantation’ in 65 metabolic syndrome patients reported short‐ and medium‐term falls in fasting glucose and waist circumference after three courses of treatment, suggesting that protocol‐intensive FMT can hit several metabolic targets at once (Hu et al. 2024). A 2025 systematic review (Dhanasekaran et al. 2025) evaluated the efficacy of microbiome‐targeted interventions in obesity management, encompassing 27 randomised controlled trials. The review found that these interventions, including FMT, probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics, led to significant improvements in body composition, metabolic parameters and inflammatory markers in overweight and obese adults. Notably, reductions in body mass index (BMI), fasting blood glucose and C‐reactive protein levels were observed, suggesting potential benefits in energy metabolism and overall vitality. In contrast, another recent meta‐analysis (Qiu et al. 2023), which included nine studies with a total of 303 participants, observed modest short‐term improvements in fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, insulin levels and HDL cholesterol following FMT. However, these benefits were not sustained beyond 6 weeks, and no significant changes were noted in weight or BMI. These conflicting findings highlight that, although studies provide promising insights into the role of microbiome‐targeted therapies in improving vitality and metabolic health, further research is needed to establish standardised protocols and long‐term efficacy.

By tailoring treatments to address specific biological changes associated with unhealthy ageing, health providers may offer more effective, individualised interventions targeting the underlying foundations of health deficits. At the same time, the biological mechanisms impacting intrinsic capacity domains may provide clear directions for policymakers in developing consistent preventive strategies. Promoting personalised interventions based on a specific biological substratum might be important to better address the heterogeneous needs of ageing populations. That most of these interventions could be provided across low‐, middle‐ and high‐income countries also increases opportunities for greater equity in healthy ageing.

Within the publications reviewed in this article, butyrate, a metabolic product of certain bacterial species, seemed to be the most important and consistent feature associated with increased intrinsic capacity and healthy ageing. In personalised medicine, butyrate levels could be tailored to individual needs, influenced by a person's unique gut microbiome composition, dietary habits and health status. Today, the functional capacity of the gut microbiota butyrate production can be monitored by standard laboratory equipment from readily available stool samples (Daskova et al. 2021), making its application in medicine and potential public health implementation a low hurdle. Furthermore, microbiota in personalised medicine is a promising new field (Ratiner et al. 2023), identified as an important contributor to drug metabolism and as an exploratory ground for individual variability in drug response (Zhao et al. 2023). Pharmaco‐microbiomics, the study of how the microbiota alters individual drug responses, might, therefore, stimulate the development of healthy ageing‐related treatment options.

Although butyrate exerts broad regulatory effects on host physiology, emerging evidence suggests that its influence is channelled through distinct anatomical and molecular host–microbe interaction axes (Morais et al. 2021; Fung 2020). This compartmentalised signalling likely contributes to domain‐specific effects on intrinsic capacity. The gut–muscle axis represents one of the most direct pathways through which butyrate supports intrinsic capacity, particularly within the vitality and locomotion domains. Butyrate has been shown to promote mitochondrial biogenesis and oxidative metabolism through activation of peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor gamma coactivator 1‐alpha (PGC‐1α) and AMP‐activated protein kinase (AMPK) pathways (Gao et al. 2009). A recent review (Li et al. 2024) emphasises that gut microbiota dysbiosis impairs anabolic signalling, reduces insulin sensitivity and promotes muscle catabolism, highlighting the essential role of microbial‐derived SCFAs in muscle maintenance and sarcopaenia prevention (Li et al. 2024).

The gut–brain axis influences cognition by shaping microglial immune functions (Wang et al. 2018): Commensal microbes provide signals essential for microglial maturation and surveillance, e.g., germ‐free or antibiotic‐treated mice exhibit immature, hyper‐ramified microglia with impaired synaptic pruning and plasticity. Microbial SCFAs such as butyrate and propionate cross the blood–brain barrier to shift microglia towards an anti‐inflammatory, neurosupportive phenotype, thereby promoting neurogenesis and synaptic remodelling. Moreover, microbiota‐derived tryptophan metabolites acting via the aryl hydrocarbon receptor mitigate astrocyte‐driven inflammation and enhance trophic factor release, whereas dysbiosis‐induced peripheral cytokines (e.g., IL‐1β, TNF‐α) infiltrate the CNS, overactivate microglia, precipitate excessive synaptic elimination and ultimately compromise cognitive resilience.

The gut–immune axis provides a systemic influence on ageing: Butyrate exerts its beneficial effects through the inhibition of histone deacetylases (HDACs), which lead to changes in gene expression that promote an anti‐inflammatory and tissue‐protective phenotype. By inhibiting HDAC activity, butyrate increases histone acetylation, facilitating the transcription of genes such as those encoding TGF‐β1, a factor involved in tissue repair and immune tolerance (Martin‐Gallausiaux et al. 2018). This epigenetic reprogramming is considered an important process in counteracting the molecular drivers of ageing and reducing inflammaging, a chronic inflammatory state associated with the ageing process and its associated diseases (Chen and Vitetta 2020; Ferrucci and Fabbri 2018).

Among the research gaps due to the novelty of the topic, there is a critical need to distinguish between correlation and causation, and to conduct more studies with a longitudinal design. Many of the studies included are cross‐sectional, often comparing different individuals at various life stages rather than following the same individuals over time. While the life‐course approach adopted by the WHO provides a promising framework to understand ageing and intrinsic capacity, there is currently insufficient longitudinal data to establish causal links definitively. For example, although early‐life gut dysbiosis may influence later health outcomes, it cannot yet be assumed that individuals with such microbial imbalances in childhood will necessarily experience reduced vitality or diminished muscle mass in old age. A supportive environment in later life (e.g., a healthy lifestyle) can compensate for a dysbiotic state‐driven loss of intrinsic capacity domains in early life. Furthermore, it is evident that certain domains of intrinsic capacity and developmental stages are less explored than others concerning their relationship with gut microbiota. Several studies have delved into how gut microbiota and SCFAs influence locomotion, vitality and cognition. Although starting to emerge given the gut–brain connection, more research is needed for the psychological domain, in particular, to understand how gut health may affect energy levels, mood and stress. Even more evident is the under‐exploration of sensory capacities (i.e., hearing and vision domains) in this field. At the same time, the level of knowledge regarding gut microbiota in adolescents is generally less developed than in infants and adults. This difference in knowledge could be attributed to adolescence being a period of significant physiological, psychological and social changes. These changes can introduce more variables and complexities into research activities, challenging the definition of the gut microbiota's net effects and roles.

As a way forward, we believe gut microbiota is a fascinating and promising aspect of our lives that warrants further exploration and understanding. Its age‐related evolution makes it of particular interest to identify variables potentially affecting the trajectories of ageing, particularly healthy ageing. A recent report provided information on several ongoing clinical trials investigating the effects of microbiome‐related interventions on various outcomes related to healthy ageing (Guarente et al. 2024). Among these interventions, we might find in the future a microbiome‐related solution that can be delivered in a wide range of contexts to improve health and prevent age‐associated diseases.

Author Contributions

Christoph Benner: conceptualisation, methodology, investigation, writing including original draft and revisions. Matteo Cesari: conceptualisation, methodology, supervision, writing including critical review, inputs and editing. Ritu Sadana: initiation, conceptualisation, methodology, supervision, writing including critical review, inputs and editing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgements

The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article, and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions or policies of the institution with which they are affiliated.

Funding: This work was supported by Velux Stiftung to conduct research and advance evidence on healthy ageing across the life course.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

References

  1. Aguayo, G. , Donneau A., Vaillant M., et al. 2017. “Agreement Between 35 Published Frailty Scores in the General Population.” American Journal of Epidemiology 186: 420–434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Angolile, C. M. , Max B. L., Mushemba J., and Mashauri H. L.. 2023. “Global Increased Cesarean Section Rates and Public Health Implications: A Call to Action.” Health Science Reports 6: e1274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Anon . 2017. “Committee Opinion No. 725: Vaginal Seeding.” Obstetrics and Gynecology 130: e274–e278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Basso, M. , Johnstone N., Knytl P., Nauta A., Groeneveld A., and Cohen Kadosh K.. 2022. “A Systematic Review of Psychobiotic Interventions in Children and Adolescents to Enhance Cognitive Functioning and Emotional Behavior.” Nutrients 14: 614. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Belloni, G. , and Cesari M.. 2019. “Frailty and Intrinsic Capacity: Two Distinct but Related Constructs.” Frontiers in Medicine 6: 133. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Berg, R. D. 1996. “The Indigenous Gastrointestinal Microflora.” Trends in Microbiology 4: 430–435. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Castro‐Mejía, J. L. , Khakimov B., Krych Ł., et al. 2020. “Physical Fitness in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults Is Linked to Dietary Intake, Gut Microbiota, and Metabolomic Signatures.” Aging Cell 19: e13105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cesari, M. , Araujo de Carvalho I., Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan J., et al. 2018. “Evidence for the Domains Supporting the Construct of Intrinsic Capacity.” Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 73: 1653–1660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cesari, M. , Canevelli M., Calvani R., Aprahamian I., Inzitari M., and Marzetti E.. 2022. “The Management of Frailty: Barking up the Wrong Tree.” Journal of Frailty & Aging 11: 127–128. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chavarro, J. E. , Martín‐Calvo N., Yuan C., et al. 2020. “Association of Birth by Cesarean Delivery With Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes Among Adult Women.” JAMA Network Open 3: e202605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chen, J. , and Vitetta L.. 2020. “The Role of Butyrate in Attenuating Pathobiont‐Induced Hyperinflammation.” Immune Network 20: e15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chew, W. , Lim Y. P., Lim W. S., et al. 2022. “Gut‐Muscle Crosstalk. A Perspective on Influence of Microbes on Muscle Function.” Frontiers in Medicine 9: 1065365. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Claesson, M. J. , Jeffery I. B., Conde S., et al. 2012. “Gut Microbiota Composition Correlates With Diet and Health in the Elderly.” Nature 488: 178–184. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Clarke, G. , Stilling R. M., Kennedy P. J., Stanton C., Cryan J. F., and Dinan T. G.. 2014. “Minireview: Gut Microbiota: The Neglected Endocrine Organ.” Molecular Endocrinology 28: 1221–1238. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Coelho, G. D. P. , Ayres L. F. A., Barreto D. S., Henriques B. D., Prado M. R. M. C., and Passos C. M. D.. 2021. “Acquisition of Microbiota According to the Type of Birth: An Integrative Review.” Revista Latino‐Americana de Enfermagem 29: e3446. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. d'Afflitto, M. , Upadhyaya A., Green A., and Peiris M.. 2022. “Association Between Sex Hormone Levels and Gut Microbiota Composition and Diversity‐A Systematic Review.” Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology 56: 384–392. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dalile, B. , Van Oudenhove L., Vervliet B., and Verbeke K.. 2019. “The Role of Short‐Chain Fatty Acids in Microbiota‐Gut‐Brain Communication.” Nature Reviews. Gastroenterology & Hepatology 16: 461–478. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Daskova, N. , Heczkova M., Modos I., et al. 2021. “Determination of Butyrate Synthesis Capacity in Gut Microbiota: Quantification of but Gene Abundance by qPCR in Fecal Samples.” Biomolecules 11: 1303. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. David, L. A. , Maurice C. F., Carmody R. N., et al. 2014. “Diet Rapidly and Reproducibly Alters the Human Gut Microbiome.” Nature 505: 559–563. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Derrien, M. , Alvarez A.‐S., and de Vos W. M.. 2019. “The Gut Microbiota in the First Decade of Life.” Trends in Microbiology 27: 997–1010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Dhanasekaran, D. , Venkatesan M., and Sabarathinam S.. 2025. “Efficacy of Microbiome‐Targeted Interventions in Obesity Management‐ A Comprehensive Systematic Review.” Diabetes and Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Research and Reviews 19: 103208. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Dominguez‐Bello, M. G. , De Jesus‐Laboy K. M., Shen N., et al. 2016. “Partial Restoration of the Microbiota of Cesarean‐Born Infants via Vaginal Microbial Transfer.” Nature Medicine 22: 250–253. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. dos Santos, S. J. , Pakzad Z., Albert A. Y. K., et al. 2023. “Maternal Vaginal Microbiome Composition Does Not Affect Development of the Infant Gut Microbiome in Early Life.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology 13: 1144254. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Dziewiecka, H. , Buttar H. S., Kasperska A., et al. 2022. “Physical Activity Induced Alterations of Gut Microbiota in Humans: A Systematic Review.” BMC Sports Science, Medicine and Rehabilitation 14: 122. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Ellis, G. , Gardner M., Tsiachristas A., et al. 2017. “Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for Older Adults Admitted to Hospital.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 9: CD006211. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Estaki, M. , Pither J., Baumeister P., et al. 2016. “Cardiorespiratory Fitness as a Predictor of Intestinal Microbial Diversity and Distinct Metagenomic Functions.” Microbiome 4: 42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Ferrucci, L. , and Fabbri E.. 2018. “Inflammageing: Chronic Inflammation in Ageing, Cardiovascular Disease, and Frailty.” Nature Reviews. Cardiology 15: 505–522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Fu, J. , Zheng Y., Gao Y., and Xu W.. 2022. “Dietary Fiber Intake and Gut Microbiota in Human Health.” Microorganisms 10: 2507. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Fung, T. C. 2020. “The Microbiota‐Immune Axis as a Central Mediator of Gut‐Brain Communication.” Neurobiology of Disease 136: 104714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Gao, Z. , Yin J., Zhang J., et al. 2009. “Butyrate Improves Insulin Sensitivity and Increases Energy Expenditure in Mice.” Diabetes 58: 1509–1517. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Gaulke, C. A. , and Sharpton T. J.. 2018. “The Influence of Ethnicity and Geography on Human Gut Microbiome Composition.” Nature Medicine 24: 1495–1496. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Ghaffari, P. , Shoaie S., and Nielsen L. K.. 2022. “Irritable Bowel Syndrome and Microbiome; Switching From Conventional Diagnosis and Therapies to Personalized Interventions.” Journal of Translational Medicine 20: 173. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Ghosh, T. S. , Rampelli S., Jeffery I. B., et al. 2020. “Mediterranean Diet Intervention Alters the Gut Microbiome in Older People Reducing Frailty and Improving Health Status: The NU‐AGE 1‐Year Dietary Intervention Across Five European Countries.” Gut 69: 1218–1228. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Guarente, L. , Sinclair D. A., and Kroemer G.. 2024. “Human Trials Exploring Anti‐Aging Medicines.” Cell Metabolism 36: 354–376. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Haran, J. P. , Bucci V., Dutta P., Ward D., and McCormick B.. 2018. “The Nursing Home Elder Microbiome Stability and Associations With Age, Frailty, Nutrition and Physical Location.” Journal of Medical Microbiology 67: 40–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Hardin, A. P. , Hackell J. M., and Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine . 2017. “Age Limit of Pediatrics.” Pediatrics 140: e20172151. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Henrick, B. M. , Rodriguez L., Lakshmikanth T., et al. 2021. “Bifidobacteria‐Mediated Immune System Imprinting Early in Life.” Cell 184: 3884–3898.e11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Hu, X. , Wu Q., Huang L., Xu J., He X., and Wu L.. 2024. “Clinical Efficacy of Washed Microbiota Transplantation on Metabolic Syndrome and Metabolic Profile of Donor Outer Membrane Vesicles.” Frontiers in Nutrition 11: 1465499. 10.3389/fnut.2024.1465499. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Huang, W.‐C. , Pan C.‐H., Wei C.‐C., and Huang H.‐Y.. 2020. “ Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 Improves Physiological Adaptation and Performance in Triathletes Through Gut Microbiota Modulation.” Nutrients 12: 2315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Iatcu, C. O. , Steen A., and Covasa M.. 2021. “Gut Microbiota and Complications of Type‐2 Diabetes.” Nutrients 14: 166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Jackson, M. A. , Jeffery I. B., Beaumont M., et al. 2016. “Signatures of Early Frailty in the Gut Microbiota.” Genome Medicine 8: 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Kootte, R. S. , Levin E., Salojärvi J., et al. 2017. “Improvement of Insulin Sensitivity After Lean Donor Feces in Metabolic Syndrome Is Driven by Baseline Intestinal Microbiota Composition.” Cell Metabolism 26: 611–619.e6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Li, W. , Sheng R.‐W., Cao M.‐M., and Rui Y.‐F.. 2024. “Exploring the Relationship Between Gut Microbiota and Sarcopenia Based on Gut‐Muscle Axis.” Food Science & Nutrition 12: 8779–8792. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Li, W. , Yuan J., Wang L., et al. 2022. “The Association Between Breastfeeding and Childhood Obesity/Underweight: A Population‐Based Birth Cohort Study With Repeated Measured Data.” International Breastfeeding Journal 17: 82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Lim, M. Y. , Hong S., Kim J.‐H., and Nam Y.‐D.. 2021. “Association Between Gut Microbiome and Frailty in the Older Adult Population in Korea.” Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 76: 1362–1368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Liu, Y. , Ma J., Zhu B., et al. 2023. “A Health‐Promoting Role of Exclusive Breastfeeding on Infants Through Restoring Delivery Mode‐Induced Gut Microbiota Perturbations.” Frontiers in Microbiology 14: 1163269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Lokossou, G. A. G. , Kouakanou L., Schumacher A., and Zenclussen A. C.. 2022. “Human Breast Milk: From Food to Active Immune Response With Disease Protection in Infants and Mothers.” Frontiers in Immunology 13: 849012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. López‐Otín, C. , Blasco M. A., Partridge L., Serrano M., and Kroemer G.. 2013. “The Hallmarks of Aging.” Cell 153: 1194–1217. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. López‐Otín, C. , Blasco M. A., Partridge L., Serrano M., and Kroemer G.. 2023. “Hallmarks of Aging: An Expanding Universe.” Cell 186: 243–278. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Lupien, S. J. , McEwen B. S., Gunnar M. R., and Heim C.. 2009. “Effects of Stress Throughout the Lifespan on the Brain, Behaviour and Cognition.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10: 434–445. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Lv, W.‐Q. , Lin X., Shen H., et al. 2021. “Human Gut Microbiome Impacts Skeletal Muscle Mass via Gut Microbial Synthesis of the Short‐Chain Fatty Acid Butyrate Among Healthy Menopausal Women.” Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle 12: 1860–1870. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Ma, J. , Li Z., Zhang W., et al. 2022. “Comparison of the Gut Microbiota in Healthy Infants With Different Delivery Modes and Feeding Types: A Cohort Study.” Frontiers in Microbiology 13: 868227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Manor, O. , Dai C. L., Kornilov S. A., et al. 2020. “Health and Disease Markers Correlate With Gut Microbiome Composition Across Thousands of People.” Nature Communications 11: 5206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Marchesi, J. R. , Adams D. H., Fava F., et al. 2016. “The Gut Microbiota and Host Health: A New Clinical Frontier.” Gut 65: 330–339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Martin‐Gallausiaux, C. , Béguet‐Crespel F., Marinelli L., et al. 2018. “Butyrate Produced by Gut Commensal Bacteria Activates TGF‐beta1 Expression Through the Transcription Factor SP1 in Human Intestinal Epithelial Cells.” Scientific Reports 8: 9742. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Martín‐Peláez, S. , Cano‐Ibáñez N., Pinto‐Gallardo M., and Amezcua‐Prieto C.. 2022. “The Impact of Probiotics, Prebiotics, and Synbiotics During Pregnancy or Lactation on the Intestinal Microbiota of Children Born by Cesarean Section: A Systematic Review.” Nutrients 14: 341. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Meslier, V. , Laiola M., Roager H. M., et al. 2020. “Mediterranean Diet Intervention in Overweight and Obese Subjects Lowers Plasma Cholesterol and Causes Changes in the Gut Microbiome and Metabolome Independently of Energy Intake.” Gut 69: 1258–1268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Morais, L. H. , Schreiber H. L., and Mazmanian S. K.. 2021. “The Gut Microbiota–Brain Axis in Behaviour and Brain Disorders.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 19: 241–255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Morgado, M. C. , Sousa M., Coelho A. B., Costa J. A., and Seabra A.. 2023. “Exploring Gut Microbiota and the Influence of Physical Activity Interventions on Overweight and Obese Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.” Healthcare (Basel) 11: 2459. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Morley, J. E. , Vellas B., van Kan G. A., et al. 2013. “Frailty Consensus: A Call to Action.” Journal of the American Medical Directors Association 14: 392–397. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Ninkina, N. , Kukharsky M. S., Hewitt M. V., et al. 2019. “Stem Cells in Human Breast Milk.” Human Cell 32: 223–230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Paus, T. , Keshavan M., and Giedd J. N.. 2008. “Why Do Many Psychiatric Disorders Emerge During Adolescence?” Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 9: 947–957. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Pivrncova, E. , Kotaskova I., and Thon V.. 2022. “Neonatal Diet and Gut Microbiome Development After C‐Section During the First Three Months After Birth: A Systematic Review.” Frontiers in Nutrition 9: 941549. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Portincasa, P. , Bonfrate L., Vacca M., et al. 2022. “Gut Microbiota and Short Chain Fatty Acids: Implications in Glucose Homeostasis.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23: 1105. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Przewłócka, K. , Folwarski M., Kaźmierczak‐Siedlecka K., Skonieczna‐Żydecka K., and Kaczor J. J.. 2020. “Gut‐Muscle AxisExists and May Affect Skeletal Muscle Adaptation to Training.” Nutrients 12: 1451. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Qiao, J. , Dai L.‐J., Zhang Q., and Ouyang Y.‐Q.. 2020. “A Meta‐Analysis of the Association Between Breastfeeding and Early Childhood Obesity.” Journal of Pediatric Nursing 53: 57–66. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Qiu, B. , Liang J., and Li C.. 2023. “Effects of Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Metabolic Syndrome: A Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.” PLoS One 18: e0288718. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Raineri, E. J. M. , Altulea D., and van Dijl J. M.. 2022. “Staphylococcal Trafficking and Infection‐From “Nose to Gut” and Back.” FEMS Microbiology Reviews 46: fuab041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Ratiner, K. , Ciocan D., Abdeen S. K., and Elinav E.. 2023. “Utilization of the Microbiome in Personalized Medicine.” Nature Reviews Microbiology 22: 291–308. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Sanna, S. , van Zuydam N. R., Mahajan A., et al. 2019. “Causal Relationships Among the Gut Microbiome, Short‐Chain Fatty Acids and Metabolic Diseases.” Nature Genetics 51: 600–605. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Santos, F. S. , Santos F. C. S., dos Santos L. H., Leite A. M., and de Mello D. F.. 2015. “Breastfeeding and Protection Against Diarrhea: An Integrative Review of Literature.” Einstein 13: 435–440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Saturio, S. , Nogacka A. M., Alvarado‐Jasso G. M., et al. 2021. “Role of Bifidobacteria on Infant Health.” Microorganisms 9: 2415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Scheiman, J. , Luber J. M., Chavkin T. A., et al. 2019. “Meta‐Omics Analysis of Elite Athletes Identifies a Performance‐Enhancing Microbe That Functions via Lactate Metabolism.” Nature Medicine 25: 1104–1109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Schwartz, D. J. , Shalon N., Wardenburg K., et al. 2023. “Gut Pathogen Colonization Precedes Bloodstream Infection in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.” Science Translational Medicine 15: eadg5562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Sender, R. , Fuchs S., and Milo R.. 2016. “Are We Really Vastly Outnumbered? Revisiting the Ratio of Bacterial to Host Cells in Humans.” Cell 164: 337–340. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Sevelsted, A. , Stokholm J., Bønnelykke K., and Bisgaard H.. 2015. “Cesarean Section and Chronic Immune Disorders.” Pediatrics 135: e92–e98. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Słabuszewska‐Jóźwiak, A. , Szymański J. K., Ciebiera M., Sarecka‐Hujar B., and Jakiel G.. 2020. “Pediatrics Consequences of Caesarean Section‐A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17: 8031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Solanki, R. , Karande A., and Ranganathan P.. 2023. “Emerging Role of Gut Microbiota Dysbiosis in Neuroinflammation and Neurodegeneration.” Frontiers in Neurology 14: 1149618. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Suzuki, T. A. , and Worobey M.. 2014. “Geographical Variation of Human Gut Microbial Composition.” Biology Letters 10: 20131037. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Tremaroli, V. , and Bäckhed F.. 2012. “Functional Interactions Between the Gut Microbiota and Host Metabolism.” Nature 489: 242–249. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. United Nations . 2020. United Nations Decade of Healthy Ageing (2021–2030). In: United Nations General Assembly Seventy‐Fifth session. Agenda item 131: Global health and foreign policy. https://undocs.org/en/A/75/L.47. [Google Scholar]
  82. van de Guchte, M. , Blottière H. M., and Doré J.. 2018. “Humans as Holobionts: Implications for Prevention and Therapy.” Microbiome 6: 81. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Van Hul, M. , and Cani P. D.. 2023. “The Gut Microbiota in Obesity and Weight Management: Microbes as Friends or Foe?” Nature Reviews. Endocrinology 19: 258–271. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Vander Wyst, K. B. , Ortega‐Santos C. P., Toffoli S. N., Lahti C. E., and Whisner C. M.. 2021. “Diet, Adiposity, and the Gut Microbiota From Infancy to Adolescence: A Systematic Review.” Obesity Reviews 22: e13175. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Wang, Y. , Wang Z., Wang Y., et al. 2018. “The Gut‐Microglia Connection: Implications for Central Nervous System Diseases.” Frontiers in Immunology 9: 2325. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.02325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. Wilson, A. S. , Koller K. R., Ramaboli M. C., et al. 2020. “Diet and the Human Gut Microbiome: An International Review.” Digestive Diseases and Sciences 65: 723–740. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. Wilson, B. C. , Butler É. M., Grigg C. P., et al. 2021. “Oral Administration of Maternal Vaginal Microbes at Birth to Restore Gut Microbiome Development in Infants Born by Caesarean Section: A Pilot Randomised Placebo‐Controlled Trial.” eBioMedicine 69: 103443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. World Health Organization . 2017. “Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health.” Geneva (Switzerland). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241513500.
  89. World Health Organization . 2020. Decade of Healthy Ageing: Baseline Report. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240017900. [Google Scholar]
  90. World Health Organization . 2024. Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE): Guidance for Person‐Centred Assessment and Pathways in Primary Care. 2nd Edition. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240103726. [Google Scholar]
  91. Xiong, R.‐G. , Zhou D.‐D., Wu S.‐X., et al. 2022. “Health Benefits and Side Effects of Short‐Chain Fatty Acids.” Food 11: 2863. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Xue, M. , Dehaas E., Chaudhary N., O'Byrne P., Satia I., and Kurmi O. P.. 2021. “Breastfeeding and Risk of Childhood Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” ERJ Open Research 7: e00504–e02021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Yang, X. , Zhou C., Guo C., et al. 2022. “The Prevalence of Food Allergy in Cesarean‐Born Children Aged 0‐3 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Cohort Studies.” Frontiers in Pediatrics 10: 1044954. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Yatsunenko, T. , Rey F. E., Manary M. J., et al. 2012. “Human Gut Microbiome Viewed Across Age and Geography.” Nature 486: 222–227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Zhang, P. 2022. “Influence of Foods and Nutrition on the Gut Microbiome and Implications for Intestinal Health.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23: 9588. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Zhang, S. , Qin X., Li P., and Huang K.. 2021. “Effect of Elective Cesarean Section on Children's Obesity From Birth to Adolescence: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis.” Frontiers in Pediatrics 9: 793400. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Zhao, Q. , Chen Y., Huang W., Zhou H., and Zhang W.. 2023. “Drug‐Microbiota Interactions: An Emerging Priority for Precision Medicine.” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy 8: 386. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Zhou, R. , Qian S., Cho W. C. S., et al. 2022. “Microbiota‐Microglia Connections in Age‐Related Cognition Decline.” Aging Cell 21: e13599. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Zhu, B. , Wang X., and Li L.. 2010. “Human Gut Microbiome: The Second Genome of Human Body.” Protein & Cell 1: 718–725. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.


Articles from Aging Cell are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES