Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Feb 7;18(2):e0281049. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281049

The effects of microbiome-targeted therapy on cognitive impairment and postoperative cognitive dysfunction—A systematic review

Saiko Sugita 1, Peggy Tahir 2, Sakura Kinjo 3,*
Editor: Emily Chenette4
PMCID: PMC9904456  PMID: 36749772

Abstract

Background

The gut-brain axis involves bidirectional communication between the gut-microbiota and central nervous system. This study aimed to investigate whether probiotics and/or prebiotics, known as Microbiome-targeted Therapies (MTTs), improve cognition and prevent postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD).

Methods

Relevant animal and human studies were identified using a systematic database search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science), focusing on the effects of MTTs on inflammation, perioperative and non-perioperative cognitive impairment. Screening and data extraction were conducted by two independent reviewers. The Risk of bias was assessed using the SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) was used for human studies.

Results

A total of 24 articles were selected; 16 of these involved animal studies, and 8 described studies in humans. In these papers, the use of MTTs consistently resulted in decreased inflammation in perioperative and non-perioperative settings. Out of 16 animal studies, 5 studies (2 associated with delirium and 3 studies related to POCD) were conducted in a perioperative setting. MTTs improved perioperative cognitive behavior and reduced inflammation in all 5 animal studies. Eleven animal studies were conducted in a non-perioperative setting. In all of these studies, MTTs showed improvement in learning and memory function. MTTs showed a positive effect on levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and biomarkers related to cognitive function. Among the 8 human studies, only one study examined the effects of perioperative MTTs on cognitive function. This study showed a reduced incidence of POCD along with improved cognitive function. Of the remaining 7 studies, 6 suggested that MTTs improved behavioral test results and cognition in non-perioperative environments. One study failed to show any significant differences in memory, biomarkers of inflammation, or oxidative factors.

Conclusion

In the studies we examined, most showed that MTTs decrease inflammation by down-regulating inflammatory cytokines and oxidative stress in both perioperative and non-perioperative settings. In general, MTTs also seem to have a positive effect on cognition through neural, immune, endocrine, and metabolic pathways. However, these effects have not yet resulted in a consensus regarding preventative strategies or treatments. Based on these current research results, MTTs could be a potential new preventative strategy for cognitive impairment after surgery.

Introduction

The concept of the gut-brain axis, the bidirectional communication between gut microbiota in the gastrointestinal tract and brain, has recently been confirmed by a growing number of studies [1, 2]. The microbiome has been implicated as having an impact on host function well beyond the gut, including obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autism, behavior, and motor activity [35], along with neurocognitive disorders including mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and Alzheimer’s disease (AD) [2, 69]. In addition, the link between gut microbiota and Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) has been getting attention [10]. POCD is a cognitive change or decline after surgery with anesthesia, often persisting for weeks or months. The occurrence of POCD has been estimated to be between 25 and 42% on postoperative day 7 or discharge, and 10% at three months after surgery in patients aged at least 60 years old [11, 12]. Such prolonged deficits in attention, memory, and concentration can lead to a higher risk of permanent cognitive impairment or dementia [11, 13]. This data, together with the fact that the world’s population over 60 years old is projected to increase to 33% by the year 2050 [14], raises the importance of identifying preventive strategies for cognitive impairment.

A possible explanation for the link between gut microbiota and cognition could be pro-inflammatory cytokines and oxidative stress in the central nervous system (CNS). Recent studies have demonstrated that neuroinflammation is a hallmark of AD and POCD in both human and animal models [11, 12]. This neuroinflammation is thought to be brought on by either disruption of the blood-brain barrier (BBB), activation of microglia and astrocytes, and/or oxidative stress induced by surgery and anesthesia [13, 15]. Therefore, various clinical interventions have been used to reduce neuroinflammation. However, none of these have been universally adopted as a standard of care [12, 15]. Recent preclinical studies have shown that some perioperative drugs such as anesthetics, opioid analgesics, and antibiotics could possibly affect postoperative cognitive function by altering the composition or diversity of gut-microbiota [10, 12, 16, 17]. And surgical procedures (e.g., intestinal resection) themselves could change the balance of gut microbiota [18]. There is a growing body of evidence that perioperative stressors (e.g., emotional, environmental, physiological, surgical insult, medications, and infections) lead to gut microflora changes and dysbiosis. The composition of the gut microbiota may undergo rapid and often extreme changes and potentially cause multiple organ dysfunction (e.g., neurological, respiratory, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, and renal) [19]. Literature suggests that microbiome-targeted therapies (MTTs), especially supplementation with probiotics and /or prebiotics, improve the balance of gut-microbiota and modulate neurological function via immune, metabolic and endocrine pathways [20, 21]. Thus far, most of the MTT-related perioperative studies are focused on the infection (e.g., ventilator-associated pneumonia and surgical site infection) [22], and much less literature has focused on cognitive function as an outcome.

Therefore, this systematic review aims to examine current evidence for the effects of MTTs on cognitive impairment, including POCD. In addition, we will discuss the possible pathophysiologic mechanisms of cognitive impairment by neuroinflammation via the gut-brain axis.

Methods

Eligibility criteria

Randomized trials or cross-over studies of animals or humans (elderly, at least adult) investigating the effects of MTTs on cognition were considered. Studies with outcomes other than cognition or not written in English were excluded. The study protocol for human studies was registered with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). (ID:CRD42020178197) The study protocol for animal studies was not registered with PROSPERO.

Literature search

This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist (S1 File). Two authors (S.S., P.T.) separately searched for publications using PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, and Web of Science for relevant literature (from their inception to October 2021) using the following terms: microbiome, microbiota, gastrointestinal microbiome, probiotic, probiotics, cognitive dysfunction, delirium, cognitive impairment, confusion, mental deterioration, cognition disorders, anesthesia/adverse effects, postoperative complications/therapy, postoperative complications/prevention and control, dysbiosis/therapy, inflammation/drug therapy, inflammation/complications, aged, elderly and geriatric. Additional citations were sought using reference lists of relevant articles and gray literature.

Data selection and extraction

We screened all the titles and abstracts and removed less relevant articles according to criteria including (P) population: aged or at least adult, (I) intervention: MTTs such as supplementation of probiotics and/or prebiotics or fecal microbiome transplantation compared with placebo, (O) outcomes: pre-specified clinical outcomes such as cognitive improvement or deterioration, postoperative complications, and differences in biomarkers, expression of protein or mRNA. All publications included in the study are written in English.

Data collection and assessment of quality of papers

Data were collected in both animal and human studies. In animal studies, the following information was included: animal model, age, type of probiotics or prebiotics, duration of interventions, and outcomes. In clinical studies, age, disease, types of probiotics, and duration of interventions and outcomes.

Two authors (S.S., S.K.) independently assessed the quality of clinical studies using the “Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB2) [23], which includes five categories; 1) randomization process, 2) deviation from intended interventions, 3) missing outcome data, 4) measurement of the outcome and 5) selection of the reported result. We assessed the quality of each domain answering the signaling questions listed in the guidance. Based on the results of these five categories, we determined the overall risk of bias for each trial.

In addition, the quality of animal studies was assessed using SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool [24] which includes 1) selection bias, 2) performance bias, 3) detection bias, 4) attrition bias, and 5) reporting bias, and 6) other bias. This tool is based on the Cochrane RoB tool and has been adjusted for aspects of bias that play a specific role in animal intervention studies. It is the most recommended tool for assessing the methodological quality of animal interventional studies [25].

Results

Literature search

The results of the literature search were divided into two groups: 1) MMTs and cognitive dysfunction in animal studies, 2) MTTs and cognitive dysfunction in clinical studies. A total of 1631 articles were identified (1616 by the database search and 15 by manual search). 1458 papers were excluded for lack of relevance. Another 29 articles were removed since their abstracts or full text were not available online or not written in English. The final set of studies included 16 articles on animal studies and 8 articles on human studies (Fig 1). Out of 16 animal studies, 5 studies were associated with perioperative cognitive dysfunction (2 for delirium, 3 for POCD). The eight human studies were all randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Seven of these were conducted in non-perioperative settings, and one was in a perioperative setting. In these human studies, the reported age range was 50 to 100 years old.

Fig 1. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram.

Fig 1

* Reason 1; Perioperative studies, but focused on other than cognitive function. Reason 2; Reviews or Not interventional studies. Reason 3; Populations are not of interest. Reason 4; Others (Details are available in Supplemental Information).

Risk of bias

S1-S5 Tables in S5 File show the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (RoB 2) in each category; 1) randomization process, 2) deviation from the intended interventions, 3) missing outcome data, 4) judgment in measurement of the outcome, and 5) judgment of selection of reported results for the clinical studies. S6 Table in S5 File shows the summary of S1-S5 Tables in S5 File. No study was completely free of risk of bias. Three studies [2628] were classified as”low” in overall risk of bias. Four studies [2932] were classified as “some concerns”, and one study [33] was classified as “some concerns to high.” For animal studies, an overview of SYRCLE’s risk of bias assessment is presented in S7 Table in S5 File. Fifteen studies were graded for 6 types of bias. Except for one study which showed "low risk" in all categories, [34] all studies included “unclear" in at least one of the domains due to lack of information.

Gut-microbiota and MTTs, and cognitive function in animals

Animal studies investigating perioperative cognitive changes

Out of 16 animal studies that assessed the efficacy of MTTs on cognitive function, 5 studies investigated perioperative cognitive changes in animals. Four of them are interventional studies using prebiotics or probiotics [17, 3537] (Table 1), and the other focused on fecal microbiota transplant [38]. Common findings among these studies were improved memory function and/or behavior assessed by behavioral tests, including maze test, novel object recognition test, and open field test [17, 3538]. The differences in the gut microbiota composition such as α- and β- diversity between intervention and control rodents were also consistent in these studies [16, 35, 36, 38]. These studies detected the altered composition of gut microbiota after anesthesia/surgery. According to Jiang et al., quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) of fecal samples obtained 48 hours after surgery in mice pretreated with VSL#3 (a mixture of several probiotic cultures) for 10 days before surgery detected that 8 out of 37 types of bacteria that were altered by anesthesia/surgery had returned to baseline [36]. This recovery in these 8 types of bacteria was not found in the group of VSL#3 without surgery. They also reported these changes in gut microbiota were correlated with deficits in reference memory. Yang et al. reported that 3 weeks of prebiotic treatment in advance of anesthesia/surgery significantly alleviated cognitive decline observed after surgery, and changed the beta diversity of the gut microbiome [35]. Liufu et al. also showed that anesthesia/surgery induced significant alterations in the components of gut microbiota in older mice. And the delirium-like behavior observed in these mice after anesthesia/surgery was mitigated by preoperative treatment with Lactobacillus (L.) salivarius and L. rhamnomus [17]. In another interventional study of probiotics conducted by Wen et al., the applying a Lactobacillus mix also reduced anesthesia/surgery-induced POCD in aged mice [37]. The remaining research associated with POD investigated the efficacy of fecal transplants on cognitive function [38]. In addition to a significant difference in the diversity of gut microbiota between POD and non-POD mice, they also reported fecal bacteria transplants from non-POD mice improved the abnormal postoperative behavior in the pseudo-germ-free mice. In contrast, the fecal transplants from POCD mice showed no significant effect. Another study that assessed the differences in POCD between mice with different fecal bacteria was conducted by Zhan et al. This study reported that the Dehalobacteriaceae family and the Dehalobacterium genus were potentially crucial for the diagnosis of POCD, and that these bacteria were significantly correlated with the results of their MWMT [16].

Table 1. Summary of perioperative interventional studies with pre- or probiotics in rodents.
First Author, Year Animal Model, Age Pre-/Probiotic Agent, Duration Main Results (compared with model group)
Yang, 2018 Sprague-Dawley rats
8 months old
Galacto-oligosaccharide perioerative 3 weeks Improved poestoperative cognitive performance in NOR test
Reduced Iba-1 positive cell in the hippocampus in immunohistochemical staining
Decreased of M1 phenotype microglia and suppressed microglial overactivation
Downregulated level of protein expression of IL-6 in hippocampus
Changes in microbial community towards potentially anti-inflammatory status
Jiang, 2019 POCD model
18 months old
VSL#3 (probiotic blend with 8 bacterial strains) preoperative 10 days and postoperative 7 days Preventative effects in reference memory in MWMT impaired by ansthesia/surgery
Altered beta diversity and differed 37 genera were revealed by 16S rRNA sequence
Potentially critical 8 types of microbial speices for the impaied reference memory were detected by 16SrRNA sequence and qRT-PCR
Liufu, 2020 Anesthesia/surgery model
9 and 18 months old
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG preoperative 20 days Anethesia/surgery induced age-dependent behavioral change in BFT, OFT, and Y-maze test
Probiotics attenuated delirium-like behavioral change induced by anethesia/surgery
Decreased level of proinflammatory cytokines in brain
Reduction of mitochondrial dysfunction in the hippocampus induced anesthesia/surgery
Wen, 2020 Anesthesia/surgery model
6 weeks and 18 months old
Lactobacillus casei CICC 6108 Lactobacillus rhamonsus GG Lactobacillus helveticus ND01 Sodium butyrate
4 weeks
Improved spatial memory learning ability in Y-maze test reduced after anesthesia/surgery
Increased expression of tight junction proteins between endothelial cells in the hippocampus
Decreased the blood-brain barrier permeability

Abbreviations used: POCD, postoperative cognitive dysfunction; MWMT, morris water maze test; OFT, open field test; NOR, novel object recognition; BFT, bried food test

Overall, these findings suggest that perioperative MTT therapies could lead to behavioral improvements by modulating gut microbiota composition.

Animal studies investigating non-perioperative cognitive changes

Here we summarize 11 non-perioperative interventional studies. Six studies used rodents in an AD model or drug-induced neuroinflammation model, 3 used SAMP8 mice, and 2 used dementia model mice [2, 16, 34, 3941] (Table 2). A previous study reported that rodents with cognitive decline have a significantly different composition of their gut microbiota compared with age-matched normal mice [42]. Chen et al. reported prebiotic supplementation improved the diversity of gut microbiota in AD model mice. Further, all of the studies with AD model mice succeeded in showing improvement in spatial learning and memory performance in hippocampus-dependent behavioral tests. Acetylcholine (ACh) and acetylcholine esterase (AChE) are the pathological targets of AD and cognitive dysfunction, including delirium. Some interventional studies showed increased ACh and decreased AchE.

Table 2. Summary of interventional studies with pre- or probiotics in rodents with cognitive decline.
First Author, Year Animal Model, Age Pre-/Probiotic Agent, Duration Main Results (compared with model group)
Liu, 2015 Vascular dementia model
6 weeks old
Clostridium butyricum
6 weeks
Improvement in spatial learning ability in MWMT
Increased diversity of intestinal bacteria in PCR-DGGE proflies
Increased level of SCFAs in the feces (p<0.01) and in the brain (p<0.05)
Increased the protein level of BDNF (p<0.01)
Musa, 2016 LPS-induced neuroinflammation model
8 weeks old
Lactobacillus fermentum LAB9 or Lactobacillus casei LABPC
4 weeks
Improved spatial learning and memory in MWMT (p<0.001)
Reduction of acetylechorineesterase activity in brain tissue (p<0.001)
Increased level of antioxidants (p<0.001) in brain tissue
Reduced level of proinflammatory cutokines (p<0.01) in brain tissue
Kobayashi, 2017 Alzheimer’s disease model
10 weeks old
Bifidobacterium breve strain A1
11 days
Amelioration of cognitive dysfunction in working memory and long-term memory in the Y maze test and passive avoidance test (p<0.05)
Elevated plasma level of acetate (p<0.05)
Suppressing effect on the hippocampal expression of inflammation and immune-reactive genes
Bonfilli, 2017 Alzheimer’s disease model (3xTg-AD)
8 weeks old
SLAB51 (probiotic blend with 9 live bacterial strains)
16 weeks
Improved hippocampus-dependent recognition memory in NOR test (p<0.05)
Increased fecal content of SCFAs (p<0.05) and reduced plasma concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines (p<0.05)
Increased plasma concentraions of gut hormones with neuroprotective effect (p<0.05)
Nimgampalle, 2017 Alzheimer’s disease model
12 weeks old
Lactobacillus plantarum MTCC 1325
60 days
Shortened escape latency time in MWMT (p<0.05)
Maintained healthy neurons with prominent nuclei inhistopathological examination
Increased the level of acetylchorine (p<0.05) and decreased level of acetylchorineesterase (p<0.05) in hippocampus and cerebral cortex
Chen, 2017 Alzheimer’s disease model
10 months old
Fructo-oligosaccharides from Morinda officinalis
4 weeks
Ameliorated the learning and memory dysfunction in MWMT
Maintained superior cell morphology in HE staining of the small intestine
Recovered the deficient indexes of the diversity of gut microbiota
Decreased the level of serum proinflammatory cytokines
Changes in antioxidative molecules in brain
Promoted secretion of neuroprotective neruotransmitters
Huang, 2018 Senescence Accelated Mouse Prone 8
16 weeks old
Lactobacillus paracasei PS23
12 weeks
Decreased anxiety-like behavior in OFT (p<0.05) and memory impairment in MWMT (p<0.05)
Increased level of dopamine, serotonin in striatum and hippocampus (p<0.05)
Higher levels of BDNF and anti-inflammatory cytokinesin the serum (p<0.05)
HIgher levels of antioxidative enzymes in the serum and in the hippocampus (p<0.05)
Corpuz, 2018 Senescence Accelated Mouse Prone 8
14 weeks old
Lactobacillus paracasei K71
43 weeks
Improved spatial learning and memory in Barns test (p<0.05) and fear-motivated learning and short-term memory in Y-maze test (p<0.05)
Increased level of serotonin in the serum and brain (p<0.05)
Increased expression of Bdnf mRNA and BDNF protein in the hippocampus (p<0.05)
Chunchai, 2018 Dietary-induced dementia model
13 weeks old
Xyo-oligosaccharide Lactobacillus casei
12 weeks
Attenuated gut dysbiosis by decreasing F/B ratio
Reversed hippocampal dysplasticity in fEPSP slope of LTP
Reduced ROS production, mitchondrial depolarization and swelling in brain
Preserved microglial morphology paramerters
Attenuated impairment of learning and memory in MWMT
Wang, 2019 Alzheimer’s disease model
9 months old
GV-971 (mixture of oligosaccharides)
3 months
Enhanced spatial learning and memory performance in MWMT
FMT from GV-971-treated mice resulted in decreased Th1 cells in the brain of recipient mice injected with aggregated Aβ
Decreased brain Th1 cells, microglial activation, and brain cytokines level
Reduced concentration of phenylalanine and isoleucine in the feces
Attenuated Th1-related neuroinflammation by the mechanisms listed above
Lin, 2021 Senescence Accelated Mouse Prone 8
3 months old
Lactobacillus plantarum GKM3
14 weeks
Increased lomg-term memory in the passive avoidance test (p<0.05) and learning memory in the active avoidance test (p<0.05)
Reduced level of oxidative stress in brain (p<0.05)
Less accumulated amyloid-β in brainin immunohistochemical examination (p<0.05)
Maintained arrangement of neurons, cell structure, and morphology in the hippocampus

Abbreviations used: SCFA, short-chain fatty acids; BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor; MWMT, morris water maze test; NOR, novel objective recognition; IL-, interleukin; FMT, fecal microbiota transplantation; Th1, Type1 helper T cell

On the other hand, the expression of dopamine (DA), serotonin (5-HT), and BDNF are generally believed to be associated with memory deficiencies [40]. Between studies with SAMP8 and those using dementia model mice, common findings were improvement in spatial learning and memory function, and increased levels of DA, 5-HT, and BDNF in serum and brain. In addition, elevated levels of SCFAs were commonly detected across models. SCFAs might affect the brain via direct humoral effects, endocrine and immune pathways, and neural routes [21]. Therefore, these findings suggest that MTTs may positively impact cognitive function by regulating neurotransmitters and SCFAs.

Gut-microbiota and MTTs on cognitive function in humans

Human studies investigating perioperative cognitive changes

To the best of our knowledge, one RCT conducted by Wang et al. [31] is the first and only clinical study examining the effect of perioperative MTTs on cognitive function in humans. These were elderly patients who underwent non-cardiac surgery. In this study, the patients were assigned to take oral probiotics (a combination of Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Enterococcus faecalis) or a placebo from hospital admission until discharge. The incidence of POCD was lower in the probiotic group than in the placebo group (5.1% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.046). In addition, their levels of plasma IL-6 and cortisol after surgery were lower, compared with the control group (IL-6: -117.90 ± 49.15 vs. -14.93 ± 15.21, P = 0.044; cortisol: -158.70 ± 53.52 vs. 40.98 ± 72.48, P = 0.010).

Human studies investigating non-perioperative cognitive changes

Over the past decade, some studies have suggested that MTTs may affect neurological disorders. However, these have looked primarily at psychiatric disorders such as anxiety, mood disorders, and depression [2, 43]. Yet, some studies and systematic reviews have recently reported the association between gut-microbiota or MTTs and cognitive frailty [44, 45]. Most of these associations include effects on MCI, AD, Parkinson’s disease, and dementia (Table 3). An analysis of gut microbiota composition in AD patients showed that their microbiota had lower levels of bacterial strains with anti-inflammatory properties and a higher abundance of strains with pro-inflammatory properties [46, 47].

Table 3. Summary of interventional clinical trials on cognitive function in populations with cognitive disorders.
First Author, Year, Study Design Population Age(y), N Interventional Agent, Duration Main Results (compared with control group)
Akbari, 2016
Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled
Patients with Alzheimer’s disease 60–95
n = 60
Probiotic milf containing Lactobacillus acidphlius, Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus fermentum, Bifidobacterium bifidum
12 weeks
Approximately 30% greater improvement in MMSE score
Approximately 50% greater reduction of serum hs-CRP
Approximately 25% greater reduction of serum MDA
Improvement in insulin metabolism and lipid metabolism
Kobayashi, 2019
Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled
Elderly subjects withmemory complaints 50–80
n = 117
Bifidobacterium breve A1
12 weeks
Significant improvement in the subscale of ’immediate memory’ in RBANS and total score in MMSE in the subjects with low RBANS total score at baseline
Significant difference in total MMSE score and in the subscale of ’recall’ in RBANS in the high-score group
No significant differences in blood parameters
Hwang, 2019
Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled
Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment 55–85
n = 100
Lactobacillus plantarum C29-fermented soybean (DW2009)
12 weeks
Greter improvemet rate in the combined cognitive function (z = 2.36), especially
in the attention domain (z = 2.34) in the computerized neurocognitive function tests
Positive association between serum BDNF levels and the change of combined cognitive function
No significant differences in vital signs, boday mass index, and laboratory profiles
Tamtaji, 2019
Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled
Patients with Alzheimer’s disease 55–100
n = 79
Lactobacillus acidphlius, Bifidobacterium bifidum, Bifidobacterium longum, elenium
12 weeks
Approximately 20% greater improvement rate in MMSE score
Increased level of antioxdant molecules and decreased level of hs-CPR in blood
No significant differences in the level of oxdative molecules
Improvement in insulin metabolism and lipid profiles
Agashi, 2019
Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled
Patients with Alzheimer’s disease 65–90
n = 60
Lactobacillus fermentum, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Bifidobacterium longum, Bifidobacterium lactis, Bifidobacterium bifidum
12 weeks
Change rate between the scores in Test Your Memory test at the onset and the offset of the trial did not reach the statistical difference
No statisticaly significant affects on the level of inflammatory cytokines,antidxdant, or oxdative molecules
Xiao, 2020
Randomized, Double-blind, Placebo-controlled
Patients with Mild Cognitive Impairment 50–79
n = 80
Bifidobacterium breve A1
16 weeks
Approximately 30% greater improvemet rate in RBANS total score
Improvement in the domain of immediate memory, visuospatial/constructional, and delayed memory
Approximately 5% greater change rate in JMCIS score
Sanborn, 2020
Randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled
Community-dwelling adults including ones with cognitive impairment 52–75
n = 145
Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG
12 weeks
Significantly greater improvement in the NIH Toolbox Total Cognition Score compared with persons without cognitive impaiment
*Wang, 2021
Randomized, double-blind, placebo- controlled
Non-cardiac planned surgical patients 60–90
n = 120
Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Enterococcus faecalis From admission until discharge
(more than 7 days)
Approximately 70% lower incidence of postoperative cognitive impairment
Greater improvement in MMSE score
Decreased plasma level of proinflammatory cytokine and cortisol
No significant differences in postoperative pain, sleep quality, and gastrointesinal function recovery

Abbreviations used: MMSE, Mini-mental status examination; RBEANS, Repeatable Battery for Assessment of Neuropsycological Status, JMCIS; Japanese version of the MCI Screen test

hs-CRP, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein; MDA, malondialdehyde; BDNF, brain-derived neurotrophic factor

* perioperative study

Further, this alteration was associated with a shift in biomarkers of systemic inflammation toward a pro-inflammatory state [47]. Yet, some studies implied that such changes could be reversed through probiotic and prebiotic intake, or specific dietary changes, including a modified Mediterranean ketogenic diet [48] and lipid-rich milk [49]. An Interventional study for patients with AD who received a milk drink containing L. Lactobacillus, L. casei, B. bifidum, and L. fermentum for 12 weeks demonstrated improvement in the mini-mental state examination (MMSE) score, high sensitivity (hs-) CRP, and malondialdehyde (MDA), a product of oxidative stress [29]. Another study with AD patients that assessed the effects of combined use of selenium and probiotic agents including L. acidophilus, B. bifidum, and B. longum also increased MMSE scores [30]. In this study, patients taking selenium and probiotics had decreased levels of serum hs-CRP, insulin, and homeostasis model of assessment-insulin resistance (HOMA-IR). Dysregulation of glucose metabolism and insulin resistance have previously been reported to be linked to the pathogenesis and progress of AD [50]. On the other hand, a similar study of AD patients that examined changes in cognitive function and biochemical factors failed to detect positive effects of probiotic agents containing either Lactobacillus or Bifidobacterium [33]. The authors pointed out the severity of AD and its irreversibility in the loss of synapses and progression of neuro-frailty as a reason that might explain why the probiotics did not have any effect. Meanwhile, an RCT showed that L. plantarum C29-fermented soybean intake in individuals with MCI for 12 weeks improved cognitive function, especially with attention. These improvements were positively correlated with increased levels of serum BDNF [27]. Another study of 117 elderly subjects with memory deficits who took supplements of the probiotic B. breve for 12 weeks revealed a significant improvement in their subscale “immediate memory”, based on neuropsychological testing and MMSE [26]. Microorganisms, especially Bifidobacterium are known to have the capacity of producing propionate and modulating proper functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis (HPA), which is essential for cognitive processes such as learning and memory [20]. A study by Mohammadi et al., using probiotic yogurt and multispecies probiotic capsule supplementation for 6 weeks did not affect the HPA axis. However, mental health parameters, including a general health questionnaire (GHQ) and depression anxiety and stress scale (DASS) were significantly improved in the intervention group [51].

Discussion

Main findings

We investigated whether MTTs improve cognition in perioperative and non-perioperative settings. We identified 16 animal studies. They showed that MTTs had favorable effects on cognition in both perioperative and non-perioperative settings.

Among 8 human studies, only one study examined the effects of MTTs in perioperative settings. This study showed that the incidence of POCD was lower in the probiotic group than the placebo group. Six out of 7 non-perioperative studies showed improvement of cognition with the use of MTTs.

Epidemiology of probiotics

According to studies that assessed the administration of probiotics by physicians, 51% of medical doctors had advised probiotics to at least some of their patients in their practice [52]. One study showed that a growing number of inpatients received probiotics as part of their care in U.S hospitals [53]. In this study, the use of probiotics increased from 1.0% of discharged patients in 2006 to 2.9% of discharged patients in 2012.

Risks and benefits of probiotics

Table 4 shows a list of some commercially available products. There is a wide array of probiotic products, and the effectiveness and safety of particular products are often not objectively measured. In general, probiotics and prebiotics are thought by many to have health-promoting effects. However, a review paper published in 2019 reported that in some cases, adverse effects of probiotics had been reported. These include systemic infections, gastrointestinal side effects, skin complications, and endocarditis [54]. Most frequently reported is fungemia, caused by Saccharomyces cerevisiae and its subspecies, S.boulardii [5560]. S. cerevisiae (baker’s yeast) is a common colonizer of the human gastrointestinal system as a benign organism. It is used in Europe to treat and prevent C.difficile- associated diarrhea. Also, Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus have been reported as pathogenic germs [6167]. All reported fungemia or septicemia were detected in immunosuppressed patients, critically ill patients, and elderly patients. It should be noted that probiotics should be used cautiously in such patients. Further, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO), a metabolite of intestinal flora, has been shown to contribute to the pathogenesis of many diseases, including cardiovascular disease and AD [68, 69]. High circulating TMAO can aggravate postoperative hippocampal-dependent cognitive dysfunction through increased pro-inflammatory cytokines, microglial activation, and reactive oxygen species in aged rodents.

Table 4. Summary of risks, benefits, and examples of commercial products for major microbial genes.

Genus / Related Neurotransmitter Spieces/Strains Risk Benefits Exmaples of commercial products
Lactobacillus /GABA, Acetylecholine L. casei Infections Priventive effects of Influenza Cheese, Yogurt, Oat, Barley
including sepsis Decreased frequency of constipation Yakult fermented dairy drink
Mild gas Decreased risk of bladder cancer Danone® Actmel
L. paracasei Infections Peduced allergy Yakult fermented dairy drink
Relief of skin sensivity
L. acidophilus Increase in H.pylori eradication rate Greek yogurt/ Cheese
Decrease in antibiotics-related diarrhea Kefir/ Sauerkraut
Relief of irritable bowel syndrome Miso/ Tempeh
L. rhamnosus Attenuated seasonal allergy Dietary supplements
Improved vaginal health ATCC 7469 (Use for research purposes only)
L. gasseri Decreased H.pylori
Streptcoccuss / Serotonin Prevotella S. Thermophilus Infections Reduced antibiotics-related diarrhea Yogurt
Cheese
Dietary supplements
P. copri Associated with Associated with glucose tolerance, insulin resistance
rheumatoid arthritis
Bacillus / Noradrenaline, Dopamine B. Coagulans Enhanced Immune system Muesli,Cereal bars
Improved vaginal health Kimuchi
Kombucha
Bifidobacterium / GABA B.longum Prevention of carcinogenesis Breast milk, Yogurt, Cheese
Mushrooms, Artichoke, Broccoli,
Beetroot, and Seaweed
B. breve Reduced symptoms of inflammatory bowel disease
B. bifidum Reduced risk of infection from food borne pathogens
Saccharomyses / Noradrenaline S. boulardii Prevention in C. difficile-related diarrhea Dietary Supplement

Neuroinflammation, aging, and POCD

It is well established epidemiologically, that aging, pre-existing cerebrovascular disease, alcohol intake, opioid use, and low educational level are associated with POCD [12]. The activation of the HPA and cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathway (in response to surgical stress) are also potential perioperative factors [13, 15]. Recently, neuroinflammation is thought to be one of the important contributive mechanisms related to apoptosis and decreased synaptic plasticity and synthesis of neurons. Aging is associated with changes that induce a chronic low-grade pro-inflammatory environment, referred to as “inflammaging”. Inflammaging can result in disruption of the brain blood barrier (BBB), activation of microglia and astrocytes, and the transformation of microglial phenotypes from a resting state (M2) towards an inflammatory phenotype (M1), called microglial priming. Such alternation is dubbed ‘neruroinflammaging`. In addition to this underlying neuroinflammaging, surgery may cause additional systemic inflammation, resulting in damage to endothelial and perivascular cells by increasing the synthesis of TNF alpha via the activation of NFkB, and reducing tight junction proteins. All together, these effects aggravate the permeability of BBB [13]. Further, microglial priming likely contributes to the development of perioperative neuroinflammation, as microglial priming in the elderly tends to delay once stimulated by perioperative injury, producing cytokines, reactive oxygen species, and other pro-inflammatory modulators. Danger-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), such as the high-mobility group box 1 protein (HMGB-1) and S100 calcium binding protein (S100beta) are also reported to be involved in the development of postoperative cognitive deficits. Both surgery and anesthesia could drive the release of HMGB1 from dendritic cells and macrophages depending on the severity of tissue injury [13]. In parallel with activated microglia and astrocytes, a reduction of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) is also observed following surgery, along with alternations in neurogenesis, synaptogenesis, and neural plasticity. All these mechanisms could induce neuroinflammation after surgery in the areas crucial for cognitive function, such as hippocampus and striatum, leading to the development of POCD.

Microbiome-targeted therapy (MTT)

MTTs, especially supplementation using probiotic and prebiotic agents, have become of more interest in the last decade. According to the World Health Organization, probiotics are defined as ‘live microorganisms which when administrated in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit on the host’, whereas prebiotic is “a selectively fermented ingredient that results in specific changes in the composition and/or activity of the gastrointestinal microbiota, thus conferring benefit(s) upon host health”. Synbiotic refers to preparations where probiotics and prebiotics are combined. Microorganisms can survive gastric acid pH and bile in the gastrointestinal tract by adhering to the intestinal mucosa [70]. MTTs can be classified mainly into supplementation using probiotics and/or prebiotics; and fecal microbiota transplantation [7175]. In this discussion, we summarize the former. In the literature, probiotic and/or prebiotic supplementation has generally been intended to: (1) enhance gastrointestinal barrier function, (2) improve immunity to certain infectious bacteria, (3) improve colonization resistance, (4) reduce inflammation. These may contribute to reduction in gut pH, production of antimicrobial substances, agglutination of harmful bacteria, increasing of gut mucus secretion and intestinal protective substances such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) [76].

Benefits of MTTs on inflammation

Aging is associated with an overall chronic low-grade pro-inflammatory environment, termed “inflammaging” [77]. Age-related changes in the microbiome reduce the beneficial effects of gut microbiota due to decreased diversity and inflammaging, and contribute to the breakdown of the intestinal barrier, loss of bacterial containment, and chronic activation of the host immune system [78]. MTTs are expected to prevent bacterial translocation and pro-inflammatory modulators from circulating systemically, based on the mechanisms described in the previous section. In animal models with AD, dementia, or senescence-accelerated mouse prone 8 (SAMP8), both perioperative and non-perioperative interventional studies using probiotics and prebiotics consistently showed decreased levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, microglial activation, and oxidative status, including interleukin 6 (IL-6) and TNF-α (Tables 1, 2). There are a number of studies providing evidence that MTT reduces inflammation in humans. For example, a meta-analysis examined the effect of prebiotics and synbiotics on systemic inflammation and showed that prebiotics and synbiotic supplementation in populations with systemic disease was associated with decreased inflammatory markers, including CRP, IL-6, and TNF-α [79]. Other studies showed that in a perioperative setting, the use of probiotics in planned surgical patients showed the downregulation of markers such as IL-6, IL-1β, and CRP [8082].

MTTs and POCD

While the number of studies in this area has dramatically increased over the past ten years, it is not yet possible to accurately generalize or make conclusions about the effects of MTTs on cognitive impairment, including POCD. Given the clinical studies thus far using probiotics or prebiotics, MTTs can improve cognitive function in populations with cognitive decline such as AD and MCI. Cognitive impairment in AD or MCI usually progresses over time. POCD however, progresses over a shorter period. In this regard, one should be cautious in extrapolating these results to POCD.

In addition, while there is consensus that POCD refers to a broad spectrum of clinical conditions characterized by acute and persistent POCD, speed of processing, and executive functioning, POCD is not clearly defined by either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, International Classification of Diseases, or biomarkers. Numerous neurocognitive tests (e.g., Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test, Trail Making Test, Grooved Pegboard Test, Digit Span Test) have been used to assess different brain functions in the literature [83]. This heterogenicity adds more complexity to conducting research and drawing conclusions. Thus far, there is only one RCT using probiotics in humans in the literature. The ambiguous definition of POCD and the difficulties in scientifically comparing pre-and postoperative cognitive function in elderly patients could hinder the large-scale clinical adoption of probiotics and prebiotics.

Gaps in reported data, and recommendations

To better understand the impact of MTTs on cognition, it would be helpful to include the following data in future clinical studies:

  1. Duration and timing of MTTs: The current literature does not have sufficient data on the effective duration of MTTs on cognition. In the non-operative setting,12 weeks of MTTs in humans is commonly used. In the perioperative settings, probiotics were used from hospital admission to discharge in the study by Wang et al. Timing of MMTs, whether before surgery or after surgery, needs to be further explored.

  2. Types and dose of MTTs: Thus far, Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium species are commonly studied in both animal and clinical studies and have shown promise. Different types and combinations of strains and dosage levels need to be studied further.

  3. Assessment of baseline cognition: Assessment of patients’ baseline cognitive function should be evaluated before the administration of MTTs. Ideally, different domains of neurological function (e.g., memory, executive function) should be assessed. In addition, cognitive assessment should be performed in acute or sub-acute phases and months after surgery.

Limitations

There are limitations to this study. First, we excluded some articles because their abstracts or full text were unavailable online. However, it is possible that some of these articles have data relevant to this study. In addition, it is possible that our search terms did not capture all related articles. Second, several articles reporting the positive effects of MTTs here are obtained from animal studies. Nagpal et al. reported on host species-specific signatures of the gut microbiome in rodents and their similarities/differences from humans [84]. They showed that the mice microbiota appears closer to humans than rats based on β-diversity. They also demonstrated a higher Firmicutes–Bacteroidetes ratio in humans than in rodents. The human microbiota is dominated by Bacteroides, while the mouse gut is predominated by members of the family S24-7 and rats have a higher abundance of Prevotella. Also, fecal levels of lactate are higher in rodents than humans, while acetate is highest in human feces [84]. Given these differences between species, one should be cautious in applying the results to humans.

Final remarks

Still, given the reported evidence thus far, probiotic, prebiotic, and synbiotic therapies can improve the composition of gut microbiota and gut permeability that typically increases with aging. A synthetic graphical overview of possible pathways in the microbiome-gut-brain axis in POCD is presented in Fig 2. MTTs may improve surgery-induced inflammation by increasing the production of SCFAs. Further, microorganisms enhance the synthesis of beneficial neurotransmitters such as BDNF in brain regions crucial for learning and memory function, which could ameliorate bacterial translocation, systemic inflammation, or neuroinflammation. In this way, it may be possible for MTTs to reduce the severity of POCD; however, the evidence supporting MTTs is still premature. Therefore, further basic and clinical research, especially larger randomized controlled studies using different microbiome strains, dosage levels and their combinations. Also, studies using duration of administration as a variable with specific probiotic and prebiotic formulas, correlated to measurable biological and clinical outcomes relevant to cognitive impairment would allow more objective conclusions to be made.

Fig 2. A synthetic graphical overview of potential pathways in the microbiome-gut-brain axis in POCD.

Fig 2

Probiotics and other microorganisms that have reached the intestinal tract are taken up by M cells (membranous cells) in the upper layer of Peyer’s patches and captured by dendritic cells in the lower layer of Peyer’s patches. Information within the microbial antigens is recognized by toll-like receptors expressed on dendritic cells and transmitted to T cells. Probiotics may affect immune function through activation of T cells, proliferation of intestinal epithelial cells, promotion of IgA production, and suppression of inflammation. Treg, one of the major T cells in the intestinal tract along with Th17, secrete inhibitory cytokines in a gut-dependent manner. Meanwhile, SCFAs fermented from prebiotics are recognized by FFA2 expressed on immune cells. These SCFAs then reach the brain. SCFAs promote anti-inflammatory effects through the inhibition of histone deacetylases (HDACs) and the upregulation of IL-10. Further, some gut microbiota have the capacity of producing beneficial neurotransmitters and proteins such as serotonin, GABA, acetylcholine and BDNF. Thereby, supplementation with probiotics and prebiotics may lead to neuroprotective effects and a reduction in apoptosis of neurons induced by an inflammatory response due to surgical trauma.

Supporting information

S1 File. PRISMA checklist.

(PDF)

S2 File. Search strategies appendix.

(PDF)

S3 File. Protocol synopsis.

(PDF)

S4 File. Excluded studies.

(PDF)

S5 File. SYRACLE’s risk of bias tool for the interventional studies of probiotics and prebiotics and Cochrane risk of bias tool for the clinical interventional studies.

(PPTX)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Cryan JF, Dinan TG. Mind-altering microorganisms: the impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012;13(10):701–12. Epub 2012/09/13. doi: 10.1038/nrn3346 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Ticinesi A, Tana C, Nouvenne A, Prati B, Lauretani F, Meschi T. Gut microbiota, cognitive frailty and dementia in older individuals: a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging. 2018;13:1497–511. Epub 2018/09/15. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S139163 eCollection 2018. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Caracciolo B, Xu W, Collins S, Fratiglioni L. Cognitive decline, dietary factors and gut-brain interactions. Mech Ageing Dev. 2014;136–137:59–69. Epub 2013/12/18. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2013.11.011 Epub 2013 Dec 12. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mello AM, Paroni G, Daragjati J, Pilotto A. Gastrointestinal Microbiota and Their Contribution to Healthy Aging. Dig Dis. 2016;34(3):194–201. Epub 2016/03/31. doi: 10.1159/000443350 Epub 2016 Mar 30. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Elison E, Vigsnaes LK, Rindom Krogsgaard L, Rasmussen J, Sorensen N, McConnell B, et al. Oral supplementation of healthy adults with 2’-O-fucosyllactose and lacto-N-neotetraose is well tolerated and shifts the intestinal microbiota. Br J Nutr. 2016;116(8):1356–68. Epub 2016/10/22. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516003354 Epub 2016 Oct 10. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bostanciklioğlu M. The role of gut microbiota in pathogenesis of Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2019. doi: 10.1111/jam.14264 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nguyen TTT, Fujimura Y, Mimura I, Fujii Y, Nguyen NL, Arakawa K, et al. Cultivable butyrate-producing bacteria of elderly Japanese diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea). 2018;56(10):760–71. doi: 10.1007/s12275-018-8297-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Schlegel P, Novotny M, Klimova B, Valis M. "Muscle-Gut-Brain Axis": Can Physical Activity Help Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease Due to Microbiome Modulation? Journal of Alzheimer’s disease: JAD. 2019. doi: 10.3233/JAD-190460 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Carranza-Naval MJ, Vargas-Soria M, Hierro-Bujalance C, Baena-Nieto G, Garcia-Alloza M, Infante-Garcia C, et al. Alzheimer’s Disease and Diabetes: Role of Diet, Microbiota and Inflammation in Preclinical Models. Biomolecules. 2021;11(2). Epub 2021/02/14. doi: 10.3390/biom11020262 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Xu X, Hu Y, Yan E, Zhan G, Liu C, Yang C. Perioperative neurocognitive dysfunction: thinking from the gut? Aging (Albany NY). 2020;12(15):15797–817. Epub 2020/08/18. doi: 10.18632/aging.103738 Epub 2020 Aug 15. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Subramaniyan S, Terrando N. Neuroinflammation and Perioperative Neurocognitive Disorders. Anesth Analg. 2019;128(4):781–8. Epub 2019/03/19. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004053 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Skvarc DR, Berk M, Byrne LK, Dean OM, Dodd S, Lewis M, et al. Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction: An exploration of the inflammatory hypothesis and novel therapies. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2018;84:116–33. Epub 2017/11/29. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.011 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Alam A, Hana Z, Jin Z, Suen KC, Ma D. Surgery, neuroinflammation and cognitive impairment. EBioMedicine. 2018;37:547–56. Epub 2018/10/24. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.10.021 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Camfield DA, Owen L, Scholey AB, Pipingas A, Stough C. Dairy constituents and neurocognitive health in ageing. British Journal of Nutrition. 2011;106(2):159–74. doi: 10.1017/S0007114511000158 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cascella M, Muzio MR, Bimonte S, Cuomo A, Jakobsson JG. Postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction: updates in pathophysiology, potential translational approaches to clinical practice and further research perspectives. Minerva Anestesiol. 2018;84(2):246–60. Epub 2017/10/07. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.17.12146-2 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Zhan G, Hua D, Huang N, Wang Y, Li S, Zhou Z, et al. Anesthesia and surgery induce cognitive dysfunction in elderly male mice: the role of gut microbiota. Aging. 2019;11(6):1778–90. Epub 2019/03/25. doi: 10.18632/aging.101871 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Liufu N, Liu L, Shen S, Jiang Z, Dong Y, Wang Y, et al. Anesthesia and surgery induce age-dependent changes in behaviors and microbiota. Aging (Albany NY). 2020;12(2):1965–86. Epub 2020/01/25. doi: 10.18632/aging.102736 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Park SS, Kim B, Kim MJ, Roh SJ, Park SC, Kim BC, et al. The effect of curative resection on fecal microbiota in patients with colorectal cancer: a prospective pilot study. Ann Surg Treat Res. 2020;99(1):44–51. Epub 2020/07/18. doi: 10.4174/astr.2020.99.1.44 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Lukovic E, Moitra VK, Freedberg DE. The microbiome: implications for perioperative and critical care. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2019;32(3):412–20. Epub 2019/03/30. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0000000000000734 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Novotny M, Klimova B, Valis M. Microbiome and Cognitive Impairment: Can Any Diets Influence Learning Processes in a Positive Way? Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2019;11. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Dalile B, Van Oudenhove L, Vervliet B, Verbeke K. The role of short-chain fatty acids in microbiota-gut-brain communication. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16(8):461–78. Epub 2019/05/28. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0157-3 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Manzanares W, Lemieux M, Langlois PL, Wischmeyer PE. Probiotic and synbiotic therapy in critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2016;19:262. Epub 2015/01/01. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1434-y . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. Epub 2019/08/30. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Hooijmans CR, Rovers MM, de Vries RB, Leenaars M, Ritskes-Hoitinga M, Langendam MW. SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14:43. Epub 2014/03/29. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-43 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Ma LL, Wang YY, Yang ZH, Huang D, Weng H, Zeng XT. Methodological quality (risk of bias) assessment tools for primary and secondary medical studies: what are they and which is better? Mil Med Res. 2020;7(1):7. Epub 2020/03/01. doi: 10.1186/s40779-020-00238-8 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Kobayashi Y, Kuhara T, Oki M, Xiao JZ. Effects of Bifidobacterium breve A1 on the cognitive function of older adults with memory complaints: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Benef Microbes. 2019;10(5):511–20. Epub 2019/05/16. doi: 10.3920/BM2018.0170 Epub 2019 May 15. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hwang YH, Park S, Paik JW, Chae SW, Kim DH, Jeong DG, et al. Efficacy and Safety of Lactobacillus Plantarum C29-Fermented Soybean (DW2009) in Individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A 12-Week, Multi-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. Nutrients. 2019;11(2). Epub 2019/02/06. doi: 10.3390/nu11020305 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Xiao J, Katsumata N, Bernier F, Ohno K, Yamauchi Y, Odamaki T, et al. Probiotic Bifidobacterium breve in Improving Cognitive Functions of Older Adults with Suspected Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial. J Alzheimers Dis. 2020;77(1):139–47. Epub 2020/07/06. doi: 10.3233/JAD-200488 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Akbari E, Asemi Z, Kakhaki RD, Bahmani F, Kouchaki E, Tamtaji OR, et al. Effect of probiotic supplementation on cognitive function and metabolic status in Alzheimer’s disease: A randomized, double-blind and controlled trial. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2016;8(NOV). doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2016.00256 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Tamtaji OR, Heidari-Soureshjani R, Mirhosseini N, Kouchaki E, Bahmani F, Aghadavod E, et al. Probiotic and selenium co-supplementation, and the effects on clinical, metabolic and genetic status in Alzheimer’s disease: A randomized, double-blind, controlled trial. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(6):2569–75. Epub 2019/01/16. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.11.034 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wang P, Yin X, Chen G, Li L, Le Y, Xie Z, et al. Perioperative probiotic treatment decreased the incidence of postoperative cognitive impairment in elderly patients following non-cardiac surgery: A randomised double-blind and placebo-controlled trial. Clin Nutr. 2021;40(1):64–71. Epub 2020/05/27. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2020.05.001 Epub 2020 May 11. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Sanborn V, Azcarate-Peril MA, Updegraff J, Manderino L, Gunstad J. Randomized Clinical Trial Examining the Impact of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG Probiotic Supplementation on Cognitive Functioning in Middle-aged and Older Adults. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat. 2020;16:2765–77. Epub 2020/11/24. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S270035 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Agahi A, Hamidi GA, Daneshvar R, Hamdieh M, Soheili M, Alinaghipour A, et al. Does Severity of Alzheimer’s Disease Contribute to Its Responsiveness to Modifying Gut Microbiota? A Double Blind Clinical Trial. Front Neurol. 2018;9:662. Epub 2018/08/31. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00662 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Wang X, Sun G, Feng T, Zhang J, Huang X, Wang T, et al. Sodium oligomannate therapeutically remodels gut microbiota and suppresses gut bacterial amino acids-shaped neuroinflammation to inhibit Alzheimer’s disease progression. Cell research. 2019;29(10):787–803. Epub 2019/09/07. doi: 10.1038/s41422-019-0216-x Epub 2019 Sep 6. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Yang XD, Wang LK, Wu HY, Jiao L. Effects of prebiotic galacto-oligosaccharide on postoperative cognitive dysfunction and neuroinflammation through targeting of the gut-brain axis. BMC anesthesiology. 2018;18(1):177. Epub 2018/12/01. doi: 10.1186/s12871-018-0642-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Jiang XL, Gu XY, Zhou XX, Chen XM, Zhang X, Yang YT, et al. Intestinal dysbacteriosis mediates the reference memory deficit induced by anaesthesia/surgery in aged mice. Brain, behavior, and immunity. 2019;80:605–15. Epub 2019/05/08. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2019.05.006 Epub 2019 May 4. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wen J, Ding Y, Wang L, Xiao Y. Gut microbiome improves postoperative cognitive function by decreasing permeability of the blood-brain barrier in aged mice. Brain Res Bull. 2020;164:249–56. Epub 2020/09/09. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2020.08.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Zhang J, Bi JJ, Guo GJ, Yang L, Zhu B, Zhan GF, et al. Abnormal composition of gut microbiota contributes to delirium-like behaviors after abdominal surgery in mice. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2019;25(6):685–96. Epub 2019/01/27. doi: 10.1111/cns.13103 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Corpuz HM, Ichikawa S, Arimura M, Mihara T, Kumagai T, Mitani T, et al. Long-Term Diet Supplementation with Lactobacillus paracasei K71 Prevents Age-Related Cognitive Decline in Senescence-Accelerated Mouse Prone 8. Nutrients. 2018;10(6). doi: 10.3390/nu10060762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Huang SY, Chen LH, Wang MF, Hsu CC, Chan CH, Li JX, et al. Lactobacillus paracasei PS23 Delays Progression of Age-Related Cognitive Decline in Senescence Accelerated Mouse Prone 8 (SAMP8) Mice. Nutrients. 2018;10(7). doi: 10.3390/nu10070894 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Lin SW, Tsai YS, Chen YL, Wang MF, Chen CC, Lin WH, et al. Lactobacillus plantarum GKM3 Promotes Longevity, Memory Retention, and Reduces Brain Oxidation Stress in SAMP8 Mice. Nutrients. 2021;13(8). Epub 2021/08/28. doi: 10.3390/nu13082860 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhan GF, Yang N, Li S, Huang NN, Fang X, Zhang J, et al. Abnormal gut microbiota composition contributes to cognitive dysfunction in SAMP8 mice. Aging-Us. 2018;10(6):1257–67. doi: 10.18632/aging.101464 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Huang R, Wang K, Hu J. Effect of Probiotics on Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients. 2016;8(8). Epub 2016/08/12. doi: 10.3390/nu8080483 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Coutts L, Ibrahim K, Tan QY, Lim SER, Cox NJ, Roberts HC. Can probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics improve functional outcomes for older people: a systematic review. Eur Geriatr Med. 2020;11(6):975–93. Epub 2020/09/26. doi: 10.1007/s41999-020-00396-x Epub 2020 Sep 24. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Białecka-Dębek A, Granda D, Szmidt MK, Zielińska D. Gut Microbiota, Probiotic Interventions, and Cognitive Function in the Elderly: A Review of Current Knowledge. Nutrients. 2021;13(8). Epub 2021/08/28. doi: 10.3390/nu13082514 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zhuang ZQ, Shen LL, Li WW, Fu X, Zeng F, Gui L, et al. Gut Microbiota is Altered in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease. Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease. 2018;63(4):1337–46. doi: 10.3233/JAD-180176 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Provasi S, Cattaneo A, Cattane N, Galluzzi S, Lopizzo N, Plazzotta G, et al. Association of brain amyloidosis with pro-inflammatory gut bacterial strains and peripheral inflammation markers in cognitively impaired elderly. European Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016;26:S649–S50. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Nagpal R, Neth BJ, Wang S, Craft S, Yadav H. Modified Mediterranean-ketogenic diet modulates gut microbiome and short-chain fatty acids in association with Alzheimer’s disease markers in subjects with mild cognitive impairment. EBioMedicine. 2019;47:529–42. Epub 2019/09/04. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2019.08.032 Epub 2019 Aug 30. . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Scholey AB, Camfield DA, Hughes ME, Woods W, Ck KS, White DJ, et al. A randomized controlled trial investigating the neurocognitive effects of Lacprodan® PL-20, a phospholipid-rich milk protein concentrate, in elderly participants with age-associated memory impairment: the Phospholipid Intervention for Cognitive Ageing Reversal (PLICAR): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2013;14:404. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-14-404 CN-01015443. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Arrieta-Cruz I, Gutierrez-Juarez R. The Role of Insulin Resistance and Glucose Metabolism Dysregulation in the Development of Alzheimer s Disease. Rev Invest Clin. 2016;68(2):53–8. Epub 2016/04/23. . [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Mohammadi AA, Jazayeri S, Khosravi-Darani K, Solati Z, Mohammadpour N, Asemi Z, et al. The effects of probiotics on mental health and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in petrochemical workers. Nutr Neurosci. 2016;19(9):387–95. Epub 2015/04/17. doi: 10.1179/1476830515Y.0000000023 Epub 2015 Apr 16. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Flach J, Dias ASM, Rademaker SHM, van der Waal MB, Claassen E, Larsen OFA. Medical doctors’ perceptions on probiotics: Lack of efficacy data hampers innovation. PharmaNutrition. 2017;5(3):103–8. doi: 10.1016/j.phanu.2017.06.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Yi SH, Jernigan JA, McDonald LC. Prevalence of probiotic use among inpatients: A descriptive study of 145 U.S. hospitals. American Journal of Infection Control. 2016;44(5):548–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ajic.2015.12.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sotoudegan F, Daniali M, Hassani S, Nikfar S, Abdollahi M. Reappraisal of probiotics’ safety in human. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2019;129:22–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2019.04.032 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Hennequin C, Kauffmann-Lacroix C, Jobert A, Viard JP, Ricour C, Jacquemin JL, et al. Possible role of catheters in Saccharomyces boulardii fungemia. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2000;19(1):16–20. Epub 2000/03/08. doi: 10.1007/s100960050003 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Munoz P, Bouza E, Cuenca-Estrella M, Eiros JM, Perez MJ, Sanchez-Somolinos M, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia: an emerging infectious disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2005;40(11):1625–34. Epub 2005/05/13. doi: 10.1086/429916 Epub 2005 Apr 25. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Eren Z, Gürol Y, Sönmezoǧlu M, Eren HŠ, Çelik G, Kantarci G. Saccharomyces cerevisiae Fungemia in an elderly patient following probiotic treatment. Mikrobiyoloji Bulteni. 2014;48(2):351–5. doi: 10.5578/mb.6970 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Santino I, Alari A, Bono S, Teti E, Marangi M, Bernardini A, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia, a possible consequence of the treatment of Clostridium difficile colitis with a probioticum. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2014;27(1):143–6. Epub 2014/03/29. doi: 10.1177/039463201402700120 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Appel-da-Silva MC, Narvaez GA, Perez LRR, Drehmer L, Lewgoy J. Saccharomyces cerevisiae var. boulardii fungemia following probiotic treatment. Medical Mycology Case Reports. 2017;18:15–7. doi: 10.1016/j.mmcr.2017.07.007 erck. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kara I, Yildirim F, Ozgen O, Erganis S, Aydogdu M, Dizbay M, et al. Saccharomyces cerevisiae fungemia after probiotic treatment in an intensive care unit patient. J Mycol Med. 2018;28(1):218–21. Epub 2017/11/15. doi: 10.1016/j.mycmed.2017.09.003 Epub 2017 Nov 11. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Zein EF, Karaa S, Chemaly A, Saidi I, Daou-Chahine W, Rohban R. [Lactobacillus rhamnosus septicemia in a diabetic patient associated with probiotic use: a case report]. Ann Biol Clin (Paris). 2008;66(2):195–8. Epub 2008/04/09. doi: 10.1684/abc.2008.0210 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Mehta A, Rangarajan S, Borate U. A cautionary tale for probiotic use in hematopoietic SCT patients-Lactobacillus acidophilus sepsis in a patient with mantle cell lymphoma undergoing hematopoietic SCT. Bone Marrow Transplantation. 2013;48(3):461–2. doi: 10.1038/bmt.2012.153 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Bagwan N, Bhanot N. Bacteremia secondary to bifidobacterium longum: A rare entity. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice. 2014;22(4):e100–e2. doi: 10.1097/IPC.0000000000000158 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Jones CW, Low T, Milne B. Lactobacillus infection of total hip arthroplasty after probiotic ingestion. Infectious Diseases in Clinical Practice. 2014;22(4):e86–e8. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Meini S, Laureano R, Fani L, Tascini C, Galano A, Antonelli A, et al. Breakthrough Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG bacteremia associated with probiotic use in an adult patient with severe active ulcerative colitis: case report and review of the literature. Infection. 2015;43(6):777–81. Epub 2015/05/31. doi: 10.1007/s15010-015-0798-2 Epub 2015 May 30. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Haghighat L, Crum-Cianflone NF. The potential risks of probiotics among HIV-infected persons: Bacteraemia due to Lactobacillus acidophilus and review of the literature. Int J STD AIDS. 2016;27(13):1223–30. Epub 2016/10/30. doi: 10.1177/0956462415590725 Epub 2015 Jun 30. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Kato K, Funabashi N, Takaoka H, Kohno H, Kishimoto T, Nakatani Y, et al. Lactobacillus paracasei endocarditis in a consumer of probiotics with advanced and severe bicuspid aortic valve stenosis complicated with diffuse left ventricular mid-layer fibrosis. International Journal of Cardiology. 2016;224:157–61. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2016.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Capurso L. Thirty Years of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG A Review. Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology. 2019;53:S1–S41. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001170 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Vogt NM, Romano KA, Darst BF, Engelman CD, Johnson SC, Carlsson CM, et al. The gut microbiota-derived metabolite trimethylamine N-oxide is elevated in Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimers Res Ther. 2018;10(1):124. Epub 2018/12/24. doi: 10.1186/s13195-018-0451-2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Corpino M. Microbiota and probiotics. Journal of Pediatric and Neonatal Individualized Medicine. 2017;6(2). doi: 10.7363/060205 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Wei Y, Gong J, Zhu W, Guo D, Gu L, Li N, et al. Fecal microbiota transplantation restores dysbiosis in patients with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus enterocolitis. BMC Infect Dis. 2015;15:265. Epub 2015/07/15. doi: 10.1186/s12879-015-0973-1 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Wei Y, Yang J, Wang J, Yang Y, Huang J, Gong H, et al. Successful treatment with fecal microbiota transplantation in patients with multiple organ dysfunction syndrome and diarrhea following severe sepsis. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):332. Epub 2016/10/19. doi: 10.1186/s13054-016-1491-2 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Vaughn BP, Vatanen T, Allegretti JR, Bai A, Xavier RJ, Korzenik J, et al. Increased Intestinal Microbial Diversity Following Fecal Microbiota Transplant for Active Crohn’s Disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016;22(9):2182–90. Epub 2016/08/20. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000893 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74.de Groot PF, Frissen MN, de Clercq NC, Nieuwdorp M. Fecal microbiota transplantation in metabolic syndrome: History, present and future. Gut Microbes. 2017;8(3):253–67. doi: 10.1080/19490976.2017.1293224 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Orenstein R, King K, Patron RL, DiBaise JK, Etzioni D. Mini-Fecal Microbiota Transplantation for Treatment of Clostridium difficile Proctitis Following Total Colectomy. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):299–300. Epub 2017/10/12. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix736 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Malaguarnera G, Leggio F, Vacante M, Motta M, Giordano M, Biondi A, et al. Probiotics in the gastrointestinal diseases of the elderly. Journal of Nutrition, Health and Aging. 2012;16(4):402–10. doi: 10.1007/s12603-011-0357-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Calder PC, Bosco N, Bourdet-Sicard R, Capuron L, Delzenne N, Dore J, et al. Health relevance of the modification of low grade inflammation in ageing (inflammageing) and the role of nutrition. Ageing Research Reviews. 2017;40:95–119. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2017.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78.McCullough L. The aging brain. FASEB Journal. 2015;29(1). [Google Scholar]
  • 79.McLoughlin RF, Berthon BS, Jensen ME, Baines KJ, Wood LG. Short-chain fatty acids, prebiotics, synbiotics, and systemic inflammation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Nutr. 2017;106(3):930–45. Epub 2017/08/11. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.117.156265 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Zhang JW, Du P, Gao J, Yang BR, Fang WJ, Ying CM. Preoperative probiotics decrease postoperative infectious complications of colorectal cancer. Am J Med Sci. 2012;343(3):199–205. Epub 2011/12/27. doi: 10.1097/MAJ.0b013e31823aace6 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Consoli ML, da Silva RS, Nicoli JR, Bruna-Romero O, da Silva RG, de Vasconcelos Generoso S, et al. Randomized Clinical Trial: Impact of Oral Administration of Saccharomyces boulardii on Gene Expression of Intestinal Cytokines in Patients Undergoing Colon Resection. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(8):1114–21. Epub 2015/04/29. doi: 10.1177/0148607115584387 Epub 2015 Apr 27. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Liu WC, Zhan YP, Wang XH, Hou BC, Huang J, Chen SB. Comprehensive preoperative regime of selective gut decontamination in combination with probiotics, and smectite for reducing endotoxemia and cytokine activation during cardiopulmonary bypass: A pilot randomized, controlled trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(46):e12685. Epub 2018/11/16. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012685 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Rundshagen I. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2014;111(8):119–25. Epub 2014/03/14. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2014.0119 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84.Nagpal R, Wang S, Solberg Woods LC, Seshie O, Chung ST, Shively CA, et al. Comparative Microbiome Signatures and Short-Chain Fatty Acids in Mouse, Rat, Non-human Primate, and Human Feces. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2897. Epub 2018/12/18. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02897 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Alessandro Putzu

2 Feb 2022

PONE-D-21-36898The Effects of Microbiome-Targeted Therapy on Cognitive Impairment and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction - A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kinjo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 19 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments:

A number of issues have been identified in the review process. While we feel that this manuscript shows promise, we also think that a major revision is needed. Before we can make a final decision about this manuscript we want to offer you the opportunity to revise and resubmit the manuscript.

The study is original and interesting. I think that the methods section should be improved (reporting and clarity).

I have some comments:

1- Methods. It is unclear if the study followed a protocol and if the methodology was conceived before study start. Did you register the protocol before study start? The lack of a registered protocol is a major limitation that should be discussed.

2- Methods. The study included “aged” patients. Did you follow any cut-off? Any age limit?

3- Methods. How did you manage missing outcome data? Did you contact corresponding authors?

4- Methods. Supplemental details on risk of bias assessment should be reported in the supplementary material (e.g.: what other bias include? How did you finally rate a study? etc.)

5- Results. References of major exclusions should be included in the supplementary material.

6- Results. Much more details on risk of bias assessment should be reported in the supplementary material (full details on each item). The authors reported that all items of each study had low risk of bias; this is possible but very improbable.

7- Results. Overall risk of bias evaluations for each trial should be reported.

8- Discussion. The certainty of evidence supporting microbiome-target therapy is very low. This therapy that should be tested in large, randomized trials.

9- Discussion. A paragraph on study’s limitations should be included.

Minor comments:

1- Methods. I suggest to include a PRISMA 2020 checklist.

2- Results. A PRISMA 2020 flow-chart should be used.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The review is timely and full of novelty. The authors summarized the recent progress in the role of gut microbiota in PND and FMT used for prevention and treatment of PND. Although large number of studies showed that gut-brain axis plays a critical role in neuropsychiatric diseases, there is little evidence showing FMT for PND treatment. Several points should be addressed before accpetance.

1 As the authors maintained, neuroinflammation may be an important factor of PND. The question is whether neuroinflammation is caused by abnormal gut microbiota, or surgery-induced peripheral inflammation?

2 We know that FMT will not see significant changes in the short term. At least, the regulation of brain function by FMT is a chronic process. Is it better to treat before or after surgery?

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript “The Effects of Microbiome-Targeted Therapy on Cognitive Impairment and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction - A Systematic Review” from Kinjo et al. In this systematic review authors tried to answer the question: if microbiome targeted therapy can improve postoperative cognitive dysfunction(POCD)?

It is now known that Gut microbiota is linked to many illness and increasing research is focused on defining causal link and potential therapeutic applications. The idea is novel and important because currently we don’t have any therapies to prevent POCD. Overall writing is clear but methods/discussion can be improved.

Methods: should be more specific in the abstract. Was this systematic review registered? Readers will benefit from separate Exposure and outcomes section in the method. which probiotics/ how they are usually administered etc. A table showing risk/benefit/available commercial product [for human or experimental use], of MMT will be useful. This will highlight differences between various interventions.

Discussion: While the authors summarized the current research findings. They should discuss, based on the research, which specific MMT regimen shows promise and should be investigated further. The goal is to guide readers and researcher, what next? How these MMT should be studied?

Authors did write “further basic and clinical research, and more randomized controlled studies are needed that correlate specific probiotic and prebiotic formulas with measurable biological and clinical outcomes relevant to cognitive impairment” Some specifics should be added rather than a generalized statement.

Assessment of outcome, POCD is complicated by varied resource intensive methods, and should be discuss further. Also, how much improvement in POCD can result from MMT should be discussed. Given perioperative POCD pathophysiology is not fully understood.

“Please correct word spacing in tables”. The main results seem to be copy pasted. Please be consistent and specific, tell what improved and by how much (if possible) and was it significant?

Reviewer #3: In this manuscript Sugita and co-workers summarize the extant knowledge on prebiotic and probiotic therapy for cognitive impairment and POCD from published studies in humans and animals. Overall I think this article makes a valuable contribution and it is thoughtfully organized and well written. I have minor suggestions by section below:

Abstract:

1) The conclusion does not really convey much information other than a positive outlook on the use of microbiome interventions. The authors should either shorten it, or better yet offer some more sophisticated interpretation of their results.

Introduction:

1) Given that many of the studies reviewed here are conducted in animals, the authors should discuss the similarities and differences in human and animal model microbiota and they should give a clear understanding of the limitations and benefits of studies in each.

2) The authors should include a paragraph on what has been published in human and animal models about the changes in the microbiota that are seen in the perioperative setting due to surgery, anesthesia, oxygen, opiates, and other known causes of dysbiosis. It is important to set up for the reader why it is likely that disruption of the microbiota are a cause of POCD.

Methods

1) A reference should be given for the Cochrane risk and bias tool

2) It would be helpful and provide useful validation for this work if the authors cited other published studies that use similar literature review methodologies.

Results

1) It would be helpful if the authors came up with a diagram that summarized the various mechanisms by which dysbiosis is thought to alter cognitive outcomes that also includes some indication of how the interventions might have helped.

Discussion

1) It would be great if the authors could include a paragraph suggesting where the gaps are in the literature and what should be done next to address them. This is a really helpful feature of many reviews of this kind.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Chun Yang

Reviewer #2: Yes: Kamal Maheshwari

Reviewer #3: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Alessandro Putzu

15 Jun 2022

PONE-D-21-36898R1

The Effects of Microbiome-Targeted Therapy on Cognitive Impairment and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction - A Systematic Review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kinjo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Putzu, M.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments:

Thank you for your great work on the manuscript. I still have few comments.

1-Abstract. I suggest to report that you included animal and human studies.

2-Results. SYRCLE risk of bias results should be reported. Full details on each study should be reported in the supplementary material.

3-Results. The structure of the Results section is unclear and confusing in my opinion. Results should include systematic review results, an objective assessment of the evidence. Statements on potential effects or interpretation of the results shuld be moved to the discussion section.

I suggest to report results of systematic review in the Results section (“Gut-microbiota and MTTs on Cognitive Function in Rodents” and “Gut-microbiota and MTTs on Cognitive Function in Humans”).

In my opinion the paragraph “Neuroinflammation, aging, and POCD” and “Microbiome-targeted therapy (MTT)” may be moved in the discussion.

4-Supplementary material. No need to include the PROSPERO protocol in the supplementary material; it is online and freely available. Please remove it.

5-Supplementary material. The PRISMA 2020 checklist for the abstract is missing.

6-Supplementary material. The ‘Microbiome Exclusion-Final’ table should include information on major exclusions. Some more information allowing the retrieval of each manuscript should be reported (e.g.: first author + year of publication + doi; first author + year of publication + journal info; full reference according to journal style). The actual form (first author + year of publication) is not informative enough (the manuscripts could not be retrieved).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

********** 

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #3: N/A

********** 

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

********** 

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All the comments have been well addressed, and that the review will attract widely attentions and bring increasing interets in the topic.

Reviewer #3: In this article, Kinjo and colleagues conduct a systematic review to test the hypothesis based on published data that probiotics can improve cognitive outcomes after surgery. The review uses both preclinical and clinical data, which was an excellent choice in my opinion given that there is relatively little of either and that it opens up the opportunity to consider potential mechanisms. Overall, I am in favor of publication of this article, which I think will be a valuable contribution to the literature. I have a few brief comments below:

1. The introduction is considerably undercited. There is a wealth of literature on the gut and other microbiota and surgical outcomes that should be cited in a more complete fashion. Also, the authors note that anesthetics, analgesics, and antibiotics have effects on the microbiota but do not have any citations to back this assertion.

2. There are several other reviews of probiotics and surgical outcomes. It’s important to frame the introduction to distinguish how this manuscript is a valuable addition to the literature.

3. While systematic reviews of this kind are less common in animal models than in clinical studies and the practices for them are less clear, they should still attempt to conform to the better recognized approach for clinical studies. I would argue that the preclinical approach should also have been registered/deposited as well.

4. What is gray literature?

5. Can the authors provide some citations validating their methodology for assessing bias? Particularly as it relates to animal studies

6. The vast majority of studies were excluded due to lack of relevance. This does suggest the possibility that the search terms were not well designed for the study.

********** 

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Chun Yang

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Chan Chen

8 Sep 2022

PONE-D-21-36898R2The Effects of Microbiome-Targeted Therapy on Cognitive Impairment and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction - A Systematic ReviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kinjo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Reviewer 1:

The review is timely and full of novelty. The authors summarized the recent progress in the role of gut microbiota in PND and FMT used for prevention and treatment of PND. Although large number of studies showed that gut-brain axis plays a critical role in neuropsychiatric diseases, there is little evidence showing FMT for PND treatment. Several points should be addressed before acceptance.

1 As the authors maintained, neuroinflammation may be an important factor of PND. The question is whether neuroinflammation is caused by abnormal gut microbiota, or surgery-induced peripheral inflammation?

2 We know that FMT will not see significant changes in the short term. At least, the regulation of brain function by FMT is a chronic process. Is it better to treat before or after surgery?

Reviewer2:

In this manuscript Sugita and co-workers summarize the extant knowledge on prebiotic and probiotic therapy for cognitive impairment and POCD from published studies in humans and animals. Overall I think this article makes a valuable contribution and it is thoughtfully organized and well written. I have minor suggestions by section below:

Abstract:

1) The conclusion does not really convey much information other than a positive outlook on the use of microbiome interventions. The authors should either shorten it, or better yet offer some more sophisticated interpretation of their results.

Introduction:

1) Given that many of the studies reviewed here are conducted in animals, the authors should discuss the similarities and differences in human and animal model microbiota and they should give a clear understanding of the limitations and benefits of studies in each.

2) The authors should include a paragraph on what has been published in human and animal models about the changes in the microbiota that are seen in the perioperative setting due to surgery, anesthesia, oxygen, opiates, and other known causes of dysbiosis. It is important to set up for the reader why it is likely that disruption of the microbiota are a cause of POCD.

Methods

1) A reference should be given for the Cochrane risk and bias tool

2) It would be helpful and provide useful validation for this work if the authors cited other published studies that use similar literature review methodologies.

Results

1) It would be helpful if the authors came up with a diagram that summarized the various mechanisms by which dysbiosis is thought to alter cognitive outcomes that also includes some indication of how the interventions might have helped.

Discussion

1) It would be great if the authors could include a paragraph suggesting where the gaps are in the literature and what should be done next to address them. This is a really helpful feature of many reviews of this kind.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 1st, 2022. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chan Chen

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a timely, well organized, and well written review. All the questions have been addressed. The mansucript could attract attentions.

Reviewer #3: Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript. Comments have been addressed, I agree with publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Chun Yang

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 3

Emily Chenette

16 Jan 2023

The Effects of Microbiome-Targeted Therapy on Cognitive Impairment and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction - A Systematic Review

PONE-D-21-36898R3

Dear Dr. Kinjo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Emily Chenette

Editor in Chief

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Emily Chenette

23 Jan 2023

PONE-D-21-36898R3

The Effects of Microbiome-Targeted Therapy on Cognitive Impairment and Postoperative Cognitive Dysfunction - A Systematic Review

Dear Dr. Kinjo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Emily Chenette

Staff Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. PRISMA checklist.

    (PDF)

    S2 File. Search strategies appendix.

    (PDF)

    S3 File. Protocol synopsis.

    (PDF)

    S4 File. Excluded studies.

    (PDF)

    S5 File. SYRACLE’s risk of bias tool for the interventional studies of probiotics and prebiotics and Cochrane risk of bias tool for the clinical interventional studies.

    (PPTX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Editor comments-PLOS one.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS one reviewer comments 4-30-22-Final.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS -reviewer comments 7-7-SK.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: PLOS -reviewer comments 7-7-SK.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES