Microbiota as mediator and moderator of stress.
Microbiota as mediator and moderator of stress.
复制标题
微生物群作为压力的调节者和缓和者。
DOI：
10.1002/bies.202000277
复制
发表时间：
2021
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Weiss,Sandra
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Weiss,Sandra
我们体内的一些微生物会引起心理压力，而另一些微生物会增强我们的抗压力能力。这是Aktipis和Guevara Beltran在本期文章中的中心假设，b[1]以及这些可变的微生物群落从它们与我们（naïve宿主）的独特关系中获得了巨大的进化利益。越来越多的证据表明压力与微生物组的组成和多样性之间存在关系，尽管这种关系的因果方向及其潜在机制尚不清楚。本文提出的假设为可能解释这些关系的潜在过程提供了一个新的视角。总的来说，作者为他们的猜想提供了发人深省的支持，他们的正式假设与先前讨论应激传染概念以及宿主应激在微生物发病机制领域中的作用的文献一致。然而，作者以创造性的方式扩展和整合了先前与压力相关的微生物和进化概念。然而，这些假设所基于的许多前提值得进一步研究和发展。首先，许多被引用的研究仅仅是关联性的，排除了确定关系的方向性或任何因果关系的能力。作者既收录了表明压力诱导微生物变化的文献，也收录了表明微生物调节压力的文献。这些不同的途径需要更仔细地区分和研究，以便更好地了解微生物组的真正作用。其次，作者利用各种关于压力、焦虑、抑郁和其他类型心理困扰的研究来支持他们的假设。然而，这些不同的情绪状态有不同的表型和症状，可能对它们的微生物关系有不同的影响。需要更多的研究来确定可能与各种类型的心理困扰相关的微生物机制，以及那些可能是压力本身特有的微生物机制。第三，提出微生物可以通过三种主要方式影响压力：通过激活迷走神经（通过自主神经系统，ANS），通过破坏下丘脑-垂体-肾上腺（HPA）轴，以及通过免疫系统的调解。Aktipis和Guevara Beltram主要关注炎症变化；但是每一个压力反应系统都代表了主要的领域
Some of our body’s microbes induce psychological stress, while other microbes enhance our resilience to it. This is the central hypothesis of the article in this issue by Aktipis and Guevara Beltran,[1] along with the proposition that these variable microbial communities derive great evolutionary benefit from their unique relationships with us as their naïve host. There is growing evidence for the relationship of stress with the composition and diversity of the microbiome, although the causal direction of this relationship and its underlying mechanisms are not yet understood. The proposed hypotheses of this essay offer a novel perspective on potential processes that may explain these relationships. In general, the authors provide thought-provoking support for their conjectures, and their formal hypothesis is congruent with previous literature that has discussed the concept of stress contagion as well as the role of host stress in the field of microbial pathogenesis. However, the authors extend and integrate previous stress-related, microbial, and evolutionary concepts in creative ways.Nevertheless, many of the premises on which the hypotheses are based warrant further study and development. First, much of the research cited is only associational, precluding the ability to determine directionality of the relationships or any causal effect. The authors include both literature indicating that stress induces microbial changes, and literature suggesting that microbes modulate stress. These different pathways need to be more carefully distinguished and studied in order to better understand the true role of the microbiome. Second, the authors use varied studies of stress, anxiety, depression and other types of psychological distress to support their hypotheses. Yet, these various emotional states have distinctive phenotypes and symptoms, with potentially different implications for their microbial relationships. More research is needed to identify microbial mechanisms that may have relevance across a variety of types of psychological distress, and those that may be unique to stress per se. Third, it is proposed that microbes can affect stress in three major ways: through activation of the vagus nerve (via the autonomic nervous system, ANS), through disruption of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis, and through mediation by the immune system. Aktipis and Guevara Beltram focus primarily on inflammatory changes; but each of these stress response systems represents major areas