Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35278043›Full record

ReviewJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2022

Gut microbes and muscle function: can probiotics make our muscles stronger?

Muriel Giron, Muriel Thomas, Dominique Dardevet, Christophe Chassard, Isabelle Savary-Auzeloux

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 118 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
118citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
18.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

118 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 171 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Effects ofFrontiers in nutrition · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Efficacy ofNutrients · 2024
    Trial
  11. Eight Weeks ofNutrients · 2023
    Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

58 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Muriel GironUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, UNH, Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7696-7603
Muriel ThomasUniversité Paris-Saclay, INRAE UMR1319, AgroParisTech, Micalis Institute, Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Dominique DardevetUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, UNH, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
Christophe ChassardINRAE UMR0545, Unité Mixte de Recherche sur le Fromage, Aurillac, France.
Isabelle Savary-AuzelouxUniversité Clermont Auvergne, INRAE, UNH, Clermont-Ferrand, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3298-9787
Institut Pascal · FRAgroParisTech · FRInstitut National de Recherche pour l'Agriculture, l'Alimentation et l'Environnement · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evidence suggests that gut microbiota composition and diversity can be a determinant of skeletal muscle metabolism and functionality. This is true in catabolic (sarcopenia and cachexia) or anabolic (exercise or in athletes) situations. As gut microbiota is known to be causal in the development and worsening of metabolic dysregulation phenotypes such as obesity or insulin resistance, it can regulate, at least partially, skeletal muscle mass and function. Skeletal muscles are physiologically far from the gut. Signals generated by the gut due to its interaction with the gut microbiome (microbial metabolites, gut peptides, lipopolysaccharides, and interleukins) constitute links between gut microbiota activity and skeletal muscle and regulate muscle functionality via modulation of systemic/tissue inflammation as well as insulin sensitivity. The probiotics able to limit sarcopenia and cachexia or promote health performances in rodents are mainly lactic acid bacteria and bifidobacteria. In humans, the same bacteria have been tested, but the scarcity of the studies, the variability of the populations, and the difficulty to measure accurately and with high reproducibility muscle mass and function have not allowed to highlight specific strains able to optimize muscle mass and function. Further studies are required on more defined population, in order to design personalized nutrition. For elderly, testing the efficiency of probiotics according to the degree of frailty, nutritional state, or degree of sarcopenia before supplementation is essential. For exercise, selection of probiotics capable to be efficient in recreational and/or elite athletes, resistance, and/or endurance exercise would also require further attention. Ultimately, a combination of strategies capable to optimize muscle functionality, including bacteria (new microbes, bacterial ecosystems, or mix, more prone to colonize a specific gut ecosystem) associated with prebiotics and other 'traditional' supplements known to stimulate muscle anabolism (e.g. proteins), could be the best way to preserve muscle functionality in healthy individuals at all ages or patients.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeProbioticsSarcopeniaAgedCachexiaEcosystemHealth PromotionHumansMuscle, SkeletalReproducibility of ResultsAgeingAthleteCachexiaExerciseProbioticSarcopeniaSkeletal muscle

Identifiers

PMID35278043
PMCPMC9178375
OpenAlexW4220770163

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.