ArticleFrontiers in endocrinology2024
Association between gut microbiota and diabetic nephropathy: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study.
Article in Frontiers in endocrinology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gut Microbiota, Lipidome, and Metabolites Mediate Immune Dysregulation in Diabetic Microvascular Disease: A Two-sample Mendelian Randomization and Mediation Analysis.Endocrine, metabolic & immune disorders drug targets · 2026Article
- Unveiling the gut-kidney dialogue in diabetic kidney disease.World journal of diabetes · 2025Article
- Gut microbiota dysbiosis in diabetic nephropathy: mechanisms and therapeutic targeting via the gut-kidney axis.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To clarify the causal relationship between gut microbiota and diabetic nephropathy (DN), we employed Mendelian randomization (MR). Despite a strong correlation observed, establishing causality is still unclear. By utilizing MR, we aimed to investigate this relationship further and shed light on the potential causal effect of gut microbiota on DN. Methods: Genetic instrumental variables for gut microbiota were obtained from a GWAS with 18340 participants. DN summary statistics (1032 cases, 451248 controls) were sourced from a separate GWAS. The primary analysis used the inverse-variance weighted (IVW) method. Reverse MR analysis was conducted to explore reverse causation. Rigorous sensitivity analyses were performed to ensure the resilience and reliability of the study's findings. Results: We found two bacterial traits associated with an increased risk of DN: genus LachnospiraceaeUCG008 (OR: 1.4210; 95% CI: 1.0450, 1.9322; p = 0.0250) and genus Terrisporobacter (OR: 1.9716; 95% CI: 1.2040, 3.2285; p = 0.0070). Additionally, phylum Proteobacteria (OR: 0.4394; 95% CI: 0.2721, 0.7096; p = 0.0008) and genus Dialister (OR: 0.4841; 95% CI: 0.3171, 0.7390; p = 0.0008) were protective against DN. Sensitivity analyses consistently supported these results. In the reverse MR analysis, no statistically significant associations were observed between DN and these four bacterial traits. Conclusions: Our analyses confirmed a potential causal relationship between certain gut microbiota taxa and the risk of DN. However, additional studies are required to elucidate the underlying mechanisms through which gut microbiota influences the development of DN.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.