Exploring the Role of Gut Microbiota in Major Depressive Disorder and in Treatment Resistance to Antidepressants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common severe psychiatric illness, exhibiting sub-optimal response to existing pharmacological treatments. Although its etiopathogenesis is still not completely understood, recent findings suggest that an altered composition of the gut microbiota might play a role. Here we aimed to explore potential differences in the composition of the gut microbiota between patients with MDD and healthy controls (HC) and to identify possible signatures of treatment response by analyzing two groups of MDD patients characterized as treatment-resistant (TR) or responders (R) to antidepressants. Stool samples were collected from 34 MDD patients (8 TR, 19 R and 7 untreated) and 20 HC. Microbiota was characterized using the 16S metagenomic approach. A penalized logistic regression analysis algorithm was applied to identify bacterial populations that best discriminate the diagnostic groups. Statistically significant differences were identified for the families of Paenibacillaceae and Flavobacteriaceaea, for the genus Fenollaria, and the species Flintibacter butyricus, Christensenella timonensis, and Eisenbergiella massiliensis among others. The phyla Proteobacteria, Tenericutes and the family Peptostreptococcaceae were more abundant in TR, whereas the phylum Actinobacteria was enriched in R patients. Moreover, a number of bacteria only characterized the microbiota of TR patients, and many others were only detected in R. Our results confirm that dysbiosis is a hallmark of MDD and suggest that microbiota of TR patients significantly differs from responders to antidepressants. This finding further supports the relevance of an altered composition of the gut microbiota in the etiopathogenesis of MDD, suggesting a role in response to antidepressants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".