| Literature DB >> 34062986 |
Xue-Jun Kong1,2, Jun Liu1,3, Kevin Liu1, Madelyn Koh1, Hannah Sherman1, Siyu Liu1, Ruiyi Tian1, Piyawat Sukijthamapan3, Jiuju Wang1, Michelle Fong1, Lei Xu3,4, Cullen Clairmont1, Min-Seo Jeong1, Alice Li1, Maria Lopes1, Veronica Hagan1, Tess Dutton1, Suk-Tak Phoebe Chan1, Hang Lee3,5, Amy Kendall1, Kenneth Kwong1, Yiqing Song6.
Abstract
Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a rapidly growing neurodevelopmental disorder. Both probiotics and oxytocin were reported to have therapeutic potential; however, the combination therapy has not yet been studied. We conducted a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 2-stage pilot trial in 35 individuals with ASD aged 3-20 years (median = 10.30 years). Subjects were randomly assigned to receive daily Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 probiotic (6 × 1010 CFUs) or a placebo for 28 weeks; starting on week 16, both groups received oxytocin. The primary outcomes measure socio-behavioral severity using the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS) and Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC). The secondary outcomes include measures of the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale, fecal microbiome, blood serum inflammatory markers, and oxytocin. All outcomes were compared between the two groups at baseline, 16 weeks, and 28 weeks into treatment. We observed improvements in ABC and SRS scores and significant improvements in CGI-improvement between those receiving probiotics and oxytocin combination therapy compared to those receiving placebo (p < 0.05). A significant number of favorable gut microbiome network hubs were also identified after combination therapy (p < 0.05). The favorable social cognition response of the combination regimen is highly correlated with the abundance of the Eubacterium hallii group. Our findings suggest synergic effects between probiotics PS128 and oxytocin in ASD patients, although further investigation is warranted.Entities:
Keywords: autism spectrum disorder (ASD); inflammation markers; microbiome; oxytocin; probiotics
Year: 2021 PMID: 34062986 PMCID: PMC8147925 DOI: 10.3390/nu13051552
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutrients ISSN: 2072-6643 Impact factor: 5.717
Figure 1Flowchart of overall study design and conduct.
Summary of subject demographics and clinical indices at baseline.
| Placebo | Probiotic | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Age (Mean ± SD) | 10.7 ± 4.76 | 9.85 ± 4.91 | 0.66 |
| Sex ( | |||
| Male | 11 (64.7%) | 15 (83.3%) | 0.38 |
| Female | 6 (35.3%) | 3 (16.7%) | |
| Ethnicity ( | |||
| Asian | 14 (82.4%) | 14 (77.8%) | 0.62 |
| Hispanic | 0 | 1 (5.5%) | |
| White | 3 (17.6%) | 3 (16.7%) | |
|
| |||
| GI Severity Index (Mean ± SD) | 3.33 ± 1.37 | 2.54 ± 2.03 | 0.18 |
| Stool Type (Bristol stool chart; | |||
| Type 1&2 (Constipated) | 1 (5.9%) | 1 (5.6%) | 1.00 |
| Type 3&4 (Normal) | 12 (70.6%) | 13 (72.2%) | |
| Type 5, 6, 7 (Loose Stool) | 3 (17.6%) | 3 (16.7%) | |
| ABC Standardized Score (T-score, Mean ± SD) | 278 ± 34.8 | 272 ± 30.2 | 0.38 |
| SRS Standardized Score (T-score, Mean ± SD) | 83.0 ± 12.1 | 82.3 ± 11.5 | 0.96 |
| CGI-S (Mean ± SD) | 5.12 ± 1.17 | 5.11 ± 0.90 | 0.97 |
* Continuous data was evaluated for p-values via the Wilcoxon rank-sum test while categorical data was evaluated for intergroup differences via the Pearson’s χ2-test with Yates’ continuity correction.
Summary of improvement in socio-behavioral measures. Data are presented as mean change ± SD.
| Improvement in Score (Mean Change ± SD) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | Probiotic | OXT | Probiotic + OXT | Probiotic | OXT | Probiotic + OXT | |
|
| |||||||
| Total Score | 15.00 ± 26.75 | 6.67 ± 26.00 | 12.33 ± 23.16 | −10.43 ± 31.91 | 0.48 | 0.84 | 0.077 |
| Irritability (S1) | 3.45 ± 6.67 | −0.92 ± 6.20 | 2.17 ± 3.97 | −2.43 ± 9.86 | 0.19 | 0.84 | 0.20 |
| Social Withdrawal (S2) | 1.82 ± 8.30 | 3.50 ± 6.36 | 1.67 ± 7.92 | −4.00 ± 10.26 | 0.46 | 1 | 0.28 |
| Stereotypic Behavior (S3) | 3.18 ± 4.38 | 1.17 ± 6.64 | 1.83 ± 5.78 | −1.29 ± 4.27 | 0.67 | 0.45 | 0.069 |
| Hyperactivity/Noncompliance (S4) | 5.64 ± 8.31 | 2.33 ± 8.91 | 5.50 ± 7.45 | −1.57 ± 10.50 | 0.34 | 0.84 | 0.16 |
| Inappropriate Speech (S5) | 0.91 ± 2.12 | 0.58 ± 1.78 | 1.67 ± 3.31 | −1.14 ± 3.02 | 0.66 | 0.80 | 0.20 |
|
| |||||||
| Total Score | 22.09 ± 23.71 | 12.31 ± 22.21 | 10.00 ± 24.71 | 4.88 ± 22.95 | 0.45 | 0.23 | 0.26 |
| Awareness | 1.18 ± 2.36 | 1.15 ± 2.58 | 1.33 ± 2.58 | 0.13 ± 3.04 | 0.86 | 0.96 | 0.28 |
| Cognition | 4.73 ± 4.54 | 0.92 ± 4.31 | 2.00 ± 5.18 | 0.38 ± 5.53 | 0.15 | 0.15 | 0.059 |
| Communication | 7.09 ± 9.45 | 4.46 ± 7.13 | 0.50 ± 9.09 | 2.00 ± 8.11 | 0.68 | 0.11 | 0.36 |
| Motivation | 3.27 ± 3.58 | 2.54 ± 4.96 | 2.83 ± 5.67 | 0.88 ± 6.15 | 0.77 | 0.61 | 0.16 |
| Mannerisms | 5.82 ± 6.82 | 3.23 ± 6.61 | 3.33 ± 6.09 | 1.50 ± 5.50 | 0.58 | 0.39 | 0.20 |
* Provided p-values are based on Wilcoxon rank-sum test between the mean improvement in score in the control group and the respective treatment groups.
Figure 2Proportion of subjects displaying improvement in CGI-I overtime among all subjects within a treatment condition. The z-test for equality of proportions is applied and the number of subjects displaying at least minimal improvement (CGI-I ≤ 3) in the control condition and the probiotic + OXT condition is significantly different (p < 0.05), while the changes of probiotic and OXT alone groups are non-significant, though a trend of improvement is seen in both intervention groups.
Figure 3SparCC network associations between genus-level gut microbiota between subjects receiving placebo and those receiving the active probiotic overtime, using a SparCC cutoff of 0.7. Placebo group V1 is baseline, V2 is after placebo, V3 is after placebo added OXT; probiotics group V1 is baseline, V2 is after probiotics, V3 is after probiotics added OXT. (A) SparCC co-occurrence network. Articulation points are marked as halos around the node. Hub score is indicated by the size of the node. (B) The number of lines or edges is significantly enriched in both the OXT alone and combination groups at visit 3 (Pearson’s χ2-test with Yates’ continuity correction, p < 0.005). (C) The number of articulation points is only significantly increased in the combination group at V3 compared to baseline number of articulation points (Pearson’s χ2-test with Yates’ continuity correction, p < 0.05).
Figure 4Heatmap of mean change in predicted functional profile based on gut microbiota abundance across four study groups. Shown changes in functional profiling indices demonstrated more changes in the combination group, although these changes are not significantly different when compared to the control group (p > 0.05).
Spearman correlations between the microbiota relative abundance and socio-behavioral parameters before treatment for all subjects.
| Clinical Feature | Microbiome Taxa |
| FDR * |
|---|---|---|---|
| ABC Inappropriate Speech (T) | −0.68 | 0.04247 | |
| SRS Communication (T) |
| −0.55 | 0.04282 |
| SRS Mannerisms (T) |
| −0.60 | 0.01753 |
| SRS Motivation (T) |
| −0.58 | 0.0645 |
|
| −0.58 | 0.0645 | |
|
| −0.56 | 0.0645 | |
| SRS Total Score (T) |
| −0.59 | 0.00767 |
* All presented correlations are significant at FDR < 0.1.
Significant correlations between primary outcomes and microbiota relative abundance in probiotic group and placebo group subjects based on Spearman’s rank correlation.
| Clinical Feature | Microbiome Taxa | Probiotic Group | Placebo Group | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||
| SRS Cognition T (V1) | 0.71 | 0.050 | 0.01 | 0.790 | |
| SRS Cognition T (V3-V1) | −0.97 | 0.005 * | 0.17 | 0.750 | |
| ABC Stereotypic Behavior T (V1) | Rikenellaceae (V3-V1) | 0.94 | 0.017 | 0.20 | 0.590 |
| 0.94 | 0.017 | −0.02 | 0.960 | ||
| Christensenellaceae R-7 Group (V3-V1) | 0.82 | 0.046 | −0.09 | 0.810 | |
| Ruminococcaceae UCG-002 (V3-V1) | 0.83 | 0.058 | −0.37 | 0.290 | |
* FDR < 0.1 based on screening of results.
Figure 5Summary of longitudinal serum marker changes and associated correlations. Absolute changes in serum OXT (A), S100B (B), and IL-1β (C) levels, comparing each treatment group against controls. Baseline serum S100B is positively correlated with ABC irritability T (D) and ABC hyperactivity/noncompliance T-scores (D’).