| Literature DB >> 35813939 |
Yvonne Suzy Handajani1, Yuda Turana2, Yogiara Yogiara3, Sagita Pratiwi Sugiyono4, Vincent Lamadong4, Nelly Tina Widjaja1, Geovannie Audrey Moniqe Christianto3, Antonius Suwanto3,5.
Abstract
Introduction: Oral consumption of probiotics can alter Gut Microbiota by causing changes in the production of probiotic derivatives. Therefore, by utilizing Gut-Brain-Axis (GBA), probiotics could provide an opportunity for central nervous system (CNS) modulation, including cognitive function. Tempeh is a traditional Indonesian food rich in probiotics and beneficial for cognitive function. However, the type of probiotics that play a role in cognitive improvement and the number of probiotics needed for the benefits of increasing cognitive function was unknown. Method: This experimental study involved a total of 93 subjects, divided into 3 groups: A, B and C/control (n: 33, 32, and 28), who were provided with probiotic supplementation isolated from tempeh for 12 weeks intervention. Inclusion criteria were age > 60 years, and memory impairment with the third repetition value of Word List Memory Immediate Recall (WLMIR) < 7. Subjects with diabetes were excluded. Cognitive function examinations were carried out before and after treatment. The tempeh-derived probiotics were prepared trough several processes. Genomic isolation, detection of GABA-encoding genes, and species identification using the 16S-rRNA gene encoding were performed.Entities:
Keywords: Limosilactobacillus fermentum; cognitive; elderly; probiotic; tempeh
Year: 2022 PMID: 35813939 PMCID: PMC9263263 DOI: 10.3389/fnagi.2022.891773
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Aging Neurosci ISSN: 1663-4365 Impact factor: 5.702
Primary sequences for gad gene detection.
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Lb-gadA-F | ATGAATAAAAACGATCAGGAAAC | Wu et al., |
| Lb-gadA-R | TTAACTTCGAACGGTGGTC | |
| Lb-gadB-F | ATGGCTATGTTGTATGG | |
| Lb-gadB-R | TTAGTGCGTGAACCCGTATT | |
| Lp-gadB-F | ATGGCAATGTTATACGGTAAACAC | |
| Lp-gadB-R | TCAGTGTGTGAATCCGTATTTC | |
| gadBFerm-1 | ATGTCACTTTACGGAAAGTACGACCAAG | Lin et al., |
| gadBFerm-2 | TTAGTGGGTAAAGCCGTACTTTTTCAGG |
Figure 1Consort flow chart of participants recruitment.
Demographic characteristics of group A, B, and Control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Age | ≥65 | 72 (77.4) | 26 (36.1) | 25 (34.7) | 21 (29.2) | 0.934 |
| 60–65 | 21 (22.6) | 7 (33.3) | 7 (33.3) | 7 (33.3) | ||
| Gender | Female | 60 (64.5) | 23 (38.3) | 18 (30) | 19 (31.7) | 0.026 |
| Male | 33 (35.5) | 10 (30.3) | 14 (42.4) | 9 (27.3) | ||
| Education | <9 years | 79 (84.9) | 29 (36.7) | 23 (29.1) | 27 (34.2) | 0.481 |
| ≥9 years | 14 (15.1) | 4 (28.6) | 9 (64.3) | 1 (7.1) | ||
Baseline cognitive scores of group A, B, and Control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| CDT | 93 (100%) | 0.61 | 0–2 (0) | 0.69 | 0–2 (0) | 0.86 | 0–2 (0) | 0.589 |
| WLMIR 1 | 93 (100%) | 2.21 | 0–5 (2) | 2.31 | 0–6 (2) | 2.64 | 0–5 (3) | 0.543 |
| WLMIR 3 | 93 (100%) | 3.88 | 0–8 (4) | 4.63 | 0–8 (5) | 5.18 | 3–9 (5) | 0.060 |
| Learning process | 93 (100%) | 1.67 | −2–4 (2) | 2.31 | −3–6 (2) | 2.54 | 0–5 (3) | 0.141 |
| Verbal fluency | 93 (100%) | 9.97 | 5–18 (10) | 11.47 | 4–24 (11) | 11.71 | 3–20 (12) | 0.309 |
Cognitive score differences between group A, B, and Control.
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| Executive function and visuospatial | CDT pre | 33 | 0.00 (0–2) | 0.083 | 32 | 0.00 (0–2) | 0.008* | 28 | 0.00 (0–2) | 0.257 |
| CDT post | 33 | 0.00 (0–2) | 32 | 2.00 (0–2) | 28 | 2.00 (0–2) | ||||
| Memory | WLMIR 1 pre | 33 | 2.00 (0–5) | 0.099 | 32 | 2.00 (0–6) | 0.002* | 28 | 3.00 (0–5) | 0.003* |
| WLMIR 1 post | 33 | 3.00 (0–6) | 32 | 3.50 (0–6) | 28 | 4.00 (1–7) | ||||
| WLMIR 3 pre | 33 | 4.00 (0–8) | 0.000* | 32 | 5.00 (0–8) | 0.017* | 28 | 5.00 (3–9) | 0.017* | |
| WLMIR 3 post | 33 | 6.00 (2–9) | 32 | 6.00 (0–10) | 28 | 6.00 (3–10) | ||||
| Learning process pre | 33 | 2.00 (-2–4) | 0.006* | 32 | 2.00 (-3–6) | 0.641 | 28 | 3.00 (0–5) | 0.946 | |
| Learning process post | 33 | 3.00 (-2–7) | 32 | 2.50 (0–6) | 28 | 3.00 (0–5) | ||||
| Language | Verbal fluency pre | 33 | 10.00 (5–18) | 0.034 | 32 | 11.00 (4–24) | 0.000* | 28 | 12.00 (3–20) | 0.436 |
| Verbal fluency post | 33 | 12.00 (4–18) | 32 | 14.50 (6–25) | 28 | 11.50 (0–25) | ||||
CDT, Clock Drawing Test; WLMIR, Word List Memory Immediate Recall.
.