Table 4 Findings into difference in gut microbiome composition between CFS/ME and health controls
From: A systematic review of enteric dysbiosis in chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis
Reference | Increased microbial genera in CFS/ME vs HC | Decreased microbial genera in CFS/ME vs HC |
|---|---|---|
Armstrong et al. | Clostridium spp. (relative count, p = 0.020) | Total bacteria (absolute count, p = 0.005), total anaerobic bacteria (absolute count, p = 0.021), Bacteroides spp. (absolute count, p = 0.009; B. vulgatus and B. uniformis not significant) |
Frémont et al. *p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 | NC vs. BC: Roseburia (× 1.7*), Holdmenia (× 3**)—Norwegians higher Firmicutes | NC vs. BC: Bacteroides (× 0.36*), Alistipes (× 0.2**), Barnesiella (× 0.2**), Parabacteroides (× 0.26**), Prevotella (× 0.025**) |
NP vs. NC: Lactinofactor (× 20**), Alistipes (× 3.8*) | NP vs. NC: Roseburia (× 0.54*), Syntrophococcus (× 0.4*), Holdmenia (× 0.02**), Dialister (× 0.6*) | |
BP vs. BC: Lactinofactor (× 45**) | BP vs. BC: Asaccharobacter (× 0.25*) | |
Giloteaux et al. | Increased pro-inflammatory species, Proteobacteria (8%) family Enterobacteriaceae (6 vs. 3%) Note: reported ‘overall microbial composition for ME/CFS and controls differed at the phylum and family levels, although none of these were statistically significant after multiple test correction | Reduced phylogenetic diversity (p = 0.004) and relative abundance of Firmicutes (35%); reduced diversity overall; decreased anti-inflammatory species |
Mandarano et al. | Note: investigated Eukaryotes in gut microbiome Composition of Eukaryotic microorganisms was unique between individuals; differences in abundances of specific eukaryotes between CFS/ME and HC did not reach statistical significance at any level of taxonomy Gut eukaryote diversity was not different between CFS and HC | |
Rao et al. | Treatment vs. Placebo–treatment was 24 billion CFU Lactobacillus casei strain Shirota Moderate increases in total aerobes + anaerobes, significant increases in Bifidobacteria and Lactobacillus (significance not reported) between treatment and placebo groups from 0 to 8 weeks Note: these results were expected because the probiotics administered contained high levels of these bacteria | |
Sheedy et al. | Increased total aerobes (p < 0.001), increased E. faecalis (p < 0.001), increased S. sanguinis (p < 0.001) | Lower gram positive to gram negative ratio (p < 0.01), decreased total E. coli (p = 0.98) |
Shukla et al. | None | Mean relative abundance of Actinobacteria decreased (p < 0.05), no other significant changes |