Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 561

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association between gut microbiota and preeclampsia-eclampsia: a two-sample Mendelian randomization study

Open access
Li, Pengsheng, Wang, Haiyan, Guo, Lan, Gou, Xiaoyan, Chen, Gengdong, Lin, Dongxin, Fan, Dazhi, Guo, Xiaoling, Liu, Zhengping·2022·BMC Medicine

Abstract

Background: Several recent observational studies have reported that gut microbiota composition is associated with preeclampsia. However, the causal effect of gut microbiota on preeclampsia-eclampsia is unknown. Methods: A two-sample Mendelian randomization study was performed using the summary statistics of gut microbiota from the largest available genome-wide association study meta-analysis (n=13,266) conducted by the MiBioGen consortium. The summary statistics of preeclampsia-eclampsia were obtained from the FinnGen consortium R7 release data (5731 cases and 160,670 controls). Inverse variance weighted, maximum likelihood, MR-Egger, weighted median, weighted model, MR-PRESSO, and cML-MA were used to examine the causal association between gut microbiota and preeclampsia-eclampsia. Reverse Mendelian randomization analysis was performed on the bacteria that were found to be causally associated with preeclampsia-eclampsia in forward Mendelian randomization analysis. Cochran’s Q statistics were used to quantify the heterogeneity of instrumental variables. Results: Inverse variance weighted estimates suggested that Bifidobacterium had a protective effect on preeclampsia-eclampsia (odds ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.64–0.89, P = 8.03 × 10−4). In addition, Collinsella (odds ratio = 0.77, 95% confidence interval: 0.60–0.98, P = 0.03), Enterorhabdus (odds ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.62–0.93, P = 8.76 × 10−3), Eubacterium (ventriosum group) (odds ratio = 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.63–0.91, P = 2.43 × 10−3), Lachnospiraceae (NK4A136 group) (odds ratio = 0.77, 95% confidence interval: 0.65–0.92, P = 3.77 × 10−3), and Tyzzerella 3 (odds ratio = 0.85, 95% confidence interval: 0.74–0.97, P = 0.01) presented a suggestive association with preeclampsia-eclampsia. According to the results of reverse MR analysis, no significant causal effect of preeclampsia-eclampsia was found on gut microbiota. No significant heterogeneity of instrumental variables or horizontal pleiotropy was found. Conclusions: This two-sample Mendelian randomization study found that Bifidobacterium was causally associated with preeclampsia-eclampsia. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to clarify the protective effect of probiotics on preeclampsia-eclampsia and their specific protective mechanisms.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-022-02657-x

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Metadata

Authors
Li, P., Wang, H., Guo, L., Gou, X., Chen, G., Lin, D., Fan, D., Guo, X., & Liu, Z.
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2022-11-15
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
443-443
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4309436704
Cited by
561
References
13
FWCI
120.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.