Meghan Azad

Dr. Meghan Azad

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

19Years (2008-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
21 August 2020 in Nature Reviews Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
KSKelly Swanson
Kelly Swanson
GGGlenn R. Gibson
Glenn R. Gibson
RHRobert Hutkins
Robert Hutkins
Raylene ReimerRaylene Reimer
Raylene Reimer
GRGregor Reid
Gregor Reid
MSMary Ellen Sanders
Mary Ellen Sanders
In May 2019, the International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) convened a panel of nutritionists, physiologists and microbiologists to review the definition and scope of synbiotics. The panel updated the definition of a synbiotic to “a mixture comprising live microorganisms and substrate(s) selectively utilized by host microorganisms that confers a health benefit on the host”. The panel concluded that defining synbiotics as simply a mixture of probiotics and prebiotics could suppress the innovation of synbiotics that are designed to function cooperatively. Requiring that each component must meet the evidence and dose requirements for probiotics and prebiotics individually could also present an obstacle. Rather, the panel clarified that a complementary synbiotic, which has not been designed so that its component parts function cooperatively, must be composed of a probiotic plus a prebiotic, whereas a synergistic synbiotic does not need to be so. A synergistic synbiotic is a synbiotic for which the substrate is designed to be selectively utilized by the co-administered microorganisms. This Consensus Statement further explores the levels of evidence (existing and required), safety, effects upon targets and implications for stakeholders of the synbiotic concept.

11 February 2013 in Canadian Medical Association Journal
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
MAMeghan Azad
Meghan Azad
TKTheodore Konya
Theodore Konya
HMHeather Maughan
Heather Maughan
DGDavid S. Guttman
David S. Guttman
CFCatherine Field
Catherine Field
AKAnita Kozyrskyj
Anita Kozyrskyj
Background: The gut microbiota is essential to human health throughout life, yet the acquisition and development of this microbial community during infancy remains poorly understood. Meanwhile, there is increasing concern over rising rates of cesarean delivery and insufficient exclusive breastfeeding of infants in developed countries. In this article, we characterize the gut microbiota of healthy Canadian infants and describe the influence of cesarean delivery and formula feeding. Methods: We included a subset of 24 term infants from the Canadian Healthy Infant Longitudinal Development (CHILD) birth cohort. Mode of delivery was obtained from medical records, and mothers were asked to report on infant diet and medication use. Fecal samples were collected at 4 months of age, and we characterized the microbiota composition using high-throughput DNA sequencing. Results: We observed high variability in the profiles of fecal microbiota among the infants. The profiles were generally dominated by Actinobacteria (mainly the genus Bifidobacterium) and Firmicutes (with diverse representation from numerous genera). Compared with breastfed infants, formula-fed infants had increased richness of species, with overrepresentation of Clostridium difficile. Escherichia–Shigella and Bacteroides species were underrepresented in infants born by cesarean delivery. Infants born by elective cesarean delivery had particularly low bacterial richness and diversity. Interpretation: These findings advance our understanding of the gut microbiota in healthy infants. They also provide new evidence for the effects of delivery mode and infant diet as determinants of this essential microbial community in early life.

1 May 2009 in Cell Death & Differentiation
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Yongqiang ChenYongqiang Chen
Yongqiang Chen
MAMeghan Azad
Meghan Azad
SGSpencer Gibson
Spencer Gibson
Autophagy is involved in human diseases and is regulated by reactive oxygen species (ROS) including superoxide (O2•−) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). However, the relative functions of O2•− and H2O2 in regulating autophagy are unknown. In this study, autophagy was induced by starvation, mitochondrial electron transport inhibitors, and exogenous H2O2. We found that O2•− was selectively induced by starvation of glucose, L-glutamine, pyruvate, and serum (GP) whereas starvation of amino acids and serum (AA) induced O2•− and H2O2. Both types of starvation induced autophagy and autophagy was inhibited by overexpression of SOD2 (manganese superoxide dismutase, Mn-SOD), which reduced O2•− levels but increased H2O2 levels. Starvation-induced autophagy was also inhibited by the addition of catalase, which reduced both O2•− and H2O2 levels. Starvation of GP or AA also induced cell death that was increased following treatment with autophagy inhibitors 3-methyladenine, and wortamannin. Mitochondrial electron transport chain (mETC) inhibitors in combination with the SOD inhibitor 2-methoxyestradiol (2-ME) increased O2•− levels, lowered H2O2 levels, and increased autophagy. In contrast to starvation, cell death induced by mETC inhibitors was increased by 2-ME. Finally, adding exogenous H2O2 induced autophagy and increased intracellular O2•− but failed to increase intracellular H2O2. Taken together, these findings indicate that O2•− is the major ROS-regulating autophagy.

1 April 2009 in Antioxidants & Redox Signaling
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MAMeghan Azad
Meghan Azad
Yongqiang ChenYongqiang Chen
Yongqiang Chen
SGSpencer Gibson
Spencer Gibson
Reactive oxygen species (ROS) have been identified as signaling molecules in various pathways regulating both cell survival and cell death. Autophagy, a self-digestion process that degrades intracellular structures in response to stress, such as nutrient starvation, is also involved in both cell survival and cell death. Alterations in both ROS and autophagy regulation contribute to cancer initiation and progression, and both are targets for developing therapies to induce cell death selectively in cancer cells. Many stimuli that induce ROS generation also induce autophagy, including nutrient starvation, mitochondrial toxins, hypoxia, and oxidative stress. Some of these stimuli are under clinical investigation as cancer treatments, such as 2-methoxyestrodial and arsenic trioxide. Recently, it was demonstrated that ROS can induce autophagy through several distinct mechanisms involving Atg4, catalase, and the mitochondrial electron transport chain (mETC). This leads to both cell-survival and cell-death responses and could be selective toward cancer cells. In this review, we give an overview of the roles ROS and autophagy play in cell survival and cell death, and their importance to cancer. Furthermore, we describe how autophagy is mediated by ROS and the implications of this regulation to cancer treatments. Antioxid. Redox Signal. 11, 777–790.

1 February 2019 in Cell Host & Microbe
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SMShirin Moossavi
Shirin Moossavi
SSShadi Sepehri
Shadi Sepehri
BRBianca Robertson
Bianca Robertson
LBLars Bode
Lars Bode
SGSue Goruk
Sue Goruk
MAMeghan Azad
Meghan Azad

20 January 2015 in Clinical & Experimental Allergy
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MAMeghan Azad
Meghan Azad
TKT. Konya
T. Konya
DGD. S. Guttman
D. S. Guttman
CFCatherine Field
Catherine Field
MSM. R. Sears
M. R. Sears
TIthe CHILD Study Investigators
the CHILD Study Investigators