The emerging understanding of gut microbiota as ‘metabolic machinery’ influencing many aspects of physiology has gained substantial attention in the field of psychiatry. This is largely due to the many overlapping pathophysiological mechanisms associated with both the potential functionality of the gut microbiota and the biological mechanisms thought to be underpinning mental disorders. In this systematic review, we synthesised the current literature investigating differences in gut microbiota composition in people with the major psychiatric disorders, major depressive disorder (MDD), bipolar disorder (BD) and schizophrenia (SZ), compared to ‘healthy’ controls. We also explored gut microbiota composition across disorders in an attempt to elucidate potential commonalities in the microbial signatures associated with these mental disorders. Following the PRISMA guidelines, databases were searched from inception through to December 2021. We identified 44 studies (including a total of 2510 psychiatric cases and 2407 controls) that met inclusion criteria, of which 24 investigated gut microbiota composition in MDD, seven investigated gut microbiota composition in BD, and 15 investigated gut microbiota composition in SZ. Our syntheses provide no strong evidence for a difference in the number or distribution (α-diversity) of bacteria in those with a mental disorder compared to controls. However, studies were relatively consistent in reporting differences in overall community composition (β-diversity) in people with and without mental disorders. Our syntheses also identified specific bacterial taxa commonly associated with mental disorders, including lower levels of bacterial genera that produce short-chain fatty acids (e.g. butyrate), higher levels of lactic acid-producing bacteria, and higher levels of bacteria associated with glutamate and GABA metabolism. We also observed substantial heterogeneity across studies with regards to methodologies and reporting. Further prospective and experimental research using new tools and robust guidelines hold promise for improving our understanding of the role of the gut microbiota in mental and brain health and the development of interventions based on modification of gut microbiota.

The effects of dairy and dairy-derived products on the human gut microbiota remains understudied. A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and PubMed databases with the aim of collating evidence on the intakes of all types of dairy and their effects on the gut microbiota in adults. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.The search resulted in 6,592 studies, of which eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met pre-determined eligibility criteria for inclusion, consisting of a total of 468 participants. Seven studies assessed the effect of type of dairy (milk, yogurt, and kefir) and dairy derivatives (whey and casein) on the gut microbiota, and one study assessed the effect of the quantity of dairy (high dairy vs low dairy). Three studies showed that dairy types consumed (milk, yogurt, and kefir) increased the abundance of beneficial genera Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium. One study showed that yogurt reduced the abundance of Bacteroides fragilis, a pathogenic strain. Whey and casein isolates and the quantity of dairy consumed did not prompt changes to the gut microbiota composition. All but one study reported no changes to bacterial diversity in response to dairy interventions and one study reported reduction in bacterial diversity in response to milk intake.In conclusion, the results of this review suggest that dairy products such as milk, yogurt, and kefir may modulate the gut microbiota composition in favor to the host. However, the broader health implications of these findings remain unclear and warrant further studies.

The intestinal microbiome has been identified as a key modifier for a variety of health conditions. Fecal Microbiota Transplantation (FMT) has emerged as a fast, safe, and effective means by which to modify the intestinal microbiome and potentially treat a variety of health conditions. Despite extensive research of FMT for CDI, there is a lack of clarity informed by systematic synthesis of data regarding the safety and efficacy of FMT for other health conditions. This systematic review used PRISMA guidelines and was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018104243). In March 2020, a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO was conducted. We identified 26 eligible studies. A meta-analysis of FMT for active Ulcerative Colitis (UC) showed that FMT significantly improved rates of clinical remission (OR = 3.634, 95% CI = 1.940 to 6.808, I² = 0%, p < .001), clinical response (OR = 2.634, 95% CI = 1.441 to 4.815, I² = 33%, p = .002) and endoscopic remission (OR = 4.431, 95% CI = 1.901 to 10.324, I² = 0%, p = .001). With respect to Irritable Bowel Syndrome, a meta-analysis showed no significant change in symptoms following FMT (p = .739). Hepatic disorders, metabolic syndrome, and antibiotic-resistant organisms were conditions with emerging data on FMT. Serious adverse events (AE) were more often reported in control group participants (n = 43) compared with FMT group participants (n = 26). There were similar rates of mild to moderate AE in both groups. Preliminary data suggest that FMT is a potentially safe, well-tolerated and efficacious treatment for certain conditions other than CDI, with evidence for active UC being the most compelling.

Genetic and other biological explanations appear to have mixed blessings for the stigma of mental disorder. Meta-analytic evidence shows that these “biogenetic” explanations reduce the blame attached to sufferers, but they also increase aversion, perceptions of dangerousness, and pessimism about recovery. These relationships may arise because biogenetic explanations recruit essentialist intuitions, which have known associations with prejudice and the endorsement of stereotypes. However, the adverse implications of biogenetic explanations as a set may not hold true for the subset of those explanations that invoke neurobiological causes. Neurobiological explanations might have less adverse implications for stigma than genetic explanations, for example, because they are arguably less essentialist. Although this possibility is important for evaluating the social implications of neuroscientific explanations of mental health problems, it has yet to be tested meta-analytically. We present meta-analyses of links between neurobiological explanations and multiple dimensions of stigma in 26 correlational and experimental studies. In correlational studies, neurobiological explanations were marginally associated with greater desire for social distance from people with mental health problems. In experimental studies, these explanations were associated with greater desire for social distance, greater perceived dangerousness, and greater prognostic pessimism. Neurobiological explanations were not linked to reduced blame in either set of studies. By implication, neurobiological explanations have the same adverse links to stigma as other forms of biogenetic explanation. These findings raise troubling implications about the public impact of psychiatric neuroscience research findings. Although such findings are not intrinsically stigmatizing, they may become so when viewed through the lens of neuroessentialism.