↓ Skip to main content

Moody microbes or fecal phrenology: what do we know about the microbiota-gut-brain axis?

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
63 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Moody microbes or fecal phrenology: what do we know about the microbiota-gut-brain axis?
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0604-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paul Forsythe, Wolfgang Kunze, John Bienenstock

Abstract

The microbiota-gut-brain axis is a term that is commonly used and covers a broad set of functions and interactions between the gut microbiome, endocrine, immune and nervous systems and the brain. The field is not much more than a decade old and so large holes exist in our knowledge. At first sight it appears gut microbes are largely responsible for the development, maturation and adult function of the enteric nervous system as well as the blood brain barrier, microglia and many aspects of the central nervous system structure and function. Given the state of the art in this exploding field and the hopes, as well as the skepticism, which have been engendered by its popular appeal, we explore recent examples of evidence in rodents and data derived from studies in humans, which offer insights as to pathways involved. Communication between gut and brain depends on both humoral and nervous connections. Since these are bi-directional and occur through complex communication pathways, it is perhaps not surprising that while striking observations have been reported, they have often either not yet been reproduced or their replication by others has not been successful. We offer critical and cautionary commentary on the available evidence, and identify gaps in our knowledge that need to be filled so as to achieve translation, where possible, into beneficial application in the clinical setting.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 299 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 63 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 42 14%
Student > Master 39 13%
Researcher 35 12%
Student > Postgraduate 18 6%
Other 44 15%
Unknown 59 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 50 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 40 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 22 7%
Neuroscience 17 6%
Other 50 17%
Unknown 66 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 July 2020.
All research outputs
#843,331
of 25,846,867 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#595
of 4,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,558
of 314,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#6
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,846,867 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 314,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.