Introduction
The brain/body relationship and interdependence has been one of the most prevalent questions toward understanding psychobiological mechanisms underlying human behavior (Gover, 1996; Thompson and Varela, 2001). Current epistemological stances define brains as dynamic, complex, and self-organized systems (Cosmelli and Thompson, 2011), tightly coupled, and integrated with the rest of the body, establishing bidirectional communication axes (Thayer and Lane, 2000; Craig, 2002). The paradigmatic turn can be evidenced in an increment in scientific research considering both brain and bodily signals, such as the heart (Pollatos et al., 2007b; Villena-Gonzalez et al., 2017), respiration (Yuan et al., 2013; Ahani et al., 2014), gastrointestinal (Richter et al., 2017; Rebollo et al., 2018), and muscular dynamics (Boonstra et al., 2009, 2015; Kerkman et al., 2018). Recent evidence has furthermore revealed the many ways in which psychological processes influence the body, and vice-versa, with behavioral and health implications (Pollatos et al., 2007a; Mattson, 2015; Babo-Rebelo et al., 2016; Azzalini et al., 2019).
These ideas are products of continuous epistemological growth, already present at the end of behaviorism and the early days of the cognitive revolution. From Bartlett in the UK to Dewey in the USA to Luria in Moscow, many scientists had seen mind and brain as a whole with the body (Rossi et al., 2019). Like them, many other revolutionaries -whose work was unaffected by behaviorism- pushed forward the idea of a mind without the need for manipulation of abstract symbols and representations. However, the mainstream epistemological stance in Psychological and Cognitive Sciences still pursues the anthropogenic representational and computational capacities of the mind (Frégnac, 2017; Hari, 2017; Jonas and Kording, 2017).
Body Signals Influence Mood and Behavior
Research agendas including brain/body measurements are sustained in part by the fact that there are intrinsic cognitive mechanisms, related to body awareness and sense of self, integrating and monitoring visceral information; a process known as interoception (Craig, 2002; Slonim, 2014; Quadt et al., 2018). Interoception is a global concept encompassing a plethora of processes: neuro/humoral body-to-brain signals, neurocognitive dynamics associated to the integration of those signals, the influence of those dynamics on extended brain/body functional networks, and the associated unfolding of metacognitive processes (Valk et al., 2016; Quadt et al., 2018). High interoception has been associated with increased emotional regulation (Füstös et al., 2012) and decreased alexithymia (Herbert et al., 2011), depression (Avery et al., 2014), and anxiety (Garfinkel et al., 2016). Hence, it has been suggested that accurate sensing of visceral information and body awareness is a critical factor for psychological and emotional regulation, well-being (Hanley et al., 2017), and the basis for an integrated experience of the self (Christoff et al., 2011). The “Neural Subjective frame” hypothesis (Park and Tallon-Baudry, 2014) integrates evidence suggesting body signals can, non-consciously, modulate other cognitive processes like self-processing (Babo-Rebelo et al., 2016) and perception (Park et al., 2014). This hypothesis suggests that part of the emotional experience and perception is sustained by implicit and continuous brain monitoring of the internal organs of the body, such as the heart. These process would depend on autonomic signals mediated by the vagus nerve (Slonim, 2014).
It seems plausible that physical and mental well-being might depend on states emerging from implicit and explicit information associated with bodily signals (Critchley, 2005; Farb et al., 2012). Interestingly, one of the greatest sources of body information comes from the gastro-intestinal system (Park and Tallon-Baudry, 2014; Azzalini et al., 2019). This latter point has been an important focus of recent research and increasing evidence identifies gut microbiota as playing a functional role on cognition and emotion (Cryan and Dinan, 2012; Allen et al., 2017; Sarkar et al., 2018).
Gut Microbiota Influence Behavior
The relationship between nervous and gastrointestinal systems is an example of psychobiological integration with direct impact on health, well-being (Grenham et al., 2011; Mayer et al., 2014; Carabotti et al., 2015; Fukui et al., 2018), and psychological states such as stress and anxiety (Mackos et al., 2016; Provensi et al., 2019). In fact, exposure to social stressors changes microbiota composition (Bailey et al., 2011) and diversity (Partrick et al., 2018), in a process that may also influence the immune function (Gur and Bailey, 2016). Interestingly, the treatment with bacteria of the Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus genus confer resilience against effects of stress (Bharwani et al., 2017; Yang et al., 2017). It is worth mentioning that most of the evidence have been acquired using animal models. Hence, understanding the bidirectional role of psychological processes over microbiota in humans is still lacking. Microbiota would impact behavior via bottom-up pathways, positioning it as a factor to consider in studies attempting the understanding of well-being (O'mahony et al., 2009; Dinan and Cryan, 2012; Dinan et al., 2013). Moreover, increasing evidence has posited microbiota as relevant in the context of autism (Mulle et al., 2013; Sgritta et al., 2019), schizophrenia (Severance et al., 2016), multiple sclerosis (Jangi et al., 2016), bipolar disorder (Evans et al., 2017), irritable bowel disease (Jeffery et al., 2012; Kennedy et al., 2014), obesity (Gomes et al., 2018), neurodegenerative disorders (Boehme et al., 2019), and depression (Naseribafrouei et al., 2014; Jiang et al., 2015; Aizawa et al., 2016; Kelly et al., 2016; Heym et al., 2019). The mechanisms through which microbiota exert its effects over behavior include neural pathways via the vagus nerve, regulation of the stress response, production of short chain fatty acids after fiber fermentation, amino acids metabolism and control of immune function, among others (Cryan and Dinan, 2012; Ma and Ma, 2019). The crosstalk between microbiota and immune cells is particularly relevant in therapeutic contexts, as a tight and complex relationship between dietary composition (amino acids) and inflammatory regulation by microbiota-dependent metabolic processes exists (Ma and Ma, 2019; Ma et al., 2019). Thus, positioning diet as a relevant therapeutic alternative for inflammatory-related conditions affecting brain and gut (Kiecolt-Glaser et al., 2017; Valdes et al., 2018).
Hence, growing evidence posits the gastrointestinal system in general -and the microbiota in particular- as a fundamental regulator of nervous system functioning (Agustí et al., 2018; Davidson et al., 2018) with clear neurobiological mechanisms (Cryan and Dinan, 2012; Ma and Ma, 2019) and potential impact on health and behavior. Our comprehension of cognitive and affective processes might depend on understanding the composition, diversity, and physiology of this ecosystem of microorganisms. In the fledgling field of gut-brain axis research, a plethora of novel questions emerge, some of them focused on understanding the particular role of specific bacterial strains on cognition, behavior, and overall brain function.
The Use of Probiotics as a Behavioral Regulator
Clinical population studies have pointed at the role of specific bacterial strains in brain function and their use as probiotics have adopted the name of psychobiotics (Dinan et al., 2013). For instance, patients diagnosed with depression present a decreased population of Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus bacteria, and Faecalbacterium (Aizawa et al., 2016). Accordingly, psychobiotics with different combinations of strains have been used to assess their effects over depression symptoms in healthy participants and clinical population (Pirbaglou et al., 2016). For instance, depressive symptoms are diminished after 30 days of probiotic formulation with Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum (Messaoudi et al., 2011). Likewise, patients diagnosed with irritable bowel syndrome scoring high in depression were treated with Bifidobacterium longum strain probiotics for 6 weeks, resulting in a significant decrease of subjective levels of depression (Pinto-Sanchez et al., 2017). Psychobiotics have also been used in the context of social/cognitive processes such as assessing attention (Chung et al., 2014), emotional processing (Tillisch et al., 2013) and stress (Allen et al., 2016). Additionally, it has been also shown that brain signatures -under MRI setup- of healthy participants during an emotional memory and decision-making tasks are sensitive to 4-weeks of psychobiotic administration (Bagga et al., 2018). This effect was also accompanied with behavioral, self-reported and microbiota changes, suggesting that gut dynamics affect cognitive processes and the associated brain correlates.
The aforementioned results could be explained, in part, through bidirectional neural circuits established between the central nervous system, the enteric system, and the vagus nerve (Forsythe et al., 2014). This hypothesis has been tested using animal models in which anxiolytic and antidepressant effects induced by Bifidobacterium longum strains probiotics are blocked after the section of the vagus nerve (Bercik et al., 2011; Bravo et al., 2011). Hence, vagal afferents are necessary for any cognitive, affective, and behavioral effects produced by these microorganisms (Han et al., 2018). Additionally, a recent study identified a type of enteric sensory cell that, by means of a single synapse with neurons of the vagus nerve, propagates nutrient information from gut to brain in the order of milliseconds (Kaelberer et al., 2018). This communication channel may also include information from microbiota-dependent immune dynamics of the gut mucosa (Ma et al., 2018). Furthermore, low-frequency gastro-intestinal oscillations (0.05 Hz) and cortical alpha rhythms (8–10 Hz) coupling has been described (Richter et al., 2017), indicating that the cross-talk between gut-microbiota and brain may be faster and more direct than previously thought. Complementarily, a gastric network was described during resting state involving connectivity between gastric oscillations and brain regions related to the generation of alpha rhythms and visual, somatosensory, and motor internal body representations (Rebollo et al., 2018). Those neural oscillatory networks could shed light on a possible physiological mechanism by means of which the microbiota communicates with the brain, exerting effects on mental processes in a fast and direct way (Komanduri et al., 2019). Nevertheless, this is a fledgling field and much research is still needed.
Discussion and Outstanding Questions
When considering dynamics internal to the organism (Figure 1), understanding how the brain-gut-microbiota establishes bidirectional relationship offers new perspectives that will greatly advance our comprehension of phenomena studied by psychology, neuroscience, and psychiatry (Tillisch et al., 2013; Dinan and Cryan, 2017). Given the increment of brain-gut-microbiota research, some important research questions have emerged. First, the physiological mechanisms underlying its relation to other body systems and health, in general, remains unknown in humans, resulting in limited clinical applicability (Schmidt et al., 2018; Zmora et al., 2019). Second, the establishment of microbiota communities begins early in development, even before birth. It has been suggested that pre- and postnatal experiences affect microbiota composition, shaping the immune system's function, ultimately leading to increased risk of disease (Tamburini et al., 2016; Francis and Dominguez-Bello, 2019). However, most countries are still far away from including the microbiota as a relevant factor for public policymaking. Finally, public opinion on probiotic products (from Kefir to Kombucha to laboratory formulas) has become favorable. However, recent evidence suggests that intake of generic probiotic formula as a therapeutic alternative should be carefully considered, as gut mucosal colonization presents person-specific resistance to probiotics (Zmora et al., 2018). Therefore, consuming such products as means of life-quality improvement and disease prevention might barely work. In contrast, it seems probiotic formulas will have to contain specific bacterial strains personalized for particular individuals, according to each person's diet (Oriach et al., 2016). Furthermore taking into account other physiological parameters relevant for the host-microbiota interplay, such as nutrients availability and water absorption (Arnoldini et al., 2018).
Figure 1
Considering the ecological niche of the organism presents a major challenge for microbiota research (Figure 1). Given the available evidence of living environment in mental health [i.e., housing quality, indoor/outdoor noise, occupant density, etc. (Evans, 2003)], the connection between the community of microorganisms residing in built environment and well-being remains unknown (Kembel et al., 2014; Relman et al., 2014). These microorganisms, grouped within the fledgling literature of the microbiome of the built environment (MoBE), have co-evolved with the mammalian immune system. Hence, there is a good reason to believe that the increment of chronic inflammatory disorders and others such as Alzheimer in industrialized countries might relate to reduced or increased exposure to certain microbial communities (Raison et al., 2010; Fox et al., 2013). Furthermore, research on the impact of MoBE in the development and dynamics of the community and/or person-specific microbiota is needed (Huttenhower et al., 2012; Hoisington et al., 2015; Lax et al., 2015). Thus, providing opportunities for specific and strategic MoBE manipulation that will ultimately regulate microbial diversity in order to reach positive outcomes.
Concluding Remarks
Cognitive process and associated states such as well-being are embodied, in a process of phylogenetic and ontogenic interdependencies, encompassing an organism's both internal and external environments. Diurnal mammals' physiology has been enslaved by the day/night cycle, imposed to planet Earth from the cosmos (Parada and Rossi, 2018). Mammals' physiology is furthermore entangled to the micro-dynamics of small organisms, imposed onto the body through the development of a symbiotic relationship unfolding throughout ontogeny and phylogeny. Therefore, adequate scientific study of human behavior will include as many levels as possible: socio-cultural, psychological, microbiological, etc. (Parada and Rossi, 2018). The brain-gut-microbiota topic represents a fascinating opportunity to expand our knowledge about cognition, mental health, and life in general. It is important to frame this research topic from multiple perspectives including biological/medical sciences, public policy, architecture, urbanism, and psychology. Furthermore, recent philosophical and epistemological advances, under the 4E-cognition framework (Newen et al., 2018), will help the integration of evidence, providing new insights and novel hypotheses.
Statements
Author contributions
IP-G and FP conceptualized the present work and wrote the current version for publication.
Funding
The present work was supported by Comisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y Tecnológica (CONICYT, Chile), through FONDECYT postdoctorado grant number 3190491 awarded to IP-G. FONDECYT Iniciación en Investigación grant number 11180620 awarded to FP. FP also receives funding from FONDECYT Regular grant number 1190610. Both IP-G and FP also receive funding from FONDECYT Regular grant number 1170292.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Diego Cosmelli for insightful comments during the production of the present piece.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
AgustíA.García-PardoM. P.López-AlmelaI.CampilloI.MaesM.Romaní-PérezM.et al. (2018). Interplay between the gut-brain axis, obesity and cognitive function. Front. Neurosci.12:155. 10.3389/fnins.2018.00155
2
AhaniA.WahbehH.NezamfarH.MillerM.ErdogmusD.OkenB. (2014). Quantitative change of EEG and respiration signals during mindfulness meditation. J. Neuroeng. Rehabilit.11:87. 10.1186/1743-0003-11-87
3
AizawaE.TsujiH.AsaharaT.TakahashiT.TeraishiT.YoshidaS.et al. (2016). Possible association of bifidobacterium and lactobacillus in the gut microbiota of patients with major depressive disorder. J. Affect. Disord.202, 254–257. 10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.038
4
AllenA. P.DinanT. G.ClarkeG.CryanJ. F. (2017). A psychology of the human brain–gut–microbiome axis. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass11:e12309. 10.1111/spc3.12309
5
AllenA. P.HutchW.BorreY.KennedyP. J.TemkoA.BoylanG.et al. (2016). Bifidobacterium longum 1714 as a translational psychobiotic: modulation of stress, electrophysiology and neurocognition in healthy volunteers. Transl. Psychiat.6:e939. 10.1038/tp.2016.191
6
ArnoldiniM.CremerJ.HwaT. (2018). Bacterial growth, flow, and mixing shape human gut microbiota density and composition. Gut Microbes9, 559–566. 10.1080/19490976.2018.1448741
7
AveryJ. A.DrevetsW. C.MosemanS. E.BodurkaJ.BarcalowJ. C.SimmonsW. K. (2014). Major depressive disorder is associated with abnormal interoceptive activity and functional connectivity in the insula. Biol. Psychiat.76, 258–266. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.11.027
8
AzzaliniD.RebolloI.Tallon-BaudryC. (2019). Visceral signals shape brain dynamics and cognition. Trends Cogn. Sci. 23, 488–509. 10.1016/j.tics.2019.03.007
9
Babo-RebeloM.RichterC. G.Tallon-BaudryC. (2016). Neural responses to heartbeats in the default network encode the self in spontaneous thoughts. J. Neurosci.36, 7829–7840. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0262-16.2016
10
BaggaD.ReichertJ. L.KoschutnigK.AignerC. S.HolzerP.KoskinenK.et al. (2018). Probiotics drive gut microbiome triggering emotional brain signatures. Gut Microbes9, 486–496. 10.1080/19490976.2018.1460015
11
BaileyM. T.DowdS. E.GalleyJ. D.HufnagleA. R.AllenR. G.LyteM. (2011). Exposure to a social stressor alters the structure of the intestinal microbiota: implications for stressor-induced immunomodulation. Brain Behav. Immun. 25, 397–407. 10.1016/j.bbi.2010.10.023
12
BercikP.ParkA.SinclairD.KhoshdelA.LuJ.HuangX.et al. (2011). The anxiolytic effect of bifidobacterium longum NCC3001 involves vagal pathways for gut–brain communication. Neurogastroenterol. Motil.23, 1132–1139. 10.1111/j.1365-2982.2011.01796.x
13
BharwaniA.MianM. F.SuretteM. G.BienenstockJ.ForsytheP. (2017). Oral treatment with Lactobacillus rhamnosus attenuates behavioural deficits and immune changes in chronic social stress. BMC Med.15:7. 10.1186/s12916-016-0771-7
14
BoehmeM.Van De WouwM.BastiaanssenT. F.Olavarría-RamírezL.LyonsK.FouhyF.et al. (2019). Mid-life microbiota crises: middle age is associated with pervasive neuroimmune alterations that are reversed by targeting the gut microbiome. Mol. Psychiatry, Vol. 1. 10.1038/s41380-019-0425-1
15
BoonstraT. W.DaffertshoferA.RoerdinkM.FlipseI.GroenewoudK.BeekP. J. (2009). Bilateral motor unit synchronization of leg muscles during a simple dynamic balance task. Eur. J. Neurosci.29, 613–622. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06584.x
16
BoonstraT. W.Danna-Dos-SantosA.XieH.-B.RoerdinkM.StinsJ. F.BreakspearM. (2015). Muscle networks: connectivity analysis of EMG activity during postural control. Scienti. Rep.5:17830. 10.1038/srep17830
17
BravoJ. A.ForsytheP.ChewM. V.EscaravageE.SavignacH. M.DinanT. G.et al. (2011). Ingestion of lactobacillus strain regulates emotional behavior and central GABA receptor expression in a mouse via the vagus nerve. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.108, 16050–16055. 10.1073/pnas.1102999108
18
CarabottiM.SciroccoA.MaselliM. A.SeveriC. (2015). The gut-brain axis: interactions between enteric microbiota, central and enteric nervous systems. Ann. Gastroenterol.28, 203–209.
19
ChristoffK.CosmelliD.LegrandD.ThompsonE. (2011). Specifying the self for cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn. Sci.15, 104–112. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.001
20
ChungY.-C.JinH.-M.CuiY.KimD. S.JungJ. M.ParkJ.-I.et al. (2014). Fermented milk of lactobacillus helveticus IDCC3801 improves cognitive functioning during cognitive fatigue tests in healthy older adults. J. Funct. Foods10, 465–474. 10.1016/j.jff.2014.07.007
21
CosmelliD.ThompsonE. (2011). Embodiment or envatment? Reflections on the bodily basis of consciousness, in Enaction: Towards a New Paradigm for Cognitive Science, eds StewartJ.GapenneO.Di PaoloE. (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 361–385.
22
CraigA. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: the sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.3, 655–666. 10.1038/nrn894
23
CritchleyH. D. (2005). Neural mechanisms of autonomic, affective, and cognitive integration. J. Compar. Neurol.493, 154–166. 10.1002/cne.20749
24
CryanJ. F.DinanT. G. (2012). Mind-altering microorganisms: the impact of the gut microbiota on brain and behaviour. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.13, 701–712. 10.1038/nrn3346
25
DavidsonG. L.CookeA. C.JohnsonC. N.QuinnJ. L. (2018). The gut microbiome as a driver of individual variation in cognition and functional behaviour. Philo. Trans. Royal Soc. Biol. Sci.373:20170286. 10.1098/rstb.2017.0286
26
DinanT. G.CryanJ. F. (2012). Regulation of the stress response by the gut microbiota: implications for psychoneuroendocrinology. Psychoneuroendocrinology37, 1369–1378. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.03.007
27
DinanT. G.CryanJ. F. (2017). Brain-gut-microbiota axis and mental health. Psycho. Med.79, 920–926. 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000519
28
DinanT. G.StantonC.CryanJ. F. (2013). Psychobiotics: a novel class of psychotropic. Biol. Psychiatry74, 720–726. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.05.001
29
EvansG. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. J. Urban Health80, 536–555. 10.1093/jurban/jtg063
30
EvansS. J.BassisC. M.HeinR.AssariS.FlowersS. A.KellyM. B.et al. (2017). The gut microbiome composition associates with bipolar disorder and illness severity. J. Psychiat. Res.87, 23–29. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.12.007
31
FarbN. A.SegalZ. V.AndersonA. K. (2012). Mindfulness meditation training alters cortical representations of interoceptive attention. Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci.8, 15–26. 10.1093/scan/nss066
32
ForsytheP.BienenstockJ.KunzeW. A. (2014). Vagal pathways for microbiome-brain-gut axis communication, in Microbial Endocrinology: The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis in Health and Disease (New York, NY: Springer), 115–133.
33
FoxM.KnappL. A.AndrewsP. W.FincherC. L. (2013). Hygiene and the world distribution of alzheimer's disease epidemiological evidence for a relationship between microbial environment and age-adjusted disease burden. Evol. Med. Pub. Health2013, 173–186. 10.1093/emph/eot015
34
FrancisA. P.Dominguez-BelloM. G. (2019). Early-life microbiota perturbations and behavioral effects. Trends Microbiol.27, 567–569. 10.1016/j.tim.2019.04.004
35
FrégnacY. (2017). Big data and the industrialization of neuroscience: a safe roadmap for understanding the brain?Science358, 470–477. 10.1126/science.aan8866
36
FukuiH.XuX.MiwaH. (2018). Role of gut microbiota-gut hormone axis in the pathophysiology of functional gastrointestinal disorders. J. Neurogastroenterol. Motil.24, 367–386. 10.5056/jnm18071
37
FüstösJ.GramannK.HerbertB. M.PollatosO. (2012). On the embodiment of emotion regulation: interoceptive awareness facilitates reappraisal. Soc. Cognit. Affect. Neurosci.8, 911–917. 10.1093/scan/nss089
38
GarfinkelS. N.ManasseiM. F.Hamilton-FletcherG.Den BoschY. I.CritchleyH. D.EngelsM. (2016). Interoceptive dimensions across cardiac and respiratory axes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B371:20160014. 10.1098/rstb.2016.0014
39
GomesA. C.HoffmannC.MotaJ. F. (2018). The human gut microbiota: metabolism and perspective in obesity. Gut Microbes9, 308–325. 10.1080/19490976.2018.1465157
40
GoverM. R. (1996). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience (book). Mind Cult. Activity3, 295–299. 10.1207/s15327884mca0304_9
41
GrenhamS.ClarkeG.CryanJ. F.DinanT. G. (2011). Brain–gut–microbe communication in health and disease. Front. Physiol.2:94. 10.3389/fphys.2011.00094
42
GurT. L.BaileyM. T. (2016). Effects of stress on commensal microbes and immune system activity, in Microbial Endocrinology: Interkingdom Signaling in Infectious Disease and Health. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, Vol. 874, ed LyteM. (Cham: Springer).
43
HanW.TellezL. A.PerkinsM. H.PerezI. O.QuT.FerreiraJ.et al. (2018). A neural circuit for gut-induced reward. Cell175, 665–678. e623. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.049
44
HanleyA. W.MehlingW. E.GarlandE. L. (2017). Holding the body in mind: interoceptive awareness, dispositional mindfulness and psychological well-being. J. Psycho. Res.99, 13–20. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2017.05.014
45
HariR. (2017). From brain–environment connections to temporal dynamics and social interaction: principles of human brain function. Neuron94, 1033–1039. 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.04.007
46
HerbertB. M.HerbertC.PollatosO. (2011). On the relationship between interoceptive awareness and alexithymia: is interoceptive awareness related to emotional awareness?J. Personal.79, 1149–1175. 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00717.x
47
HeymN.HeasmanB.HunterK.BlancoS.WangG.SiegertR.et al. (2019). The role of microbiota and inflammation in self-judgement and empathy: implications for understanding the brain-gut-microbiome axis in depression. Psychopharmacology236, 1459–1470. 10.1007/s00213-019-05230-2
48
HoisingtonA. J.BrennerL. A.KinneyK. A.PostolacheT. T.LowryC. A. (2015). The microbiome of the built environment and mental health. Microbiome3:60. 10.1186/s40168-015-0127-0
49
HuttenhowerC.GeversD.KnightR.AbubuckerS.BadgerJ. H.ChinwallaA. T.et al. (2012). Structure, function and diversity of the healthy human microbiome. Nature486:207. 10.1038/nature11234
50
JangiS.GandhiR.CoxL. M.LiN.Von GlehnF.YanR.et al. (2016). Alterations of the human gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis. Nat. Commun.7:12015. 10.1038/ncomms12015
51
JefferyI. B.O'tooleP. W.ÖhmanL.ClaessonM. J.DeaneJ.QuigleyE. M.et al. (2012). An irritable bowel syndrome subtype defined by species-specific alterations in faecal microbiota. Gut61, 997–1006. 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301501
52
JiangH.LingZ.ZhangY.MaoH.MaZ.YinY.et al. (2015). Altered fecal microbiota composition in patients with major depressive disorder. Brain Behav. Immu.48, 186–194. 10.1016/j.bbi.2015.03.016
53
JonasE.KordingK. P. (2017). Could a neuroscientist understand a microprocessor?PLoS Comput. Biol.13:e1005268. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005268
54
KaelbererM. M.BuchananK. L.KleinM. E.BarthB. B.MontoyaM. M.ShenX.et al. (2018). A gut-brain neural circuit for nutrient sensory transduction. Science361:eaat5236. 10.1126/science.aat5236
55
KellyJ. R.BorreY.O'brienC.PattersonE.El AidyS.DeaneJ.et al. (2016). Transferring the blues: depression-associated gut microbiota induces neurobehavioural changes in the rat. J. Psychiat. Res.82, 109–118. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.07.019
56
KembelS. W.MeadowJ. F.O'connorT. K.MhuireachG.NorthcuttD.KlineJ.et al. (2014). Architectural design drives the biogeography of indoor bacterial communities. PLoS ONE9:e87093. 10.1371/journal.pone.0087093
57
KennedyP. J.CryanJ. F.DinanT. G.ClarkeG. (2014). Irritable bowel syndrome: a microbiome-gut-brain axis disorder?World J. Gastroenterol.20:14105. 10.3748/wjg.v20.i39.14105
58
KerkmanJ. N.DaffertshoferA.GolloL. L.BreakspearM.BoonstraT. W. (2018). Network structure of the human musculoskeletal system shapes neural interactions on multiple time scales. Sci. Adv.4:eaat0497. 10.1126/sciadv.aat0497
59
Kiecolt-GlaserJ. K.FagundesC. P.AndridgeR.PengJ.MalarkeyW. B.HabashD.et al. (2017). Depression, daily stressors and inflammatory responses to high-fat meals: when stress overrides healthier food choices. Mol. Psychiatry22:476. 10.1038/mp.2016.149
60
KomanduriM.GondaliaS.ScholeyA.StoughC. (2019). The microbiome and cognitive aging: a review of mechanisms. Psychopharmacology236, 1559–1571. 10.1007/s00213-019-05231-1
61
LaxS.NaglerC. R.GilbertJ. A. (2015). Our interface with the built environment: immunity and the indoor microbiota. Trends Immunol.36, 121–123. 10.1016/j.it.2015.01.001
62
MaN.GuoP.ZhangJ.HeT.KimS. W.ZhangG.et al. (2018). Nutrients mediate intestinal bacteria–mucosal immune crosstalk. Front. Immunol.9:5. 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00005
63
MaN.MaX. (2019). Dietary amino acids and the gut-microbiome-immune axis: physiological metabolism and therapeutic prospects. Compre. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety18, 221–242. 10.1111/1541-4337.12401
64
MaN.ZhangJ.ReiterR. J.MaX. (2019). Melatonin mediates mucosal immune cells, microbial metabolism, and rhythm crosstalk: a therapeutic target to reduce intestinal inflammation. Med. Res. Rev. p. 1–27. 10.1002/med.21628
65
MackosA. R.VaraljayV. A.MaltzR.GurT. L.BaileyM. T. (2016). Role of the intestinal microbiota in host responses to stressor exposure, in International Review of Neurobiology, Vol. 131, eds CryanJ. F.ClarkeG. (London: Academic Press), 1–19.
66
MattsonM. P. (2015). Lifelong brain health is a lifelong challenge: from evolutionary principles to empirical evidence. Ageing Res. Rev.20, 37–45. 10.1016/j.arr.2014.12.011
67
MayerE. A.KnightR.MazmanianS. K.CryanJ. F.TillischK. (2014). Gut microbes and the brain: paradigm shift in neuroscience. J. Neurosci.34, 15490–15496. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3299-14.2014
68
MessaoudiM.ViolleN.BissonJ.-F.DesorD.JavelotH.RougeotC. (2011). Beneficial psychological effects of a probiotic formulation (lactobacillus helveticus R0052 and bifidobacterium longum R0175) in healthy human volunteers. Gut Microbes2, 256–261. 10.4161/gmic.2.4.16108
69
MulleJ. G.SharpW. G.CubellsJ. F. (2013). The gut microbiome: a new frontier in autism research. Curr. Psychiatry Rep.15:337. 10.1007/s11920-012-0337-0
70
NaseribafroueiA.HestadK.AvershinaE.SekeljaM.LinløkkenA.WilsonR.et al. (2014). Correlation between the human fecal microbiota and depression. Neurogastroenterol. Motil.26, 1155–1162. 10.1111/nmo.12378
71
NewenA.De BruinL.GallagherS. (eds.). (2018). The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
72
O'mahonyS. M.MarchesiJ. R.ScullyP.CodlingC.CeolhoA.-M.QuigleyE. M.et al. (2009). Early life stress alters behavior, immunity, and microbiota in rats: implications for irritable bowel syndrome and psychiatric illnesses. Biol. Psychiatry65, 263–267. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2008.06.026
73
OriachC. S.RobertsonR. C.StantonC.CryanJ. F.DinanT. G. (2016). Food for thought: the role of nutrition in the microbiota-gut–brain axis. Clini. Nutri. Exp.6, 25–38. 10.1016/j.yclnex.2016.01.003
74
ParadaF. J.RossiA. (2018). If neuroscience needs behavior, what does psychology need?Front. Psychol.9:433. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00433
75
ParkH. D.CorreiaS.DucorpsA.Tallon-BaudryC. (2014). Spontaneous fluctuations in neural responses to heartbeats predict visual detection. Nat. Neurosci.17, 612–618. 10.1038/nn.3671
76
ParkH. D.Tallon-BaudryC. (2014). The neural subjective frame: from bodily signals to perceptual consciousness. Philos. Trans. R Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.369:20130208. 10.1098/rstb.2013.0208
77
PartrickK. A.ChassaingB.BeachL. Q.MccannK. E.GewirtzA. T.HuhmanK. L. (2018). Acute and repeated exposure to social stress reduces gut microbiota diversity in Syrian hamsters. Behav. Brain Res.345, 39–48. 10.1016/j.bbr.2018.02.005
78
Pinto-SanchezM. I.HallG. B.GhajarK.NardelliA.BolinoC.LauJ. T.et al. (2017). Probiotic bifidobacterium longum NCC3001 reduces depression scores and alters brain activity: a pilot study in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology153, 448–459. e448. 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.003
79
PirbaglouM.KatzJ.De SouzaR. J.StearnsJ. C.MotamedM.RitvoP. (2016). Probiotic supplementation can positively affect anxiety and depressive symptoms: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Nutri. Res.36, 889–898. 10.1016/j.nutres.2016.06.009
80
PollatosO.GramannK.SchandryR. (2007a). Neural systems connecting interoceptive awareness and feelings. Hum. Brain Map.28, 9–18. 10.1002/hbm.20258
81
PollatosO.Traut-MattauschE.SchroederH.SchandryR. (2007b). Interoceptive awareness mediates the relationship between anxiety and the intensity of unpleasant feelings. J. Anxiety Disord.21, 931–943. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.12.004
82
ProvensiG.SchmidtS. D.BoehmeM.BastiaanssenT. F.RaniB.CostaA.et al. (2019). Preventing adolescent stress-induced cognitive and microbiome changes by diet. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.116, 9644–9651. 10.1073/pnas.1820832116
83
QuadtL.CritchleyH. D.GarfinkelS. N. (2018). The neurobiology of interoception in health and disease. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci.1428, 112–128. 10.1111/nyas.13915
84
RaisonC. L.LowryC. A.RookG. A. (2010). Inflammation, sanitation, and consternation: loss of contact with coevolved, tolerogenic microorganisms and the pathophysiology and treatment of major depression. Archiv. Gener. Psychiatry67, 1211–1224. 10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.161
85
RebolloI.DevauchelleA.-D.BérangerB.Tallon-BaudryC. (2018). Stomach-brain synchrony reveals a novel, delayed-connectivity resting-state network in humans. eLife7:e33321. 10.7554/eLife.33321.023
86
RelmanD. A.GilbertJ. A.KnightR. (2014). The promise of the microbiome: function and dysfunction in humans and beyond. Science345, 226–226. 10.1126/science.345.6193.226-c
87
RichterC. G.Babo-RebeloM.SchwartzD.Tallon-BaudryC. (2017). Phase-amplitude coupling at the organism level: the amplitude of spontaneous alpha rhythm fluctuations varies with the phase of the infra-slow gastric basal rhythm. Neuroimage146, 951–958. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.08.043
88
RossiA.Grasso-CladeraA.LuarteN.RiilloA.ParadaF. J. (2019). The brain/body-in-the-world system is cognitive science's study object for the twenty-first century/El sistema cerebro/cuerpo-en-el-mundo es el objeto de estudio de la ciencia cognitiva en el siglo XXI. Estudios de Psicología40, 363–395. 10.1080/02109395.2019.1596704
89
SarkarA.HartyS.LehtoS. M.MoellerA. H.DinanT. G.DunbarR. I.et al. (2018). The microbiome in psychology and cognitive neuroscience. Trends Cogn. Sci. 22, 611–636. 10.1016/j.tics.2018.04.006
90
SchmidtT. S.RaesJ.BorkP. (2018). The human gut microbiome: from association to modulation. Cell172, 1198–1215. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.02.044
91
SeveranceE. G.YolkenR. H.EatonW. W. (2016). Autoimmune diseases, gastrointestinal disorders and the microbiome in schizophrenia: more than a gut feeling. Schizophre. Res.176, 23–35. 10.1016/j.schres.2014.06.027
92
SgrittaM.DoolingS. W.BuffingtonS. A.MominE. N.FrancisM. B.BrittonR. A.et al. (2019). Mechanisms underlying microbial-mediated changes in social behavior in mouse models of autism spectrum disorder. Neuron101, 246–259. e246. 10.1016/j.neuron.2018.11.018
93
SlonimT. (2014). The polyvagal theory: neuropsychological foundations of emotions, attachment, communication, & self-regulation. Int. J. Group Psychother.64, 593–600. 10.1521/ijgp.2014.64.4.593
94
TamburiniS.ShenN.WuH. C.ClementeJ. C. (2016). The microbiome in early life: implications for health outcomes. Nat. Med.22:713. 10.1038/nm.4142
95
ThayerJ. F.LaneR. D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion regulation and dysregulation. J. Affect. Disord.61, 201–216. 10.1016/S0165-0327(00)00338-4
96
ThompsonE.VarelaF. J. (2001). Radical embodiment: neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends Cogn. Sci.5, 418–425. 10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01750-2
97
TillischK.LabusJ.KilpatrickL.JiangZ.StainsJ.EbratB.et al. (2013). Consumption of fermented milk product with probiotic modulates brain activity. Gastroenterology144, 1394–1401. e1394. 10.1053/j.gastro.2013.02.043
98
ValdesA. M.WalterJ.SegalE.SpectorT. D. (2018). Role of the gut microbiota in nutrition and health. BMJ361:k2179. 10.1136/bmj.k2179
99
ValkS. L.BernhardtB. C.BöcklerA.KanskeP.SingerT. (2016). Substrates of metacognition on perception and metacognition on higher-order cognition relate to different subsystems of the mentalizing network. Hum. Brain Map.37, 3388–3399. 10.1002/hbm.23247
100
Villena-GonzalezM.Moenne-LoccozC.LagosR. A.AlliendeL. M.BillekeP.AboitizF.et al. (2017). Attending to the heart is associated with posterior alpha band increase and a reduction in sensitivity to concurrent visual stimuli. Psychophysiology54, 1483–1497. 10.1111/psyp.12894
101
YangC.FujitaY.RenQ.MaM.DongC.HashimotoK. (2017). Bifidobacterium in the gut microbiota confer resilience to chronic social defeat stress in mice. Scienti. Rep. 7:45942. 10.1038/srep45942
102
YuanH.ZotevV.PhillipsR.BodurkaJ. (2013). Correlated slow fluctuations in respiration, EEG, and BOLD fMRI. Neuroimage79, 81–93. 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2013.04.068
103
ZmoraN.SofferE.ElinavE. (2019). Transforming medicine with the microbiome. Sci. Transl. Med.11:eaaw1815. 10.1126/scitranslmed.aaw1815
104
ZmoraN.Zilberman-SchapiraG.SuezJ.MorU.Dori-BachashM.BashiardesS.et al. (2018). Personalized gut mucosal colonization resistance to empiric probiotics is associated with unique host and microbiome features. Cell174, 1388–1405. e1321. 10.1016/j.cell.2018.08.041
Summary
Keywords
brain, gastrointestinal system, psychology, neuroscience, 4E-cognition, microbiota
Citation
Palacios-García I and Parada FJ (2020) Measuring the Brain-Gut Axis in Psychological Sciences: A Necessary Challenge. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 13:73. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2019.00073
Received
23 July 2019
Accepted
09 December 2019
Published
09 January 2020
Volume
13 - 2019
Edited by
Pierre Denise, INSERM U1075 Université de Caen Normandie - Pôle des Formations et de Recherche en Santé, France
Reviewed by
Xi Ma, China Agricultural University (CAU), China
Updates
Copyright
© 2020 Palacios-García and Parada.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Ismael Palacios-García ipalacios@ug.uchile.cl
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.