Abstract
Microbiota inhabit nearly every part of our body with the gut microbiota representing the greatest density and absolute abundance. The gut-microbiota-brain axis facilitates bidirectional communication between gut microbiota and the brain. For instance, romantic relationship not only brings joy, it is also associated with increased gut microbiota diversity and health benefits whereas reduced microbiota diversity is related to obesity, cardiac disease, type 2 diabetes, and inflammatory disorders. Research has shown that dietary fibers may increase microbiota diversity and exert antidepressant effect. Among a plethora of life stressors, romantic relationship dissolution is a relatively common and painful experience that people encounter from time to time. Depressed mood, social isolation and poor intake are all associated with romantic relationship dissolution. In this article, it is hypothesized that romantic relationship dissolution is accompanied by decreased gut microbiota diversity which could be corrected with the ingestion of dietary fibers with an additional antidepressant benefit.
Gut-Microbiota-Brain Axis, Stress and Diet
Microbiota inhabit nearly every part of our body with the gut microbiota representing the greatest density and absolute abundance (1). It remains elusive what definitively constitutes an optimal gut microbial profile other than one exhibiting both stability and diversity (2). Microbiota diversity may promote stability and resilience of gut microbiota and is associated with social interaction, infection resistance, improved immunity and reduced inflammation (3). Reduced microbiota diversity is related to obesity, cardiac disease, type 2 diabetes, and inflammatory disorders (4).
The gut-microbiota-brain axis denotes the bidirectional interaction between gut microbiota and brain. Microbiota can produce neurotransmitters (GABA, oxytocin, noradrenaline, dopamine, serotonin, etc.), amino acids (tyramine, tryptophan, etc.) and metabolites (short-chain fatty acids, etc.) which travel through portal circulation to influence immune system, enteric nervous system, gut barrier integrity and the central nervous system (presumably via vagus nerve) (1). Conversely, in response to stress, the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis can produce cortisol affecting the intestinal barrier integrity, changing the gut environment, and finally altering the gut microbiota composition (1) resulting in a reduction of microbiota diversity (5). For instance, fecal lactic acid bacterial levels are found to be significantly reduced when undergraduate students experience high academic stress (6). Similarly, marital distress has been associated with increased gut permeability (7), possibly changing gut microbiota composition. Moreover, stress might prompt unhealthy food choices, alter metabolic responses to food, and adjust microbiota constitution (8).
Environmental factors and health behaviors might explain more microbiota variability than do genetic factors (9). Among these environmental factors, diet has emerged as one of the major predictors of gut microbiota composition (8). To confer a health benefit, prebiotic (such as fibers) is dietary supplement which is selectively utilized by microbiota whereas probiotic (such as Lactobacillus) is live microorganism ingested (2). Recently, there has been a surge in studies exploring the beneficial effects of prebiotics and probiotics on mental health (2). Nevertheless, results from these studies are only slowly being translated from animals to humans (10). Unstable results are reported in a recent meta-analysis exploring the efficacy of probiotics on stress reaction with the authors urging more large-scale and well-designed clinical trials in the future (11). Technical difficulties with probiotics include: ensuring the survival of probiotics to reach and colonize the intestines, and selection of appropriate bacterial strains (2). Intervention with prebiotics can globally improve gut microbiota status in contrast to the use of specific probiotics (2). In sum, an optimal diet therapy mitigating the detrimental effect of stress on gut-microbiota-brain axis remains undetermined.
Romantic Relationship Dissolution
In 1967, Holmes and Rahe developed the Social Readjustment Rating Scale to identify major life stressors. Among the 43 life stressors, romantic relationship dissolution (such as death of spouse or divorce) has been found to be the most traumatic one (12). Nearly 85% of people experience at least one romantic relationship dissolution in their lifetime (13). This universal experience might lead to grief and depression (14). Romantic relationship dissolution has been referred to as “heartbreak” or “post-relationship grief” (15). Indeed, some even commit suicide following the termination of romantic relationships (16). Romantic relationship dissolution might be accompanied by anxiety, fear, anger, panic, worry, sadness, emotional numbness, loss of purpose, poor concentration, poor memory, poor function, and various somatic symptoms such as loss of appetite and even impaired immunity (15). Copious studies have shown compromised immune function in divorced compared to married adults, such as higher antibody titers to Epstein-Barr virus and lower percentage of natural killer cell activity (17, 18). Furthermore, aberrant brain activations in the cerebellum, insula, pre-frontal cortex, anterior temporal cortex, and anterior cingulate after romantic relationship dissolution have been documented (19).
To sum up, romantic relationship dissolution is a universal and excruciating life stressor impacting both mental and physical health. With the emergence of COVID-19 pandemic, a deterioration of romantic relationship has been found by large-scale, cross-sectional online questionnaire studies in both US (20) and China (21). Presumably, many people might experience romantic relationship dissolution, and some people might need professional mental help. Nevertheless, due to quarantine and home confinement, opportunities to deliver professional clinical support via direct encounters are greatly curtailed in this crisis (22). Accordingly, this article introduces a self-help and easily-implemented hypothetical treatment for romantic relationship dissolution, as described in the following sections.
Romantic Relationship Dissolution and Microbiota
Couples demonstrate more similar gut microbiota than siblings (4). Therefore, it has been postulated that romantic relationship holds a strong influence on gut microbiota, possibly more powerful than shared genetics and early life environments among siblings (4). The mechanism linking romantic relationship to microbiota remains elusive with some speculations. Firstly, couples might share their microbiota via kissing. The microbiota on the dorsal surface of the tongue has been found to be more similar among partners (Morisita-Horn index = 0.37) than unrelated individuals (Morisita-Horn index = 0.55) (23). Indeed, salivary microbiota is more similar with higher frequency of kissing between couples (23). Secondly, another study shows that transfer of microbiota between couples might occur through shared environment and direct skin contact as cohabiting couples demonstrate similar skin microbiota, especially on their feet, likely reflecting collection of dust (24). Thirdly, behavioral concordance might result in the similarity between partner, such as diet, exercise, sleep, smoking, and alcohol consumption (25). Indeed, diet has a major impact on gut microbiota (26), and dietary patterns play a significant role in the shared gut microbiota in couples (27). Consequently, the above-mentioned evidence might suggest the considerable impact of romantic relationship on gut microbiota.
One study found a significant correlation between larger social network size and increased microbiota diversity (3). It has been speculated that social interaction allows microbiota transmission between subjects and contributes to increased microbiota diversity which counterbalances sociability-related enhanced exposure to infectious agents (5). Indeed, cohabiting spouses, especially those with close relationships, are shown to have more microbiota diversity than those living alone (4). Opposingly, stress has been associated with a reduction of microbiota diversity (5), especially interpersonal stress (conflict, romantic relationship dissolution, etc.) might arise during social interaction and result in a reduction of microbiota diversity (5). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that depression is also associated with decreased gut microbiota diversity (28). Given that romantic relationship dissolution is frequently associated with solitary living, stressful feeling, and depressive tendency (29), it is speculated that romantic relationship dissolution might be related to decreased microbiota diversity.
In short, studies have suggested that romantic relationship might significantly influence microbiota and is associated with increased microbiota diversity (presumably due to shared diet or microbiota transfer between couples, such as kissing and touching) than singleton. Despite lack of studies directly exploring the interaction between romantic relationship dissolution and microbiota, it is hypothesized that romantic relationship dissolution might be related to decreased microbiota diversity.
Romantic Relationship Dissolution, Microbiota and Fibers: The Hypothesis
Diet has a major impact on gut microbiota diversity (26). Dietary fibers are considered as prebiotic, and is associated with increased microbiota diversity (26). Dietary fibers include non-starch polysaccharides, resistant oligosaccharides, lignin, and resistant starch (30). Dietary fiber is defined as edible carbohydrate polymer with three or more monomeric units that are resistant to the endogenous digestive enzymes and neither hydrolyzed nor absorbed in the small intestine (26). Subsequently, gut bacteria can degrade dietary fibers and provide a plethora of simple oligomers serving as an energy source for fermentative microbiota and promote the diversification of gut microbiota (31). Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) can then be fermented from fibers by gut microbiota. SCFAs stimulate mucus production, promote generation of colonic regulatory T cells, increase colonic mineral absorption (26), induce gluconeogenesis, and serve as an energy source for colonocyte (32).
Dietary fiber potentially reduces inflammation (via modifying pH and the gut permeability) resulting in alteration of the neurotransmitter concentration (30). Indeed, dietary fiber intake has been found to inversely associated with depression (30, 33, 34). Several potential antidepressant mechanisms of dietary fibers have been speculated: (1) SCFAs produced by gut microbiota fermentation of dietary fibers can inhibit histone deacetylases and increase antidepressant brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) (2) SCFAs might activate G-protein-coupled receptor and increase antidepressant norepinephrine (3) Fiber intake might potentiate gut microbiota to produce more antidepressant tryptophan, serotonin, and GABG (4) SCFAs can decrease gut permeability with the subsequent decreased serum level of bacteria-produced lipopolysaccharides leading to reduced inflammation whereas inflammation is associated with depression (5) Bicarbonate is released during the production of SCFAs leading to a reduction in intestinal pH and inhibiting lipopolysaccharides-producing bacteria (30).
In sum, it is hypothesized that romantic relationship dissolution is associated with significantly decreased gut microbiota diversity which might be corrected via dietary fiber ingestion with an additional antidepressant effect.
Discussion
Romantic relationship dissolution is seldom addressed in scientific literature in spite of its enormous impact to emotional and physical health. This article presents a preliminary hypothesis linking romantic relationship dissolution with gut microbiota and dietary fibers.
To test this hypothesis, several issues should be considered. Firstly, influences of fibers on the gut microbiota has a significant interpersonal variation (35). Some might have problems tolerating high doses of fibers (flatulence, bloating, stomachaches, etc.) (26). Consequently, instead of a one-fits-all high-fiber diet, future studies might focus on designing a personalized high-fiber diets for people after romantic relationship dissolution (current dietary recommendation of dietary fibers is around 25–30 g/day (32), higher amount is suggested for romantic relationship dissolution). Secondly, instead of stress-provoking, romantic relationship dissolution can sometimes be stress-relieving and not-applicable for this hypothesis. Thirdly, despite potential biases in participant recruitment and study design, sex differences in emotional responsiveness (36) and resilience (37) to romantic relationship dissolution are suggested. A significant sex difference in depression prevalence is also well-acknowledged (38). Moreover, sex differences have also been found in microbiota diversity (3), degree of microbiota similarity with family members/spouse (39), and effect of fiber ingestion on microbiota (40). Therefore, sex difference in the interaction between romantic relationship dissolution, microbiota, and impact of fibers warrant careful exploration in future studies.
Stress has a great impact on microbiota. Although romantic relationship dissolution stands out as one of the most traumatic life stressors (12), other stressors might also be related to change of dietary habits, lack of physical contacts with others and depressed mood. Consequently, these stressors might influence microbiota to the similar extent as romantic relationship dissolution. For instance, a significant change in microbial environment is expected when one moves out of one's parents' house to live alone in a new city. Similar extent of microbiota alteration can also be found when one is under quarantine in a foreign country and devoid of physical contacts with others. In these situations, fiber supplementation might be able to counteract the effect of stress on gut microbiota diversity. Future studies are warranted to explore the interaction between various life stressors, microbiota, and fibers.
Statements
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Author contributions
J-YC developed the hypothesis and wrote the manuscript.
Funding
J-YC was funded by Cardinal Tien Hospital.
Conflict of interest
The author declares 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.
MoraisLHSchreiberHLMazmanianSK. The gut microbiota–brain axis in behaviour and brain disorders. Nat Rev Microbiol. (2021) 19:241–55. 10.1038/s41579-020-00460-0
2.
Long-SmithCO'RiordanKJClarkeGStantonCDinanTGCryanJF. Microbiota-gut-brain axis: New therapeutic opportunities. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. (2020) 60:477–502. 10.1146/annurev-pharmtox-010919-023628
3.
JohnsonKVA. Gut microbiome composition and diversity are related to human personality traits. Hum Microbiome J. (2020) 15:100069. 10.1016/j.humic.2019.100069
4.
Dill-McFarlandKATangZZKemisJHKerbyRLChenGPalloniAet al. Close social relationships correlate with human gut microbiota composition. Sci Rep. (2019) 9:703. 10.1038/s41598-018-37298-9
5.
SherwinEBordensteinSRQuinnJLDinanTGCryanJF. Microbiota and the social brain. Science. (2019) 366:eaar2016. 10.1126/science.aar2016
6.
KnowlesSRNelsonEAPalomboEA. Investigating the role of perceived stress on bacterial flora activity and salivary cortisol secretion: a possible mechanism underlying susceptibility to illness. Biol Psychol. (2008) 77:132–7. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2007.09.010
7.
Kiecolt-GlaserJKWilsonSJBaileyMLAndridgeRPengJJaremkaLMet al. Marital distress, depression, and a leaky gut: translocation of bacterial endotoxin as a pathway to inflammation. Psychoneuroendocrinology. (2018) 98:52–60. 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.08.007
8.
MadisonAKiecolt-GlaserJK. Stress, depression, diet, and the gut microbiota: human–bacteria interactions at the core of psychoneuroimmunology and nutrition. Curr Opin Behav Sci. (2019) 28:105–10. 10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.01.011
9.
RothschildDWeissbrodOBarkanEKurilshikovAKoremTZeeviDet al. Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human gut microbiota. Nature. (2018) 555:210–5. 10.1038/nature25973
10.
FosterJARinamanLCryanJF. Stress & the gut-brain axis: regulation by the microbiome. Neurobiol Stress. (2017) 7:124–36. 10.1016/j.ynstr.2017.03.001
11.
ZhangNZhangYLiMWangWLiuZXiCet al. Efficacy of probiotics on stress in healthy volunteers: a systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials. Brain Behav. (2020) 10:e01699. 10.1002/brb3.1699
12.
HolmesTHRaheRH. The social readjustment rating scale. J Psychosom Res. (1967) 11:213–8. 10.1016/0022-3999(67)90010-4
13.
BattagliaDMRichardFDDatteriDLLordCG. Breaking up is (relatively) easy to do: a script for the dissolution of close relationships. J Soc Pers Relat. (1998) 15:829–45. 10.1177/0265407598156007
14.
KellerMCNesseRM. Is low mood an adaptation? Evidence for subtypes with symptoms that match precipitants. J Affect Disord. (2005) 86:27–35. 10.1016/j.jad.2004.12.005
15.
MorrisCEReiberC. Frequency, intensity and expression of post-relationship grief. EvoS J. (2011) 3:1–11. Available online at: https://evostudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/MorrisVol3Iss1.pdf
16.
LoveHANalboneDPHeckerLLSweeneyKADharnidharkaP. Suicidal risk following the termination of romantic relationships. Crisis. (2018) 39:166–74. 10.1027/0227-5910/a000484
17.
Kiecolt-GlaserJK. Stress, personal relationships, and immune function: health implications. Brain Behav Immun. (1999) 13:61–72. 10.1006/brbi.1999.0552
18.
SbarraDAHazanC. Coregulation, dysregulation, self-regulation: an integrative analysis and empirical agenda for understanding adult attachment, separation, loss, and recovery. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. (2008) 12:141–67. 10.1177/1088868308315702
19.
NajibALorberbaumJPKoseSBohningDEGeorgeMS. Regional brain activity in women grieving a romantic relationship breakup. Am J Psychiatry. (2004) 161:2245–56. 10.1176/appi.ajp.161.12.2245
20.
LuetkeMHenselDHerbenickDRosenbergM. Romantic relationship conflict due to the covid-19 pandemic and changes in intimate and sexual behaviors in a nationally representative sample of american adults. J Sex Marital Ther. (2020) 46:747–62. 10.1080/0092623X.2020.1810185
21.
LiGTangDSongBWangCQunshanSXuCet al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on partner relationships and sexual and reproductive health: cross-sectional, online survey study. J Med Internet Res. (2020) 22:e20961. 10.2196/20961
22.
PfefferbaumBNorthCS. Mental health and the covid-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med. (2020) 383:510–12. 10.1056/NEJMp2008017
23.
KortRCaspersMvan de GraafAvan EgmondWKeijserBRoeselersG. Shaping the oral microbiota through intimate kissing. Microbiome. (2014) 2:41. 10.1186/2049-2618-2-41
24.
RossAADoxeyACNeufeldJD. The skin microbiome of cohabiting couples. MSystems. (2017) 2:e00043–17. 10.1128/mSystems.00043-17
25.
Kiecolt-GlaserJK. Marriage, divorce, and the immune system. Am Psychol. (2018) 73:1098–108. 10.1037/amp0000388
26.
MakkiKDeehanECWalterJBäckhedF. The impact of dietary fiber on gut microbiota in host health and disease. Cell Host Microbe. (2018) 23:705–15. 10.1016/j.chom.2018.05.012
27.
RohYLeeJKimWGYiGKimBKOhB. Effect of diet change on gut microbiota: observational pilot study of four urban couples. J Obes Metab Syndr. (2017) 26:257–65. 10.7570/jomes.2017.26.4.257
28.
KellyJRBorreYO' BrienCPattersonEEl AidySDeaneJet al. Transferring the blues: depression-associated gut microbiota induces neurobehavioural changes in the rat. J Psychiatr Res. (2016) 82:109–18. 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2016.07.019
29.
FieldTDiegoMPelaezMDeedsODelgadoJ. Breakup distress in university students. Adolescence. (2009). 44:705–27. 10.1037/t66170-000
30.
SwannOGKilpatrickMBreslinMOddyWH. Dietary fiber and its associations with depression and inflammation. Nutr Rev. (2020) 78:394–411. 10.1093/nutrit/nuz072
31.
DoréJBlottièreH. The influence of diet on the gut microbiota and its consequences for health. Curr Opin Biotechnol. (2015) 32:195–9. 10.1016/j.copbio.2015.01.002
32.
SanzYRomaní-PerezMBenítez-PáezAPortuneKJBrigidiPRampelliSet al. Towards microbiome-informed dietary recommendations for promoting metabolic and mental health: opinion papers of the mynewgut project. Clin Nutr. (2018) 37 (6 Pt. A):2191–7. 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.07.007
33.
MikiTEguchiMKurotaniKKochiTKuwaharaKItoRet al. Dietary fiber intake and depressive symptoms in Japanese employees: the furukawa nutrition and health study. Nutrition. (2016) 32:584–9. 10.1016/j.nut.2015.11.014
34.
RaminSMyszMAMeyerKCapistrantBLazovichDAPrizmentA. A prospective analysis of dietary fiber intake and mental health quality of life in the iowa women's health study. Maturitas. (2020) 131:1–7. 10.1016/j.maturitas.2019.10.007
35.
KolodziejczykAAZhengDElinavE. Diet–microbiota interactions and personalized nutrition. Nat Rev Microbiol. (2019) 17:742–53. 10.1038/s41579-019-0256-8
36.
MorrisCEReiberCRomanE. Quantitative sex differences in response to the dissolution of a romantic relationship. Evol Behav Sci. (2015) 9:270–82. 10.1037/ebs0000054
37.
DeLecceTWeisfeldG. An evolutionary explanation for sex differences in nonmarital breakup experiences. Adapt Hum Behav Physiol. (2016) 2:234–51. 10.1007/s40750-015-0039-z
38.
ChuangJ-YHaganCCMurrayGKGrahamJMEOoiCTaitRet al. Adolescent major depressive disorder: neuroimaging evidence of sex difference during an affective go/no-go task. Front Psychiatry. (2017) 8:119. 10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00119
39.
BritoILGurryTZhaoSHuangKYoungSKSheaTPet al. Transmission of human-associated microbiota along family and social networks. Nat Microbiol. (2019) 4:964–71. 10.1038/s41564-019-0409-6
40.
KimYSUnnoTKimBYParkMS. Sex differences in gut microbiota. World J Mens Health. (2020) 38:48–60. 10.5534/wjmh.190009
Summary
Keywords
romantic relationship, microbiota, microbiome, love, gut-microbiota-brain axis, fiber, romantic relationship dissolution
Citation
Chuang J-Y (2021) Romantic Relationship Dissolution, Microbiota, and Fibers. Front. Nutr. 8:655038. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2021.655038
Received
18 January 2021
Accepted
24 March 2021
Published
15 April 2021
Volume
8 - 2021
Edited by
Esther Aarts, Radboud University Nijmegen, Netherlands
Reviewed by
Mirjam Bloemendaal, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Netherlands; Veronica Witte, Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Germany
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Chuang.
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: Jie-Yu Chuang xiliwu3@gmail.com
This article was submitted to Nutrition and Brain Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Nutrition
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.