==== Front BMC Psychiatry BMC Psychiatry BMC Psychiatry 1471-244X BioMed Central London 4963 10.1186/s12888-023-04963-x Research Effect of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics on depression: results from a meta-analysis Zhang Qin 1 Chen Bing 2 Zhang Jinghui 3 Dong Jingyi 3 Ma Jianglin 4 Zhang Yuyan yannoo7376@sina.com 3 Jin Kangyu jinkangyu@zju.edu.cn 2 Lu Jing lujing2016@zju.edu.cn 25 1 grid.268505.c 0000 0000 8744 8924 First Clinical Medical College, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China 2 grid.452661.2 0000 0004 1803 6319 Department of Psychiatry, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China 3 grid.268505.c 0000 0000 8744 8924 School of Life Sciences, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China 4 grid.452661.2 0000 0004 1803 6319 Department of Pediatrics, The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, China 5 Key Laboratory of Mental Disorder Management in Zhejiang Province, Hangzhou, China 29 6 2023 29 6 2023 2023 23 4776 3 2023 15 6 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. Accumulating studies have shown the effects of gut microbiota management tools in improving depression. We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effects of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on patients with depression. We searched six databases up to July 2022. In total, 13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 786 participants were included. The overall results demonstrated that patients who received prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics had significantly improved symptoms of depression compared with those in the placebo group. However, subgroup analysis only confirmed the significant antidepressant effects of agents that contained probiotics. In addition, patients with mild or moderate depression could both benefit from the treatment. Studies with a lower proportion of females reported stronger effects for alleviating depressive symptoms. In conclusion, agents that manipulate gut microbiota might improve mild-to-moderate depression. It is necessary to further investigate the benefits of prebiotic, probiotic and synbiotic treatments relative to antidepressants and follow up with individuals over a longer time before these therapies are implemented in clinical practice. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-023-04963-x. Keywords Probiotics Prebiotics Synbiotics Depression Gut microbiota http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001809 National Natural Science Foundation of China 82271561 Lu Jing http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004731 Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province LQ20H090010 Lu Jing http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100017594 Medical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province 2022RC024 Lu Jing issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023 ==== Body pmcIntroduction Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a mood disorder that impairs psychosocial function and quality of life. The crude prevalence of depression or depressive symptoms was 27.2%, according to the data extracted from 183 studies in 43 countries [1]. Depression causes more ‘years lost’ to disability than any other condition and is ranked by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the third leading cause of global disease burden of disease [2, 3]; by 2030, depression is projected to reach first place. The initial therapeutic modality for depression is pharmacotherapy with or without psychotherapy and other somatic therapies. A previous meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of 21 antidepressant drugs in treating MDD and found that all antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo [4]. However, approximately 50% of patients with MDD insufficiently respond to antidepressant drugs [5]. In addition, a study analyzed 8262 patients with MDD from 28 placebo-controlled SSRI trials and found that patients with mild or moderate MDD showed a less pronounced response to treatment than those with severe MDD [6]. The side effects of antidepressants can include sexual dysfunction, weight gain, and daytime sleepiness, thus leading to the high discontinuation rate of antidepressant treatment [7, 8]. These problems necessitate the development of adjunctive treatments such as gut microbiota management tools, behavioral activation, and somatic therapies. Gut microbiota management tools encompass prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics. Probiotics are live microorganisms that provide a health benefit when consumed in adequate amounts [9]. Prebiotics refer to a substrate selectively utilized substrate by host microorganisms conferring a health benefit [10]. In addition, synbiotics are a mixture of prebiotics and probiotics [11]. Burgeoning researches has explored the therapeutic effects of these gut microbiota management tools in the recent years. These agents modulate the internal microbiota and its function and then exert an impact on the central nervous system (CNS) via neural, neuroendocrine, neuroimmune, and humoral links [12]. Therefore, prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics reveal a novel way to treat psychiatric disorders such as depression through the microbiota-gut-brain axis [13]. It has been proved in animal models that probiotics or prebiotics are capable of alleviating depressive-like behaviors, but data from clinical studies are still scarce and unconvincing [14–17]. Therefore, it is necessary to perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics on patients with depression, which also provides a reference for further research. There have also been several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the relevant topic due to the rapidly growing interest in this realm [18–20]. In comparison with them, our study included more homogeneous subjects (excluding comorbid depression and healthy individuals), more comprehensive interventions including prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics, and more diverse outcome indicators to assess the effectiveness. More importantly, we included several recent studies that were not included in the previous analyses. In general, the study aims to figure out whether gut microbiota management tools could exert significant effects on depression. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics in alleviating depressive symptoms. The secondary objectives are to explore influential factors associated with their effectiveness, and summarize alterations in gut microbiota depicted by different indices and changes in depression-related biochemical indicators. Method Search strategy This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) principles [21]. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (registration ID: CRD42022373150). Two reviewers independently searched six databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, Web of Science and PsycINFO. The following search query was formed with Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms and entry terms as search filters: (“Depression”[Mesh] OR “Depressive Disorder”[Mesh] OR “unipolar depression” OR “mental depression”) AND (“Prebiotics”[Mesh] OR “Probiotics”[Mesh] OR “Synbiotics”[Mesh]). A more specific strategy is provided in Supplementary Table 1. The references of similar systematic reviews and meta-analyses focused on prebiotics, probiotics and psychiatric disorders were also searched. The retrieval was not limited by language and included articles up to July 2022. Study selection Two reviewers independently evaluated the eligibility of retrieved studies, and any discrepancies were submitted to the corresponding author for resolution. Titles and abstracts of all articles were initially screened, and then full texts were carefully assessed according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: (1) RCTs in humans focused on the effects of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on depression; (2) patients with the clinical diagnosis of depression based on DSM-IV/V, ICD-10 or validated depression rating pools; (3) probiotics and/or prebiotics and/or synbiotics were used as treatment; (4) the control group received undistinguished placebo; and (5) rating scales for depression and/or gastrointestinal microbiota were assessed before and after the intervention; The study exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) patients with a comorbidity of major psychiatric or physical diseases (e.g., bipolar disorder or irritable bowel syndrome [IBS]), or healthy participants; (2) the use of prebiotics and/or prebiotics and/or synbiotics was self-reported instead of prescriptions from doctors; (3) the data of intestinal microbiota and/or depressive rating scales were missed, incomplete or unavailable; (4) reviews, meta-analyses, observational studies, case reports, studies on animals or cell lines, comments, abstracts from conferences and unpublished clinical trials; and (5) full texts were unavailable or main contents were duplicated. Data extraction Two reviewers independently extracted the data from the included articles, and any conflicts were resolved by discussion with the corresponding author. The following data were extracted: (1) basic information of studies including first author, publication year, country, and study design; (2) population characteristics including clinical diagnosis of depression, diagnostic criteria, duration of depression, age, sex, body mass index (BMI), education; (3) intervention characteristics including the types of intervention (prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics), probiotic strains, dosage, intervention duration, usage of antidepressant drugs; (4) the change in rating scales for depression, depression-related biomedical indicators, microbiome taxa, α and β diversity (α diversity represents the richness and evenness of the microbial community in individual samples, while β diversity evaluates interindividual diversity that assesses dissimilarity of microbial communities compared with the other samples analyzed). Quality assessment The risk of bias in the included studies was evaluated by two independent reviewers using Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of bias Tool 2 [22]. The judgement of overall bias is based on the evaluation of 5 domains, including the randomization process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. The quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) scale (https://gdt.gradepro.org). Statistical analysis We utilized the change in depressive symptom score, microbiota indices and inflammatory indicators to make comparisons between interventional and placebo groups (change value = post-intervention—baseline). The data transformation was based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (http://www.handbook.cochrane.org). If one study contained more than one eligible intervention group, in order to overcome the unit-of-analysis error, the control groups were divided into smaller sample sizes with unchanged mean and standard deviation (SD). The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated to pool the continuous results. 95% confidence interval (CI) and two-sided P values were used for each outcome. Heterogeneity among different studies was examined using the I2 statistic and Q-test. A fixed-effects model was selected in cases of low heterogeneity (P ≥ 0.05 or I2 < 50%); otherwise, a random-effects model was used because it attempted to generalize findings beyond the included studies by assuming that the selected studies are random samples from a larger population [23–25]. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the heterogeneity and moderators that affected the outcomes. Overall studies were stratified based on (1) the percentage of females included in studies; (2) different disease severity (moderate or mild depression); (3) whether prebiotics or agents containing probiotics (i.e., probiotics and synbiotics) were used for intervention; (4) single or multiple strains of probiotics; (5) whether prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics were used as an adjunctive therapy; (6) the intervention duration; (7) different assessment tools of depression; and (8) whether the assessment of depression was performed at the end of the intervention or after a follow-up period. Multiple meta-regression was a quantified analysis to further interpret the heterogeneity and evaluate effects of different factors on the outcomes. Participant characteristics and several factors in the subgroup analysis were included as explanatory covariates. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to examine the robustness of the results. Egger’s test, Begg’s test, and funnel plots were used to examine potential publication bias. If there was a possible publication bias, the “trim and fill” method was utilized [26, 27]. This meta-analysis was performed using Stata/SE 15.1 (Stata Corporation, TX, USA). Results Study selection and study characteristics The study flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1. A total of 2963 records were retrieved from six databases, and 1007 duplicates were removed. After screening the titles, abstracts and full texts, 13 studies were finally included in this meta-analysis [28–41]. All studies were published online between 2016 and 2022. Overall, 786 participants were allocated to the intervention group (n = 427) and the placebo group (n = 359). Most participants were female (a percentage ≥ 50% in all studies). The mean age of each study ranged from 34.5 to 53.0 years. For interventions, 9 studies compared probiotics and placebo, 1 study compared prebiotics and placebo, and 1 study compared synbiotics and placebo. Heidarzadeh-Rad et al. and Kazemi et al. performed three-armed comparisons between prebiotics, probiotics and placebo. These two studies initially recruited the same population, but adopted PP (per-protocol) or ITT (intention-to-treat) analysis, respectively. The intervention duration ranged from 3 to 24 weeks. The outcomes of scales that measured depressive symptoms varied among different researchers. The scales included the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) (n = 8), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) (n = 5), Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) (n = 3), and Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) (n = 1). Detailed characteristics of the study are shown in Table 1.Fig. 1 PRISMA flow diagram of the study Table 1 Basic characteristics of the included studies Study Country Population (Diagnosis criteria) Age Mean (SD) Sex (%female) Intervention Control Intervention duration Follow-up period Outcome measures Akkasheh, G., et al. (2016) [28] Iran MDD (DSM-IV and HDRS-17 ≥ 15) Pro: 38.3 (12.1) Ct: 36.2 (8.2) Pro:85.0 Ct: 85.0 Probiotics (n = 20) Placebo (n = 20) 8 weeks No BDI Browne, P.D., et al. (2021) [29] Netherlands Pregnant woman with depressive symptoms (EPDS ≥ 10) Pro: 29.7 (3.9) Ct: 31.7 (4.0) Pro: 100 Ct: 100 Probiotics (n = 20) Placebo (n = 20) 8 weeks 4 weeks post-partum EPDS Ghorbani, Z., et al. (2018) [30] Iran MDD (DSM-V and HDRS-17 of 17–23) Syn: 34.5 (4.0) Ct: 35.5 (5.27) Syn: 70.0 Ct: 70.0 Synbiotics  + fluoxetine (n = 20) Placebo  + fluoxetine (n = 20) 6 weeks No HDRS Heidarzadeh-Rad, N., et al. (2020) [31] Iran MDD (clinical diagnosis of the psychiatrist) Pro: 37.8 (7.9) Pre: 36.6 (8.4) Ct: 36.0 (8.5) Pro: 71.4 Pre: 80.0 Ct: 60.0 Probiotics (n = 28) or prebiotics (n = 25) + antidepressant medications Placebo  + antidepressant medications (n = 25) 8 weeks No BDI Huang, W., et al. (2019) [32] China MDD (ICD-10 + CCMD-3) / / Probiotics  + electroacupuncture (n = 56) Trimebutine maleate  + meptintin (n = 48) 3 weeks No HDRS Kazemi, A., et al. (2019) [33, 34] Iran MDD (Clinical diagnosis of the psychiatry clinic) Pro: 36.2 (7.9) Pre: 37.4 (8.0) Ct: 36.0 (8.5) Pro: 71.1 Pre: 75.0 Ct: 66.7 Probiotics (n = 38) Prebiotics (n = 36) Placebo (n = 36) 8 weeks No BDI Reininghaus, E.Z., et al. (2020) [35] Austria Depressive episode (Interview M.I.N.I. by a psychiatric) Pro: 43.0 (14.3) Ct: 40.1 (11.5) Pro: 71.4 Ct: 81.8 Probiotic  + pharmaceuticals (n = 28) Placebo  + pharmaceuticals (n = 30) 4 weeks No HDRS BDI Romijn, A.R., et al. (2017) [36] New zealand QIDS-SR16 ≥ 11 or DASS-42 ≥ 14 Pro: 35.8 (14.0) Ct: 35.1(14.5) Pro: 80.0 Ct: 76.9 Probiotics (n = 40) Placebo (n = 39) 8 weeks No MADRS QIDS-SR16 DASS-42 Rudzki, L., et al. (2019) [37] Poland MDD (DSM-IV) Pro:39.1(10.0) Ct: 38.9 (12.0) Pro: 76.7 Ct: 66.7 Probiotics  + SSRI (n = 30) Placebo  + SSRI (n = 30) 8 weeks No HDRS SCL-90 PSS-10 Schaub, A.C., et al. (2022) [38] Switzerland Depressive episode (ICD-10 or HDRS > 7) Pro: 39.2 (11.5) Ct: 38.0 (10.2) Pro: 73.7 Ct: 50.0 Probiotics (n = 19) Placebo (n = 24) 4 weeks 4 weeks after the intervention HDRS BDI Tarutani, S., et al. (2022) [39] Japan MDD (ICD-10 and CGI < 5 and ≥ 2) Pre: 54.3 (10.0) Ct: 53.4 (11.3) Pre: 88.9 Ct: 81.8 Prebiotics (n = 9) Placebo (n = 11) 24 weeks No MADRS Tian, P., et al. (2022) [40] China MDD (HDRS > 24) Pro: 51.3(16.1) Ct: 48.2(14.0) Pro: 70.0 Ct: 64.0 Probiotics  + antidepressant medications (n = 20) Placebo  + antidepressant medications (n = 25) 4 weeks No HDRS MADRS BPRS Zhang, X., et al. (2021) [41] China Depression (DSM-5) Pro: 45.8 (12.3) Ct: 49.7 (9.6) Pro: 63.2 Ct: 64.5 Probiotics  + antidepressant medications (n = 38) Placebo  + antidepressant medications (n = 31) 9 weeks No HDRS BDI BDI Beck Depression Inventory, BPRS Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale, CCMD Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders, CGI Clinical Global Impression, Ct Control, DASS-42 Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale, DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, EPDS Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, HDRS Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, ICD International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Health Related Problems, MADRS Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale, MDD Major depression disease, Pre Prebiotics, Pro Probiotics, QIDS-SR16 Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, SSRI Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, SCL-90 Symptom Checklist, PSS-10 Perceived Stress Scale, Syn Synbiotics Effect of prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics on depression symptoms Thirteen studies with 22 treatment and control groups were pooled to evaluate the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics. In the studies in which depressive symptoms were assessed by different rating scales (HDRS or BDI) or at the different time points (during the intervention, the end of intervention or follow-up), multiple groups of data were all included in the meta-analysis [29, 35, 37, 38, 41]. For three-armed studies consisting of prebiotics, probiotics and placebo groups, we divided the data into two sets (probiotics vs. placebo, prebiotics vs. placebo) in the meta-analysis [31, 33, 34]. Figure 2 shows that patients who received prebiotic, probiotic or synbiotic treatment had significant improvement in depression compared with those in the placebo group (SMD = -0.34 [-0.45, -0.22], P < 0.001). Moreover, the heterogeneity of the outcomes was low (I2 = 28.7%, P = 0.103).Fig. 2 Forest plot of the studies investigating the effect of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics in improving depressive symptoms compared with the placebo The results of the subgroup analysis The first subgroup analysis examined the influence of depression severity on the primary outcomes (Fig. 3a). Probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics were significantly superior to placebo in improving depressive symptoms in patients with both mild and moderate depression (mild: SMD = -0.38 [-0.63, -0.14], P = 0.002; moderate: SMD = -0.39 [-0.54, -0.24], P < 0.001). In addition, heterogeneity within subgroups and between subgroups was insignificant (mild: I2 = 20.8%, P = 0.277; moderate: I2 = 21.8%, P = 0.223; heterogeneity between groups: P = 0.959).Fig. 3 The outcomes of subgroup analysis. a based on the severity of depression, b based on whether the percentage of females in the study population was more or less than 70%, c based on different types of interventional agents, including prebiotics or agents containing probiotics (i.e., probiotics and synbiotics), d based on single or multiple strains of probiotics Most of the participants in the included studies were female. The percentage of females might induce different outcomes between studies (Fig. 3b). The intervention could significantly alleviate depressive symptoms regardless of the percentage of females, with low heterogeneity within either subgroup (female rate ≥ 0.7: I2 = 32.7%, P = 0.129; female rate < 0.7: I2 = 5.0%, P = 0.393). More importantly, the heterogeneity between groups was also significant (P = 0.032). Studies containing a lower percentage of females (< 70%) had a larger reduction in depressive symptom scores with an SMD of -0.49 (95% CI [-0.68, -0.30], P < 0.001), compared with those consisting of more than 70% females (SMD = -0.21 [-0.38, -0.05], P = 0.011). The third subgroup analysis was based on different types of interventional agents, including prebiotics or agents containing probiotics (i.e., probiotics and synbiotics) (Fig. 3c). The pooled effects of agents containing probiotics on depression were significant (SMD = -0.35[-0.47, -0.22], P < 0.001), accompanied by slightly increased heterogeneity (I2 = 38.2%, P = 0.047). However, in three studies with prebiotic intervention, the reduction in depressive symptom scores showed no significant difference from the placebo group (SMD = -0.25[-0.64,0.15], P = 0.221). The heterogeneity of the prebiotic subgroup was nonsignificant (I2 = 28.7%, P = 0.103). In addition, the heterogeneity between those two groups was not significant (P = 0.624). Amongst studies applying probiotics as the intervention, 4 studies used a single strain, and the remaining 7 studies used multiple strains. The depressive symptom scores were reduced significantly, regardless of whether single or multiple strains were applied (multiple: SMD = -0.27 [-0.43, -0.10], P = 0.002; single: SMD = -0.42[-0.62, -0.22], P < 0.001). Additionally, no significant heterogeneity between groups was observed (P = 0.249), with significant heterogeneity within the subgroup of multiple strains (I2 = 53.6%, P = 0.014), and absent heterogeneity within the subset of single strain (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.817) (Fig. 3d). As presented in Fig. 4a, the fifth subgroup analysis divided studies by whether prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics were used as a single or adjunctive treatment. Adjunctive treatment was observed to improve depression compared with placebo, with an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI [-0.49, -0.24], P < 0.001) and nonsignificant heterogeneity (I2 = 21.3%, P = 0.190). The therapeutic effects of a single treatment were not significantly different from the placebo (SMD = -0.13[-0.49, 0.24], P = 0.490) along with high heterogeneity within the subgroup (I2 = 74.0%, P = 0.050). The heterogeneity between the two groups was insignificant (P = 0.228).Fig. 4 a based on whether prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics were used as adjunctive therapy, b based on different intervention duration (i.e., ≤ 4 weeks, 4 to 8 weeks and > 8 weeks), c based on whether the assessment of depression was performed at the end of the intervention or after a follow-up period, d based on the different assessment tools of depressive symptom (HDRS or BDI) According to different lengths of treatment, studies were stratified into three subgroups including ≤ 4 weeks, 4 to 8 weeks and > 8 weeks (Fig. 4b). Subgroups with a treatment duration of fewer than 8 weeks had significant beneficial effects on depressive symptoms (≤ 4 weeks: SMD = -0.37[-0.55, -0.19], P < 0.001; 4 to 8 weeks: SMD = -0.32[-0.51, -0.14], P = 0.001). Patients who received more than 8 weeks of therapy failed to have a significant SMD of -0.28 (95% CI [-0.60, 0.03], P = 0.080). However, those three groups did not have significant heterogeneity (P = 0.871). Heterogeneity was evident in the subgroup of 4 to 8 weeks treatment duration (I2 = 51.4%, P = 0.030), while nonsignificant heterogeneity was observed in the other subgroups (≤ 4 weeks: I2 = 24.4%, P = 0.227; > 8 weeks: I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.955). The assessment of depressive symptom scores whether at the end of the intervention or after a follow-up period might affect the outcomes. As demonstrated in Fig. 4c, probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics exerted significant therapeutic effects on depression either evaluated after the intervention or after a follow-up period (after intervention: SMD = -0.33[-0.45, -0.20], P < 0.001; after follow-up: SMD = -0.42[-0.78, -0.06], P = 0.021). Additionally, the heterogeneity within each subgroup and between subgroups was nonsignificant (after intervention: I2 = 26.6%, P < 0.139; after follow-up: I2 = 57.5%, P = 0.095; heterogeneity between subgroups: P = 0.625). The last subgroup analysis was based on different depressive rating scales. Figure 4d shows that whether assessed by HDRS or BDI, the overall efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics in improving depressive symptoms was more significant than placebo (HDRS: SMD = -0.48 [-0.65, -0.30], P < 0.01; BDI: SMD = -0.36[-0.56, -0.17], P < 0.01). The heterogeneity of each subgroup and between subgroups was nonsignificant (HDRS: I2 = 27.7%, P = 0.198; BDI: I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.769; heterogeneity between subgroups: P = 0.408). The result of meta-regression Moderators were put in multivariant meta-regression analysis to demonstrate their influence on primary outcomes. Table 2 shows that the percentage of females significantly affected the efficacy of the intervention. A more considerable reduction in depressive symptoms was observed in the studies that contained a lower percentage of females (coefficient = 1.925, P = 0.026). Additionally, age (P = 0.152), treatment duration (≤ 4 weeks vs. 4 to 8 weeks, P = 0.076; > 8 weeks vs. 4 to 8 weeks, P = 0.064), intervention agent (P = 0.643), intervention type (P = 0.423) and evaluation timepoint (P = 0.292) showed no significant influence on the treatment effects.Table 2 Meta-regression of the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics on depression Covariates Coefficient Standard error t P 95%CI Treatment duration (reference =  > 4 weeks, ≤ 8 weeks)   ≤ 4 weeks 0.494 0.256 1.93 0.076 -0.059 1.046   > 8 weeks 0.849 0.419 2.03 0.064 -0.056 1.753 Age -0.043 0.028 -1.52 0.152 -0.104 0.018 Percentage of females 1.925 0.766 2.51 0.026* 0.271 3.580 Intervention agent (Probiotics or non-probiotics) -0.109 0.231 -0.47 0.643 -0.608 0.389 Intervention type (Single or adjunctive intervention) -0.211 0.256 -0.83 0.423 -0.764 0.341 Evaluation timepoint (After intervention or follow-up) -0.264 0.241 -1.10 0.292 -0.784 0.256 CI Confidence interval *P < 0.05 The change in α diversity, β diversity, and the abundance of specific microbiome Four studies reported α diversity measured by six indices, including richness (observed species, Chao1), evenness, and richness/evenness (Shannon, Simpson, inverse Simpson). Chao1, Shannon and observed species were most frequently used in the included studies. As shown in Fig. 5a, the pooled estimate demonstrated no significant difference in the SMD of Chao1, Shannon and observed species between the intervention group and placebo group (Chao-1: SMD = -0.06 [-0.37, 0.24], P = 0.676; Shannon: SMD = 0.04 [-0.24, 0.32], P = 0.758; observed species: SMD = -0.02 [-0.36, 0.33], P = 0.913). Additionally, these indices included studies with low heterogeneity (Chao-1: I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.435; Shannon: I2 = 8.3%, P = 0.352; observed species: I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.939).Fig. 5 The change of α diversity and the abundance of microbiome taxa. a the change of Chao-1, Shannon and observed species indices in the intervention group compared with the placebo. b the change of gut microbiome abundance after the intervention at phylum, family and genus levels Regarding β diversity, 4 studies reported inconsistent outcomes. Two of them demonstrated significant difference in β diversity between the prebiotics group and the placebo group, but the other two studies exhibited the contradictory outcomes (Supplementary Table 2). Six studies depicted the change in gut microbiome abundance after the intervention at phylum, family and genus levels. At the phylum level, Bacteroidetes were decreased in two studies. Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria were increased in one study. At the family level, two studies reported changes in Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae. The former was observed to grow, and the latter presented controversial outcomes. Six studies found an elevated abundance of Lactobacillus, Bifidobacterium and Ruminococcus at the genus level (Fig. 5b). Effect of prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics on biomedical indicators related to depression Meta-analysis was used to evaluate the changes in IL-1β (P = 0.965), IL-6 (P = 0.178) and TNF-α (P = 0.420) after the intervention, which were not significantly different from those that received placebo (Supplementary Figure 1). Since the data of BDNF, cortisol and other depression-related biomarkers were not sufficient to perform a valid meta-analysis, the results from each included study were summarized here. Two studies reported increased levels of BDNF, and one study showed no significant alteration [31, 32, 36]. Three studies measured the change in serum cortisol, and no significant difference was observed when comparing interventional groups with placebo groups [33, 37, 40]. In addition, increased norepinephrine (NE) levels and decreased 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) levels after using probiotics combined with electroacupuncture were reported by one study [32]. Quality of included studies and risk of bias assessment The quality of evidence was evaluated by GRADE criteria and the primary outcome of the included studies was high certainty (Supplementary Table 3). The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias Tool 2. A total of 46.2% of studies had a low-risk overall bias, and 23.1% of studies showed high risks in general bias, leaving 30.8% of studies with some concerns for overall bias (Supplementary Figure 2). The adoption of per-protocol instead of intent-to-treat analysis and the problems in the randomization process led to the increased risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias Publication bias was tested both qualitatively and quantitatively. The funnel plot appeared to have a fair amount of symmetry, which indicated no evidence of publication bias (Supplementary Figure 3). Begg’s test (P = 0.236 > 0.05) and Egger’s test (P = 0.774 > 0.05) also revealed no publication bias. In the sensitivity analysis, no single study significantly impacted the overall results (Supplementary Figure 4). Discussions In this meta-analysis, the overall effects of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics on depressive symptoms were significantly superior to those of placebo. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses explored the relative factors that correlated with therapeutic efficacy and the outcomes were further discussed here. The results remained significant regardless of different assessment time points and scales, which manifested the robustness of their effectiveness. Additionally, these microbiota management agents were effective for patients with both mild and moderate depression. Since antidepressant drugs had greater efficacy in severe depression, the microbiota management agents could be beneficial alternatives for those with mild-to-moderate depression. Meanwhile, Chahwan et al. showed that patients in the mild-to-moderate severity range reported the lower cognitive vulnerability to depression following probiotic intervention [42]. As for comparisons between prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics, most studies utilized probiotics as the intervention. Subgroup analysis presented significant pooled effects of agents containing probiotics (i.e., probiotics and synbiotics) in improving depressive symptoms. However, there was only one article on synbiotics that showed significant antidepressant effects. In addition, three trials of prebiotics demonstrated no significant difference between prebiotics and placebo [30, 31, 33, 34, 39]. Liu et al. conducted a meta-analysis on prebiotics and probiotics for depression, which was in line with our results. They observed no difference between prebiotics and control conditions in reducing depressive symptom scores, while probiotics exerted significant antidepressant effects [18]. Given the insufficient number of studies on prebiotics and synbiotics, it might be premature to conclude their clinical efficacy in alleviating depressive symptoms. Therefore, further clinical trials to reveal the potential effectiveness of prebiotics and synbiotics are strongly suggested in the future. Regarding probiotics, Lactobacillus casei (L. casei), Lactobacillus acidophilus (L. acidophilus) and Bifidobacterium (e.g., B. longum, B. bifidum, B. breve) are common strains contained in probiotic capsules, working as beneficial microbial flora. L. casei is typically applied to treat gastrointestinal diseases, with relatively less evidence in treating depression. Animal studies have shown that it can improve depression-like behaviours in rats by reversing changes in the expression of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and its receptor induced by chronic stress [43]. L. acidophilus has been observed to mitigate lactose intolerance, enhance host immune function and inhibit the progression of cardiovascular disease, since it was initially isolated in 1990 [44]. The Bifidobacterium genus is a promising candidate for the treatment of psychiatric disorders. B. breve was found to exert antidepressant-like effects through various mechanisms, such as the deregulation of hyperactive hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis [45]. B. longum was shown to reduce limbic reactivity to weaken responses to negative emotional stimulation in the brain [46]. In addition, new strains of probiotics are continuously being discovered and applied, which provides diverse choices to determine suitable probiotics for depression treatment. Besides, prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics served as add-on treatments in most studies. Whether they could replace antidepressant drugs as a first-line treatment still lacks supportive evidence. In addition, the treatment duration of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics did not influence their efficacy based on our subgroup outcomes. The results appeared to be nonsignificant in the subgroups with the interventions of more than 8 weeks, mainly because those studies applied prebiotics. Sex was another factor that significantly influenced the efficacy of the intervention, as demonstrated by the subgroup and meta-regression results. Several human studies have found an influence of sex on gastrointestinal microbial composition, either in healthy individuals or depressive patients. Healthy females were reported to have a higher abundance of the Bacteroides genus than males. In contrast, the gut microbiota in males contained a higher abundance of Escherichia and Veillonella genera than in females [47, 48]. Concerning microbiota patterns in patients with depression, in comparison with the sex-matched healthy cohort, drug-free females with a first depressive episode had a higher abundance of Actinobacteria, while males had a lower abundance of Bacteroides [49]. Estrogen might play a role in the sex difference in microbial composition. Several studies have revealed bilateral ovariectomy-induced gut microbial dysbiosis in mice [50, 51]. Based on sex differences in gut microbiota, biological sex might also impact the response of depressive patients to treatments targeting gut microbiota such as prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics [52]. In the study conducted by Karunasena et al., mice were fed a probiotic (i.e., Lactobacillus animalis). The results showed that the Staphylococcus and Roseburia genera were consistently overrepresented in females compared to males, which indicated that host response to probiotics was sex sensitive [53]. Apart from sex-specific microbial changes after the intervention, the immune system also reacted differently between males and females. Mu et al. found that Lactobacillus treatment was anti-inflammatory by reducing IL-6 and increasing IL-10 production in the gut in female and castrated male mice but not in intact males [54]. Sex-dependent changes in gut microbiota and immunity could explain the sex-dependent improvements in depressive symptoms after the treatment with probiotics, prebiotics, and synbiotics. Since most studies included female participants and few focused on the sex difference in efficacy, future research should explore the interactions between sex, depression and gut microbiota. The antidepressant effects of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics could be explained by multiple mechanisms correlated with our secondary outcomes. The first and most direct role of prebiotics, probiotics or synbiotics was interaction with gut microbiota and their ecosystem. The animal trials of Abildgaard et al. observed a difference in the internal microbiota composition between responders and non-responders to probiotics regarding depressive-like behavior. They found that fecal abundance of relative genera, particularly the Lactobacillus genus, was higher in responders than in non-responders [55]. In other words, probiotics exert antidepressant effects by altering the internal microbiota. Another preclinical study illustrated that the modulation of gut microbiota and intestinal mucosa function via fecal microbiota transplantation probably contributed to alleviating depressive-like behavior [56]. In addition, the use of antibiotics leads to predisposition to depression by changing the gut microbiota. Ido Lurie et al., used a large population-based medical record database from the UK to conduct 3 nested case–control studies, and found that the use of antibiotics was associated with an increased risk for depression and recurrent antibiotic exposure could further increase that risk [57]. In another study, antibiotic mixtures were used to induce depression mouse model and caused changes in depression-related biomarkers. The species of intestinal microbiota in antibiotic-induced depression mice also underwent significant alterations, such as increased Bacteroides and Klebsiella [58]. Probiotics, in contrast, were proved to be capable of recovering the dysregulation of gut microbiota. Our quantitative analyses of the change in α diversity after the intervention appeared nonsignificant compared with the placebo, while qualitative analyses of β diversity showed inconsistent results. Insufficient sample sizes could explain these outcomes in the analyses and a specific number of microbial species in each included study. Regarding the abundance alteration of several microbial taxa, previous studies demonstrated that the Bifidobacterium genus was decreased in patients with MDD compared to controls [59, 60]. Our analysis revealed that the Bifidobacterium genus was increased after the intervention along with improvements in depressive symptoms. Indeed, more research is necessary to elucidate the explicit association between gut microbiota and depression treatment such as prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics. The second mechanism is referred to as immune modulation. MDD patients were found to have increased proinflammatory cytokines and acute phase proteins such as IL-6, TNF, and C-reactive protein in the blood [61]. Meanwhile, probiotics and prebiotics have been shown by several studies to exhibit anti-inflammatory effects [16, 62]. Probiotics could increase anti-inflammatory cytokine levels, such as TNF, while prebiotics were discovered to reduce type 2 T helper responses [13]. However, different effects might be observed depending on the different prebiotics or probiotics used. Some have a pro-inflammatory effect, whereas others are more anti-inflammatory [63]. This partially accounted for the nonsignificant pooled results when comparing inflammatory indicators between the intervention and placebo groups. The small number of studies included in the analyses was another critical reason. These microbiota management agents might also exert their effects on the brain through other avenues, including the vagus nerve, HPA axis, microbial metabolites and neurotransmitter serotonin [64]. Therefore, future studies were suggested to examine these mechanisms to extend the current understanding of microbiota management agents. Strengths and limitations Since the microbiota-gut-brain axis has great interest from clinical doctors and scientific researchers, several meta-analyses have been conducted to conclude the effects of probiotics or prebiotics in improving depressive symptoms [18, 19, 65, 66]. Compared to previous studies, this meta-analysis has the following advantages. In terms of included participants, previous studies included healthy populations and comorbid depression patients (e.g., with comorbidity of IBS), which caused high heterogeneity within populations. Depression patients, therefore, could not acquire helpful guidance on whether they should choose microbiota management agents. This study only included depression patients without major comorbidities to make a valid and generalized conclusion for patients with depression. Second, no previous meta-analysis has comprehensively examined and compared the effects of prebiotics, probiotics, and synbiotics on depression. Alli et al. conducted a systematic review on the benefits of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics to depressive patients, but it did not include a quantitative meta-analysis, which was exhibited in our study [20]. With regard to the outcomes, not only were the improvements in depressive symptoms evaluated, but gut microbiota indices and inflammatory indicators were also compared between the intervention and placebo groups. Finally, the data in our study were very recent, as 10 of 13 included studies were published between 2019 and 2022 and were not included in the previous meta-analyses. Nevertheless, certain limitations existed in the meta-analysis. First, the included studies and sample sizes were relatively small, especially those that utilized prebiotics or synbiotics. Therefore, more studies are warranted to support the antidepressant effects of prebiotics and synbiotics. Second, since the two included studies contained three parallel groups, namely prebiotics, probiotics and placebo, we evenly divided the number of patients in the placebo group to accomplish the pooled analysis. However, it only partially overcame the unit-of-analysis error. Third, different microbiomes, intervention durations, outcome measurements and assessment time points in different studies could interfere with the primary result (i.e., reductions in depressive symptom scores). Thus, we conducted various subgroup and meta-regression analyses to further describe the primary outcome. Fourth, prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics were applied as add-on treatments in most studies with a paucity of identification of their isolated effects. Moreover, antidepressants were reported to have antimicrobial effects, which probably influence the efficacy of microbiota management agents [67]. Fifth, the included studies recruited few males and adolescents, but sex and age might impact the effects of probiotics, prebiotics and synbiotics. For sex, our subgroup analysis and meta-regression demonstrated its influence. In terms of age, several studies have reported that microbiome composition and abundance differed across the lifespan [68, 69]. Therefore, a balanced sex and age distribution is expected in future clinical trials. Conclusions In conclusion, agents that manipulate gut microbiota might become a novel approach to treat patients with mild-to-moderate depression. Significant antidepressant effects of probiotics were observed, whereas the efficacy of prebiotics and synbiotics on depression requires more evidence to confirm. In addition, biological sex was a vital factor that influenced patients’ responses to the treatment, and research and real-world practice could focus more on this point. Finally, inconsistent outcomes and insufficient data on the changes in gut microbiota and inflammatory indicators warrant future studies to investigate more on the mechanisms of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics. Supplementary Information Additional file 1: Supplementary Table 1. Search Strategy. Supplementary Table 2. Summary of β diversity in the included studies. Supplementary Table 3. GRADE summary of studies. Supplementary Figure 1. The change of inflammatory indicators including IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α. Supplementary Figure 2. Risk of bias graph assessed by Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of bias Tool 2. (a) displayed the domain and overall judgements of risk of bias study-by-study, and (b) showed the percentage of risk of bias assessments at each level of risk of bias per domain. Supplementary Figure 3. Funnel plot that examined publication bias. Supplementary Figure 4. A sensitivity analysis that tested the robustness of the outcomes. Abbreviations BDI Beck Depression Inventory BMI Body mass index CNS The central nervous system EPDS Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale GRADE Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation HDRS Hamilton Depression Rating Scale IBS Irritable bowel syndrome MADRS Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale MDD Major depressive disorder MeSH Medical Subject Heading PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses RCTs Randomized controlled trials SD Standard deviation SMD Standardized mean difference WHO World Health Organization Acknowledgements Thanks for Dr. Jing Lu, Dr. Kangyu Jin, and Dr. Yuyan Zhang for their rigorous instruction on this study, as well as all participants for their efforts. Authors’ contributions YYZ, KYJ and JL: study design and revision of the article. QZ: performing the analysis and drafting the article. BC, JHZ, JYD and JLM: data collection and quality assessment of the included studies. All authors approved the final manuscript. Funding This study was supported by the Medical Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Province (2022RC024) and the National Natural Science Foundation (82271561) and Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (LQ20H090010). Availability of data and materials The data used for this meta-analysis are publicly available in the research studies. The full dataset can be requested from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate Not applicable. Consent for publication Not applicable. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Yuyan Zhang, Kangyu Jin and Jing Lu contributed equally to this work. ==== Refs References 1. Rotenstein LS Prevalence of depression, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis JAMA 2016 316 21 2214 2236 10.1001/jama.2016.17324 27923088 2. Malhi GS Mann JJ Depression Lancet 2018 392 10161 2299 2312 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31948-2 30396512 3. Smith K Mental health: a world of depression Nature 2014 515 7526 181 10.1038/515180a 25391942 4. Cipriani A Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis Lancet 2018 391 10128 1357 1366 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)32802-7 29477251 5. Velehorschi C Understanding the role of adjunctive nonpharmacological therapies in management of the multiple pathways to depression Psychiatry Res 2014 220 Suppl 1 S34 44 10.1016/S0165-1781(14)70004-6 25539873 6. Hieronymus F Influence of baseline severity on the effects of SSRIs in depression: an item-based, patient-level post-hoc analysis Lancet Psychiatry 2019 6 9 745 752 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30216-0 31303567 7. Rheker J Learning to experience side effects after antidepressant intake - results from a randomized, controlled, double-blind study Psychopharmacology 2017 234 3 329 338 10.1007/s00213-016-4466-8 27807605 8. Rothmore J Antidepressant-induced sexual dysfunction Med J Aust 2020 212 7 329 334 10.5694/mja2.50522 32172535 9. Hill C Expert consensus document. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics consensus statement on the scope and appropriate use of the term probiotic Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014 11 8 506 514 10.1038/nrgastro.2014.66 24912386 10. Gibson GR Expert consensus document: The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of prebiotics Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2017 14 8 491 502 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.75 28611480 11. Swanson KS The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics (ISAPP) consensus statement on the definition and scope of synbiotics Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020 17 11 687 701 10.1038/s41575-020-0344-2 32826966 12. Saulnier DM The intestinal microbiome, probiotics and prebiotics in neurogastroenterology Gut Microbes 2013 4 1 17 27 10.4161/gmic.22973 23202796 13. Sanders ME Probiotics and prebiotics in intestinal health and disease: from biology to the clinic Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019 16 10 605 616 10.1038/s41575-019-0173-3 31296969 14. Hashikawa-Hobara N Lactobacillus paragasseri OLL2809 improves depression-like behavior and increases beneficial gut microbes in mice Front Neurosci 2022 16 918953 10.3389/fnins.2022.918953 35837127 15. Huang L Combined probiotics attenuate chronic unpredictable mild stress-induced depressive-like and anxiety-like behaviors in rats Front Psychiatry 2022 13 990465 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.990465 36159940 16. Desbonnet L Effects of the probiotic Bifidobacterium infantis in the maternal separation model of depression Neuroscience 2010 170 4 1179 1188 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.08.005 20696216 17. Paiva IHR Duarte-Silva E Peixoto CA The role of prebiotics in cognition, anxiety, and depression Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2020 34 1 18 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2020.03.006 32241688 18. Liu RT Walsh RFL Sheehan AE Prebiotics and probiotics for depression and anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2019 102 13 23 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.03.023 31004628 19. Goh KK Effect of probiotics on depressive symptoms: a meta-analysis of human studies Psychiatry Res 2019 282 112568 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112568 31563280 20 Alli SR The gut microbiome in depression and potential benefit of prebiotics, probiotics and synbiotics: a systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies Int J Mol Sci 2022 23 9 4494 10.3390/ijms23094494 35562885 21. Page MJ PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews BMJ 2021 372 n160 10.1136/bmj.n160 33781993 22 Flemyng E Risk of bias 2 in Cochrane reviews: a phased approach for the introduction of new methodology Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020 10 Ed000148 33215687 23. DerSimonian R Laird N Meta-analysis in clinical trials Control Clin Trials 1986 7 3 177 188 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 3802833 24. Borenstein M A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis Res Synth Methods 2010 1 2 97 111 10.1002/jrsm.12 26061376 25. Ng QX Systematic review with meta-analysis: the association between post-traumatic stress disorder and irritable bowel syndrome J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019 34 1 68 73 10.1111/jgh.14446 30144372 26. Egger M Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test BMJ 1997 315 7109 629 634 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 9310563 27. Colditz GA Burdick E Mosteller F Heterogeneity in meta-analysis of data from epidemiologic studies: a commentary Am J Epidemiol 1995 142 4 371 382 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a117644 7625401 28. Akkasheh G Clinical and metabolic response to probiotic administration in patients with major depressive disorder: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Nutrition 2016 32 3 315 320 10.1016/j.nut.2015.09.003 26706022 29 Browne PD Probiotics as a treatment for prenatal maternal anxiety and depression: a double-blind randomized pilot trial Sci Rep 2021 11 1 3051 10.1038/s41598-021-81204-9 33542275 30 Ghorbani Z The effect of synbiotic as an adjuvant therapy to fluoxetine in moderate depression: A randomized multicenter trial Arch Neurosci 2018 5 2 e60507 10.5812/archneurosci.60507 31. Heidarzadeh-Rad N Effects of a psychobiotic supplement on serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels in depressive patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized clinical trial J Neurogastroenterol Motil 2020 26 4 486 495 10.5056/jnm20079 32989186 32. Huang W Efficacy of electroacupuncture combined with probiotics for depression and chronic diarrhea in patients and effect on serum inflammatory cytokines, NE and BDNF Exp Ther Med 2019 18 5 3470 3474 31602222 33. Kazemi A Effect of prebiotic and probiotic supplementation on circulating pro-inflammatory cytokines and urinary cortisol levels in patients with major depressive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial J Funct Foods 2019 52 596 602 10.1016/j.jff.2018.11.041 34. Kazemi A Effect of probiotic and prebiotic vs placebo on psychological outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder: a randomized clinical trial Clin Nutr 2019 38 2 522 528 10.1016/j.clnu.2018.04.010 29731182 35 Reininghaus EZ PROVIT: supplementary probiotic treatment and vitamin B7 in depression-a randomized controlled trial Nutrients 2020 12 11 3422 10.3390/nu12113422 33171595 36. Romijn AR A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of Lactobacillus helveticus and Bifidobacterium longum for the symptoms of depression Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2017 51 8 810 821 10.1177/0004867416686694 28068788 37. Rudzki L Probiotic Lactobacillus Plantarum 299v decreases kynurenine concentration and improves cognitive functions in patients with major depression: a double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled study Psychoneuroendocrinology 2019 100 213 222 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2018.10.010 30388595 38. Schaub AC Clinical, gut microbial and neural effects of a probiotic add-on therapy in depressed patients: a randomized controlled trial Transl Psychiatry 2022 12 1 227 10.1038/s41398-022-01977-z 35654766 39. Tarutani S Effects of 4G-beta-D-Galactosylsucrose in patients with depression: a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group comparative study J Psychiatr Res 2022 148 110 120 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.01.059 35123322 40. Tian P Bifidobacterium breve CCFM1025 attenuates major depression disorder via regulating gut microbiome and tryptophan metabolism: a randomized clinical trial Brain Behav Immun 2022 100 233 241 10.1016/j.bbi.2021.11.023 34875345 41. Zhang X Effects of fermented milk containing Lacticaseibacillus paracasei strain Shirota on constipation in patients with depression: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial Nutrients 2021 13 7 2238 10.3390/nu13072238 34209804 42. Chahwan B Gut feelings: a randomised, triple-blind, placebo-controlled trial of probiotics for depressive symptoms J Affect Disord 2019 253 317 326 10.1016/j.jad.2019.04.097 31078831 43. Gu F Lactobacillus casei improves depression-like behavior in chronic unpredictable mild stress-induced rats by the BDNF-TrkB signal pathway and the intestinal microbiota Food Funct 2020 11 7 6148 6157 10.1039/D0FO00373E 32578646 44. Gao H The functional roles of Lactobacillus acidophilus in different physiological and pathological processes J Microbiol Biotechnol 2022 32 10 1226 1233 10.4014/jmb.2205.05041 36196014 45. Tian P Towards a psychobiotic therapy for depression: Bifidobacterium breve CCFM1025 reverses chronic stress-induced depressive symptoms and gut microbial abnormalities in mice Neurobiology of stress 2020 12 100216 10.1016/j.ynstr.2020.100216 32258258 46. Pinto-Sanchez MI Probiotic Bifidobacterium longum NCC3001 reduces depression scores and alters brain activity: a pilot study in patients with irritable bowel syndrome Gastroenterology 2017 153 2 448 459.e8 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.003 28483500 47. Haro C Intestinal microbiota is influenced by gender and body mass index PLoS ONE 2016 11 5 e0154090 10.1371/journal.pone.0154090 27228093 48. Singh P Manning SD Impact of age and sex on the composition and abundance of the intestinal microbiota in individuals with and without enteric infections Ann Epidemiol 2016 26 5 380 385 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.03.007 27118420 49. Chen JJ Sex differences in gut microbiota in patients with major depressive disorder Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 2018 14 647 655 10.2147/NDT.S159322 29520144 50. Sinha T Analysis of 1135 gut metagenomes identifies sex-specific resistome profiles Gut Microbes 2019 10 3 358 366 10.1080/19490976.2018.1528822 30373468 51. Org E Sex differences and hormonal effects on gut microbiota composition in mice Gut Microbes 2016 7 4 313 322 10.1080/19490976.2016.1203502 27355107 52. Vemuri R The microgenderome revealed: sex differences in bidirectional interactions between the microbiota, hormones, immunity and disease susceptibility Semin Immunopathol 2019 41 2 265 275 10.1007/s00281-018-0716-7 30298433 53. Karunasena E Host responses to the pathogen Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis and beneficial microbes exhibit host sex specificity Appl Environ Microbiol 2014 80 15 4481 4490 10.1128/AEM.01229-14 24814797 54. Mu Q Control of lupus nephritis by changes of gut microbiota Microbiome 2017 5 1 73 10.1186/s40168-017-0300-8 28697806 55. Abildgaard A The antidepressant-like effect of probiotics and their faecal abundance may be modulated by the cohabiting gut microbiota in rats Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2019 29 1 98 110 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2018.10.011 30396698 56. Rao J Fecal microbiota transplantation ameliorates gut microbiota imbalance and intestinal barrier damage in rats with stress-induced depressive-like behavior Eur J Neurosci 2021 53 11 3598 3611 10.1111/ejn.15192 33742731 57. Lurie I Antibiotic exposure and the risk for depression, anxiety, or psychosis: a nested case-control study J Clin Psychiatry 2015 76 11 1522 1528 10.4088/JCP.15m09961 26580313 58. Fan X Antibiotics-induced depression in mice via the microbiota-gut-brain axis J Affect Disord 2022 318 152 158 10.1016/j.jad.2022.08.059 36075400 59. Aizawa E Possible association of Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus in the gut microbiota of patients with major depressive disorder J Affect Disord 2016 202 254 257 10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.038 27288567 60. Liu Y Similar fecal microbiota signatures in patients with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and patients with depression Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2016 14 11 1602 1611.e5 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.05.033 27266978 61. Beurel E Toups M Nemeroff CB The bidirectional relationship of depression and inflammation: double trouble Neuron 2020 107 2 234 256 10.1016/j.neuron.2020.06.002 32553197 62. Wall R Impact of administered bifidobacterium on murine host fatty acid composition Lipids 2010 45 5 429 436 10.1007/s11745-010-3410-7 20405232 63. Klaenhammer TR The impact of probiotics and prebiotics on the immune system Nat Rev Immunol 2012 12 10 728 734 10.1038/nri3312 23007572 64. Margolis KG Cryan JF Mayer EA The microbiota-gut-brain axis: from motility to mood Gastroenterology 2021 160 5 1486 1501 10.1053/j.gastro.2020.10.066 33493503 65. Sanada K Gut microbiota and major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis J Affect Disord 2020 266 1 13 10.1016/j.jad.2020.01.102 32056863 66. Ng QX A meta-analysis of the use of probiotics to alleviate depressive symptoms J Affect Disord 2018 228 13 19 10.1016/j.jad.2017.11.063 29197739 67. Macedo D Antidepressants, antimicrobials or both? Gut microbiota dysbiosis in depression and possible implications of the antimicrobial effects of antidepressant drugs for antidepressant effectiveness J Affect Disord 2017 208 22 32 10.1016/j.jad.2016.09.012 27744123 68. Yatsunenko T Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography Nature 2012 486 7402 222 227 10.1038/nature11053 22699611 69. Biagi E Through ageing, and beyond: gut microbiota and inflammatory status in seniors and centenarians PLoS ONE 2010 5 5 e10667 10.1371/journal.pone.0010667 20498852