Exposure to greenspaces sourced soils improves mice gut microbiota.

Greenspaces are important components of our living environment and have been linked to various human health. However, the mechanisms underlying the linkages remain unclear. Enriching microbiota has emerged as a novel mechanism, but the corresponding evidence is still limited. We collected soil samples from forest land, grassland, and barren land in Zunyi City, southwestern China and prepared soil solutions. A total of 40 BALB/c mice were evenly divided into normal control group, model control group, forest soil group, grassland soil group, and barren land soil group. After establishing the pseudo germ-free mouse model, different soil solutions were administered through gavage, lasting for seven weeks. Fecal samples were collected and a 16S rRNA high-throughput sequencing analysis was performed. Then, alpha- and beta-diversity were calculated and employed to estimate the effects of soil exposures on mice gut microbial diversity and composition. Further, Linear Discriminant Analysis Effect Size (LEfSe) analysis was carried out to evaluate the effects of soil exposures on gut microbiota specific genera abundances and functional pathways. Compared to mice exposed to barren land soils, those exposed to soils sourced from forest land showed an increase of 0.43 and 70.63 units in the Shannon index and the Observed ASVs, respectively. In addition, exposure to soils sourced from forest land and grassland resulted in healthier changes (i.e., more short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs)-producing bacteria) in gut microbiota than those from barren land. Furthermore, mice exposed to forest soil and grassland soil showed enrichment in 5 and 3 pathways (e.g., butanoate metabolism) compared to those exposed to barren land soil, respectively. In conclusion, exposure to various greenspaces soils may modify the gut microbial communities of mice, potentially fostering a more beneficial microbiota profile. Further better-designed studies are needed to validate the current findings and to explore the effects of greenspace related gut microbiota on human health.

Greenspace and human microbiota: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Potential effect of greenspace exposure on human microbiota have been explored by a number of observational and interventional studies, but the results remained mixed. We comprehensively synthesized these studies by performing a systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. METHODS: Comprehensive literature searches in three international databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and three Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and China Biology Medicine disc) were conducted from inception to November 1, 2023. Observational and interventional studies that evaluated associations between greenspace exposure and human microbiota at different anatomical sites were included. Studies were assessed using the National Toxicology Program's office of Health Assessment and Translation risk of bias tool and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, and evidence grading. Study results were synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: Twenty studies, including 11 observational studies and 9 interventional studies, were finally included into the systematic review. The microbiota of the included studies was from gut (n = 13), skin (n = 10), oral cavity (n = 5), nasal cavity (n = 5) and eyes (n = 1). The majority of studies reported the associations of greenspace exposure with increased diversity (e.g., richness and Shannon index) and/or altered overall composition of human gut (n = 12) and skin microbiota (n = 8), with increases in the relative abundance of probiotics (e.g., Ruminococcaceae) and decreases in the relative abundance of pathogens (e.g., Streptococcus and Escherichia/Shigella). Due to limited number of studies, evidence concerning greenspace and oral, nasal, and ocular microbiota were still inconclusive. CONCLUSION: The current evidence suggests that greenspace exposure may diversify gut and skin microbiota and alter their composition to healthier profiles. These findings would be helpful in uncovering the potential mechanisms underlying greenspace and human health and in promoting a healthier profile of human microbiota.

Credibility of the evidence on green space and human health: an overview of meta-analyses using evidence grading approaches.

BACKGROUND: Green space is an important part of the human living environment, with many epidemiological studies estimating its impact on human health. However, no study has quantitatively assessed the credibility of the existing evidence, impeding their translations into policy decisions and hindering researchers from identifying new research gaps. This overview aims to evaluate and rank such evidence credibility. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guideline, we systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for systematic reviews with meta-analyses concerning green spaces and health outcomes published up to January 15, 2024. We categorized the credibility of meta-analytical evidence from interventional studies into four levels (i.e., high, moderate, low, and very low) using the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework, based on five domains including risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Further, we recalculated all the meta-analyses from observational studies and classified evidence into five levels (i.e., convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, and non-significant) by considering stringent thresholds for P-values, sample size, robustness, heterogeneity, and testing for biases. FINDINGS: In total, 154 meta-analysed associations (interventional = 44, observational = 110) between green spaces and health outcomes were graded. Among meta-analyses from interventional studies, zero, four (wellbeing, systolic blood pressure, negative affect, and positive affect), 20, and 20 associations between green spaces and health outcomes were graded as high, moderate, low, and very low credibility evidence, respectively. Among meta-analyses from observational studies, one (cardiovascular disease mortality), four (prevalence/incidence of diabetes mellitus, preterm birth, and small for gestational age infant, and all-cause mortality), 12, 22, and 71 associations were categorized as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, and non-significant evidence, respectively. INTERPRETATION: The current evidence largely confirms beneficial associations between green spaces and human health. However, only a small subset of these associations can be deemed to have a high or convincing credibility. Hence, future better designed primary studies and meta-analyses are still needed to provide higher quality evidence for informing health promotion strategies. FUNDING: The National Natural Science Foundation of China of China; the Guangzhou Science and Technology Program; the Guangdong Medical Science and Technology Research Fund; the Research Grant Council of the Hong Kong SAR; and Sino-German mobility program.