Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether rapid maxillary expansion (RME) allows favorable changes in the mandible during the treatment of class II malocclusion before the growth spurt. Methods: A search of Pubmed/Medline, the Science Direct, and the Google Scholar database was performed. The keywords used were: orthodontics, rapid maxillary expansion, class II, and growing patients. Relevant articles were assessed for quality according to Cochrane guidelines, and then changes in SNA, SNB, ANB, NL-NSL (or SN-SNP.SNA), and ML-NSL (or SN-Go-Gn) relationships were analyzed. Results: The selection process brought forth five articles, including 162 patients  for detailed analysis. The quality of the evidence (GRADE) for comparisons and outcomes was assessed as moderate for SNB and ANB and as low or very low for other variables. Conclusions: The results of this systematic review showed that there is a small body of moderate-quality evidence for statistically and clinically favorable changes in SNB and ANB angles and a small body of low-quality evidence for changes in vertical parameters after RME. Since Angell  introducIn addition to the objective evidence of RME effects on the maxilla , the litRegardless of the scientific evidence for differences in RME achieved with bonded or banded hyrax screw , this isFurthermore, notwithstanding a rigorous assessment of either the impartiality of the publications or correct reporting, the published evidence either omits the duration of an observation or admits the variety of additional (other than RME) interventions, which challenges the homogeneity of the study groups .Considering new publications that have appeared in the literature since 2015 ,24,25,26Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, we defined the main research questions in PICO format (This systematic review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020184895). By performing the PRISMA protocol and following recommendations from the O format .The search strategy of electronic databases Pubmed/Medline, Science Direct, and Google Scholar (1970 to December 2019) is shown in The remaining work was analyzed for suitability purposes within our study by two independent researchers . They downloaded the selected articles and contacted the authors of the papers if the data essential for our PICO format were missing. A lack of feedback either weakened a given article’s total score or excluded such a paper from our study. Experienced researchers  independently verified the selection, and then the extracted data were compiled in a Microsoft Office Excel 2013 spreadsheet ; the level agreement was statistically evaluated with unweighted Cohen kappa statistics.The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs as low, unclear, or high enabled us to evaluate random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of assessors, incomplete outcome data, and selective reporting of outcomes.Selection, evaluation of case definitions, representativeness of cases, control selection, and definition of controls. Each aspect was assigned 1 point, giving 4 points in total.Comparability, appraising SNA, SNB, ANB, NL-NSL (or SN-SNP.SNA), and ML-NSL (or SN-Go-Gn) as the main parameters and observation time as an additional parameter, giving 2 points in total.Outcome assessment, evaluation of outcome measures, duration of the follow-up, and blinding of assessors, giving 3 points in total.The quality of the CCTs was assessed with a modified Newcastle–Ottawa Scale, composed of three sections:We used the scale of the GRADE Working Group; thus, we evaluated the analyzed papers as high, moderate, low, or very low quality in terms of supporting the confidence in the estimate.The demographic structure of the pooled patient sample extracted from the articles, together with the ranges of sagittal and vertical changes in the mandible after RME application, is shown in The results of the risk of bias analysis in RCTs and in CCTs are presented in The quality of the evidence (GRADE) for comparisons and outcomes was moderate for SNB and ANB angles due to their statistically significant changesSince an overall GRADE quality rating can be applied to a body of evidence across outcomes, usually by taking the lowest quality of evidence from all of the outcomes that are critical to decision making, we assessed our evidence as very low quality.Changes in the sagittal and vertical parameters, and their dependence on a different mode of HS mounting, are shown in evidence for all comparisons and outcomes was rated as very low quality. We found moderate-quality evidence for an increase in the SNB angle after 6 months of observation [There are reports in the literature regarding the rationale for using RME as an additional utility in class II treatment ,42,49. Tervation , suggestervation  may be rA statistically significant increase in the NL-NSL (or SN-SNP.SNA) angle, which is beneficial to the treatment of a class II open bite, occurred in one study , but hadA minor distal displacement of the mandible was the immediate effect of the banded RME. A decrease in the SNB angle may be related not only to the retraction of the mandible, but also to its clockwise rotation. In particular, a transverse overcorrection, i.e., raising the occlusion through contact of the palatal cusps of the maxillary teeth with the buccal cusps of their antagonists, resulted in a statistically significant increase in the ML-NSL (or SN-Go.Gn) angle in 28 patients . This reThere were discrepancies in the annual observations of the bonded HS effects ,43. Due As for the comparison of bonded and banded HS on the mandible, the differences in follow-ups presented do not allow for reliable evaluation, especially of the vertical changes. To do so, morphological changes in the mandible occurring post-RME treatment should be provided and thoroughly analyzed.The body of evidence identified did not allow for an unequivocal determination of the skeletal changes after RME. Even if they were reproducible, these changes were assessed mainly on the basis of studies that were burdened with a medium risk of bias and involved only a few patients. Not all changes in the analyzed parameters could be compared with those in the control group, which made it difficult to draw conclusions. The works identified in this review also did not clearly determine the effect of the RME type on the mandible.Any possible bias that could result from qualifying CCTs for this review was overcome using all possible methods for the objective selection of studies. An independent search, qualification for review, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two authors, and the dispute was resolved by an experienced researcher. Therefore, the main limitation of this work was the small number of qualified studies and the lack of representativeness of the groups. This is most likely due to the difficulty of achieving a homogeneous group of patients with only one form of intervention who were observed for an extended period of time during their growth.As there is a small body of moderate-quality evidence for changes in the SNB angle caused by the RME, regardless of its type, and because those changes are similar to the spontaneous ones occurring in untreated patients after a 4-year follow-up, the first null hypothesis is sustained.Despite the fact that the effects of RME varied: counter-clockwise and clockwise rotation of the mandible following bonded and banded HS treatment, respectively, there is a small body of low-quality evidence; thus, the second null hypothesis is also sustained. Nevertheless, this systematic review could not include parameters demonstrating a changing morphology of the mandible, which are necessary for a reliable analysis and evaluation of the effect of bonded versus banded HSs on the mandible.The lowest and close to the lowest grades of studies according to GRADE highly suggest the necessity of conducting thoroughly planned and reported studies of not only angular, but also morphological parameters in order to reject our null hypotheses. Due to ethical contraindications for creating and observing a control group, we suggest using control groups selected from existing growth studies.Conclusions presented due to their insufficient value should be treated with caution. Based on this systematic review, the following can be suspected:


Based on a review of the literature regarding evidence intermediaries in conservation and environmental management, as well as an anonymous questionnaire searching for such organizations, we found few intermediaries that met all these criteria. Few evidence bridges that do exist are unable to reach most conservation practitioners, which include resource managers in government and industry, conservation organizations, and farmers and other private landowners. We argue that the lack of evidence bridges from research to practitioners contributes to evidence complacency and limits the use of evidence in conservation action. Nevertheless, several existing organizations help reduce the gap between evidence and practice and could serve as a foundation for building additional components of evidence bridges in conservation. Although evidence bridges need expertise in research and evidence synthesis, they also require expertise in identifying and communicating with the community of practitioners most in need of clear and concise syntheses of evidence.Calls for biodiversity conservation practice to be more evidence based are growing, and we agree evidence use in conservation practice needs improvement. However, evidence‐based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. In medicine, unlike in conservation, a well‐established and well‐funded layer of intermediary individuals and organizations engage with medical practitioners, synthesize primary research relevant to decision making, and make evidence easily accessible. These intermediaries prepare targeted evidence summaries and distribute them to practitioners faced with time‐sensitive and value‐laden decisions. To be effective, these intermediaries, who we refer to as Article Impact Statement: Evidence‐based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges. Article impact statement: Evidence‐based conservation will not be realized without improved access to evidence. We call for intermediary evidence bridges. The conBoundary organizations or spanners, bridging organizations, and knowledge brokers are all related terms that are commonly applied but have varied meanings. As in medicine, the evidence intermediaries in conservation aim to enable effective knowledge exchange. However, conservation intermediaries (as opposed to those in medicine) are more varied and ill‐defined  to national or global issues . They also consult practitioners regularly regarding their evidence needs and in doing so inform future research. They operate as a third party, independent of financial or other interests of researchers and decision‐makers that could affect objective evidence synthesis and communication.boundary spanners, who focus primarily on the science–policy interface, often as mediators in disputes, posing potential solutions, and deciding on courses of action . We distinguish evidence bridges from  Berkes, . In our and collaborate with practitioners to identify their needs and translate science accordingly. Segan et al. (https://www.cochrane.org/]), a second set of institutions in medicine… are responsible for synthesizing information for decision making. These institutions consider the effectiveness of a given intervention and other factors that might affect investment in the intervention, such as its cost, availability of alternative interventions to achieve the same objective, and effect on the patient and society of not acting.” It is this second set of institutions  that is needed in conservation to supplement and complement the work of organizations that compile and review environmental evidence, such as Conservation Evidence (CE) (https://www.conservationevidence.com/) and Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE) . Organizations like CE and CEE partially fulfill the role of evidence bridges in conservation but by themselves cannot be considered fully formed evidence bridges. Evidence bridges may either synthesize evidence independently or use syntheses from other organizations, but their essential role is to convert syntheses into timely and useable information for practitioners. This process is an effective way to translate knowledge . Some evidence bridging work is contributing to conservation efforts, but it is unrecognized, often unplanned  (Government of Canada) recently established a knowledge mobilization group, which we identified through personal contacts and which we would likely not have been aware had we not been Canadian . Nevertheless, based on our review, we conclude that actual evidence bridges are generally very difficult to find in conservation, suggesting that their number is currently insufficient to form a readily accessible broad‐based resource for conservation practitioners.It was outside of the scope of this review to describe every organization in conservation and environmental management for its evidence‐bridging capacity and acknowledge that there is a growing recognition of the need and increasing in‐house capacity for synthesis work within government agencies. For example, Parks Canada  that provide examples of how evidence bridges can influence conservation practice. For example, NCASI identifies and prioritizes environmental issues related to forest products based on input from industry advisory panels. Individuals within NCASI synthesize forestry science results for practitioners in the forest‐product sector. Their successes in fostering use of evidence in practice, and the successes of the other organizations in Appendix Despite this, we found 4 organizations that fulfill the criteria for evidence bridges  in Florida , nonprofit health organizations , and advocacy and specialty societies . About 30% of evidence bridges in medicine are based in universities, about 10% in foundations or research funding agencies, and the remaining 60% are in the health system  or at arm's length . The latter organizations may also be partly privately funded. Some are housed at a university . In some cases, the practitioners using the evidence pay the evidence bridge for access via membership fees or dues .Medicine is a much larger (and older) field than conservation and much more heavily funded. In medicine, some evidence bridges are charitable organizations , and some are funded by governments either within government agencies , Ecological Society of America (https://www.esa.org/), and British Ecological Society , have an opportunity to play a leadership role in identifying and encouraging development of an appropriate model, such as a college for conservation decision making, to fill this gap.Appendix S1. A list of 18 example commentary papers on the “knowledge‐action” or “research‐implementation” gap.Appendix S2. We systematically searched (May 2020) in Web of Science––Core Collection (309 records) and Scopus (452 records) for relevant articles using search terms listed below.Appendix S3. We undertook an in‐depth review of the literature to find evidence intermediaries in the field of conservation and environmental management.Appendix S4. Anonymous questionnaire distributed over Twitter July–August 2020.Table S5.1. Bright spots: excellent examples of how evidence intermediary organizations have influenced conservation practice and what we can learn from these examples.Appendix S6. A sample of existing organizations that partially fulfill the role of evidence bridges in conservation .Click here for additional data file.


Juries in adversarial courts are tasked with several responsibilities. They are asked to: 1) assess the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented; 2) deliberate; 3) and then reach a decision. Jurors are expected to evaluate said evidence in a rational/impartial manner, thus allowing the defendant their right to a fair trial. However, psychological research has shown that jurors are not rational and can reach inaccurate decisions by being biased by certain factors. The aim of the current review was to explore the potential sources from which biases are introduced into the jury. Three main sources of bias were focussed upon: 1) pre-trial bias; 2) cognitive bias; 3) bias from external legal actors (expert witnesses). Legal scholars commonly cite deliberations as a method of attenuating individual juror bias, this claim is evaluated in the review. The review concludes that bias is a multifaceted phenomenon introduced from many different elements, and that several sources of bias may interact with one another during a jury trial to cause the effects of bias to snowball. Four recommendations are made: 1) juror selection should be utilised to create heterogenous juries that challenge problematic biases from individual jurors; 2) increase the quality of expert testimony through training; 3) procedures such as Linear Sequential Unmasking should be adopted by expert witnesses to filter out some sources of bias; 4) legal professionals and jurors should be educated about the effects that biases may have on decision making; 5) more research into bias in jurors is needed. Despite this, a whole range of biases exist that influence jurors when they reach verdicts.5 Bias here has been defined as a factor that produces a preference towards a certain outcome . The ramifications of biased and unfair decision-making by jurors can result in injustice. For example, in the case of Sajid Qureshi, he was incarcerated for four years by a jury, where several jurors acknowledged that they had made up their minds before hearing the evidence, thus highlighting that bias can influence the judgments of jurors.Jurors are legal laypersons who are expected to hear evidence, and then evaluate its credibility and reliability, to reach a verdict in a fair and impartial manner  impact the decision outcome.There are a whole range of opportunities where bias can be introduced into jurors’ decisions. Previous research has highlighted that bias may be introduced by many factors, such as: 1) pre- trial beliefs and attitudes; 2) cognitive bias; and, 3) biased interpretations of evidence by expert witnesses. However, for this to reasonably occur, a few conditions and assumptions would need to be met. For example, several biases would need to be equally spread out across the jury. If a bias that black people are more likely to commit crime is present in the jury, then there would also need to be a bias that white people are more likely to commit crime, or at least, that black people are no more likely to commit a crime in the jury. These many assumptions and conditions are unlikely. Indeed, proxy research  on jury decision making suggests the intended ‘averaging’ does not occur. It should be mentioned here that research on jury deliberations is limited due to a number of factors, including, but not limited to, cost, time constraints, that it is difficult to organize 12 participants to be in same location at once and that researchers do not have access to real world trials or deliberations.14One reason for having a multiple-person jury is that individual biases are intended to be “averaged out”.The purpose of the current review, therefore, is to highlight and organize the potential sources of bias in juror decision making. To do this, research focusing on three main stages of a trial will be evaluated: 1) pre-evidence presentation ; 2) during evidence presentation (cognitive bias and bias from experts) and 3) post-evidence presentation (i.e. during deliberations). The paper will then make recommendations that can reduce the potential for bias and suggest further research into the various ways to combat bias.Before introducing the literature, it is important to note, that the focus of the current review is on the jury systems in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland . Despite this focus, some of the research may have been conducted in other countries, such as the United States of America. Therefore, only universal factors that are likely to influence jurors in the jurisdictions mentioned above  will be discussed.16 The current review will focus on bias and attitudes, however, as the vast majority of the literature has focused on the effects of more global attitudes and how they bias jurors rather than specific political persuasions and/or personality traits.Pre-trial biases and attitudes are among a number of individual differences that influence the verdicts reached by jurors. For example, in addition to bias, personality and political persuasion, can impact juror’s decisions. The JBS is a 17-item questionnaire that consists of two constructs: 1) the probability of commission; and, 2) reasonable doubt. The probability of commission construct measures prior beliefs and attitudes surrounding evidence. It reflects the extent to which an individual believes that accused people committed the crimes they are accused of. It highlights how guilty the juror may perceive the defendant to be . Nine items were found to adequately measure the probability of commission construct. An example of question relating to the construct include: “defense lawyers don't really care about guilt or innocence, they are just in business to make money”. Again, the probability of commission construct taps into attitudes relating to a conviction bias, where jurors believe that accused individuals are likely to be guilty, with higher scores indicating a bias towards the prosecution.One early attempt of measuring the influence that pre-trial biases have on verdict choice comes from the Juror Bias Scale (JBS). For example, one item in this construct is: “For serious crimes like murder, a defendant should be found guilty so long as there is a 90% chance that he committed the crime”. Scores on the JBS (from both constructs) can vary from 17 to 85, with high scores indicating a prosecution bias, and low scores highlighting a defence bias. Lecci and Myers found that the scale accounted for 11.6% of the variance in pre-deliberation verdicts and 6.1% of the variance in post-deliberation verdicts; for more information on analysis, please see Lecci and Myers. This means that the degree of bias shown by the juror has a notable influence on the verdict they give.The reasonable doubt construct, which is constructed through eight- items, measures how certain the juror needs to be before convicting.19 developed the Pre-Trial Juror Attitude Questionnaire (PJAQ), which is made up of six separate constructs or biases: 1) conviction proneness; 2) system confidence; 3) cynicism towards the defence; 4) social justice; 5) racial bias; 6) innate criminality (p. 623). Lecci and Myers found through the PJAQ that pre-trial biases can be used to predict verdict tendencies. For instance, the PJAQ predicted 21% and 15.1% of the variance in verdict choice at both the pre-deliberation and post-deliberation stage respectively.Since the juror bias scale was developed, further research has measured the effects of a number of pre-trial biases and their impact on the decision making of jurors. Lecci and Myers For example, conviction proneness (r = .39) had a stronger relationship with the pre-deliberation verdicts than other constructs such as system confidence (r = .34), social justice (r = .15) and innate criminality (r = .16) Interesting, some constructs, such as cynicism towards the defence (r = .12) and racial bias (r = .06), had no significant association with pre-deliberation outcomes; the role of the latter may have been attenuated due to race not being salient in the mock crime. Therefore, certain biases may play more of a role in juror decision making than others.Although, all types of bias are not equal, with some of the above constructs having stronger relationships with juror outcomes when compared to others. aimed to investigate if the effect of pre- trial biases on verdict tendencies were mediated by juror interpretations of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. First they found that the PJAQ, on its own, could explain 18.2% of the variance in verdicts that were given by individual jurors, and that by combining the PJAQ with the JBS and the Revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire  21.2% of the verdict variance could be explained. Second, it was found that interpretations of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ significantly predicted the verdicts ultimately given by jurors. Third, it was found that the PJAQ was a significant predictor of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ interpretations, with jurors who are more prone to conviction than acquittal having a lower standard of proof required before they are ready to convict. When ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ interpretations were controlled for, the predictive ability of the PJAQ over verdict tendencies decreased, but remained significant. These finding suggest that juror interpretations of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ may act as a partial mediator between pre-trial biases and attitudes and the verdict that is ultimately given.Recent research has utilised the PJAQ when investigating the effects that pre-trial biases have on juror verdicts. For instance, Lundrigan et al. Further, Pre-trial publicity has consistently been shown to bias juror judgements in mock trials.19Bias can also enter the courtroom from the presence of pre-trial publicity. Pre-trial publicity was once a type of biasing information that would only influence high profile cases and celebrity trials. However, in the current digital age, jurors could be infected with biasing information regarding any defendant through information that is shared on the internet or on social media sites; a type of viral bias.In summary, pre-trial biases appear to effect verdict outcome in jury decision making. Although some of the effects of pre-trial bias may be small, bias has a tendency to snowball as it interacts with other elements of a decision. Further, cognitive bias is produced by: 1) Homo Sapiens having a limited cognitive capacity and thus striving for efficiency when making decisions; and 2) personal and subjectively perceived experiences gained from the environment. Our cognitive capacity is spared through the use of cognitive short-cuts, such as heuristics. Although mostly useful, heuristics, and their associated biases, can sometimes lead to errors in judgements. The phenomenon of cognitive bias has been studied in a plethora of different applied environments  and it has been shown that laypersons, as well as experts, are not immune to the effects of cognitive bias.28Cognitive bias is a hypernym that can be utilised to describe the subjective perceptions of individuals which may influence the decisions they make and how they interact with the world. the effects that cognitive bias  has on jurors was investigated. Pre-decisional distortion was defined as: “jurors’ biased interpretation of new evidence to support whichever verdict is tentatively favored as a trial progresses.” (P.91). Carlson and Russo found in two separate studies  that jurors tended to favour a verdict before all the evidence was presented. This pre-decisional preference towards a verdict caused jurors to distort how they interpreted the subsequent evidence that was presented, meaning that they perceived the evidence to favour the verdict that was currently leading.In a landmark study by Carlson and Russo, This preference caused them to distort the evidence to support the prosecution. Jurors in the negative pre-trial publicity condition were also statistically more likely to give guilty verdicts than jurors in the control condition. Similarly, De La Fuente, De La Fuente, and García found that pre-trial bias influenced jurors when evidence was ambiguous but not when the evidence favoured the prosecution. This is because when evidence is ambiguous it is easier for jurors to distort their interpretation of the evidence to favour their own preferences. Jury trials are inherently ambiguous, as police investigations with strong evidence are likely to lead to confessions of guilt and police investigations with weak evidence against a suspect are unlikely to reach the courtroom. Further, the adversarial system leads to trials being ambiguous, with two opposing sides competing to convince jurors that their version of events is closer to the truth than the other side’s. The ambiguity of jury trials creates the perfect environment for cognitive bias to thrive.Pre-decisional distortion and “confirmation” bias can also be triggered by the sorts of pre-trial biases and pre- trial information, discussed earlier. For instance, jurors in a negative pre-trial publicity condition (in regards to the defendant), in comparison to control participants, had a preference towards the prosecution (making the guilty verdict their leading verdict). may explain why bias may play a larger role when the evidence is ambiguous. In this model, its suggests that when the environment leads to a high elaboration likelihood (that is when the environment is not cognitively taxing), individuals are much more likely to be motivated to use cognitive resources in order to engage in the debate and attend to relevant information, thus allowing them to make a decision based on the evidence. However, when the environment (through little prior knowledge relating to the decision domain or a lack of interest regarding the consequences) leads to a low elaboration likelihood, decision makers are much more likely to reserve cognition through superficially processing the information or relying on prior attitudes or beliefs  when making the decision. Therefore, in ambiguous environments, jurors, who are not legal experts, may be overwhelmed by the legal terminology being directed at them and confused due to adversarial system of the courtroom. This cognitively taxing environment may cause jurors to have a low elaboration likelihood and thus utilise bias when reaching their verdict.The elaboration likelihood model In other words, the more the decision description is able to explain an outcome, the higher the likelihood by which the decision makers judge an outcome to be the correct one, which then leads decision makers to ignore base rate statistics and be subjected to the representativeness bias (i.e. stereotyping.) Therefore, the frugal cue usage of the representativeness heuristic, combined with previous knowledge  regarding stereotypical actions of out-groups can lead to biased and erroneous decision making. That can then lead to injustices when applied to juror decision making.37Cognitive processes and pre-trial attitudes also interact with defendant and victim characteristics to further amplify the effects that bias has in the courtroom. For instance, the representativeness heuristic causes decision makers to equate the similarity between a description and a possible outcome with the likelihood of that particular outcome being correct. Indeed, in a meta-analysis on racial bias on verdict decisions in mock jury studies, Mitchell et al. examined 34 studies with 7397 participants. A small but reliable racial bias effect was identified, which was stronger if there was a continuous scale rather than a dichotomous choice (e.g. guilty/not-guilty) and if there were no judicial instructions provided. Therefore, pre-trial biases, such as racial biases, are likely to influence how jurors’ stereotype various ethnic minorities, such biases will then influence how novel information is interpreted, and consequently, the final verdict that is given by jurors.Previous research has also shown that the interaction between cognitive bias and defendant/victim characteristics can have a negative impact on juror decision making outcomes. For example, ethnic minority groups that are commonly associated in the media with crime are also more likely to be given guilty verdicts in mock juror studies. Criminal cases often involve multiple experts on both side of the adversarial system. Experts are selected differently in various legal systems and jurisdictions, but are generally required to evidence their relevant expertise and be able to communicate that expertise in a courtroom situation. They are typically a member of a relevant regulatory body.Expert testimony is the process by which an expert assists a jury in understanding the evidence presented to them. Jurors must evaluate the testimony of experts in order to make a decision.) the type of expertise they are communicating  the characteristics of the expert  the conditions of their testimony  their manner of presenting  and their willingness/ability to testify about their own doubts and biases. In this section, when discussing expert testimony, we will be specifically relating to forensic scientists, but this section is likely to generalise to other areas of expert testimony.Expert testimony has a major influence on juror perception of evidence strength, but this influence is impacted on by many additional factors. These include but are not limited to: the type and complexity of evidence they are giving testimony on  The effects of biasing information on forensic science judgments has traditionally been seen as negative, but may lead to accurate decisions in particular scenarios. Nevertheless, the utilisation of task- irrelevant contextual information by forensic scientists does cause issues at the jury level, and can lead to a snowballing effect of bias in the criminal justice system, thus creating a paradox in logic. For instance, in accordance with Bayesian norms, jurors should integrate separate pieces of information (e.g. a confession and DNA evidence) independently of one another. If jurors correctly do this, and the forensic scientist’s evaluation of the forensic evidence was aided by their knowledge of a confession, the jurors think they are integrating each piece of information separately, when in reality each piece of evidence is related; this is known as the criminalist paradox. Consequently, biased perceptions of evidence by forensic scientists may lead to non-logical judgements being made by the jury.The influence that expert witnesses have on jurors is not always positive (i.e. lead to fairer and more accurate decisions), as expert witnesses are unlikely to be rational and impartial decision makers themselves. Previous research has highlighted that task-irrelevant contextual information influences judgements across a number of forensic domains  of jurors from the general public, a number of jurors with various biases and beliefs will be selected and that these biases will cancel each other out.44 It has also been suggested that deliberations allow jurors to focus more on the “facts” of the case rather than on assumptions and will allow more extreme positions to be scrutinised by the collective.Legal scholars commonly cite jury deliberations as an important factor that helps to attenuate the effects of bias in the criminal justice system. found in a mock murder trial that negative pre-trial publicity influenced individual juror judgements, with more guilty verdicts being given in the negative pre-trial publicity condition in comparison to the other three conditions . However, the biasing effects of pre- trial publicity were reduced by jurors participating a jury deliberation, with a similar number of guilty verdicts being given across all four pre-trial publicity conditions. Taylor also found that the deliberation process attenuated the effects that biasing information had on jurors. Therefore, there is some evidence to suggest that deliberations may help the courts to mitigate bias in jurors.Some research does support the claim that jury deliberations help to attenuate the effects of bias. For instance, Taylor60However, there are two major research areas that have produced evidence that counters the claim that juries (or groups) are more rational (i.e. less biased) than individuals: 1) classical psychological research on group decision making; and 2) jury decision making research. Each of these points will be addressed in turn. First, classical psychological research (e.g. groupthink and group polarization) highlights that group decision making can lead to poor decision performance and extreme, and/or biased, positions  being taken. highlighted that jury deliberations may not attenuate the pre-trial biases that originate because of negative pre-trial publicity. Their study had two aims: 1) investigating the effects of group deliberations on bias (i.e. does it lead to a leniency bias); 2) do juries reach more extreme positions when compared to jurors (i.e. group polarisation). They found that jurors who were not exposed to the negative pre-trial publicity were more likely to favour acquittal verdicts post-deliberations (i.e. participate in a leniency bias). However, jurors who deliberated and had been exposed to the negative pre-trial publicity were worse at source monitoring . Deliberations were also shown not to influence measures of guilt when negative pre-trial publicity had been presented to jurors. Consequently, group deliberations were found to introduce source monitoring errors and did not decrease the effects of biasing information.Second, some previous juror research has highlighted that deliberations do not reduce the biasing effects that pre-trial publicity has on juror outcomes. For instance, a study by Ruva and Guenther) If we made both assumptions, we would expect 50% of jurors on average to be more rational than juries and 50% of jurors on average to be less rational than juries. Therefore, juries are more rational than some jurors, but some jurors are subsequently more rational than juries.However, it is much more likely that some individual jurors are more rational than a jury and vice versa. For example, we could assume that through randomly sampling jurors that a normal distribution of biases are recruited into a jury. We could also assume that the jury decision is an aggregate of the beliefs of a collective of jurors  bias gave significantly more (fewer) guilty verdicts post deliberation in comparison to pre-deliberation when the evidence presented was ambiguous. Therefore, juries that are homogeneous in relation to pre- trial biases are problematic and may lead to the effects of bias being amplified within the courtroom. Further, jury selection procedures that allow juries to be made up of a group of heterogeneous jurors may aid the criminal justice system in tackling bias; this topic will be addressed further in the recommendations section.The composition of biases with juries also seems to be an important factor to consider when evaluating the effects that deliberations have on the usage of biases in juror judgements. For instance, in a study by De La Fuente et al., More research that incorporates group deliberations into their designs is consequently needed for the academic community to get a fuller and more nuanced understanding of the effects that group deliberations may have on bias.From a limited amount of access to deliberation rooms and a great deal of proxy research it can be suggested that the intended ‘averaging’ out of biases does not always occur.33 The PJAQ, and similar inventories that measure bias, would allow courtrooms to screen out jurors with extreme views or perceptions, which may be particularly important in relation to rape trials. By filtering jurors with a preference for a particular verdict (guilty or not guilty) out of a jury, there would be less of a tendency for pre- trial biases to guide evidence evaluation in trials, thus limiting the effects that these biases may have on the final verdict choices of jurors.33 However, caution must be taken in any filtration and selection of jurors, as this can be easily misused .In relation to pre-trial bias, one method of attenuating bias would be for courtrooms to utilise jury selection (or Voir Dire) procedures based upon scientific instruments such as the PJAQ.Obviously, there are practical issues in regards to implanting such a strategy. Some biases may not influence certain trial types, for example an individual who beliefs in rape myths may still be perfectly capable of serving as a juror in homicide trial. The decision to remove certain jurors will depend on the complex interplay between the characteristics of the crime, the defendant, the evidence presented and the juror . More research is needed in this area to establish how pre-trial biases interact with the factors above in order to inform how tools such as PJAQ can be used for jury selection. Another issue is, whose role would it be to make decisions regarding jury selection? Would it be legal professionals? This may not attenuate bias to the courtroom but instead could just add a new avenue for bias to enter trials. Further, these individuals may not have the expertise and are already stretched due to workload demands. We instead suggest that psychologists, who have expertise in using tools such as PJAQ be employed to select jurors. However, before said changes were made, it would be advisable to conduct research to assess the effectiveness of such a change and to consult legal professionals on their perceptions to said recommendation.27 Therefore, it is impossible to remove cognitive bias entirely from the juror decision process. The effects of cognitive bias have been shown to be attenuated by the presentation of strong evidence.34 Nevertheless, as previously mentioned, trials in the adversarial system are inherently ambiguous, leaving the potential for bias to always have an impact on juror decisions.Cognitive bias, however, has proven more difficult to deal with. This is because cognitive bias is produced by natural cognitive structures (such as schemas and heuristics) and are consequently an artefact of thinking and reasoning. 3) improving codes of conduct for expert witnesses Again, mock jury research should be conducted to assess the effectiveness of these approaches in reducing the effects of bias in the courtroom.One way of tackling cognitive bias, however, may be to improve the quality of the evidence presented to jurors from expert witnesses. Expert testimony could be improved through a number of different strategies: 1) increased training to help experts communicate their testimony in a clear and logical way that legal laypersons understand; 2) using independent experts that are not associated with either side of the adversarial process; Meaning that juries could be composed, through a selection procedure, of heterogeneous jurors. This may allow jury deliberations to be more fit for purpose and act as method of attenuating the effects of bias in jurors . Also, how jurors deliberate can be structured in a way that enhances the benefits of group decisions, while minimizing negative group dynamics.More research is needed which tackles the effects that jury deliberations have on bias. Nevertheless, the stratified sampling of jurors through instruments, such as PJAQ, may also help to decrease the chances that juries with extreme homogenous biases (i.e. juries consisting of pro-prosecution or pro-defence jurors) will be selected.) Further, previous studies on contextual bias in forensic examiners has not included control groups, analysed data using inferential statistics, not included information regarding randomisation procedures and/or conducted the research in artificial settings with non-practioners. Research of higher quality is therefore needed in order to combat the effects of biased decision making in forensic examiners. Such research will help to establish mechanisms for reducing the effects of bias in the evaluation of forensic evidence. Second, we propose that techniques, such as Linear Sequential Unmasking (LSU), are used by forensic laboratories to minimise the potential for contextual information to have a negative effect on the decision making performances of forensic scientists.Another method of attenuating the effects of bias in jurors would be to remove biased testimony (surrounding events and evidence) from the courtroom. We propose that the ‘war against bias’ should also be fought where evidence is collected, interpreted, and presented by forensic scientists; as this may reduce the effects of negative biases snowballing throughout the legal system. We suggest three fronts. First, the study of forensic bias needs to investigate the effects of non-relevant contextual information on forensic scientists in ecologically valid settings and utilise commonly used principals of experimental study . In other words, in LSU, examiners would examine the evidence at the crime scene (e.g. fingerprints) without knowledge of reference material from the accused (e.g. their fingerprints). During this period the examiner would state unique features of the trace evidence, ensuring that analysis of trace evidence is not contaminated by knowledge of the reference material. Then, examiners can analyse the reference material, any changes to their initial analysis should then be documented to ensure transparency.LSU is a procedure “ and improving decision making in general, by sequencing the task-needed information also by its level of objectivity as well as level of relevance. Other techniques that could be employed are evidence line-ups, where examiners need to match up the trace material with the correct reference material, despite the presence of foil evidence. However, the effects of bias on forensic examiners is likely to be multifactorial and several methods should be employed to attenuate bias at this stage of the criminal justice system in order to stop the effects of bias snowballing and impacting on juror judgements.LSU has been expanded to also minimise noise, In relation to legal professionals, this could be conducted as part of their continuous personal development and conducted on an annual basis. For jurors, a short informative video, designed by psychologists, could be shown to jurors prior a trial. However, research should be conducted to test if such a training course would be effective at making jurors and legal professionals more aware about the impacts of bias. Further, training courses and/or informative videos could also educate jurors, and legal professionals, about the potential for information to be linked through the potentially biased evaluation of the forensic scientist  Through providing lawyers with said information it will give them a tool to question the objectivity of forensic scientists and thus may decrease the influence that biased forensic evidence may have on juror judgements. For instance, research has found that when expert witnesses are questioned and cross-examined about the influence of bias and task-irrelevant contextual information on their judgements, jurors perceive the expert witness as less credible and are more likely to acquit.A third recommendation is that psychologists should educate jurors and legal professionals about the impacts of bias and task-irrelevant contextual information on the judgements of forensic scientists.In regards to the testimony given by police officers and eyewitnesses it is unlikely that bias can be removed from their interpretation of events. For instance, the police may generate a biased perception of a suspect through finding out their fingerprints matched with the prints found on the weapon. This bias may then influence how they investigate a crime and, subsequently, what they tell the jury, which could lead to jurors generating their own biases against the defendant. Eyewitnesses’ perceptions of events may be influenced by factors preceding the criminal event. For example, a fight between two adults  may be perceived as an assault by one of the adults if the beginning of the altercation is missed by the witness. In a similar vain to the above paragraph, psychologists should educate legal professionals on bias and the effects that contextual information may have on how individuals (eyewitnesses and police) may interpret events and evidence. This may allow jurors to evaluate the impact that bias has had on the witness’s interpretation of events. In addition, judges have been shown to: 4) demonstrate similar rates of implicit bias regarding race as members of the general public; 5) show socioeconomic biases, most prominently in child custody cases; and, 6) to hold biases based on religion. Previous research has also highlighted that expertise may have a paradoxical effect on bias; with experts developing schema, stereotypes and base rates that bias how they perceive the information relevant to the decision. Consequently, the replacement of jurors with expert judges may not, by itself, attenuate the role that bias plays in the criminal justice system. Despite these findings, a substantial minority of legal professionals indicate a preference for panels of judges to replace juries.Despite our critique here of bias in jurors, we are not necessarily suggesting that judges should exclusively make decisions on guilt. Research has shown that judges: 1) use heuristic decision making strategies; 2) make similar judgements to jurors; and 3) when they make different judgements to jurors, they are more likely to give a guilty verdict, which may increase incidences of injustice.In summary, bias enters the courtroom in a number of ways and the effects that it has on juror decision making is multi-factorial. Due to this a number of strategies, some listed above, could be employed to aid in the fight against bias. However, before recommendations can be implemented, more research is needed to assess the effectiveness of certain bias reducing strategies (both independently and when interacting with other strategies). For this, governments and legal bodies need to take the effects of bias more seriously and fund high quality jury studies aimed at tacking the effects of bias in the criminal justice system.In conclusion, bias is a multifaced phenomenon that can be introduced to the process of juror making through a number of avenues. Previous research has highlighted that jurors may be biased by pre-trial attitudes and beliefs and cognitive processes. Further, biases may also be introduced into the courtroom through witness (both expert and non-expert) testimony that is biased. Each element discussed in this review has the potential to interact with each other and consequentially cause the effects of bias to snowball throughout the legal system. Legal scholars commonly suggest that jury deliberations are a successful method of attenuating bias in jurors. However, there is limited and contradictory evidence here. In this review, four main practical recommendations can be made to attenuate the effects of bias on jurors. First, tools such as PJAQ should be used to ensure that juries consist of a heterogenous group of jurors, each with differing beliefs and biases. Therefore, pre-trial biases in jurors may cancel each other out in the deliberation room. Second, improve the quality of expert testimony through increased training and using independent experts that are not associated with either side of the adversarial process. Third, research into the effects of contextual information on forensic decision making is continued with a greater emphasis on experimental control and ecologically valid settings, and measures such as linear sequential unmasking are utilised by forensic laboratories. Fourth, jurors and legal actors (judges/lawyers) should be provided with some knowledge relating to the effects that bias can have on witness (both expert and not) interpretations of situations and evidence. Only then can the objectivity of witnesses be assessed in the courtroom.


Taurine is the most abundant free amino acid in the body, and is mainly derived from the diet, but can also be produced endogenously from cysteine. It plays multiple essential roles in the body, including development, energy production, osmoregulation, prevention of oxidative stress, and inflammation. Taurine is also crucial as a molecule used to conjugate bile acids (BAs). In the gastrointestinal tract, BAs deconjugation by enteric bacteria results in high levels of unconjugated BAs and free taurine. Depending on conjugation status and other bacterial modifications, BAs constitute a pool of related but highly diverse molecules, each with different properties concerning solubility and toxicity, capacity to activate or inhibit receptors of BAs, and direct and indirect impact on microbiota and the host, whereas free taurine has a largely protective impact on the host, serves as a source of energy for microbiota, regulates bacterial colonization and defends from pathogens. Several remarkable examples of the interaction between taurine and gut microbiota have recently been described. This review will introduce the necessary background information and lay out the latest discoveries in the interaction of the co-reliant triad of BAs, taurine, and microbiota. Bacteria, archaea, viruses, and fungi sum up to trillions of microorganisms inhabiting digestive systems. Gut microbiota, owing to its complexity and diversity, but also therapeutic applicability, benefits, and detriments, has received considerable interest from the scientific community and public. What we have learned to date, is that the composition of microbial communities depends on multiple factors, including gender, birth mode, disease history, or geographical location. However, the composition is anything but static. It evolves with age, exposure to environmental factors , pathogens, drugs (particularly antibiotics and proton pump inhibitors), lifestyle changes , and most of all, the diet ,2. MoreoLycium barbarum L.) are a rich source of taurine [Taurine or 2-aminoethylsulfonic acid is a β-amino acid containing a sulfonate instead of a carboxylic group. Taurine is present in high intracellular concentrations in the human brain, retina, heart, skeletal muscles, and leukocytes, and is vital for organ development . Taurine taurine . Importa taurine ,27,28.A receptors and, through them, exerts its neuronal inhibitory, anxiolytic, and calming effect [Taurine plays a role in a broad spectrum of functions in multiple organs. Due to the high tissue concentration, taurine works as an osmolyte . Its celg effect ,54. Consg effect ,56. It pg effect , epileptg effect , retinalg effect ,59. It pg effect ,61, as eg effect , Alzheimg effect , and Hung effect .2–) and nitric oxide (NO) [Taurine prevents inflammatory damage by acting on nuclear factor ‘kappa-light-chain-enhancer’ of activated B-cells (NFkB)/cyclooxygenase (COX), p38 mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPK)—c-jun N-terminal kinase-dependent (JNK), and myeloid differentiation primary response 88 (MyD88) signaling mediated by toll-like receptor 4 (TLR-4). It reduces inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS), C-reactive protein (CRP), and is the marker of lipid peroxidation thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) ,66,67,68ide (NO) ,73. In pide (NO) . It alsoide (NO) . Taurineide (NO) . At the ide (NO) .Leu(UUR). This process enhances the interaction between the modified uridine and guanine and modulates the synthesis of mitochondrial proteins [Leu(UUR), facilitating UUG decoding. Upon blockage of the formation of 5-taurinomethyluridine-tRNALeu(UUR), the biosynthesis of some mitochondrial proteins declines. Consequently, respiratory function falls, ATP generation decreases, and the generation of oxidants by the respiratory chain increases [Due to the existence of the taurine transporter system across the mitochondrial membranes , taurineproteins . Biochemncreases ,85.Pgc1α) and uncoupling protein 1 (UCP1) [Cidea), Pgc1α, and PR domain containing 16 (Prdm16), Ucp1, and Ucp2 [Furthermore, in mitochondria, taurine mediates energy generation, thermogenesis, and fatty acid oxidation ,87. In m1 (UCP1) ,88. Corrand Ucp2 ,90,91. Tand Ucp2 . In the and Ucp2 . At the and Ucp2 . Taurineand Ucp2 , reducesand Ucp2 ,95,96,97and Ucp2 . Therefoand Ucp2 ,99.Taurine supplementation has been proven to reduce plasma cholesterol in diet-induced animal models of hypercholesterolemia, including rats ,100,101,BAs are a group of cholesterol-derivatives of diverse structures and with amphiphilic properties. The primary BAs are chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA) and cholic acid (CA) in humans, while rodents produce additional muricholic acids (αMCA and βMCA) as well as ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA). Interestingly, in humans, UDCA constitutes secondary BA. A complex network of enzymes and factors controls BA synthesis and circulation . The synOnce produced, BAs may undergo conjugation (N-acyl amidation) of C-24 to create bile salts. Conjugation with taurine or glycine increases polarity and water solubility and, therefore, affects BAs’ mobility such that passive transport is limited and transporters control BA reabsorption. Conjugation changes BAs’ properties decreasing their PKa value to approximately five, thus making them almost fully ionized at physiological pH and soluble over a wide range of ionic strengths, calcium concentrations, and pH values ,116. MicBAs produced by hepatocytes are secreted actively across the canalicular membrane by several transporters, including the bile salt export pump (BSEP) and multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 (MRP2). Collected into a canalicular network, BAs are drained into bile ducts that merge to form hepatic ducts. BAs can then be concentrated in the gallbladder or secreted directly to the duodenum upon cholecystokinin-stimulated gallbladder contractions following meal ingestion . The priUpon secretion, BAs travel along the GI tract, absorbed by passive diffusion along the entire gut until the distal small intestine, where BAs are actively reabsorbed via the ileal BA transporter ) and secreted with organic solute transporter α-β (OSTα-OSTβ) on the basolateral side of epithelial cells. Approximately 90–95% of BAs are recirculated via the portal bloodstream and rapidly taken up by hepatocytes with the help of the sodium-dependent taurocholate co-transporting peptide (NTCP) or sodium-independent organic anion-transporting polypeptides (OATPs), OATP1B1 and OATP1B3. The reabsorbed BAs are subsequently reconjugated and resecreted into bile. The process is referred to as enterohepatic circulation and occurs in humans about six times per day ,139,140.Fxr is one of SHP’s direct target as well as its transcriptional repressor. The induction of Shp by FXR results in a cascade of inhibitory actions, including liver receptor homolog-1 (LRH-1) and resulting in the suppression of Cyp7a1 expression and de novo BA synthesis [Cyp7a1 more potently than the hepatic one, whereas hepatic FXR impacts Cyp8b1 and thus the alternative pathway [Upon circulation, BAs encounter their receptors in the GI tract and liver. The most essential of them, farnesoid X receptor (FXR), is a nuclear receptor. CDCA serves as the most potent ligand of FXR, followed by CA, deoxycholic acid (DCA), and lithocholic acid (LCA) ,142,143.ynthesis ,152. Anoynthesis . Interes pathway ,154,155. pathway , IBAT [1 pathway ,158,159, pathway , hepatoc pathway , MRP2 [1 pathway , BA-CoA  pathway .Since FXR takes input from microbiota, GF mice have down-regulated levels of IBAT and consequently decreased BAs uptake and elevated residual levels of BAs in the cecum. This regulation happens even though GF mice have ca. 71% increased BA pool size compared with conventional animals ,158,159.In addition to BA, FXR regulates glucose homeostasis ,165,166.BAs also serve as ligands for another important BAs receptor, Takeda G protein-coupled receptor 5 (TGR5 or GPBAR1) ,176,177.Listeria monocytogenes grown under 40% CO2:60% N2 or 100% CO2 are highly susceptible to BAs. However, bacteria grown under air or 100% N2 recover following exposure to usually lethal concentrations of BAs [Lactobacillus acidophilus cell membrane shows higher glycolipid/phospholipid and C18:2/C18:0 ratio as well as an increase in C16:0 and decrease in C19-cyc fatty acids when grown at 25 °C compared with 37 °C. These differences result in enhanced lipid membrane stability and more resistance to BAs-triggered permeability [Lactobacillus acidophilus are characterized by altered cell wall fatty acid profiles, among other differences [Circulating between organs, BAs play a role in various physiological processes through their combined signaling, detergent, and antimicrobial activities. BAs, next to antibacterial peptides, proteolytic enzymes, or rapid transit times, are one of the mechanisms via which the host suppresses microbial colonization and prevents excessive proliferation in the GI tract. Therefore, cases of reduced BA levels or obstruction of bile flow are associated with bacterial overgrowth, inflammation, and mucosal injury ,189,190.s of BAs . Lactobaeability . Finallyferences .Escherichia coli [In addition to the impact on the cell membrane, BAs induce secondary structure formation in RNA, induce DNA damage, and activate enzymes involved in DNA repair in both bacterial and mammalian cells ,199,200.hia coli , or actihia coli ,201. In hia coli  and angihia coli . This wahia coli .Firmicutes to gram-negative Bacteroidetes [Ruminococcaceae and Lachnospiraceae, as well as the genera Bacteroides and Bilophila, that have previously been associated with host inflammation [Campylobacter, Salmonellae, and E. coli, are also considered bile-resistant and have the ability to colonize the gallbladder [Gram-positive bacteria are much more sensitive to low concentrations of BAs. In contrast, gram-negative bacteria are more resistant; therefore, BAs can be applied in their selective enrichment in cultures . Consequroidetes . A similroidetes ,206 and roidetes ,208. Improidetes ,210,211,roidetes ,213. Higammation ,212,214.lbladder ,224,225.TauT and a rate-limiting enzyme for taurine synthesis Csd are increased, likely to compensate for drastically reduced taurine levels. Additionally, the levels of Bacs and its upstream regulator Hnf4a1 are downregulated in the livers of GF mice, but Bat is not affected [Synthesis and conjugation of taurine are also under microbial regulation. In the liver of germ-free (GF) mice, the gene expression of affected . Therefoaffected . TherefoCyp7a1, Cyp7b1, and Cyp27a1, as well as enzymatic activity of CYP7A1 [The microbiota plays a vital role in the health and proper function of the GI tract and the whole body. As such, it also takes part in regulating BAs generation and metabolism, partly by affecting the activity of BA synthesis pathways. GF mice experiments have proven that gut bacteria, in general, reduce liver expression of f CYP7A1 . The prof CYP7A1 ,226. On f CYP7A1 . TherefoClostridium, including C. scindens, C. hiranonis, C. hylemonae (Clostridium cluster XVIa), and C. sordelli (Clostridium cluster XI) and in Eubacterium belonging to the Firmicutes phylum [Concerning BAs, the central role of microbiota is connected with its capacity to submit primary BAs to a wide variety of modifications, including dihydroxylation, epimerization, oxidation, reduction, hydroxylation, and dihydroxylation, thus generating secondary BAs. The main reactions catalyzed by the gut bacteria involve the 7α-dehydroxylase-driven conversion of CA to DCA and CDCA to LCA. The activity of 7α-dehydroxylase is mainly associated with intestinal species in the genus s phylum ,230,231.s phylum ,233,234.Actinobacteria, Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, and Bacteroidetes [The main enzymes responsible for subsequent BAs modification include hydroxysteroid dehydrogenases (HSDH) 3α/β-HSDHs, 7α/β-HSDHs, and 12α/β-HSDHs altering groups at C-3, C-7, and C-12, respectively. The presence of the enzymes has been confirmed in a wide variety of microorganisms in GI flora, as well as free-living microorganisms including roidetes ,237,238.roidetes ,242,243.roidetes .A myriad of additional bacteria-catalyzed modifications include converting secondary BAs, DCA, and LCA back to CA and CDCA, DCA to LCA, and UDCA to MCA, whereas the liver has the capacity to produce HDCA from LCA ,245,246.a, and hydrophobicity. Hydrophobicity is associated with enhanced binding to membrane lipids, and increased toxic and metabolic effects in the host. In general BAs’ hydrophobicity, and, therefore, also toxicity, increases in the order of ωMCA < α-MCA < β-MCA < UDCA < CA < CDCA < DCA < LCA [Microbial metabolism of BAs leads to increased diversity, changes in BAs’ ability to cross biological membranes via passive diffusion, PkCA < LCA . WesternCA < LCA ,253,254.CA < LCA ,250. TheCA < LCA ,256,257,CA < LCA , JNK1/2 CA < LCA  and actiCA < LCA . DCA alsCA < LCA ,262,263.CA < LCA . InteresCA < LCA ,266. SpeCA < LCA .E. coli infection model and alleviates commensal bacterial dysbiosis during the infection via the TGR5-NF-κB axis [Contrary to DCA and LCA, UDCA exhibits protective effects in the gut. It prevents intestinal inflammation by promoting barrier function, inhibiting epithelial apoptosis , and rel-κB axis . UDCA ha-κB axis ,271. Mor-κB axis . The tau-κB axis ,273. How-κB axis .Lactobacilli-depleting tempol-treatment, result in reduced BSH activity and BA pool diversity, limiting it principally to conjugated BAs [m depending on the substrate BA. The organization and regulation of genes encoding BSH differ between species and genera. Additionally, the numbers of BSH alleles in any given strain can vary, with up to four different alleles in certain isolates [Clostridium  [Bacteroides fragilis, Bacteroides vulgatus) [Lactobacillus  [Bifidobacterium [Enterococcus [Xanthomonas maltophilia found in soil [Brevibacillus sp. isolated from hot springs [In light of this article’s interest, another type of bacterial modification, the reaction of deconjugation and consequent freeing of taurine, is of particular interest. Facilitating the deconjugation, bile salt hydrolase (BSH) catalyzes the amide bond hydrolysis between the C-24 position of the steroid moiety and the amino acid side chain of BAs. Therefore, the absence of bacteria in GF, antibiotic-given rodents, as well as upon ated BAs ,276,277.isolates ,279. Theisolates ,281, sucgens 13) ,283, Baculgatus) ,285, Lacophilus) ,295,296,acterium ,298,299 rococcus ,301. BSH in soil ,303 and  springs ,305.Bacteroides [Bifidobacterium Longum [Bsh gene in Listeria monocytogenes results in reduced resistance to BAs, gut persistence during infection, and infectivity in vivo [Staphylococcus aureus [Clostridioides difficile infections correlate with an increase in BSH copy number compared with levels preceding transplant, suggesting a role of BSH in protection against microbial infection [BAs deconjugation may award a nutritional benefit as bacteria can further exploit freed amino acids as sources of carbon, nitrogen, sulfur, and energy, which has been demonstrated in teroides  and was m Longum . BSH actm Longum  and an e in vivo ,308,309. in vivo ,309. On s aureus , and sucnfection . BSH alsnfection ,313,314,nfection , change nfection ,317.Furthermore, deconjugated BAs are also known for signaling to extrahepatic tissues . Therefo2,3) muscarinic receptors (TLCA > TDCA > TCA). Therefore, the levels of deconjugated BAs circulating from the GI tract alter BA signaling, immune and barrier function. Generation of GF mice or treatment with antibiotics or tempol, which targets Lactobacilli, a primary source of BSH activity in the gut, inhibits deconjugation. The absence of BSH in these mouse models reduces the production of secondary BAs serving as FXR agonists. Additionally, the levels of FXR antagonists, such as T-βMCA, accumulate, preventing CYP7A1 inhibition and increasing BA production. However, FXR-independent CYP8B1 is not affected upon BSH inhibition [Importantly, deconjugation is a prerequisite for some of the enzymatic reactions, e.g., 7α/β-dehydroxylation resulting in the conversion of primary to secondary BAs ,326,327.hibition ,329.Enterocloster bolteae [The capacity of microbiota to produce microbially conjugated BAs (MCBAs) by re-conjugation of BAs with various amino acids has been recently identified. The MCBAs are conjugated at the C-24 acyl site similarly to the host conjugation mechanism, but instead of taurine or glycine, use phenylalanine, leucine, tyrosine, valine, or leucine. Conjugation with other amino acids is likely but not yet reported. The administration of MCBAs reduces the expression of BA-synthesis genes probably through their ability to act as an agonist of FXR. In addition to rodents, MCBAs were also found in humans. Of concern, MCBAs are enriched in patients with inflammatory bowel disease or cystic fibrosis and are associated with the occurrence of bacteria  bolteae ,330,331.Taurine-conjugated BAs are generally less toxic than unconjugated BAs and exhibit some beneficial properties. Particularly, TUDCA has broad therapeutic applications. It is more efficient in treating liver cirrhosis than its deconjugated counterpart UDCA ,333. ItsAs a supplement, TUDCA is orally bioavailable, and due to its capacity to cross the blood–brain barrier, it can penetrate the central nervous system . SimilarGiven that taurine supplementation increases the pool of taurine-conjugated BAs ,119, manE. coli is an example of a bacterium that imports and utilizes taurine when cultured under aerobic conditions [Upon release from conjugated BAs, taurine creates multiple secondary conjugates of unknown roles  or may bnditions . TherefoProteobacteria and especially Helicobacter, and also increasing the production of SCFA in mouse feces [Caloric restriction, which is accompanied by decreased expression of inflammatory and antibacterial genes , is alsose feces  as well se feces . Controvse feces . Reciprose feces ,353. Onese feces . Thus, mDeltaproteobacteria, typically a minor class, expands up to 100-fold. Importantly, Deltaproteobacteria encompasses sulfate-reducing bacteria possessing the capacity to convert taurine to ammonia, acetate, and sulfide. Subsequently, sulfide serves as an inhibitor of cellular respiration, which is key to host invasion by numerous pathogens. The conversion of taurine occurs via taurine–pyruvate aminotransferase encoded by the tpa gene, which is more prevalent in infection-trained microbiota metagenomes. Following oral gavage with Klebsiella pneumoniae, the subsequent fecal transfer of Klebsiella pneumoniae infection-trained microbiota enhanced resistance to colonization. Klebsiella pneumoniae grows on 1,2-propanediol by scavenging oxygen via cytochrome oxidase bd-II. Sulfide at concentration >250 mM potently inhibited Klebsiella pneumoniae respiration and ability to grow on 1,2- propanediol with oxygen. Notably, supplying exogenous taurine alone was sufficient to induce alteration in microbiota function and enhance resistance. However, taurine treatment of GF mice did not enhance resistance to Klebsiella pneumoniae [Taurine has been shown to have a substantial impact on the GI tract due to its anti-inflammatory properties and, therefore, impacting the environment of resident gut bacteria. When supplemented in the model of an immunosuppressive mouse, taurine improves immune cell numbers in Payer’s patches . It alsoeumoniae . Previoueumoniae . Sadly, eumoniae .In addition to being toxic to bacteria, sulfide can also be toxic to the host. Sulfide increases proliferation in the intestinal crypt, epithelial cells, and the upper colonic crypts, accompanied by induction of inflammatory pathways ,362,363.Endogenous concentrations of sulfide range between 0.2–3.4 mmol/L in the GI tract of mice and humans ,368. SulFusobacterium spp.) is associated with the tumor surface in a subset of colorectal cancer [Bilophila wadsworthia bacteria, which is difficult to detect in healthy individuals, emerges under pathological conditions such as appendicitis [B. wadsworthia thrives in the presence of taurine-conjugated BAs since it utilizes taurine-derived organic sulfur as the terminal electron acceptor of the electron transport chain resulting in the generation of sulfide as a byproduct [B. wadsworthia. What is relevant in this context, milk fat promotes the onset and incidence of colitis in IL-10−/− mice, driving it from a spontaneous rate of 25–30% to over 60% in a 6-month period. Correspondingly, B. wadsworthia occurrence, as well as TCA supplementation, are also associated with colitis development in IL-10−/− mice. The mechanisms involve B. wadsworthia-driven activation of dendritic cells in a way that selectively induces the production of interferon-γ (IFNγ) and Th1- mediated colitis [B. wadsworthia, most likely because of alterations in the BA composition [Concerning microbiota, sulfidogenic bacterium  were not significantly different from their parents or siblings; however, 21 out of 66 children with ASD had low taurine concentrations, which may have consequences on their mitochondria function. Accordingly, lowered taurine levels were proposed as a biomarker of autism . Transpl the gut .Streptococcus uberis is connected with the internalization of the pathogen, thus leading to avoiding the elimination of bacteria by medication and host responses. Taurine attenuates the infection via phosphoinositides/Ca2+ signaling, inhibition of over-activation of the NF-κB pathway, and stimulation of Treg cells [S. uberis, reduces intracellular bacterial load, and alleviates the inflammation and damage caused by the infection [Importantly, due to its role in preventing infections, taurine interacts with bacteria also in tissues other than the intestine. The infection of mammary epithelial cells with eg cells ,417,418.nfection .Both taurine and microbiota play multiple roles in organs outside of the GI tract as well as in response to various diseases. Due to its anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative properties, taurine alleviates liver injury and its consequent events, including a rise in plasma and brain ammonia and brain oedema ,421. It In the renal system, taurine is particularly important for osmoregulation. However, it also reduces the injurious effect of several kidney diseases, including diabetic nephropathy, glomerulonephritis, chronic renal failure, and acute kidney injury ,426,427.Taurine acting as a conjugate of BAs influences the signaling of TGR5 and FXR, having serious physiological consequences. Upon deconjugation, it dynamically interacts with microbiota by being metabolized or leading to the production of multiple signaling molecules. Alternatively, it is taken up to fulfill its role in other tissues. The crucial reaction of taurine release relies on microbiota, and the sensitive equilibrium and interaction of factors BAs, taurine, and microbiota contribute to the health and homeostasis of the host.