Abstract
Purpose of Review
Cancers are a leading cause of death in humans and for many other species. Diet has often been associated with cancers, and the microbiome is an essential mediator between diet and cancers. Here, we review the work on cancer and the microbiome across species to search for broad patterns of susceptibility associated with different microbial species.
Recent Findings
Some microbes, such as Helicobacter bacteria, papillomaviruses, and the carnivore-associated Fusobacteria, consistently induce tumorigenesis in humans and other species. Other microbes, such as the milk-associated Lactobacillus, consistently inhibit tumorigenesis in humans and other species.
Summary
We systematically reviewed over a thousand published articles and identified links between diet, microbes, and cancers in several species of mammals, birds, and flies. Future work should examine a larger variety of host species to discover new model organisms for human preclinical trials, to better understand the observed variance in cancer prevalence across species, and to discover which microbes and diets are associated with cancers across species. Ultimately, this could help identify microbial and dietary interventions to diagnose, prevent, and treat cancers in humans as well as other animals.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Cancer is one of the world’s leading causes of death (https://ourworldindata.org/cancer) [1–3]. Although it is known that microbes and diet affect cancer incidence, there has been no systematic review of the work across different host species to identify microbes and dietary factors that consistently contribute to cancer. Here, we fill that gap by reviewing the effect of diet and microbes on different species of mammals, birds, and flies. We begin with a brief overview of what is known about the human microbiome, diet, and cancer. Then, we discuss this information in the broader context of cancers across vertebrates.
Healthy Microbiome vs. Oncobiome
The gut microbiome is the entire population of microbes inhabiting the gut [4, 5]. Out of the ~ 100 trillion bacteria, viruses, archaea, fungi, and protozoa in our body, one hundred billion to one trillion of these microbes per litre are present in the colon [6–11]. In healthy individuals, approximately 90% of our gut microbes belong to the phyla Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes [8, 12–14]. The remaining 10% are Actinobacteria, Fusobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia [12, 15, 16].
The oncobiome [17], a collection of carcinogenic microbes, is estimated to cause cancer in 2.2 million people every year (over 10% of the world’s cancer cases) [18]. An underrepresentation of species within the Escherichia, Citrobacter, Shigella, Flavobacterium, Acinetobacter, and Chryseobacterium genera has been noted in tumour tissues of patients with colorectal cancer [19]. A low relative abundance of Lachnospiraceae species, Bifidobacterium animalis, and Streptococcus thermophilus [20, 21] and a relatively high abundance of Bacteroides clarus, Roseburia intestinalis, Clostridium hathewayi [22], Fusobacterium nucleatum [23–25], Parvimonas micra, and Solobacterium moorei serve as biomarkers of colorectal cancer [26]. Infection with Helicobacter pylori bacteria positive for the CagA protein is associated with an increased risk of developing colorectal adenocarcinoma [27]. Bacteremia from Clostridium septicum increases the risk of developing colorectal cancer [28]. Firmicutes and Lactococcus are more abundant in the gut microbiota of colorectal cancerous tissues versus neighbouring colorectal noncancerous tissues [29]. Helicobacter hepaticus promotes the development of toxin- and virus-induced hepatocellular carcinoma [30]. Clostridium difficile [31, 32], Enterococcus faecalis, Bacteroides fragilis, Escherichia coli, Streptococcus bovis/gallolyticus [33, 34], Porphyromonas, Peptostreptococcus, Gemella, Mogibacterium, Klebsiella [35], and Prevotella [36] are relatively more abundant in patients with colorectal cancer than healthy individuals.
The fact that some microbes within the Bacteroides [22, 33, 34, 37] and Bifidobacterium taxa [20, 21] can both protect from and increase the risk of colorectal cancer in humans highlights the complexity, dynamics, intraindividual, and interindividual variation of the oncobiome.
Gut microbes are also associated with other types of cancer, such as hepatocellular carcinoma, prostate cancer, breast cancer, gastric adenocarcinoma, lymphoma, and cervical cancers. The intestinal bacteria Helicobacter hepaticus drive hepatocellular carcinoma, prostate cancer, and breast tumours [30]. Helicobacter pylori, hepatitis B virus, and human papillomaviruses drive gastric, hepatic, and cervical cancers [38]. Helicobacter pylori is also associated with lymphoma, prostate cancer, sarcoma, and pancreatic cancer, via several mechanisms including the regulation of inflammatory and endocrine pathways [39].
Diet-Associated Microbes and Their Effects on Cancer
The interaction of gut microbes with their hosts depends on many aspects of the external and internal environment. Dietary intake [40–43], drug exposures [43–46], host genetics [47–50], age [51], sex [52], lifestyle [53, 54], group living arrangements [55–57], and contact with soil [58–60] influence the gut microbiome. Diet is a key modulator of the gut microbiome and host tissue [41, 43, 54, 60–63], affecting the development of diseases such as cancer [64–66].
Specific diets have been linked with cancer in humans [64–67]. The consumption of diets rich in fibre, fruits, yoghurts, whole grains, extra virgin olive oil, vegetables, and low in animal products has been associated with lower rates of cancer [68–73]. On the other hand, highly processed food [74, 75], animal fats, red meat, and low intakes of dietary fibre are associated with higher cancer risk [76, 77]. Western diet-related microbial dysbiosis [78] also is associated with colorectal cancer. Diet affects a multitude of microbes responsible for physiological homeostasis, signalling of the immune system, and digesting complex polysaccharides [79–81]. Thus, examining the links between diet, microbiome, and cancer is important for understanding cancer and reducing its burden on individuals and society.
Examining cell growth in response to dietary inputs is challenging because of the difficulty of growing gut microbes in a laboratory setting. There are thousands of species of gut microbes, but only a few have been cultured in the lab [8, 82, 83, 84••]. From those that have been grown in the lab, we know the following. Plant-based diets encourage a relatively high abundance of Bacteroidetes-related taxonomic groups [85], Lactobacillus [85], Bacillus polyfermenticus [86], and Bifidobacterium [85] in vivo. Bacteroides spp. and Bacillus polyfermenticus inhibit the proliferation of human colon cancer cells [37, 86, 87], while Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium inhibit the development of colorectal cancer by inhibiting gut inflammation and angiogenesis [84••].
The plant-digesting Propionibacterium spp. induces apoptosis in colorectal cancer cells [88]; Faecalibacterium prausnitzii protects from colon tumour development through their anti-inflammatory effects and production of the anti-carcinogenic metabolite butyrate [89–92]; and Eggerthella, Alistipes, and Phascolarctobacterium [93] have opposing effects on cancer. Although Alistipes and Phascolarctobacterium are relatively enriched in healthy volunteers, Eggerthella is relatively enriched in patients with colorectal cancer [33]. The mucin-digesting Akkermansia muciniphila, Enterococcus hirae, and Bacteroides spp. inhibit tumour development by activating immune T-cells [94–97]. Dairy products also encourage the growth of Lactobacillus species [84••, 98–100] and Bifidobacterium spp. [84••]. These microbes as well as Eubacterium species, Peptostreptococcus strain DZ2, and Fusobacterium strain AB are associated with a lower risk of developing colorectal cancer [101].
Microbes inhabit the guts of all multicellular organisms and have coevolved with their hosts for millions of years [79, 102–104]. Recent work has identified the gut microbiota of over 270 vertebrate species [40, 105••, 106–119]. Similar diets and/or ancestry appear to be associated with similar gut microbiota in mammals [120–124]. Herbivores and carnivores have distinct gut microbiota [125]. Firstly, herbivores have more diverse microbial populations than carnivores [126]. In herbivores, the predominant microbial families are Atopobiaceae, Barnesiellaceae, Defluvitaleaceae, Fibrobacteraceae, Lachnospiraceae, Methanocorpusculaceae, Oscillospiraceae, Rikenellaceae, Spirochaetaceae, and Synergistaceae [127••, 128••]. In carnivores, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidaceae, Clostridiaceae, Enterobacteriaceae, Firmicutes, Fusobacteriaceae, Peptostreptococcaceae, and Proteobacteria are predominant [127••, 129]. The group of microbes associated with carnivores is more similar to a healthy human gut microbiome than the group of microbes associated with herbivores, since a healthy human gut microbiome consists of about 90% Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes [8, 12–14] and 10% Actinobacteria, Fusobacteria, Proteobacteria, and Verrucomicrobia [12, 15, 16]. This is somewhat counter-intuitive because diets high in meat products are associated with higher cancer risk and other health problems in humans [77, 130].
Primarily herbivorous mammalian orders, such as Rodentia, Primates, Artiodactyla, and Marsupialia, have lower malignant or benign tumour prevalence than Carnivora [3, 131]. Also, in a pilot study across nonhuman vertebrates, diet was the only life history variable which explained some of the variance in cancer prevalence. Specifically, higher trophic levels, like apex predators, had higher cancer prevalence than lower trophic levels, like herbivores. Therefore, there is a need to understand the possible role of diet-associated microbes on cancer prevalence across nonhuman vertebrates.
We Systematically Review the Effects of Diet and Microbiome on Cancer Across Nonhuman Species
In this paper, we systematically review existing work on the relationship between diet, the microbiome, and cancer across nonhuman animals. Given what is known about the relationship between dietary substrates, the microbiome, and cancer incidence in humans, we expect to find lower cancer rates in species with herbivorous-related microbes and higher cancer rates in species with carnivorous-related microbes. Revealing the diet-related oncobiome across the tree of life can help us identify model organisms possibly useful for human preclinical trials and explain the variance in cancer prevalence across species.
Methods
Review Included Keywords Relating to Diet, Microbes, and Cancer
We conducted a systematic review to identify all reported cases of the interaction between diet, microbiota, and cancer in species beyond humans. We used the Arizona State University library search engine (including, e.g. GoogleScholar, Mendeley, and JSTOR) to find articles with the following keywords: (diet* OR food* OR “trophic level*” OR herbivor* OR insectivor* OR carnivor* OR omnivore* OR eat*) AND (*gut* OR *intestin* OR digestive OR stomach OR colo*) AND (cancer* OR malignan* ΟR benign OR neoplas* OR tumo?r* OR metasta* OR dysplas*) AND (microb* OR bacteria OR fung* OR microorganism* OR infect* OR fecal) AND (species OR zoo* OR wild* OR host* OR animal*).
We also used the following terms in the ‘NOT’ argument in order to exclude irrelevant articles that appeared when using only the list of terms in the ‘AND’ arguments above: NOT (“clinical trial* in humans” OR “human clinical trial*” OR “mathematical model*” OR “human bod*” OR “human tissue*” OR “human cancer*” OR “human gut” OR “computer simulation*” OR “computational model*” OR radiation OR “electr* field*” OR “magnetic field*” OR “renewable energy” OR “physics of cancer*” OR “in vitro” OR “in silico” OR “light to cure cancer*” OR tribe* OR nationalit* OR tobacco OR smoking OR “alcohol intake” OR “develop* world” OR “develop* countr*” OR laser OR “societ* and culture*” OR workplace OR cook* OR “human lymph” OR “human prostate” OR “human immun*” OR “human breast” OR “human skin” OR “human colo*” OR “human trial*” OR “human myocardial” OR “human monoclonal” OR “human sarcoma” OR “phase 1 trial” OR “phase 2 trial” OR “phase 3 trial*” OR “*pregnant wom?n” OR “human leukemia*” OR “human melanoma*” OR “energy minimization” OR “information coding” OR “Markov model” OR “free energy landscape” OR superconduct* OR astrobiology OR atavis* OR anaphylax* OR heart OR cardiovascular OR respiratory OR syndrome* OR mental* OR “blood disease*” OR diabet* OR Alzheimer* OR polio* OR measles OR “Bubonic Plague” OR stroke OR “multiple sclerosis” OR “Infectious mononucleosis” OR AIDS OR HIV OR “bronchus cancer” OR “lung cancer*” OR “breast cancer*” OR bronchitis OR emphysema OR asthma OR dementia OR ethnicity OR suicide OR biophysics OR “bone homeostasis” OR “common cold” OR diphtheria OR paralysis OR coronavirus OR chickenpox OR “Huntington's disease” OR rabies OR dengue OR leprosy OR osteoporosis OR gonorrhoea OR syphilis OR “heavy metal*” OR “air pollut*” OR “genetic disease*” OR “world health organi?ation” OR airborne OR tuberculosis OR eczema OR acne OR COVID OR hemophilia OR thrombos?s).
Excluded Papers from Irrelevant Disciplines
We excluded papers from the disciplines of “arts & humanities”, “Business & Economics”, “Engineering”, “Law”, “Library & Information Science”, “Physics”, “Psychology”, “Social Sciences”, and “Statistics”, as well as reference entries, reviews, web sources, book chapters, books, conference proceedings, newspaper articles, government documents, maps, patents, audio, and videos. We only included articles written in English. This led to a total of 1,167 articles.
Included Additional Articles Through Tracing Citations and Performing Additional Searches
We also searched for additional articles by tracing citations backwards and forwards for key articles using standard methodology for doing so in systematic reviews [132]. We completed this query on the 14th of June 2021.
We then performed a separate literature search for several key publications in the fields of comparative oncology, nutritional ecology, and microbiology that mention links between diet, microbes, and cancer in nonhumans as well as humans, given that comparative oncology articles with the word “humans” may have been excluded in our above keyword search.
Excluded Papers that Were Not Relevant to Microbes, Diet, and Cancer Across Species
We screened all the studies that resulted from these searches. One co-author (S.E.K.) screened 50% of the articles starting from the oldest to the newest, and another co-author (G.M.A.) screened the remaining 50% of articles starting from the newest to the oldest, using a shared document to identify articles that had been already screened by the other person. If there was uncertainty about inclusion of certain articles, both co-authors read those articles and agreed on inclusion or exclusion. Both S.E.K. and G.M.A. reviewed (duplicate reviewed) at least 47 articles. We excluded 1,532 publications with irrelevant titles or abstracts, those mostly focused on humans, and/or papers with no descriptions of direct links between diet, microbes, and cancer (Supplementary Table; Supplementary Figure). We provide the final list of 31 included articles in Table 1. From these articles, we extracted information about the standard diet of hosts in the experiments, the route of microbial administration to the host, the microbial species, whether the microbiome was experimentally added (i.e. by the researchers) or naturally present in the host (e.g. natural gut flora), the host species, and the resulting effects on cancer incidence or progression by searching for standard dietary information of the host organism(s) in the methods sections and searching for keywords, such as cancer, malignan, benign, neoplas, tumo, metasta, and dysplas.
Results
We found that the majority of articles (27 out of 31 studies; Table 1) reporting direct associations between microbes and cancer were conducted in murine model organisms (e.g. mice). The remaining four studies were in dogs, cats, flies, and chickens. The types of tumours studied in these organisms were mostly associated with gastrointestinal tissues (colon, colorectal, midgut, rectum, antrum, liver, gastric, intestine) (~ 61%, i.e. 19 out of 31 studies). Fewer studies examined the effect of microbes on tumourigenesis in breast tissue (~ 19%, i.e. 6 out of 31 studies), the lung (1 out of 31 studies), bladder (1 out of 31 studies), multiple sites (1 out of 31 studies), brain (1 out of 31 studies), and skin or mucosa (2 out of 31 studies). Although we did not set out to focus our review on experimentally induced microbiomes, 83.8% of the studies (26 out of 31 studies) that ended up being included used experimentally induced microbiomes. The majority of microbes in Table 1 were administered orally to the hosts (20 out of 31 studies). In a few studies, hosts received microbes via subcutaneous injection [133] or aerosolisation [134]; in two studies, the microbes being studied were naturally present in the hosts [135, 136] (Table 1).
Cancer-Associated Microbes Are Found Across Several Nonhuman Species
We discovered a wide range of microbes that were consistently associated with inhibition and/or induction of cancer across nonhuman species. We identified several patterns in the way microbes affect cancer in seven different host species (Table 1), including fruit flies, chickens, mice, rats, gerbils, cats, and dogs. In all studies in Table 1 that administered Lactobacilli species alone, the researchers observed an inhibition of cancer, inhibition of tumour growth, or a reduction in tumour size in breast, lung, colon, and bladder tissues of mice and rats. On the other hand, in all studies in Table 1 where Helicobacter was present, they consistently saw induction of carcinogenesis in mice [137], tumour growth in gerbils [138], and overall dysplasia in cats [139]. Some microbes, such as Lactobacilli and Clostridiales, are associated with inhibition of cancer when they are administered as individual species, but when they are administered as part of a community of various microbial species, the overall effects on cancer are sometimes positive and other times negative (Table 1).
Lactobacilli Bacteria Are Protective Against Cancer in Many Species
Lactobacillus is a microbe that is beneficial to many host species, as it protects from colorectal cancer in humans [84••, 98–100], as well as breast, lung, colon, and bladder cancer in mice and rats (Table 1). Lactobacilli provide cancer protection by inhibiting cell proliferation, inflammation and angiogenesis, inactivating carcinogenic compounds, and inducing apoptosis [84••, 99, 100].
Some Microbes Have Cancer-Promoting Effects Across Species
Papillomaviruses have cancer-inducing effects in both humans [38] and dogs (Table 1). They induce skin or mucosal malignancies by integrating their genome into the host cells [140], and then, their proteins dysregulate pathways of host cell division and DNA damage/stress response [141].
Bacteroides fragilis and Fusobacterium nucleatum are associated with cancer in both humans [23–25, 33, 34] and mice (Table 1). B. fragilis induces malignancies by producing reactive oxygen species and toxins that damage the host DNA and degrade the cell-to-cell adhesion protein E-cadherin, respectively [142–144]. F. nucleatum induces tumourigenesis by entering host cells and promoting their own and the host cells’ proliferation, as well as producing toxins that alter the adhesion and epigenetics of host cells [64, 133, 144–146].
Some Microbial Species Have Context-Dependent Effects on Cancer
Through our systematic review, we discovered that some microbes have cancer protective effects in some contexts and cancer-promoting effects in others. This makes it difficult to draw broad conclusions about the nature of the oncobiome, just as it is difficult to make broad claims about the gut microbiome across species more generally [120, 124, 127••, 147•]. For example, B. fragilis can have harmful effects [142, 148] or beneficial effects (reducing colitis and having an indirect effect of reducing cancer) [149] depending on the diet of the host. When B. fragilis has cancer-protective effects, this may be due the result of anti-inflammatory properties of soluble fibres in the host’s diet [150].
In other experiments, Clostridium species have paradoxical effects on cancer: promoting gastrointestinal neoplasia in INS-GAS mice on a FVB/N background [151], but inhibiting proliferation of colorectal cancer cells in C57BL/6 mice [152] and inhibiting melanoma in germ-free C57BL/6 mice [153]. Bacteroides species also have context-dependent effects: promoting gastrointestinal neoplasia in INS-GAS mice on a FVB/N background [151], but inhibiting melanoma in germ-free C57BL/6 mice [153] (Table 1). The different effects of Clostridium and Bacteroides species on cancer could be a result of the experiments using different strains of mice with different starting microbiomes or a number of other factors including the hosts’ diet in the experiments (e.g. autoclaved chow diet [153]; diets not reported in the studies [151, 152]), sex, and age.
Many Studies Did Not Report the Diets of Animal Subjects
Unfortunately, only 15 of 31 studies in Table 1 report the standard diet that hosts were exposed to. Out of these cases, a standard/balanced rodent or cat diet was most often used, but 13 cases do not mention the company from which this food was purchased or the exact ingredients and/or nutrients of this food (Table 1). Even when studies report that food was supplied by a specific company, such as Harlan [154], we do not know whether the food supplied by these companies was specifically designed or custom-made for the study [154]. We only know the ingredients of the animals’ diets in two studies. The irradiated Picolab 20 5053 rodent diet [155] mainly consists of at least 20% crude protein and 4.5% crude fat, and not more than 6% of crude fibre and 7% ash (Picolab). The LabDiet 5K67 rodent diet [153] mainly consists of at least 18% crude protein and 6% crude fat, and not more than 5% crude fibre and 8% ash (LabDiet JL). In some cases, the diet was autoclaved [153] and mixed with antioxidant oils [154], or antibiotics were given to the host prior to infection [153, 156], in order to estimate the direct effect of the newly administered microbes on cancer in the host.
Discussion
The idea that food affects health is an ancient idea. This was stated by Hipocrates in ancient Greece as “Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food” and is also clear in the “homology of medicine and food” in Chinese medicine [157]. Although this idea is ancient, it has important implications for modern medicine, which often neglects the critical role of diet in shaping the overall health and well-being [158–160]. Dietary interventions [161, 162] are a promising tool to prevent cancers across species given that they are safe, easily modifiable, readily accessible, and economical [163, 164].
In this review, we have identified microbial species that have a cancer-promoting and/or cancer-inhibiting effect across several hosts (Table 1). Lactobacilli are consistently associated with cancer inhibition (when studies did not include other microbes), and Helicobacter bacteria are consistently associated with cancer, across host species. However, in the presence of other microbes, Lactobacilli and Clostridiales were sometimes associated with cancer and other times associated with inhibition of cancer (Table 1). Some experiments provide dietary information, but others do not, thus highlighting the need for further systematic studies on the direct links between diet, microbes, and cancer across species that take into account the many factors that can influence the microbiome.
Carnivorous Diets May Be Associated with Cancer-Inducing Microbes
Comparative oncology studies show that within mammals, the order Carnivora has higher benign or malignant tumour prevalence than other primarily herbivorous mammalian orders [3, 131]. Also, our group has been investigating the cancer prevalence of species at different trophic levels, including carnivores, herbivores, insectivores, and others. Our preliminary results across vertebrate species show that lower trophic levels (such as herbivores) have lower cancer prevalence than higher trophic levels (such as secondary carnivores) (Kapsetaki et al. in prep). A possible explanation for this higher cancer prevalence in higher trophic levels (i.e. carnivores) may be their diet-associated oncobiome, including their lower microbial diversity than herbivores [126]. There are other distinct features of carnivore microbes that might predispose them to cancer. For example, Fusobacteria and Peptostreptococcus bacteria have tumour-inducing properties in both humans [35] and mice (Table 1) and are most abundant in carnivorous species [127••, 129]. Similarly, humans and macaques fed a cancer-associated Western diet had lower microbial diversity compared with humans who were fed fermented foods or macaques who were fed Mediterranean diet [72, 165–167].
Litter Size Might Affect Cancer Susceptibility via the Microbiome
The association of individual Lactobacilli species with cancer inhibition (Table 1) could be one of the reasons behind the observation of higher cancer prevalence in mammals of larger litter size [168••]. It is reasonable to speculate that mammals with larger litter size likely have lower parental investment in general because they are characterised by a faster life history strategy [169]. Mammalian species with larger litter size often have shorter gestation length [170], an indicator of parental investment. Although we were not able to find reports of shorter lactation length or less milk being transferred to each offspring, it is possible that species with larger litter sizes are transferring less milk and therefore cultivate fewer Lactobacillus bacteria in their offspring. This is one hypothesis that could be tested for why higher cancer prevalence has been observed in species of larger litter size [168••]. Future work should test whether there is an association between litter size and Lactobacillus prevalence.
Helicobacter Bacteria Have Cancer-Promoting Effects and Could Be a Transmissible Carcinogen
Helicobacter bacteria are often linked with the development of cancers in humans [27, 30, 171], as well as carcinogenesis in mice [137], tumour growth in gerbils [138], and overall dysplasia in cats [139] (Table 1). Helicobacter bacteria secrete VacA toxins which create pores in host cells and a cascade of intracellular events leading to host cell apoptosis [172]. Helicobacter bacteria also attach to and align their growth with host cells; this allows Helicobacter to pass CagA toxins inside the host cells [64, 173, 174]. CagA toxins rewire the host cells’ gene expression, induce inflammation and oxidative stress, and alter host cell polarity, which are associated with a high risk of developing gastric and colorectal cancers [27, 173, 174].
The fact that Helicobacter bacteria induce cancers in mice, gerbils, cats (Table 1), and humans [30, 171] raises the possibility that Helicobacter could be a transmissible agent that increases the risk of cancer across species from one trophic level to the next when one species (e.g. a cat) consumes another (e.g. a mouse). However, further research is necessary to test this hypothesis.
Limitations and Future Directions
The microbiome is a complex network and there are still many unknowns. The composition of the gut microbiome can vary interindividually [175], with age [51], by sex [52, 176], and even between animals sampled from the wild or in captivity [177–180]. It will be important to control for species age and sex when drawing links between diet, microbes, and cancer across species. In addition, there are many microbes with contradictory effects on cancer in different studies [142, 148, 149, 151–153]. Identifying the mechanistic links between these microbes and the hosts’ respective diets will be an important next step.
Studying Underlying Mechanisms Is Key to Establishing Causal Relationships Among Diet, Microbes, and Cancer
A causal link between microbes and tumour proliferation has been identified in several microbes such as F. nucleatum, enterotoxic Bacteroides fragilis, E. faecalis, Peptostreptococcus anaerobius, Helicobacter pylori, and human papillomaviruses [38, 163, 181]. However, whether the correlation, for example, between Proteobacteria, Desulfovibrio, Erysipelotrichacea, and Fusobacterium abundance and colorectal cancer in rats is causal is not entirely clear [136]. Proteobacteria interact with intestinal cells via type III bacterial secretion systems [182]. Desulfovibrio produces hydrogen sulphide which can lead to DNA damage [183, 184]. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes the expression of mucin and the proinflammatory cytokine tumour necrosis factor alpha [185] tumourigenesis by entering host cells, altering their proliferation and attachment to neighbouring cells [64, 133, 144–146]. However, in the majority of microbial-cancer associations (e.g. Table 1), it is unknown whether the relationship is causal, one-/bi-directional, or mere correlation [38, 162, 186].
Studying the mechanisms that underlie the relationships among diet, microbes, and cancer is necessary to better understand the causal relationships among these variables. For example, mechanisms like resource availability/limitation in the gut, inflammation, the production of growth factors, and even cell signalling between microbes and cancerous/precancerous cells [187–189] are all potential mechanisms that might underlie these links.
Most Microbial Species in the Gut Microbiome Are Still Unknown
Another limitation that must be acknowledged is that the vast majority of species in the microbiome are still unknown. Even though advances in metagenomics have enabled the sequencing of 806 microbial genomes across 124 humans [15], and 5,000 microbial genomes across approximately 180 wild and captive species [126], there is still insufficient genome coverage for many microbial genomes that are underrepresented in the gut microbiome. Further, it is difficult to reconstruct repetitive and low complexity genomic regions with short-read based methodological approaches [126, 190], and 99% of species in the gut microbiome still cannot be cultured [84••]. Researchers estimate that there are trillions of microbial species that are yet to be observed [10].
Host Ecology and Physiology Influences the Composition of the Microbiome
The ecology and physiology of the hosts [191–194] may also influence the taxonomic abundance and diversity of their microbiome [56, 195–200]. Environments with scarce amounts of plants and high abundance of prey animals favour the evolution of carnivory over herbivory [201]. Therefore, the distinct microbiome of a habitat may affect an animals’ microbiome. Also, there may be unique microbial niches in carnivores versus herbivores as a result of phenotypic differences in how these animals eat and digest food. Researchers have suggested that canine teeth, large mouth openings, short digestive tracts, lower pH in the stomach, sharp claws, and nocturnal living [202–205] may create favourable niches for pathogenic microbes, whereas wide flat teeth, small mouth openings, larger and longer digestive tracts, higher pH in the stomach, flattened nails or blunt hooves, and diurnal living [202, 205–212] might create favourable niches for microbes that have more positive effects on health. Future work can and should explore whether these phenotypes influence the viability of cancer-promoting and cancer-inhibiting microbes.
Microbiome and Diet Interventions Could Reduce the Burden of Cancer Across Species
By utilising what we know about the role of the microbiome, diet, and cancer, it should be possible to better diagnose, prevent, and treat cancers across species. Plant-based and dairy diets are associated with a decreased cancer risk [213]. Both of these diets encourage the growth of Lactobacillus species [84••, 85, 98–100]. Therefore, the association of Lactobacilli with cancer inhibition across several host species may be tightly linked with and able to be manipulated by diet. Interventions such as dietary therapies, dietary-induced microbial therapies, probiotics and prebiotics, microbial biomarkers, and personalised medicine, have proven to be effective for decades [157, 214–216]. Future studies should test diet- and microbial-based therapies across species to help reduce the burden of cancer in nonhuman animals and can also help discover new treatments that could be used in humans.
Zoos Provide an Opportunity for Future Research
Most of the studies summarised in Table 1 use mice and rats. Although mice and rats are widely understood and well-studied in the lab, there are limitations to studies using them exclusively. Differences in cancer phenotype, tumour origins, and tumour karyotypes between humans and mice highlight some of the many phylogenetic complexities of trying to understand global patterns of comparative oncology and their links with diet and microbes [217]. Broadening this range of hosts to many other species is a key step towards untangling the complex phylogenetic relationships between diet, microbes, and cancer across species.
Most studies in Table 1 are experimental, meaning the microbes were experimentally administered to the host rather than naturally observed in the microbiome. This introduces potential bias because current knowledge may not correlate with naturally occurring microbiomes. Although these studies are good for observing correlations between certain microbes and cancer, they do not look for correlations between common diets and cancer progression. In order to overcome the limitations of experimental mouse models, the next step would involve quantifying the effect of diet and microbes on cancer across species in captive environments such as zoos. Since zoos regularly track the diet of their animals, it would be simpler to test for links between specific diets and microbes via metagenomic analyses of faecal microbiomes. These data could then be compared with cancer data from already existing cancer records in the zoos [168••, 218] to identify how diet changes the microbiome and reduces cancer incidence, particularly in species prone to cancer.
Conclusions
We discovered several broad patterns in this review of diet, microbiome, and cancer. Some microbes, such as Helicobacter bacteria, papillomaviruses, and the carnivore-associated Fusobacteria, consistently induce tumourigenesis in humans and other species, and some microbes, such as the milk-associated Lactobacillus, consistently inhibit tumourigenesis in humans and other species (Table 1).
Identifying the diet-related oncobiome across the tree of life may enable us to use new model organisms for preclinical trials, better understand cancer across species, and develop universal diagnostic, prevention, and treatment regimes to fight cancer and improve animal welfare. The advent of high-throughput sequencing and multi-institutional collaborations between evolutionary biologists, veterinary nutritionists, and pathologists makes these goals entirely possible.
Data Availability
We provide all data in the supplementary table.
Disclaimer
The findings, opinions, and recommendations expressed here are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the universities where the research was performed or the National Institutes of Health.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
Davies PCW, Lineweaver CH. Cancer tumors as Metazoa 1.0: tapping genes of ancient ancestors. Phys Biol. IOP Publishing; 2011;8:15001.
Effron M, Griner L, Benirschke K. Nature and rate of neoplasia found in captive wild mammals, birds, and reptiles at necropsy 1. 1977. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/59/1/185/888218.
Madsen T, Arnal A, Vittecoq M, Bernex F, Abadie J, Labrut S, et al. Chapter 2 - Cancer prevalence and etiology in wild and captive animals. In: Ujvari B, Roche B, Thomas F, editors., et al., Ecology and Evolution of Cancer. Academic Press; 2017. p. 11–46.
Taneja V. Chapter 39 - Microbiome: impact of gender on function & characteristics of gut microbiome. In: Legato MJ, editor. Principles of Gender-Specific Medicine. 3rd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2017. p. 569–83.
Neuman H, Koren O. The gut microbiome. Elsevier; 2016.
Bull MJ, Plummer NT. Part 1: the human gut microbiome in health and disease. Integr Med. 2014;13:17–22.
Sender R, Fuchs S, Milo R. Revised estimates for the number of human and bacteria cells in the body. PLoS Biol. 2016;14: e1002533.
Ley RE, Peterson DA, Gordon JI. Ecological and evolutionary forces shaping microbial diversity in the human intestine. Cell. 2006;124:837–48.
Kashyap S, Pal S, Chandan G, Saini V, Chakrabarti S, Saini NK, et al. Understanding the cross-talk between human microbiota and gastrointestinal cancer for developing potential diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Semin Cancer Biol. 2021; Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1044579X21001218.
Whitman WB, Coleman DC, Wiebe WJ. Prokaryotes: the unseen majority. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998;95:6578–83.
Edwards RA, Vega AA, Norman HM, Ohaeri M, Levi K, Dinsdale EA, et al. Global phylogeography and ancient evolution of the widespread human gut virus crAssphage. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:1727–36.
Russo E, Bacci G, Chiellini C, Fagorzi C, Niccolai E, Taddei A, et al. Preliminary comparison of oral and intestinal human microbiota in patients with colorectal cancer: a pilot study. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:2699.
Gagnière J, Raisch J, Veziant J, Barnich N, Bonnet R, Buc E, et al. Gut microbiota imbalance and colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:501–18.
Wieczorska K, Stolarek M, Stec R. The role of the gut microbiome in colorectal cancer: where are we? Where are we going? Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2020;19:5–12.
Qin J, Li R, Raes J, Arumugam M, Burgdorf KS, Manichanh C, et al. A human gut microbial gene catalogue established by metagenomic sequencing. Nature. 2010;464:59–65.
Bäckhed F, Ley RE, Sonnenburg JL, Peterson DA, Gordon JI. Host-bacterial mutualism in the human intestine. Science. 2005;307:1915–20.
Peto J. Cancer epidemiology in the last century and the next decade. Nature. 2001;411:390–5.
Working I. Group on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Biological agents. Volume 100 B. A review of human carcinogens. World Health Organization, Int Agency Res Cancer. 2012;94:1–441.
Tjalsma H, Boleij A, Marchesi JR, Dutilh BE. A bacterial driver–passenger model for colorectal cancer: beyond the usual suspects. Nat Rev Microbiol Nature Publishing Group. 2012;10:575–82.
Feng Q, Liang S, Jia H, Stadlmayr A, Tang L, Lan Z, et al. Gut microbiome development along the colorectal adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Nat Commun. 2015;6:6528.
Dai Z, Coker OO, Nakatsu G, Wu WKK, Zhao L, Chen Z, et al. Multi-cohort analysis of colorectal cancer metagenome identified altered bacteria across populations and universal bacterial markers. Microbiome. 2018. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-018-0451-2.
Liang Q, Chiu J, Chen Y, Huang Y, Higashimori A, Fang J, et al. Fecal bacteria act as novel biomarkers for noninvasive diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2017;23:2061–70.
Castellarin M, Warren RL, Freeman JD, Dreolini L, Krzywinski M, Strauss J, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum infection is prevalent in human colorectal carcinoma. Genome Res. 2012;22:299–306.
Mima K, Nishihara R, Qian ZR, Cao Y, Sukawa Y, Nowak JA, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum in colorectal carcinoma tissue and patient prognosis. Gut BMJ Publishing Group. 2016;65:1973–80.
Yamaoka Y, Suehiro Y, Hashimoto S, Hoshida T, Fujimoto M, Watanabe M, et al. Fusobacterium nucleatum as a prognostic marker of colorectal cancer in a Japanese population. J Gastroenterol. 2018;517–24. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-017-1382-6.
Yu J, Feng Q, Wong SH, Zhang D, Liang QY, Qin Y, et al. Metagenomic analysis of faecal microbiome as a tool towards targeted non-invasive biomarkers for colorectal cancer. Gut. 2017;66:70–8.
Shmuely H, Passaro D, Figer A, Niv Y, Pitlik S, Samra Z, et al. Relationship between Helicobacter pylori CagA status and colorectal cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:3406–10.
Kwong TNY, Wang X, Nakatsu G, Chow TC, Tipoe T, Dai RZW, et al. Association between bacteremia from specific microbes and subsequent diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2018;155:383-90.e8.
Gao Z, Guo B, Gao R, Zhu Q, Qin H. Microbiota disbiosis is associated with colorectal cancer. Front Microbiol. 2015;6:20.
Wong SH, Kwong TNY, Wu C-Y, Yu J. Clinical applications of gut microbiota in cancer biology. Semin Cancer Biol. 2019;55:28–36.
Fukugaiti MH, Ignacio A, Fernandes MR, Ribeiro Júnior U, Nakano V, Avila-Campos MJ. High occurrence of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Clostridium difficile in the intestinal microbiota of colorectal carcinoma patients. Braz J Microbiol. 2015;46:1135–40.
Zheng Y, Luo Y, Lv Y, Huang C, Sheng Q, Zhao P, et al. Clostridium difficile colonization in preoperative colorectal cancer patients. Oncotarget. 2017;8:11877–86.
Wang T, Cai G, Qiu Y, Fei N, Zhang M, Pang X, et al. Structural segregation of gut microbiota between colorectal cancer patients and healthy volunteers. ISME J. 2012;6:320–9.
Wu N, Yang X, Zhang R, Li J, Xiao X, Hu Y, et al. Dysbiosis signature of fecal microbiota in colorectal cancer patients. Microb Ecol. 2013;66:462–70.
Chen W, Liu F, Ling Z, Tong X, Xiang C. Human intestinal lumen and mucosa-associated microbiota in patients with colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE. 2012;7: e39743.
Sobhani I, Tap J, Roudot-Thoraval F, Roperch JP, Letulle S, Langella P, et al. Microbial dysbiosis in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. PLoS ONE. 2011;6: e16393.
Saus E, Iraola-Guzmán S, Willis JR, Brunet-Vega A, Gabaldón T. Microbiome and colorectal cancer: roles in carcinogenesis and clinical potential. Mol Aspects Med. 2019;93–106. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2019.05.001.
de Martel C, Ferlay J, Franceschi S, Vignat J, Bray F, Forman D, et al. Global burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2008: a review and synthetic analysis. Lancet Oncol Elsevier. 2012;13:607–15.
Rea D, Coppola G, Palma G, Barbieri A, Luciano A, Del Prete P, et al. Microbiota effects on cancer: from risks to therapies. Oncotarget. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov; 2018;9:17915–27.
Muegge BD, Kuczynski J, Knights D, Clemente JC, Gonzalez A, Fontana L, et al. Diet drives convergence in gut microbiome functions across mammalian phylogeny and within humans. Science. Am Assoc Adv Sci. 2011;332:1496–501.
Wu GD, Chen J, Hoffmann C, Bittinger K, Chen Y-Y, Keilbaugh SA, et al. Linking long-term dietary patterns with gut microbial enterotypes. Science. Am Assoc Adv Sci. 2011;334:105–8.
Rothe M, Blaut M. Evolution of the gut microbiota and the influence of diet. Benef Microbes. 2013;4:31–7.
David LA, Maurice CF, Carmody RN, Gootenberg DB, Button JE, Wolfe BE, et al. Diet rapidly and reproducibly alters the human gut microbiome. Nature Nature Publishing Group. 2014;505:559–63.
Maurice CF, Haiser HJ, Turnbaugh PJ. Xenobiotics shape the physiology and gene expression of the active human gut microbiome. Cell. 2013;152:39–50.
Becattini S, Taur Y, Pamer EG. Antibiotic-induced changes in the intestinal microbiota and disease. Trends Mol Med. 2016;22:458–78.
Nagpal R, Mainali R, Ahmadi S, Wang S, Singh R, Kavanagh K, et al. Gut microbiome and aging: physiological and mechanistic insights. Nutr Healthy Aging. 2018;4:267–85.
Goodrich JK, Waters JL, Poole AC, Sutter JL, Koren O, Blekhman R, et al. Human genetics shape the gut microbiome. Cell. 2014;159:789–99.
Khachatryan ZA, Ktsoyan ZA, Manukyan GP, Kelly D, Ghazaryan KA, Aminov RI. Predominant role of host genetics in controlling the composition of gut microbiota. PLoS ONE. 2008;3: e3064.
Spor A, Koren O, Ley R. Unravelling the effects of the environment and host genotype on the gut microbiome. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2011;9:279–90.
Liu S, da Cunha AP, Rezende RM, Cialic R, Wei Z, Bry L, et al. The host shapes the gut microbiota via fecal MicroRNA. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;19:32–43.
Yatsunenko T, Rey FE, Manary MJ, Trehan I, Dominguez-Bello MG, Contreras M, et al. Human gut microbiome viewed across age and geography. Nature. 2012;486:222–7.
Jašarević E, Morrison KE, Bale TL. Sex differences in the gut microbiome–brain axis across the lifespan. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. Royal Society. 2016;371:20150122.
Smits SA, Leach J, Sonnenburg ED, Gonzalez CG, Lichtman JS, Reid G, et al. Seasonal cycling in the gut microbiome of the Hadza hunter-gatherers of Tanzania. Science. Am Assoc Adv Sci. 2017;357:802–6.
Rothschild D, Weissbrod O, Barkan E, Kurilshikov A, Korem T, Zeevi D, et al. Environment dominates over host genetics in shaping human gut microbiota. Nature. 2018;555:210–5.
Amato KR, Van Belle S, Di Fiore A, Estrada A, Stumpf R, White B, et al. Patterns in gut microbiota similarity associated with degree of sociality among sex classes of a neotropical primate. Microb Ecol. 2017;74:250–8.
Tung J, Barreiro LB, Burns MB, Grenier J-C, Lynch J, Grieneisen LE, et al. Social networks predict gut microbiome composition in wild baboons. Elife. 2015;4. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.05224.
Moeller AH, Foerster S, Wilson ML, Pusey AE, Hahn BH, Ochman H. Social behavior shapes the chimpanzee pan-microbiome. Sci Adv. 2016;2: e1500997.
Lehtimäki J, Karkman A, Laatikainen T, Paalanen L, von Hertzen L, Haahtela T, et al. Patterns in the skin microbiota differ in children and teenagers between rural and urban environments. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45651.
Ottman N, Ruokolainen L, Suomalainen A, Sinkko H, Karisola P, Lehtimäki J, et al. Soil exposure modifies the gut microbiota and supports immune tolerance in a mouse model. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2019;143:1198-1206.e12.
Grieneisen LE, Charpentier MJE, Alberts SC, Blekhman R, Bradburd G, Tung J, et al. Genes, geology and germs: gut microbiota across a primate hybrid zone are explained by site soil properties, not host species. Proc Biol Sci. 2019;286:20190431.
Carmody RN, Gerber GK, Luevano JM Jr, Gatti DM, Somes L, Svenson KL, et al. Diet dominates host genotype in shaping the murine gut microbiota. Cell Host Microbe. 2015;17:72–84.
Benson AK, Kelly SA, Legge R, Ma F, Low SJ, Kim J, et al. Individuality in gut microbiota composition is a complex polygenic trait shaped by multiple environmental and host genetic factors. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010;107:18933–8.
Asnicar F, Berry SE, Valdes AM, Nguyen LH, Piccinno G, Drew DA, et al. Microbiome connections with host metabolism and habitual diet from 1,098 deeply phenotyped individuals. Nat Med. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; 2021;27:321–32.
Whisner CM, Aktipis AC. The role of the microbiome in cancer initiation and progression: how microbes and cancer cells utilize excess energy and promote one another’s growth. Curr Nutr Rep. Curr Sci Inc. 2019;42–51. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-019-0257-2.
Sobhani I, Amiot A, Le Baleur Y, Levy M, Auriault M-L, Van Nhieu JT, et al. Microbial dysbiosis and colon carcinogenesis: could colon cancer be considered a bacteria-related disease? Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2013;6:215–29.
Sepich-Poore GD, Zitvogel L, Straussman R, Hasty J, Wargo JA, Knight R. The microbiome and human cancer. Science. Am Assoc Adv Sci (AAAS). 2021;371:eabc4552.
Dzutsev A, Goldszmid RS, Viaud S, Zitvogel L, Trinchieri G. The role of the microbiota in inflammation, carcinogenesis, and cancer therapy. Eur J Immunol. 2015;45:17–31.
O’Keefe SJ, Kidd M, Espitalier-Noel G, Owira P. Rarity of colon cancer in Africans is associated with low animal product consumption, not fiber. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:1373–80.
Makarem N, Lin Y, Bandera EV, Jacques PF, Parekh N. Concordance with World Cancer Research Fund/American Institute for Cancer Research (WCRF/AICR) guidelines for cancer prevention and obesity-related cancer risk in the Framingham Offspring cohort (1991–2008). Cancer Causes Control Springer. 2015;26:277–86.
Romagnolo DF, Selmin OI. Flavonoids and cancer prevention: a review of the evidence. J Nutr Gerontol Geriatr. Taylor & Francis. 2012;31:206–38.
Abdull Razis AF, Noor NM. Cruciferous vegetables: dietary phytochemicals for cancer prevention. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2013;14:1565–70.
Michels KB, Willett WC, Vaidya R, Zhang X, Giovannucci E. Yogurt consumption and colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in the nurses’ health study and the health professionals follow-up study. Am J Clin Nutr. 2020;1566–75. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/nqaa244.
Rodríguez-García C, Sánchez-Quesada C, Algarra I, Gaforio JJ. The high-fat diet based on extra-virgin olive oil causes dysbiosis linked to colorectal cancer prevention. Nutrients. 2020;12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12061705.
Cross AJ, Ferrucci LM, Risch A, Graubard BI, Ward MH, Park Y, et al. A large prospective study of meat consumption and colorectal cancer risk: an investigation of potential mechanisms underlying this association. Cancer Res. 2010;70:2406–14.
Oostindjer M, Alexander J, Amdam GV, Andersen G, Bryan NS, Chen D, et al. The role of red and processed meat in colorectal cancer development: a perspective. Meat Sci. 2014;97:583–96.
Huang P, Liu Y. A reasonable diet promotes balance of intestinal microbiota: prevention of precolorectal cancer. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:3405278.
Abu-Ghazaleh N, Chua WJ, Gopalan V. Intestinal microbiota and its association with colon cancer and red/processed meat consumption. J Gastroenterol Hepatol Wiley. 2021;36:75–88.
Foegeding NJ, Jones ZS, Byndloss MX. Western lifestyle as a driver of dysbiosis in colorectal cancer. Dis Model Mech. 2021;14. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1242/dmm.049051.
McFall-Ngai M, Hadfield MG, Bosch TCG, Carey HV, Domazet-Lošo T, Douglas AE, et al. Animals in a bacterial world, a new imperative for the life sciences. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110:3229–36.
Kho ZY, Lal SK. The human gut microbiome - a potential controller of wellness and disease. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:1835.
Thaiss CA, Zmora N, Levy M, Elinav E. The microbiome and innate immunity. Nature. 2016;535:65–74.
Bengmark S. Ecological control of the gastrointestinal tract. The role of probiotic flora Gut. 1998;42:2–7.
Zhu Y, Michelle Luo T, Jobin C, Young HA. Gut microbiota and probiotics in colon tumorigenesis. Cancer Lett. 2011;309:119–27.
•• Chattopadhyay I, Dhar R, Pethusamy K, Seethy A, Srivastava T, Sah R, et al. Exploring the role of gut microbiome in colon cancer. Appl Biochem Biotechnol. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12010-021-03498-9. Τhis study extensively reviews the links between diet, gut microbes, and colorectal cancer mostly in humans.
Tomova A, Bukovsky I, Rembert E, Yonas W, Alwarith J, Barnard ND, et al. The effects of vegetarian and vegan diets on gut microbiota. Front Nutr. 2019;6:47.
Lee N-K, Son S-H, Jeon EB, Jung GH, Lee J-Y, Paik H-D. The prophylactic effect of probiotic Bacillus polyfermenticus KU3 against cancer cells. J Funct Foods. 2015;14:513–8.
Ma EL, Choi YJ, Choi J, Pothoulakis C, Rhee SH, Im E. The anticancer effect of probiotic Bacillus polyfermenticus on human colon cancer cells is mediated through ErbB2 and ErbB3 inhibition. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:780–90.
Jan G, Belzacq A-S, Haouzi D, Rouault A, Métivier D, Kroemer G, et al. Propionibacteria induce apoptosis of colorectal carcinoma cells via short-chain fatty acids acting on mitochondria. Cell Death Differ. 2002;9:179–88.
Rossi O, van Berkel LA, Chain F, Tanweer Khan M, Taverne N, Sokol H, et al. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii A2–165 has a high capacity to induce IL-10 in human and murine dendritic cells and modulates T cell responses. Sci Rep. 2016;6:18507.
Kahleova H, Rembert E, Alwarith J, Yonas WN, Tura A, Holubkov R, et al. Effects of a low-fat vegan diet on gut microbiota in overweight individuals and relationships with body weight, body composition, and insulin sensitivity. A randomized clinical trial. Nutrients. 2020;12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12102917.
Duncan SH, Hold GL, Harmsen HJM, Stewart CS, Flint HJ. Growth requirements and fermentation products of Fusobacterium prausnitzii, and a proposal to reclassify it as Faecalibacterium prausnitzii gen. nov., comb. nov. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol. 2002;52:2141–6.
Archer S, Meng S, Wu J, Johnson J, Tang R, Hodin R. Butyrate inhibits colon carcinoma cell growth through two distinct pathways. Surgery. 1998;124:248–53.
Li F, Hullar MAJ, Schwarz Y, Lampe JW. Human gut bacterial communities are altered by addition of cruciferous vegetables to a controlled fruit-and vegetable-free diet. J Nutr Oxford University Press. 2009;139:1685–91.
Routy B, Le Chatelier E, Derosa L, Duong CPM, Alou MT, Daillère R, et al. Gut microbiome influences efficacy of PD-1-based immunotherapy against epithelial tumors. Science. 2018;359:91–7.
Crouch LI, Liberato MV, Urbanowicz PA, Baslé A, Lamb CA, Stewart CJ, et al. Prominent members of the human gut microbiota express endo-acting O-glycanases to initiate mucin breakdown. Nat Commun. 2020;11:4017.
Daillère R, Vétizou M, Waldschmitt N, Yamazaki T, Isnard C, Poirier-Colame V, et al. Enterococcus hirae and Barnesiella intestinihominis facilitate cyclophosphamide-induced therapeutic immunomodulatory effects. Immunity. 2016;45:931–43.
Vétizou M, Pitt JM, Daillère R, Lepage P, Waldschmitt N, Flament C, et al. Anticancer immunotherapy by CTLA-4 blockade relies on the gut microbiota. Science. 2015;350:1079–84.
Lin C, Cai X, Zhang J, Wang W, Sheng Q, Hua H, et al. Role of gut microbiota in the development and treatment of colorectal cancer. Digestion. 2019;100:72–8.
Konishi H, Fujiya M, Tanaka H, Ueno N, Moriichi K, Sasajima J, et al. Probiotic-derived ferrichrome inhibits colon cancer progression via JNK-mediated apoptosis. Nat Commun. 2016;7:12365.
Wong SH, Yu J. Gut microbiota in colorectal cancer: mechanisms of action and clinical applications. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16:690–704.
Moore WE, Moore LH. Intestinal floras of populations that have a high risk of colon cancer. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61:3202–7.
Muletz Wolz CR, Yarwood SA, Campbell Grant EH, Fleischer RC, Lips KR. Effects of host species and environment on the skin microbiome of Plethodontid salamanders. J Anim Ecol. 2018;87:341–53.
Smith CCR, Snowberg LK, Gregory Caporaso J, Knight R, Bolnick DI. Dietary input of microbes and host genetic variation shape among-population differences in stickleback gut microbiota. ISME J. 2015;9:2515–26.
Fisher RM, Henry LM, Cornwallis CK, Kiers ET, West SA. The evolution of host-symbiont dependence. Nat Commun. 2017;8:15973.
•• Xiao K, Fan Y, Zhang Z, Shen X, Li X, Liang X, et al. Covariation of the fecal microbiome with diet in nonpasserine birds. mSphere. 2021;6. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1128/mSphere.00308-21. The authors analyse the gut microbiome of 41 species of birds. They find that birds eating native starch have abundant Lactobacillus bacteria, whereas birds eating plant-derived fiber have abundant Costridium bacteria. Carnivorous birds have abundant Fusobacteria and Proteobacteria, whereas birds eating commercial corn-soybean diets have more Clostridia and Bacteroidia.
Xie F, Jin W, Si H, Yuan Y, Tao Y, Liu J, et al. An integrated gene catalog and over 10,000 metagenome-assembled genomes from the gastrointestinal microbiome of ruminants. Microbiome. 2021;9:137.
Reese AT, Chadaideh KS, Diggins CE, Beckel M, Callahan P, Ryan R, et al. Parallel signatures of mammalian domestication and human industrialization in the gut microbiota. bioRxiv. 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1101/611483.
Liu C, Hu J, Wu Y, Irwin DM, Chen W, Zhang Z, et al. Comparative study of gut microbiota from captive and confiscated-rescued wild pangolins. J Genet Genomics. 2021. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1673852721002198.
Garrido V, Migura-García L, Gaitán I, Arrieta-Gisasola A, Martínez-Ballesteros I, Fraile L, et al. Prevalence of Salmonella in free-range pigs: risk factors and intestinal microbiota composition. Foods. 2021;10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061410.
Bueno de Mesquita CP, Nichols LM, Gebert MJ, Vanderburgh C, Bocksberger G, Lester JD, et al. Structure of chimpanzee gut microbiomes across tropical Africa. mSystems. 2021;6:e0126920.
DeCandia AL, Cassidy KA, Stahler DR, Stahler EA, vonHoldt BM. Social environment and genetics underlie body site‐specific microbiomes of Yellowstone National Park gray wolves ( Canis lupus ). Ecol Evol. Wiley; 2021. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.7767.
Okamoto Y, Ichinohe N, Woo C, Han S-Y, Kim H-H, Ito S, et al. Contrasting gut microbiota in captive Eurasian otters (Lutra lutra) by age. Arch Microbiol. 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00203-021-02526-w.
Gibson KM, Nguyen BN, Neumann LM, Miller M, Buss P, Daniels S, et al. Gut microbiome differences between wild and captive black rhinoceros – implications for rhino health. Sci Rep. 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-43875-3.
Brice KL, Trivedi P, Jeffries TC, Blyton MDJ, Mitchell C, Singh BK, et al. The koala (Phascolarctos cinereus) faecal microbiome differs with diet in a wild population. PeerJ. 2019; p. e6534. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.6534.
Cheng Y, Fox S, Pemberton D, Hogg C, Papenfuss AT, Belov K. The Tasmanian devil microbiome—implications for conservation and management. Microbiome. 2015;3:76.
Barraza-Guerrero SI, Meza-Herrera CA, García-De la Peña C, Ávila-Rodríguez V, Vaca-Paniagua F, Díaz-Velásquez CE, et al. Unveiling the fecal microbiota in two captive Mexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) populations receiving different type of diets. Biology. mdpi.com; 2021;10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/biology10070637.
Ma ZS. Cross-scale analyses of animal and human gut microbiome assemblies from metacommunity to global landscape. mSystems. 2021;e0063321.
Iorizzo M, Albanese G, Testa B, Ianiro M, Letizia F, Succi M, et al. Presence of lactic acid bacteria in the intestinal tract of the Mediterranean trout (Salmo macrostigma) in its natural environment. Life. 2021;11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/life11070667.
Toyoda A, Shionome N, Kohari D, Iida S, Masato H, Namae N, et al. Metabolic and Microbial characterizations for the gastrointestinal digesta of the zoo Colobus guereza. J Bacteriol Mycol. 2021;8. Available from: https://austinpublishinggroup.com/bacteriology/fulltext/bacteriology-v8-id1162.php.
Youngblut ND, Reischer GH, Walters W, Schuster N, Walzer C, Stalder G, et al. Host diet and evolutionary history explain different aspects of gut microbiome diversity among vertebrate clades. Nat Commun. Nature Publishing Group; 2019;10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-10191-3.
Hammer TJ, Sanders JG, Fierer N. Not all animals need a microbiome. FEMS Microbiology Letters. Oxford University Press; 2019. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1093/femsle/fnz117.
Waite DW, Taylor MW. Exploring the avian gut microbiota: current trends and future directions. Front Microbiol. internal-journal.frontiersin.org; 2015;6:673.
Sullam KE, Essinger SD, Lozupone CA, O’Connor MP, Rosen GL, Knight R, et al. Environmental and ecological factors that shape the gut bacterial communities of fish: a meta-analysis. Mol Ecol. 2012;21:3363–78.
Ley RE, Hamady M, Lozupone C, Turnbaugh PJ, Ramey RR, Bircher JS, et al. Evolution of mammals and their gut microbes. Science. 2008;320:1647–51.
Nelson TM, Rogers TL, Brown MV. The gut bacterial community of mammals from marine and terrestrial habitats. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e83655.
Levin D, Raab N, Pinto Y, Rothschild D, Zanir G, Godneva A, et al. Diversity and functional landscapes in the microbiota of animals in the wild. Science. 2021; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5352.
•• Zoelzer F, Burger AL, Dierkes PW. Unraveling differences in fecal microbiota stability in mammals: from high variable carnivores and consistently stable herbivores. Res Square. 2021. Available from: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-473663/latest.pdf. This work analysed the gut microbiome across 31 species of mammals, and found that carnivores have a more variable fecal microbiome between and within species, compared to herbivores.
•• Milani C, Alessandri G, Mancabelli L, Mangifesta M, Lugli GA, Viappiani A, et al. Multi-omics approaches to decipher the impact of diet and host physiology on the mammalian gut microbiome. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01864-20. This study is significantly related to our article as the authors identify the fecal microbiome of 77 species of wild and captive mammals, including herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores. The authors find functional coevolution between the hosts and the gut microbes, with diet affecting the composition and biodiversity of the gut microbiome.
Deng P, Swanson KS. Gut microbiota of humans, dogs and cats: current knowledge and future opportunities and challenges. Br J Nutr. 2015;113(Suppl):S6-17.
Feskens EJM, Sluik D, van Woudenbergh GJ. Meat consumption, diabetes, and its complications. Curr Diab Rep Springer. 2013;13:298–306.
Lombard LS, Witte EJ. Frequency and types of tumors in mammals and birds of the Philadelphia Zoological Garden. Cancer Res AACR. 1959;19:127–41.
Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331:1064–5.
Rubinstein MR, Wang X, Liu W, Hao Y, Cai G, Han YW. Fusobacterium nucleatum promotes colorectal carcinogenesis by modulating E-cadherin/β-catenin signaling via its FadA adhesin. Cell Host Microbe. 2013;195–206. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chom.2013.07.012.
Le Noci V, Guglielmetti S, Arioli S, Camisaschi C, Bianchi F, Sommariva M, et al. Modulation of pulmonary microbiota by antibiotic or probiotic aerosol therapy: a strategy to promote immunosurveillance against lung metastases. Cell Rep. 2018;24:3528–38.
Zackular JP, Baxter NT, Iverson KD, Sadler WD, Petrosino JF, Chen GY, et al. The gut microbiome modulates colon tumorigenesis. MBio. 2013;4:e00692-e713.
Zhu Q, Jin Z, Wu W, Gao R, Guo B, Gao Z, et al. Analysis of the intestinal lumen microbiota in an animal model of colorectal cancer. PLoS ONE. 2014;9: e90849.
Han S-U, Kim Y-B, Joo H-J, Hahm K-B, Lee W-H, Cho Y-K, et al. Helicobacter pylori infection promotes gastric carcinogenesis in a mice model. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2002;17:253–61.
Watanabe T, Tada M, Nagai H, Sasaki S, Nakao M. Helicobacter pylori infection induces gastric cancer in mongolian gerbils. Gastroenterology. 1998;115:642–8.
Esteves MI, Schrenzel MD, Marini RP, Taylor NS, Xu S, Hagen S, et al. Helicobacter pylori gastritis in cats with long-term natural infection as a model of human disease. Am J Pathol. 2000;156:709–21.
Thaiwong T, Sledge DG, Wise AG, Olstad K, Maes RK, Kiupel M. Malignant transformation of canine oral papillomavirus (CPV1)-associated papillomas in dogs: an emerging concern? Papillomavirus Res. 2018;6:83–9.
Münger K, Baldwin A, Edwards KM, Hayakawa H, Nguyen CL, Owens M, et al. Mechanisms of human papillomavirus-induced oncogenesis. J Virol. 2004;78:11451–60.
Cheng WT, Kantilal HK, Davamani F. The mechanism of bacteroides fragilis toxin contributes to colon cancer formation. Malays J Med Sci. 2020;27:9–21.
Goodwin AC, Destefano Shields CE, Wu S, Huso DL, Wu X, Murray-Stewart TR, et al. Polyamine catabolism contributes to enterotoxigenic Bacteroides fragilis-induced colon tumorigenesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011;108:15354–9.
Gaines S, Williamson AJ, Hyman N, Kandel J. How the microbiome is shaping our understanding of cancer biology and its treatment. Semin Colon Rectal Surg. 2018;29:12–6.
Tahara T, Hirata I, Nakano N, Tahara S, Horiguchi N, Kawamura T, et al. Potential link between Fusobacterium enrichment and DNA methylation accumulation in the inflammatory colonic mucosa in ulcerative colitis. Oncotarget. 2017;8:61917–26.
Ito M, Kanno S, Nosho K, Sukawa Y, Mitsuhashi K, Kurihara H, et al. Association of Fusobacterium nucleatum with clinical and molecular features in colorectal serrated pathway. Int J Cancer. 2015;137:1258–68.
• Guo X, Lei H, Zhang K, Ke F, Song C. Diversification of animal gut microbes and NRPS gene clusters in some carnivores, herbivores and omnivores. Biotechnol Equip Taylor & Francis. 2020;34:1280–7. This study characterised the gut microbiome of 8 species of captive animals, and categorised these animals according to their diet. The authors found that gut microbiota are clustered differently in herbivores, omnivores, and carnivores.
Wu S, Rhee K-J, Albesiano E, Rabizadeh S, Wu X, Yen H-R, et al. A human colonic commensal promotes colon tumorigenesis via activation of T helper type 17 T cell responses. Nat Med Nature Publishing Group. 2009;15:1016–22.
Lee YK, Mehrabian P, Boyajian S, Wu W-L, Selicha J, Vonderfecht S, et al. The protective role of Bacteroides fragilis in a murine model of colitis-associated colorectal cancer. mSphere. 2018. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1128/msphere.00587-18.
Nakajima A, Sasaki T, Itoh K, Kitahara T, Takema Y, Hiramatsu K, et al. A soluble fiber diet increases Bacteroides fragilis group abundance and immunoglobulin A production in the gut. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2020;86. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00405-20.
Lertpiriyapong K, Whary MT, Muthupalani S, Lofgren JL, Gamazon ER, Feng Y, et al. Gastric colonisation with a restricted commensal microbiota replicates the promotion of neoplastic lesions by diverse intestinal microbiota in the Helicobacter pylori INS-GAS mouse model of gastric carcinogenesis. Gut. 2014;63:54–63.
Chen Z-F, Ai L-Y, Wang J-L, Ren L-L, Yu Y-N, Xu J, et al. Probiotics Clostridium butyricum and Bacillus subtilis ameliorate intestinal tumorigenesis. Future Microbiol. 2015;10:1433–45.
Li Y, Tinoco R, Elmén L, Segota I, Xian Y, Fujita Y, et al. Gut microbiota dependent anti-tumor immunity restricts melanoma growth in Rnf5-/- mice. Nat Commun Nature Publishing Group. 2019;10:1–16.
Sorenson BS, Banton KL, Augustin LB, Leonard AS, Saltzman DA. Antioxidant oils and Salmonella enterica Typhimurium reduce tumor in an experimental model of hepatic metastasis. Onco Targets Ther. 2011;4:59–69.
Maggio-Price L, Treuting P, Zeng W, Tsang M, Bielefeldt-Ohmann H, Iritani BM. Helicobacter infection is required for inflammation and colon cancer in SMAD3-deficient mice. Cancer Res. 2006;66:828–38.
Tsoi H, Chu ESH, Zhang X, Sheng J, Nakatsu G, Ng SC, et al. Peptostreptococcus anaerobius induces intracellular cholesterol biosynthesis in colon cells to induce proliferation and causes dysplasia in mice. Gastroenterology. 2017;152:1419-1433.e5.
Helmink BA, Khan MAW, Hermann A, Gopalakrishnan V, Wargo JA. The microbiome, cancer, and cancer therapy. Nat Med. 2019;25:377–88.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Ultra-processed foods, diet quality and human health. Food Agri Org. 2019.
Hattery AJ, Smith E. Health, nutrition, access to healthy food and well-being among African Americans. Handbook of African American Health. Springer. 2011. Available from: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4419-9616-9_3.
Ohlhorst SD, Russell R, Bier D, Klurfeld DM, Li Z, Mein JR, et al. Nutrition research to affect food and a healthy life span. J Nutr. academic.oup.com; 2013;143:1349–54.
Vipperla K, O’Keefe SJ. Diet, microbiota, and dysbiosis: a “recipe” for colorectal cancer. Food Funct Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). 2016;7:1731–40.
Loke YL, Chew MT, Ngeow YF, Lim WWD, Peh SC. Colon carcinogenesis: the interplay between diet and gut microbiota. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. Frontiers Media SA. 2020;10:603086.
Lee KA, Luong MK, Shaw H, Nathan P, Bataille V, Spector TD. The gut microbiome: what the oncologist ought to know. Br J Cancer. 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01467-x.
Russo E, Nannini G, Dinu M, Pagliai G, Sofi F, Amedei A. Exploring the food-gut axis in immunotherapy response of cancer patients. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26:4919–32.
Newman TM, Shively CA, Register TC, Appt SE, Yadav H, Colwell RR, et al. Diet, obesity, and the gut microbiome as determinants modulating metabolic outcomes in a non-human primate model. Microbiome. 2021;9:100.
Payne AN, Chassard C, Lacroix C. Gut microbial adaptation to dietary consumption of fructose, artificial sweeteners and sugar alcohols: implications for host–microbe interactions contributing to obesity. Obes Rev. Wiley Online Library. 2012. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2012.01009.xcasa_token=Yvy4J0lEYhgAAAAA:sSSoot0FYz6nNp3dclaVZWMCJsbh_kAbq9RCZaaa94QSuf5heJNGtHp8yli97qlj4jtaAdBqh73iZEU5.
Segata N. Gut microbiome: westernization and the disappearance of intestinal diversity. Curr. Biol. 2015. p. R611–3.
•• Boddy AM, Abegglen LM, Pessier AP, Schiffman JD, Maley CC, Witte C. Lifetime cancer prevalence and life history traits in mammals. Evol Med Pub Health. 2020. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/emph/advance-article/doi/10.1093/emph/eoaa015/5843791. This study presents cancer prevalence data of 37 mammals in captive environments and their association with life history variables. These cancer data are a useful first step towards identifying associations between cancer and diet-associated microbiomes in captive environments.
Stearns SC. Trade-offs in life-history evolution. Funct Ecol. [British Ecological Society, Wiley]; 1989;3:259–68.
Wu J, Yonezawa T, Kishino H. Evolution of reproductive life history in mammals and the associated change of functional constraints. Genes. 2021;12. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12050740.
Peek RM Jr, Blaser MJ. Helicobacter pylori and gastrointestinal tract adenocarcinomas. Nat Rev Cancer. 2002;2:28–37.
Díaz P, Valenzuela Valderrama M, Bravo J, Quest AFG. Helicobacter pylori and gastric cancer: adaptive cellular mechanisms involved in disease progression. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:5.
Crabtree JE, Farmery SM. Helicobacter pylori and gastric mucosal cytokines: evidence that CagA-positive strains are more virulent. Lab Invest. 1995;742–5.
Goodman B, Gardner H. The microbiome and cancer. J Pathol. 2018;244:667–76.
Tierney BT, Yang Z, Luber JM, Beaudin M, Wibowo MC, Baek C, et al. The landscape of genetic content in the gut and oral human microbiome. Cell Host Microbe. 2019;26:283-295.e8.
Kim M, Benayoun BA. The microbiome: an emerging key player in aging and longevity. Transl Med Aging. 2020;103–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tma.2020.07.004.
Martínez-Mota R, Kohl KD, Orr TJ, Denise DM. Natural diets promote retention of the native gut microbiota in captive rodents. ISME J Nature Publishing Group. 2019;14:67–78.
Guo W, Mishra S, Wang C, Zhang H, Ning R, Kong F, et al. Comparative study of gut microbiota in wild and captive giant pandas (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). Genes. 2019;10. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/genes10100827.
Nelson TM, Rogers TL, Carlini AR, Brown MV. Diet and phylogeny shape the gut microbiota of Antarctic seals: a comparison of wild and captive animals. Environ Microbiol. 2013;1132–45. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.12022.
Hale VL, Tan CL, Niu K, Yang Y, Zhang Q, Knight R, et al. Gut microbiota in wild and captive Guizhou snub-nosed monkeys, Rhinopithecus brelichi. Am J Primatol. Wiley. 2019;81:e22989.
Long X, Wong CC, Tong L, Chu ESH, Ho Szeto C, Go MYY, et al. Peptostreptococcus anaerobius promotes colorectal carcinogenesis and modulates tumour immunity. Nat Microbiol. 2019;4:2319–30.
Beeckman DSA, Vanrompay DCG. Bacterial secretion systems with an emphasis on the chlamydial Type III secretion system. Curr Issues Mol Biol. mdpi.com; 2010;12:17–41.
Attene-Ramos MS, Wagner ED, Plewa MJ, Gaskins HR. Evidence that hydrogen sulfide is a genotoxic agent. Mol Cancer Res AACR. 2006;4:9–14.
Muyzer G, Stams AJM. The ecology and biotechnology of sulphate-reducing bacteria. Nat Rev Microbiol. nature.com; 2008;6:441–54.
Dharmani P, Strauss J, Ambrose C, Allen-Vercoe E, Chadee K. Fusobacterium nucleatum infection of colonic cells stimulates MUC2 mucin and tumor necrosis factor alpha. Infect Immun. 2011;79:2597–607.
Avilés-Jiménez F, Yu G, Torres-Poveda K, Madrid-Marina V, Torres J. On the search to elucidate the role of Microbiota in the genesis of cancer: the cases of gastrointestinal and cervical cancer. Arch Med Res. 2017;48:754–65.
Kipanyula MJ, Seke Etet PF, Vecchio L, Farahna M, Nukenine EN, Nwabo Kamdje AH. Signaling pathways bridging microbial-triggered inflammation and cancer. Cell Signal Elsevier. 2013;25:403–16.
Dalmasso G, Cougnoux A, Delmas J, Darfeuille-Michaud A, Bonnet R. The bacterial genotoxin colibactin promotes colon tumor growth by modifying the tumor microenvironment. Gut Microbes Taylor & Francis. 2014;5:675–80.
Aktipis CA, Maley CC, Pepper JW. Dispersal evolution in neoplasms: the role of disregulated metabolism in the evolution of cell motility. Cancer Prev Res. 2012;5:266–75.
Carlos N, Tang Y-W, Pei Z. Pearls and pitfalls of genomics-based microbiome analysis. Emerg Microbes Infect. 2012;1: e45.
Voigt RM, Forsyth CB, Green SJ, Engen PA, Keshavarzian A. Circadian rhythm and the gut microbiome. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2016;131:193–205.
Org E, Parks BW, Joo JWJ, Emert B, Schwartzman W, Kang EY, et al. Genetic and environmental control of host-gut microbiota interactions. Genome Res. 2015;25:1558–69.
Davenport ER, Sanders JG, Song SJ, Amato KR, Clark AG, Knight R. The human microbiome in evolution. BMC Biol. 2017;15:127.
Janney A, Powrie F, Mann EH. Host–microbiota maladaptation in colorectal cancer. Nature Nature Publishing Group. 2020;585:509–17.
Raulo A, Allen BE, Troitsky T, Husby A, Firth JA, Coulson T, et al. Social networks strongly predict the gut microbiota of wild mice. ISME. Springer Science and Business Media LLC. 2021. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41396-021-00949-3.
Turnbaugh PJ, Ley RE, Mahowald MA, Magrini V, Mardis ER, Gordon JI. An obesity-associated gut microbiome with increased capacity for energy harvest. Nature. 2006;444:1027–31.
Hildebrand F, Nguyen TLA, Brinkman B, Yunta RG, Cauwe B, Vandenabeele P, et al. Inflammation-associated enterotypes, host genotype, cage and inter-individual effects drive gut microbiota variation in common laboratory mice. Genome Biol. 2013;14:R4.
Leclaire S, Nielsen JF, Drea CM. Bacterial communities in meerkat anal scent secretions vary with host sex, age, and group membership. Behav Ecol. academic.oup.com; 2014. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/beheco/article-abstract/25/4/996/2900546.
Theis KR, Schmidt TM, Holekamp KE. Evidence for a bacterial mechanism for group-specific social odors among hyenas. Sci Rep. 2012;2:615.
Wikberg EC, Christie D, Sicotte P, Ting N. Interactions between social groups of colobus monkeys (Colobus vellerosus) explain similarities in their gut microbiomes. Anim Behav. 2020;163:17–31.
Chubaty AM, Ma BO, Stein RW, Gillespie DR, Henry LM, Phelan C, et al. On the evolution of omnivory in a community context. Ecol Evol. 2014;251–65. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.923.
Banks MS, Sprague WW, Schmoll J, Parnell JAQ, Love GD. Why do animal eyes have pupils of different shapes? Science Advances. Am Assoc Adv Sci. 2015;1. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1500391.
Walls GL. The vertebrate eye and its adaptive radiation Hafner. New York. 1942;
Brischoux F, Pizzatto L, Shine R. Insights into the adaptive significance of vertical pupil shape in snakes. J Evol Biol Wiley Online Library. 2010;23:1878–85.
Beasley DE, Koltz AM, Lambert JE, Fierer N, Dunn RR. The evolution of stomach acidity and its relevance to the human microbiome. PLoS ONE. 2015;10: e0134116.
Hickman CP, Robert LS, Larson A. Integrated principal of zoology. New York: McGraw Hill Company; 2001.
Hotton N, Olson EC, Beerbower R. Amniote origins and the discovery of herbivory. Amniote origins. Academic Press San Diego. 1997;207–64.
Sues H-D, Reisz RR. Origins and early evolution of herbivory in tetrapods. Trends Ecol Evol Elsevier. 1998;13:141–5.
Modesto SP. The skull of the herbivorous synapsid Edaphosaurus boanerges from the Lower Permian of Texas. Palaeontology. London: Palaeontol Assoc. 1995;38:213.
Stevens CE, Hume ID. Comparative physiology of the vertebrate digestive system. Cambridge Univ Press. 2004.
Chivers DE. The digestive system in mammals: food form and function. Cambridge Univ Press. 1994.
Schieck JO, Millar JS. Alimentary tract measurements as indicators of diets of small mammals. Mammalia. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. 1985;49:93–104.
Zhang K, Dai H, Liang W, Zhang L, Deng Z. Fermented dairy foods intake and risk of cancer. Int J Cancer. 2019;144:2099–108.
Chakrabarty AM. Microorganisms and cancer: quest for a therapy. J Bacteriol American Society for Microbiology. 2003;185:2683–6.
Gibson GR, Roberfroid MB. Dietary modulation of the human colonic microbiota: introducing the concept of prebiotics. J Nutr. 1995;125:1401–12.
Reid G, Sanders ME, Gaskins HR, Gibson GR, Mercenier A, Rastall R, et al. New scientific paradigms for probiotics and prebiotics. J Clin Gastroenterol. journals.lww.com; 2003;37:105–18.
Rangarajan A, Weinberg RA. Opinion: comparative biology of mouse versus human cells: modelling human cancer in mice. Nat Rev Cancer. 2003;3:952–9.
Abegglen LM, Caulin AF, Chan A, Lee K, Robinson R, Campbell MS, et al. Potential mechanisms for cancer resistance in elephants and comparative cellular response to DNA damage in humans. JAMA. 2015;314:1850–60.
Baxter NT, Zackular JP, Chen GY, Schloss PD. Structure of the gut microbiome following colonization with human feces determines colonic tumor burden. Microbiome. 2014;2:20.
Benito I, Encío IJ, Milagro FI, Alfaro M, Martínez-Peñuela A, Barajas M, et al. Microencapsulated Bifidobacterium bifidum and Lactobacillus gasseri in combination with quercetin inhibit colorectal cancer development in ApcMin/+ mice. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22094906.
Yazdi MH, Soltan Dallal MM, Hassan ZM, Holakuyee M, Agha Amiri S, Abolhassani M, et al. Oral administration of Lactobacillus acidophilus induces IL-12 production in spleen cell culture of BALB/c mice bearing transplanted breast tumour. Br J Nutr. 2010;104:227–32.
Yazdi MH, Mahdavi M, Setayesh N, Esfandyar M, Shahverdi AR. Selenium nanoparticle-enriched Lactobacillus brevis causes more efficient immune responses in vivo and reduces the liver metastasis in metastatic form of mouse breast cancer. Daru. 2013;21:33.
• Chou Y-C, Ho P-Y, Chen W-J, Wu S-H, Pan M-H. Lactobacillus fermentum V3 ameliorates colitis-associated tumorigenesis by modulating the gut microbiome. Am J Cancer Res. 2020;10:1170–81. This study highlights the role of a probiotic, Lactobacillus fermentum, in changing the composition of the mouse gut microbiome and inhibiting tumour formation in the colon. Therefore, Lactobacillus fermentum, has great potential as a biotherapeutic agent.
de Moreno de LeBlanc A, Matar C, LeBlanc N, Perdigón G. Effects of milk fermented by Lactobacillus helveticusR389 on a murine breast cancer model. Breast Cancer Res. 2005. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr1032.
Yazdi MH, Mahdavi M, Kheradmand E, Shahverdi AR. The preventive oral supplementation of a selenium nanoparticle-enriched probiotic increases the immune response and lifespan of 4T1 breast cancer bearing mice. Arzneimittelforschung. 2012;62:525–31.
Kassayova M, Bobrov N, Strojn\`y L, Kiskova T, Mikeš J, Demečková V, et al. Preventive effects of probiotic bacteria Lactobacillus plantarum and dietary fiber in chemically-induced mammary carcinogenesis. Anticancer Res. Int Inst Anticancer Res. 2014;34:4969–75.
Lim B-K, Mahendran R, Lee Y-K, Bay B-H. Chemopreventive effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on growth of a subcutaneously implanted bladder cancer cell line in the mouse. Jpn J Cancer Res. 2002;93:36–41.
Gamallat Y, Meyiah A, Kuugbee ED, Hago AM, Chiwala G, Awadasseid A, et al. Lactobacillus rhamnosus induced epithelial cell apoptosis, ameliorates inflammation and prevents colon cancer development in an animal model. Biomed Pharmacother. 2016;83:536–41.
Zamberi NR, Abu N, Mohamed NE, Nordin N, Keong YS, Beh BK, et al. The antimetastatic and antiangiogenesis effects of kefir water on murine breast cancer cells. Integr Cancer Ther. 2016;15:NP53–66.
Balish E, Warner T. Enterococcus faecalis induces inflammatory bowel disease in interleukin-10 knockout mice. Am J Pathol. 2002;160:2253–7.
Hailey JR, Haseman JK, Bucher JR, Radovsky E, Malarkey DE, Miller RT, et al. Impact of Helicobacter hepaticus infection in B6C3F1 mice from twelve national toxicology program two-year carcinogenesis studies. Toxicol Pathol. 1998;602–11. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/019262339802600503.
Sanders FK. Experimental carcinogenesis: induction of multiple tumors by viruses. Cancer. 1977;40:1841–4.
Apidianakis Y, Pitsouli C, Perrimon N, Rahme L. Synergy between bacterial infection and genetic predisposition in intestinal dysplasia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:20883–8.
Erichsen S, Harboe A. Toxoplasmosis in chickens. Acta Pathol Microbiol Scand Wiley. 2009;33:381–6.
Kapsetaki SE, Alcaraz GM, Maley CC, Whisner CM, Aktipis A. Diet, microbes, and cancer across the tree of life: a systematic review. Research Square. 2021. Available from: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1077771/latest.pdf.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to declare that a preprint of this article is available on Research Square [235].
Funding
This work was supported in part by NIH grants U54 CA217376, U2C CA233254, P01 CA91955, and R01 CA140657 as well as CDMRP Breast Cancer Research Program Award BC132057 and the Arizona Biomedical Research Commission grant ADHS18-198847.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.A. conceived the idea for this review. S.E.K. and G.M.A designed, structured, and gathered the data for the systematic review and wrote the first draft. C.C.M., C.M.W., and A.A. provided guidance during the project. All authors discussed and contributed to the final versions of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Consent for Publication
All authors have given their consent for publication.
Competing Interests
We declare we have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This article is part of Topical Collection on Cancer
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kapsetaki, S.E., Marquez Alcaraz, G., Maley, C.C. et al. Diet, Microbes, and Cancer Across the Tree of Life: a Systematic Review. Curr Nutr Rep 11, 508–525 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-022-00420-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13668-022-00420-5