Advertisement

Neurotherapeutics

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 109–125 | Cite as

The “Gut Feeling”: Breaking Down the Role of Gut Microbiome in Multiple Sclerosis

  • Samantha N. Freedman
  • Shailesh K. Shahi
  • Ashutosh K. Mangalam
Review

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neuroinflammatory disease of the central nervous system with unknown etiology. Recently, the gut microbiota has emerged as a potential factor in the development of MS, with a number of studies having shown that patients with MS exhibit gut dysbiosis. The gut microbiota helps the host remain healthy by regulating various functions, including food metabolism, energy homeostasis, maintenance of the intestinal barrier, inhibition of colonization by pathogenic organisms, and shaping of both mucosal and systemic immune responses. Alteration of the gut microbiota, and subsequent changes in its metabolic network that perturb this homeostasis, may lead to intestinal and systemic disorders such as MS. Here we discuss the findings of recent MS microbiome studies and potential mechanisms through which gut microbiota can predispose to, or protect against, MS. These findings highlight the need of an improved understanding of the interactions between the microbiota and host for developing therapies based on gut commensals with which to treat MS.

Key Words

Multiple sclerosis (MS) gut microbiome immune response experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE) host–microbe interaction microbial metabolism 

Multiple Sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neuroinflammatory disease of the central nervous system (CNS) [1]. Clinical presentation varies among patients, which may include sensory, motor, and/or cognitive deficits, and is typically preceded by inflammatory and demyelinating lesions in the CNS white matter [1]. MS is thought to be an autoimmune disease caused by aberrant T-cell responses to myelin self-peptides [2]. Encephalitogenic T-cell responses in the CNS are followed by additional immune-cell infiltration, leading to inflammation, demyelination, and neurodegeneration [3]. The etiology of MS is complex, with both genetic and environmental factors playing major roles in disease pathogenesis. Genetic factors account for about 30% of disease risk (identical twins), with human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes being the strongest genetic component [4, 5]. Although 70% of disease risk stems from nongenetic components, considerably less is known about environmental contributions to disease pathogenesis. Possible environmental contributing factors include smoking, exposure to the Epstein–Barr virus or other microbes, and low vitamin D levels due to insufficient exposure to sunlight/ultraviolet [3]. However, recent evidence suggests that the gut microbiota can make a major contribution to both susceptibility and protection from the disease.

Gut Microbiota

Throughout the twentieth century, the incidence of MS (and other autoimmune and allergic diseases) has increased in developed countries; a phenomenon that correlates inversely with the incidence of infectious diseases such as measles and polio [6]. This observation led to development of the “hygiene hypothesis” according to which individuals who live in cleaner environments (developed countries where there is a strong emphasis on personal hygiene) have little exposure to orofecal microbes at an early age and are thus more likely to develop allergic and autoimmune diseases [6, 7]. The corollary is that individuals who live in developing countries and are exposed to a high orofecal microbial load are more likely to develop infectious diseases while being less likely to develop allergic and autoimmune diseases. However, in recent years the hygiene hypothesis has been revisited because advances in the microbiome field have suggested that clean hygienic practices, such as the chlorination of water, overuse of antibiotics, loss of green space, small family size, and common delivery by cesarean section, have resulted in alterations of host–microbial flora collectively termed the microbiota [8, 9]. Indeed, it is now appreciated that the microbiota has a crucial role in keeping the host in a healthy state.

Microbiota refers to the trillions of bacteria, viruses, and fungi that live inside and on the human body, and their collective genetic pool is termed the microbiome. Bacterial species colonizing the small and large intestines are referred to as the gut microbiota, and their role in health and diseases are being investigated as a primary driver of host physiology [10, 11, 12]. The gut microbiota functions like a bioreactor that influences nutrient uptake, food metabolism, energy homeostasis, and mucosal and systemic immune responses. A healthy gut microbiota is characterized by its diversity and resilience [13], and it helps to keep the host healthy in multiple ways, including maintenance of an intact intestinal barrier, inhibition of colonization by pathogenic organisms, and regulation of host physiology and immune responses [11, 14, 15, 16].

Alterations of the gut microbiota, resulting in changes in its metabolic network, perturb this homeostasis, and can result in intestinal and systemic disorders [10, 17, 18]. These alterations are reflected in fecal samples which are utilized to profile the gut microbiota because they provide an easily accessible source of biospecimens .

Gut Microbiota and Autoimmunity

Advancements in culture-independent analysis, through improved DNA sequencing technology, have led to remarkable progress in our understanding of the roles of the gut microbiota in autoimmune diseases. Microbiome profiling, using 16S rRNA and metagenomic shotgun sequencing technologies, has been performed for several autoimmune/autoinflammatory diseases, including MS [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29], type 1 diabetes (T1D) [30, 31], inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) [32, 33], celiac disease [34, 35], and rheumatoid arthritis [36, 37, 38]. The consensus of these studies is that patients with autoimmune/autoinflammatory diseases exhibit microbial dysbiosis, i.e., an alteration in the composition of the microbial community characterized by a decrease in beneficial bacteria and an increase in harmful bacteria (pathobionts). A healthy mixture of commensal bacteria helps in maintaining homeostasis at mucosal surfaces in the gut and perturbation of this community can result in colonization by pathobionts, potentially promoting a proinflammatory environment and predisposing the host to inflammatory diseases [39]. How beneficial bacteria maintain a healthy state and/or how pathobionts might predispose to or accelerate autoimmune disease is unknown. However, considerable efforts are being made to determine whether alterations in the gut microbiota are the cause or consequence of autoimmunity.

Studies performed in germ-free (GF) mice have established that the gut microbiota is crucial for the development of a healthy immune system; mice born and raised in GF facilities lack well-developed immune cells and secondary immune organs [40]. The initial interaction between the host immune system and the gut microbiota is a major determinant of the composition of the gut flora [41, 42]. Constant cross-talk between immune cells, intestinal epithelial cells (IECs), and the gut microbiota results in up- or downregulation of inflammatory mediators from the host (pattern recognition receptors, e.g., Toll-like receptors) and microbes [toxins, e.g., lipopolysaccharide (LPS)] [43]. Thus, the balance between host immune responses and gut microbiota is intricate, and the host adapts to discriminate between beneficial commensal bacteria and pathogenic bacteria. IECs play a significant role in this discrimination; their tight junctions join adjacent cells to form a barrier between immune cells of the host and bacteria in the gut [11, 16]. This cross-talk between IECs, immune cells and the microbiota help in maintaining homeostasis at the mucosal surface. Interestingly, in pathological states, this barrier is breached, resulting in increased gut permeability and systemic distribution of bacterial products and/or the bacteria itself. Several autoimmune diseases are associated with a condition called “leaky gut syndrome”, which is characterized by increased gut permeability [44, 45].

The importance of the gut bacteria, their enzymes, and metabolites in human health and disease are actively being deciphered. Early research in the field points towards the gut microbiota playing an important role in host physiology by regulating numerous metabolic pathways. We discuss in the following sections 1) differences in microbial compositions of the gut between healthy controls and patients with MS; 2) how depletion or enrichment of particular gut microbes in patients with MS might predispose to autoimmunity; and 3) the possibility that reversal of such dysbiosis might protect against autoimmunity by regulating various metabolic pathways.

MS and the Gut Microbiota

Recently, several groups, including ours, profiled fecal microbiota in patients with MS in an attempt to determine the extent to which the gut microbiome influences MS risk (Table 1). These studies revealed that patients with MS exhibit microbial dysbiosis [19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28].
Table 1

Bacterial families (F), genera (G), and species (S) whose abundance is often higher or lower in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) versus healthy controls

Bacteria

Abundance in MS vs healthy controls [ref.]

Bacteroides (G)

Decreased [20]

Parabacteroides (G)

Decreased [19, 26]

Prevotella (G)

Decreased [19, 20, 24, 28]

Butyricimonas (G)

Decreased [24]

Lachnospiraceae (F)

Decreased [22]

Blautia (G)

Increased [19]

Dorea (G)

Increased [19]

Streptococcus

Increased [20, 28]

Faecalibacterium (G)

Decreased [20, 25]

Eubacterium (G)

Decreased [20]

Clostridium (G)

Decreased [20, 25]

Ruminococcaceae (F)

Decreased [22]

Ruminococcus (G)

Increased [25]

Lactobacillus (G)

Decreased [19]

Coprobacillus (G)

Decreased [19]

Erysipelotrichaceae (F)

Decreased [19]

Veillonellaceae (F)

Decreased [19]

Collinsella (G)

Decreased [19, 24]

Adlercreutzia (G)

Decreased [19]

Slackia (G)

Decreased [24]

Acinetobacter (G)

Increased [26]

Bifidobacterium (G)

Increased [20, 22]

Eggerthella (G)

Increased [20]

Pseudomonas (G)

Increased [19]

Mycoplana (G)

Increased [19]

Haemophilus (G)

Increased [19]

Bilophila (G)

Increased [22]

Sutterella (G)

Increased [20]

Akkermansia (G)

Increased [24, 26, 27]

The majority of MS microbiome studies have reported a reduced abundance of Prevotella and Parabacteroides belonging to the  Bacteroidetes phylum in patients with MS versus healthy controls (Table 1) [19, 20, 24, 26, 28]. As highlighted in Table 1, several human microbiome studies in adult patients with MS (at least > 10 subjects) across different geographical regions (USA, Japan, and Italy) have shown either depletion of Prevotella versus healthy controls [19, 20, 26, 28] or enrichment of Prevotella after treatment with disease-modifying drugs [24]. A recent study analyzing duodenal biopsies from patients with MS reported that patients with active disease showed a lower abundance of Prevotella than healthy controls or patients in remission [28]. Among the 3 MS microbiome studies from the USA, 2 have shown a lower abundance of Parabacteroides in patients with MS versus healthy controls [19, 26]. Jangi et al. [24] demonstrated that the abundance of Butyricimonas, another member of the Bacteroidetes, is low. Finally, Miyake et al. [20] demonstrated that the abundance of Bacteroides is lower in patients with MS than in healthy controls. The demonstration of reduced abundance of bacteria from the Bacteroidetes phylum by several groups suggests that certain bacteria from this phylum might play an important role in protecting against the development of MS.

Certain bacterial genera belonging to the phylum Firmicutes have been found to be either enriched or depleted in patients with MS. However, some discrepancies regarding the association of Firmicutes with MS have been reported  by different laboratories. For example, where we found an increase in the abundance of Blautia and Dorea (of the Lachnospiraceae family) in patients with MS [19], others observed an increases in the abundance of Streptococcus [20, 28] and Ruminococcus [25]. Also, where we observed a decrease in the abundance of Lactobacillus, Coprobacillus, Erysipelotrichaceae, and Veillonellaceae [19], others observed decreases in the abundance of Lachnospiraceae, Ruminococcaceae [22], and in Clostridia species [20, 25]. The observed discrepancies in the abundance of Lachnospiraceae and Ruminococcaceae could be due to many factors (discussed below), including specificity of 16S rRNA primers utilized for analysis of the microbiome and/or differences in the patient population. Details about the various primers and sequencing technologies utilized and their significance are discussed in a recent review [46].

With regard to the phylum Actinobacteria, we and Jangi et al. [19, 24] observed a decrease in the abundance of Collinsella in patients with MS. In addition, we found a reduced abundance of Adlercreutzia in patients with MS [19]. Although Jangi et al. [24] did not report a difference in Adlercreutzia, they did report a reduction in Slackia, another member of the Actinobacteria phylum. Other groups observed an increased abundance of Bifidobacterium [20, 22] and Eggerthella [20] in patients with MS.

In the case of Proteobacteria, the majority of the studies revealed an increase in the abundance of certain bacteria belonging to this phylum in patients with MS (Table 1). We observed an enrichment of Pseuodomonas, Mycoplana, and Haemophilus in patients with MS [19], whereas others observed an increase in abundance of Bilophila [22], and Acinetobacter [26]. Two studies reported a modulation of Sutterella in patients with MS, with Miyake et al. [20] reporting a decreased abundance in patients with MS and Jangi et al. [24] reporting an increased abundance in patients with MS on disease-modifying therapies. Finally, 3 groups observed an enrichment of Akkermansia, of the Verrucomicrobia phylum, in patients with MS [24, 26, 27].

Caution must be made when interpreting the results in the aforementioned microbiome studies as considerable variability exists between each study of patients with MS. The results from the handful of studies that profiled the gut microbiome in healthy controls and patients with MS suggest that there is no “MS-associated gut microbial signature”. Rather, the literature suggests that patients with MS exhibit dysbiosis, defined as an alteration of microbial architecture from healthy controls that shifts the immune balance towards an inflammatory phenotype [46]. This is supported by 2 recent studies showing that fecal transfer from patients with MS, but not healthy controls, to mice increased either disease incidence [27] or severity [26] of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), a mouse model of MS. Based on this, we hypothesize that patients with MS exhibit a general increase in proinflammatory bacteria, rather than exhibiting an increase or decrease in a specific set of bacterial genera. That being said, there are certain bacterial genera found to be depleted (Prevotella) or enriched (Akkermansia) in multiple cohorts of MS patients from different continents (Table 1). Therefore, the possibility for commonalities for certain gut bacteria in patients with MS is not completely inconceivable. Overall, caution must be taken when interpreting results as bacterial alterations in one set of patients with MS might not represent the gut microbial state of all patients.

Additional explanation for high variability among studies stems from the lack of standarized sequencing methodologies. Several 16S rRNA primers, specific for certain hypervariable regions within the 16S gene, exist and differential use of these primers may show bias for particular taxa [46]. Additionally, the gut microbiome has been shown to be influenced by genetics [47], diet [48], geographical location [49], and use of disease-modifying therapies [24, 27]. These are all potentially confounding factors and must be kept in mind when designing and interpreting gut microbiome experiments, not just for MS but for any disease/disorder of interest.

The above-described MS microbiome studies have shown that there are differences in the bacterial populations between patients with MS and healthy controls, with some consensus between different studies. The next step is to elucidate the functional significance of these differences, i.e., to determine the mechanism whereby modulation of the host immune response by gut bacteria might predispose to, or protect from, disease. A better understanding of these mechanisms will aid in developing therapies for treating or even curing MS based on gut commensal bacteria. Gut bacteria may affect host physiology through either their own components (e.g., cell wall, polysaccharide A, LPS) or microbial metabolites produced as a result of their metabolism of the host diet and/or other bacterial breakdown products (a process known as cross-feeding) [50, 51]. In the following sections, we discuss various metabolic pathways in which gut bacteria participate, their known effects on host immunity, as well neurons and/or glial cells, and how these metabolites might influence MS. The major metabolic pathways used by commensals that influence host immune responses are metabolism of short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), bile acids, phytoestrogens, tryptophan, and choline (Table 2; Fig. 1).
Table 2

Bacterial families (F) or genera (G) that are depleted or enriched in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), and their association with specific metabolic pathways

Bacterial metabolic pathway

Gut bacteria depleted or enriched in patients with MS

Reference for bacterial involvement in metabolic pathway

SCFA

Clostridium (G)

[53, 68]

 

Faecalibacterium (G)

[53, 83]

 

Eubacterium (G)

[53]

 

Ruminococcus (G)

[53]

 

Butyricimonas (G)

[24]

 

Bacteroides (G)

[51, 83]

 

Prevotella (G)

[67]

Bile acid

Lactobacillus (G)

[115, 116]

 

Clostridium (G)

[117, 118]

 

Erysipelotrichaceae (F)

[119]

 

Parabacteroides (G)

[121]

 

Acinetobacter (G)

[126]

 

Bifidobacterium (G)

[127]

 

Pseudomonas (G)

[123, 124]

 

Bilophila (G)

[110]

Phytoestrogen

Prevotella (G)

[152]

 

Parabacteroides (G)

[19]

 

Adlercreutzia (G)

[136]

 

Slackia (G)

[136]

 

Lactobacillus (G)

[158]

Tryptophan

Lactobacillus (G)

[50]

Choline

Acinetobacter (G)

[199]

Mucin-degrading

Akkermansia muciniphila (G)

[32, 205, 206, 207]

 

Bacteroides (G)

[207]

 

Ruminococcus (G)

[207]

 

Bifidobacterium (G)

[207]

 

Dorea (G)

[207]

SCFA = short-chain fatty acid

Fig. 1

Schematic of the bacterial metabolic pathways that influence the host immune system. Metabolism of indigestible carbohydrates, primary bile acids, phytoestrogens, and tryptophan by commensal gut bacteria results in production of metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), secondary bile acids, phytoestrogen metabolites, and indoles/indole derivatives, respectively. These bacterial metabolites exert anti-inflammatory effects on mucosal immune cells, and has been demonstrated in vitro and in vivo. Bacterial metabolites can 1) promote barrier function and epithelial integrity; 2) induce tolerogenic dendritic cells (DCs), which trigger the polarization of CD4+ T cells into interleukin (IL)-10 and/or transforming growth factor (TGF)-β-producing FoxP3+ regulatory T cells (Tregs); and 3) directly induce IL-10 and/or TGF-β producing FoxP3+ Tregs. This tolerogenic intestinal environment may influence the peripheral immune system, and thereby lead to protection against and/or amelioration of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE)/multiple sclerosis (MS). IEC = intestinal epithelial cell

SCFA Metabolism

Among the bacterial metabolic pathways, SCFAs are the most extensively studied in the context of host immunity [51, 52, 53]. SCFAs, abundant in high-fiber foods, are 1 to 6 carbons in length and produced through the fermentation of indigestible starches and complex sugars [52, 53]. The majority of SCFAs in the colon are acetic acid, propionic acid, and butyric acid [54]. SCFAs contribute to host immunity at both intestinal and extraintestinal locations, modulating cell processes either by interacting with certain G-protein coupled receptor and/or actively or passively transporting into the cytoplasm. Once inside the cytoplasm, SCFAs can regulate transcription factors and certain enzymes, such as histone deacetylases [50].

Within the colonic lumen, IECs represent the first line of defense as they are in direct contact with the gut microbiota and their metabolites. Besides serving as an energy source, SCFAs can modulate the immune-defensive functions of IECs by altering barrier integrity and cytokine production in response to inflammatory stimuli [52]. In vitro treatment of human IECs with SCFAs leads to a decrease in the induction of proinflammatory cytokines by inflammatory stimuli [55, 56] but induces production of interleukin (IL)-18, a proinflammatory cytokine involved in epithelial integrity and homeostasis [57]. Notably, treatment with acetate-producing Bifidobacterium improves barrier function against enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli O157:H7 [58]. Similarly, direct treatment with SCFAs enhances barrier function by inducing mucin genes in goblet cells [50].

SCFAs can also modulate the phenotype and effector function of leukocytes in the gut. In general, SCFAs induce a tolerogenic phenotype in lymphocytes and antigen presenting cells [50, 54, 56]. Previous studies showed that SCFAs downregulate the expression of major histocompatibility complex class II, co-stimulatory molecules, and inflammatory cytokines by dendritic cells (DCs) and potentiate a regulatory phenotype in CD4+FoxP3+ T cells (Tregs) [50, 52, 59, 60, 61]. Several studies demonstrated that SCFAs induce the differentiation of both FoxP3+ Tregs and IL-10-producing T cells in vitro, as well as in vivo, thereby maintaining mucosal homeostasis and protecting against colonic inflammation [50, 52, 54, 62, 63, 64]. Taken together, these results suggest that SCFAs induce a tolerogenic and immunosuppressive phenotype in the gut mucosa. It should be noted, however, that SCFAs have also been shown to potentiate a proinflammatory phenotype in both IECs and immune cells [52]. Presumably, the precise phenotype elicited by SCFA treatment depends on one or several factors such as the SCFA used, the dose used, the duration of the treatment, and the model system utilized.

In addition to modulating the immune system, bacterial metabolites generated from the gut microbiota have the ability to directly modulate CNS function. For example, in both in vivo and in vitro models of Parkinson’s disease, butyrate prevents neuronal degeneration and death [65]. Moreover, this modulation of CNS function may be direct, given that SCFAs are found in systemic circulation [66].

Several bacterial genera whose abundance is low in patients with MS are capable of participating in SCFA metabolism. These include Clostridium, Faecalibacterium, Eubacterium, Ruminococcus, Butyricimonas, Bacteroides, and Prevotella (Table 2) [51, 53, 67]. Consistent with their association with SCFA metabolism, these bacterial genera induce an anti-inflammatory phenotype in IECs and immune cells. Clostridium species (Firmicutes) are dominant gut commensals and are strongly associated with SCFA metabolism [68]. Clostridium clusters IV and XIVa (distinct cohorts of Clostridium groups based on phylogeny) are implicated in maintaining gut homeostasis by inducing FoxP3+ Tregs, and their representation is reduced in patients who have MS, as well as active IBD [20, 68, 69, 70, 71]. Several groups have demonstrated that immunosuppression by Clostridium involves SCFA production, as discussed by Nagano et al. [72]. The Clostridia family includes Eubacterium, Ruminococcus, and Faecalibacterium which have anti-inflammatory properties [53]. Eubacterium levels are low in stool samples from patients with IBD, and treatment with Eubacterium attenuates experimental colitis, presumably owing to its SCFA-producing abilities [73, 74]. Within the colon, Ruminococcus plays a crucial role in degrading resistant starch to SCFAs, and it leads to decreased proinflammatory cytokine production in vitro [75, 76]. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii is another commensal bacterium of the Firmicutes phylum, and low levels are associated with a higher risk of IBD [77, 78]. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii supernatant induces anti-inflammatory effects in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells and a model of colitis based on induction by 2,4,6-trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid [79, 80, 81].

Bacteroides fragilis is a well-studied member of the Bacteroides genus and has been shown to induce IL-10-producing FoxP3+ Tregs by producing polysaccharide A [82]. Bacteroides fragilis has also been shown to participate in SCFA metabolism [51]. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron produces acetate, which is associated with modulation of mucus production in colonic epithelial goblet cells [83]. Butyricimonas is a SCFA-producing bacterium predominant in the gut, and its abundance correlates negatively with the expression of proinflammatory genes in T cells and monocytes from patients with MS [24]. Prevotella is a commensal bacterium that plays a dominant role in metabolizing xylans to SCFAs [67]; its abundance has been reported to be low in patients with MS [19, 20, 24, 28] and patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) [36]. Additionally Prevotella histicola has been shown to suppress EAE and collagen-induced arthritis in humanized mice [84, 85]. Although abundance of Prevotella in MS has been consistent with studies showing either a lower abundance [19, 20, 28] or an increase after treatment in patients with MS [24], the role of Prevotella in RA remains uncertain, as 1 study has reported a higher abundance of Prevotella in patients with early-onset RA [38]. It is possible that the apparent contradictions regarding the Prevotella results are due to differences in the specific species and strains utilized in the studies, and/or to differences in the patient populations [86]. Notwithstanding the uncertainty on a few points covered above, the majority of the available data suggest that a reduction in SCFA-producing bacteria contributes to the proinflammatory state in patients with MS.

Using the EAE model, Haghikia et al. [87] demonstrated that SCFA treatment induces Tregs in the gut and ameliorates EAE. Chitrala et al. [88] showed that fecal transplant from CD44–/– donors to wild-type (WT) hosts ameliorated EAE, which they attributed to the increase in abundance of SCFAs in the stool. Mizuno et al. [89] also demonstrated that oral treatment with SCFAs or a high-fiber diet (results in high SCFA levels in the cecum) ameliorated EAE in C57Bl/6 mice, and this was accompanied by a greater frequency of Tregs in the draining lymph nodes [89]. The anti-inflammatory properties of SCFAs have been studied in other models of autoimmune diseases as well. For example, Marino et al. [90] demonstrated that nonobese diabetic mice receiving special diets designed to release particular SCFAs in the colon were less prone to develop spontaneous T1D [90]. In addition to their EAE findings, Mizuno et al. [89] demonstrated that oral administration of SCFAs ameliorates collagen-induced arthritis. It should be noted, however, that SCFA administration exacerbated K/BxN serum transfer arthritis; a model that, unlike collagen-induced arthritis, does not require adaptive immune responses and instead relies on innate immunity [89]. Thus, SCFAs may exert bimodal effects dependent on the cell type they are influencing. In a model of intestinal inflammation, dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis, lack of the SCFA receptor GPR43, expressed on a variety of myeloid cell types, resulted in the development of more severe disease than in WT mice [91]. Moreover, in GF mice, which also exhibit exaggerated dextran sulfate sodium-induced colitis, treatment with SCFAs ameliorated intestinal inflammation [91]. Indeed, SCFAs have a demonstrated therapeutic potential in patients with IBD when given as an enema [92].

Collectively, the published findings on SCFA-producing bacteria suggest that they could influence immune responses involved in local or systemic pathophysiological states through their modulation of IECs and/or leukocytes (Fig. 1). The development of novel and more effective therapeutic interventions is likely to benefit from future assessment of the contribution of SCFA-producing bacteria to pathological states, such as MS.

Bile Acid Metabolism

Bile acids—steroid acids produced by the liver—aid in the digestion and absorption of dietary fats and fat-soluble vitamins [93]. Hepatocytes synthesize primary bile acids, which undergo a conjugation reaction with glycine or taurine before being secreted to the gallbladder [94]. After a meal, the gallbladder releases bile into the duodenum. In the distal ileum, conjugated bile acids are later reabsorbed by active transport and returned to the liver via the portal circulation to be utilized for subsequent digestions [94]. This process is termed enterohepatic circulation. While 95% of primary conjugated bile acids are efficiently returned to the portal circulation, the remaining 5% escape active transport and become substrates for bacterial metabolic reactions [93, 95]. The major microbial metabolic modifications, including deconjugation, the oxidation of hydroxy groups, and 7α/β dehydroxylation, result in the production of secondary bile acids [95]. Unlike the primary bile acids, which are conjugated, the secondary bile acids cannot participate in active reuptake. Some secondary bile acids are absorbed through the colon by passive diffusion, whereas others are excreted in feces [94]. Both primary and secondary bile acids can modulate host hormonal and immunological processes by stimulating nuclear receptor farnesoid X receptor (FXR) or cell-surface receptor G protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1 (GPBAR1 also known as TGR5) [54, 96].

Within the intestinal lumen, bile acids can influence barrier function and defense mechanisms via FXR+ and GPBAR+ IECs. A study using the biliary obstruction model of intestinal injury demonstrated that FXR plays a crucial role in protecting against bacterial overgrowth and the disruption of epithelial integrity [97]. In a separate study, feeding rats primary bile acids prior to bile-duct ligation led to a decrease in intestinal injury [98]. Similarly, GPBAR1–/– mice develop abnormal intestines characterized by altered tight junctions, irregular mucus-cell morphology, and increased susceptibility to colitis [99]. Furthermore, treatment of the human intestinal epithelial cell line Caco-2 with secondary bile acids resulted in decreased IL-8 production after stimulation with IL-1β [55].

Bile acids may also be involved in regulating leukocytes in the gut. FXR–/– mice exhibit a proinflammatory colonic phenotype and develop exacerbated trinitrobenzenesulfonic acid-induced colitis [100]. Additionally, macrophages from these animals exhibit enhanced proinflammatory cytokine response to stimulation with LPS [100]. This study also revealed that FXR agonists attenuated the expression of IL-1β and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α in LPS-stimulated murine lamina propria CD11b+ cells and human THP-1 cells [100]. Several other studies demonstrated that GPBAR1 agonists decrease nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) activity in macrophages and monocytes [101, 102, 103]. Recently, it was shown that GPBAR1–/– mice developed exacerbated colitis and enhanced recruitment of classically activated M1 macrophages [104]. In contrast, GPBAR1 agonist treatment alleviated colitis and shifted the polarization of lamina propria macrophages from M1 to alternatively activated M2 macrophages; a process reliant on IL-10 [104]. GPBAR1 agonists also inhibit the production of proinflammatory cytokines in primary human macrophages but not anti-inflammatory IL-10 [105]. The differentiation of monocytes into DCs in the presence of bile acids results in an IL-12 hypoproducing phenotype that is dependent on GPBAR1 [106]. However, once DCs are terminally differentiated, they do not respond to GPBAR1 stimulation as the expression of this receptor is downregulated over the course of differentiation [106]. Further, bile retinoids (which are distinct from bile acids) imprint CD103+ DCs within the lamina propria of the small intestine with retinol-metabolizing activities, enabling them to generate gut-tropic effector T cells and inducible Tregs [107]. Interestingly, both the retinoic acid receptor and FXR dimerize with retinoid X receptor, suggesting possible interplay between these 2 pathways [107]. Collectively, these studies indicate that bile acids have a central role in maintaining intestinal homeostasis.

The majority of these studies do not directly test the contribution of primary versus secondary bile acids. However, fecal samples from patients with IBD have increased and decreased abundance of primary and secondary bile acids, respectively. This suggests that a decrease in the amount of secondary bile acids may play a role in the proinflammatory state of patients with IBD [55]. Indeed, primary bile acids can stimulate Clostridium difficile growth and spore formation, whereas secondary bile acids inhibit outgrowth [93, 108]. Recent studies have shown that antibiotic treatment results in a higher primary to secondary bile acid ratio in fecal samples, which may promote C. difficile infection [93, 109]. Furthermore, primary bile acids generated from a high milk-fat diet promote the growth of Bilophila wadsworthia, leading to exacerbated colitis in genetically susceptible IL-10–/– mice [110]. These finding suggest that the ability of particular primary or secondary bile acids to promote or protect against disease is context dependent. Bile acids may also modulate CNS function directly. Primary and secondary bile acids are present in rat brain under homeostatic conditions, and may interact with GPBAR1+ microglia [111, 112].

Several bacteria capable of bile acid metabolism are depleted (Lactobacillus, Clostridium, Erysipelotrichaceae, and Parabacteroides) or enriched (Acinetobacter, Bifidobacterium, Pseudomonas, and Bilophila) in patients with MS (Table 2) [19, 20, 22, 26]. Lactobacillus, Clostridium, Erysipelotrichaceae, and Parabacteroides have been shown to exert anti-inflammatory effects. Lactobacillus species are a common ingredient in a number of probiotics, and exert anti-inflammatory effects in both in vitro and in vivo settings [113]. THP-1 cells exposed to Lactobacillus supernatant produced lower levels of TNF-α [114], possibly owing to its participation in bile acid metabolism [115, 116]. Certain Clostridium species have also demonstrated anti-inflammatory activities via bile acid metabolism. Clostridium scindens, which belongs to cluster XIVa, protects against C. difficile infection by their production of secondary bile acids [117, 118]. Patients with MS are depleted of Clostridia clusters XIV (as well as IV), further supporting a role for producers of secondary bile acids in maintaining immune homeostasis in the gut [20]. The Erysipelotrichaceae family plays a major role in bile-acid metabolism [119], and some members exert anti-inflammatory effects on the host immune system [19, 120]. Parabacteroides can also generate secondary bile acids [121], and this might be responsible for its anti-inflammatory effects [122].

With regard to bile acid-metabolizing bacteria for which patients with MS are enriched, Bilophila and Pseuodomonas promote proinflammatory responses. As mentioned above, Bilophila utilizes primary bile acids that promote colonic inflammation in genetically susceptible mice [110]. Furthermore, bile-acid signaling via FXR promotes Pseudomonas biofilm formation, and this likely contributes to its proinflammatory effects [123, 124]. Similarly, Acinetobacter baumannii promotes biofilm formation, and is an important pathogen associated with nosocomial infections [125]. Other members of the same genus have also been shown to participate in bile-acid metabolism [126]. Finally, Bifidobacterium expresses enzymes that are necessary for bile-acid metabolism [127]. Although interactions between bacteria and bile acids can result in proinflammatory effects, the majority of studies indicate that bile-acid signaling pathways promote anti-inflammatory responses. In support of this, 2 separate studies showed that the activation of either FXR or GPBAR1 suppresses lymphocyte and myeloid cell activation, resulting in an attenuation of EAE [128, 129]. Collectively, these studies support the notion that bile-acid metabolism plays a major role in immune regulation both within and outside of the intestine (Fig. 1). Future work distinguishing the roles of primary versus secondary bile acids in modulating immune responses in EAE/MS will aid in our understanding of the contribution of this metabolic pathway to disease.

Phytoestrogen Metabolism

Phytoestrogens are plant-derived compounds that are present in diet and can be categorized into 4 major classes: isoflavones, prenylflavonoids, coumestans, and lignans [130, 131]. Gut bacteria metabolize isoflavones and lignans into equol and enterolactone, respectively [130, 131]. Isoflavones are most abundant in soybeans/soy products and lignans are most abundant in flaxseed [132]. Phytoestrogens are structurally similar to mammalian estrogen and can be either agonistic or antagonistic to estrogen receptors (ER), with a preference for ERβ [133, 134]. Gut bacteria play a critical role in the metabolism and bioavailability of lignans [135] and isoflavones [136] by providing the enzymes necessary for their conversion to enterolactone and equol, respectively. After gut bacteria hydrolyze and deglycosylate phytoestrogens, the resulting metabolites are more readily absorbed by the intestine [130, 136]. From there, they may be transported to the liver to have systemic effects on immune modulation.

Phytoestrogens may have an impact on various aspects of immunity, both in the intestine and systemically. With regard to the colonic lumen, studies on IECs (in vitro) have shown that they modulate host-cell behavior, as both primary intestinal cells and IEC cell lines express ERβ [137]. Several studies have demonstrated that isoflavones suppresses the production of proinflammatory cytokines and exert protective effects on barrier function in IEC cell lines [138, 139]. Isoflavones also inhibit LPS-induced nitric oxide production and inducible nitric oxide synthase expression in a dose-dependent manner [140], and downregulate NF-κB and extracellular signal–regulated kinase activation [141]. Lignans also have an immunosuppressive effect on IECs, reducing their expression of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 in response to LPS treatment [142].

Phytoestrogens may also modulate the phenotype of immune cells in the gut. Isoflavones and lignans suppress macrophage/monocyte activity by inhibiting reactive oxygen species release, cyclooxygenase-2 and NF-κB activation, and proinflammatory cytokine production after LPS stimulation in vitro [139, 143, 144, 145, 146]. DCs express ERs, and therefore their behavior may also be modulated by phytoestrogens [147]. Similar to their effects on macrophages/monocytes, phytoestrogens downregulate LPS-induced production of proinflammatory cytokines and antigen-presenting machinery in DCs [139]. Phytoestrogens may also influence Treg function, as treatment with them increases FoxP3, transforming growth factor-β, and cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 expression in splenocytes [148]. Genistein, an abundant isoflavone, is a known tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and, at high concentrations, may inhibit lymphocyte proliferation [130]. Phytoestrogen metabolites, which are found in circulation, may be able to access the CNS and protect against neurodegenerative insults as various regions in the CNS express ER [134, 149, 150, 151]. These observations suggest that bacterial metabolites not only modulate immune function, but also may influence the CNS directly.

Patients with MS have a reduced abundance of Prevotella, Parabacteroides, Adlercreutzia, Slackia, and Lactobacillus, that have the ability to metabolize phytoestrogen compounds (Table 2) [19, 24]. Prevotella species were shown to metabolize phytoestrogens into beneficial metabolites [152], and this may contribute to its anti-inflammatory effects [84, 153]. The ability of P. histicola to induce Tregs and suppress EAE in humanized mice [85] suggests that metabolism of phytoestrogen by Prevotella might be one of the major mechanism of disease suppression. Parabacteroides metabolize phytoestrogens and their presence is correlated with remission in patients with Crohn’s disease [19, 122, 154]. Adlercreutzia equolifaciens and Slackia are other equol producers in the gut [136, 155, 156]. Lactobacillus, a major milk fermenter, can confer anti-inflammatory effects on immune cells, possibly through its bioconversion of phytoestrogens [157, 158]. Given these findings, it is reasonable to hypothesize that phytoestrogens and their metabolites might confer protection in EAE and/or MS by inducing anti-inflammatory responses. Several studies have demonstrated that therapeutic administration of phytoestrogens (genistein and daidzein) ameliorates EAE, which is correlated with a decrease in the production of proinflammatory cytokines and an increase in the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines [159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164]. Phytoestrogens are also protective in the nonobese diabetic mouse model of T1D [165] and were associated with shifts in the gut microbiome [166]. A recent study by Berer et al. [27] demonstrated that mice transplanted with fecal samples from healthy human controls, which developed a lower frequency of spontaneous EAE than mice transplanted with MS fecal samples, harbored a higher abundance of Adlercreutzia then MS fecal-treated mice. This suggests that phytoestrogen metabolism may confer protection in EAE [27]. However, a direct role of equol and enterolactone (end metabolites of phytoestrogen) in EAE/MS is unknown. Studies are currently underway in our laboratory to decipher their role in modulation of immune responses and EAE.

Aside from their effects on autoimmune models, phytoestrogens are well known for their health benefits in treating menopausal symptoms and various diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, type 2 diabetes, and cancer [130, 167, 168, 169]. However, the results of clinical trials for the therapeutic use of phytoestrogens have been mixed [170, 171]. A possible explanation for the failure of phytoestrogens to provide health benefits in clinical trials is the loss of specific commensal bacteria in the gut required for the conversion of these phytoestrogens into beneficial metabolites such as equol and enterolactone. Based on our data and published reports, we propose that metabolism of phytoestrogen into equol and enterolactone by microbes of the gut plays a critical role in maintaining immune homeostasis because they induce anti-inflammatory responses (Fig. 1).

Tryptophan Metabolism

Tryptophan, an essential amino acid present in a variety of protein-based foods, is metabolized by certain gut bacteria into indole and indole derivatives and these can modulate the effectiveness of both the intestinal barrier and immune cells by activating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) or pregnane X receptor [50, 172]. AhR plays a major role in regulating mucosal immune responses, as demonstrated by microbial perturbations in AhR–/– mice [173]. In addition, the generation of AhR ligands by commensal bacteria confers protection from inflammation and leads to modulation of the expression of both pro- and anti-inflammatory genes [172].

Tryptophan metabolites strengthen barrier function, increase mucin production, and attenuate TNF-α-mediated production of proinflammatory cytokines [174, 175]. Activation of AhR by tryptophan metabolites induces expression of the IL-10 receptor on IECs, suggesting an anti-inflammatory phenotype [176]. AhR activation also influences intestinal epithelial integrity indirectly through activation of group 3 innate lymphoid cells (ILC3), which require AhR for complete functionality and to produce IL-22, a cytokine essential for maintaining barrier integrity [177]. Tryptophan metabolites also activate pregnane X receptor, which helps maintain integrity of the gut barrier and enhances the healing of intestinal wounds in vivo [178, 179]. Tryptophan metabolites may also modulate immune cell function via AhR, as its expression in CD11c+ DCs is critical for immune homeostasis [180]. Further, AhR is required for the expression of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase, an immunosuppressive enzyme involved in tryptophan metabolism [181]. Given that indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase-expressing DCs can limit effector responses and promote the expansion of Tregs [182], AhR activation modulates tolerogenic DC function, possibly by bacterial-derived metabolites. Indeed, tryptophan catabolites from gut bacteria confer mucosal homeostasis by engaging AhR [183]. In addition to modulating immune function, indole metabolites may modify neural function directly [184].

Lactobacillus, which patients with MS are depleted of, is well known for its involvement in tryptophan metabolism (Table 2) [19, 50]. Transfer of Lactobacillus to mice genetically susceptible to colitis (CARD9–/–) resulted in attenuation of inflammation in an AhR-dependent manner [185]. With regard to EAE, rats highly resistant to EAE harbor a diverse group of Lactobacillus species [186], and mice administered such a mixture exhibited milder EAE accompanied by IL-10-producing Tregs [187]. Furthermore, we observed that suppression of EAE by P. histicola in HLA transgenic mice was associated with an increase in the abundance of Lactobacillus [85]. In addition to Tregs, other gut-associated immune cells can exert regulatory function in EAE. Kadowaki et al. [188] demonstrated that transfer of CD4+ induced intraepithelial autoreactive T cells from myelin oligodendrocyte glycoprotein-specific T-cell receptor transgenic (2D2) mice suppressed EAE. Gut environmental stimuli that contribute to the development of these cells include gut microbiota and gut microbiota-derived dietary compounds such as Ahr ligands [188]. Furthermore, administration of microbial tryptophan metabolites to mice reduced CNS inflammation and EAE, and patients with MS have lower circulating levels of AhR agonists [189]. These studies highlight the potentially significant role of tryptophan metabolites in MS.

Choline Metabolism

Gut bacteria can modulate lipid levels through their effects on choline metabolism [172]. Choline is a water-soluble nutrient essential for cell signaling, the structural integrity of cell membranes, neurotransmission, and biosynthetic reactions [190, 191]. Certain gut bacteria metabolize dietary choline into an intermediate precursor, trymethylamine, which is further metabolized in the liver to generate trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) [172]. Most of the studies examining the relationship between the gut microbiota and choline metabolism have been performed in the contexts of obesity, atherosclerosis, and cardiovascular disease. However, obese individuals have an increased risk of MS development [192], and obesity has been shown to modulate host physiology by influencing the gut microbiota and systemic inflammation [193, 194].

The molecular mechanisms underlying TMAO-induced pathogenicity are poorly understood because its receptor is unknown [172]. TMAO exacerbates atherosclerosis, and its levels are elevated in patients with cardiovascular disease and obesity [195, 196]. In the atherosclerotic ApoE–/– mouse model, supplementation of diet with high levels of choline promotes atherosclerosis and the formation of lipid-rich macrophages (foam cells) [197]. Additionally, in mice, atherosclerosis susceptibility can be transferred from donor to host by fecal transplantation [198]. Acinetobacter baumannii participates in choline metabolism, and the abundance of Acinetobacter is high in patients with MS (Table 2) [26, 199]. Thus, choline-metabolizing bacteria potentially play a role in MS pathogenesis by modulating lipid levels and/or obesity.

Mucin Degradation

The mucus layer of the digestive tract, secreted by goblet cells, consists of a heterogenous population of glycoproteins (mucins), salts, lipids, and other proteins such as immunoglobulins and growth factors [200, 201]. The mucus layer sits at the interface between the intestinal epithelium and the lumen, providing a selective barrier against damage, coming into direct contact with bacteria. The mucus layer is also an adhesive surface that is colonized and used as an energy source by commensal bacteria [200, 201]. Thus, the mucus layer is a crucial physical layer between bacteria and the host cells, and serves as a scaffold for the attachment of commensal bacteria. The colonic epithelium of GF mice has a significantly thicker mucus layer than that of its WT counterparts, owing to lack of mucin degradation by commensals and subsequent water retention [200]. Indeed, a certain amount of mucin degradation by commensal bacteria is an important aspect of homeostatic mucus turnover [200]. However, excessive mucin degradation may allow direct exposure of luminal antigens to the intestinal immune system, and/or provide by-products for other pathogenic bacteria to scavenge [202]. Whether mucin degradation is protective or pathogenic for the host depends on the bacterium utilizing the pathway and the context of the model system.

Goblet cells are an integral part of the mucosal immune system, as they not only provide mucus, which separates host cells and the external environment; they also provide luminal antigens to DCs of the lamina propria in the small intestines [203, 204]. Interestingly, only tolerogenic CD103+ DCs were found to be capable of participating in this interaction. Thus, it may be possible that the modulation of goblet cell function by mucin degradation can influence the anti-inflammatory aspects of the intestinal immune system.

Several bacterial species that are capable of degrading mucins are increased in patients with MS including Akkermansia muciniphilia Ruminococcus, Bifidobacterium, and Dorea [19, 22, 25, 26, 27]. Whether these bacteria exhibit proinflammatory activities by mucin degradation is controversial. Whereas the presence of A. muciniphilia exacerbates colonic pathology in Salmonella typhimurium-induced intestinal inflammation [205], it has also been shown to exert anti-inflammatory properties and correlate negatively with IBD, T1D, and obesity [32, 206, 207]. Ruminococcus gnavus, however, is present at high levels in patients with IBD and may promote dysbiosis [32]. Bifidobacterium can induce different levels of expression of pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines, depending on the strain [208]. Dorea, which does not directly metabolize mucins but feeds on by-products released by mucin degradation, is associated with IBD [207, 209]. Further, ceratin species of Dorea might be pro-inflammatory as they can induce interferon-γ [210]. Collectively, these studies suggest that mucin-degrading bacteria may promote inflammation in patients with MS, depending on the composition of the bacterial community.

Other Mechanisms: Molecular Mimicry

Molecular mimicry is defined as significant structural homology between a given microbial antigen and self-antigen, resulting in aberrant immune responses to the latter peptide following exposure to the microbe [211]. Although molecular mimicry is proposed as a possible cause of autoreactive T-cell activation, conclusive supporting experimental evidence has been elusive. Certain components of the gut microbiota have been shown to share sequence similarities with encephalitogenic myelin peptides, suggesting that gut bacteria may contribute to MS through molecular mimicry [212]. Pseudomonas, which is present at high levels in patients with MS [19], has structural similarity to myelin basic protein (a dominant CNS antigen) and can activate myelin basic protein-specific T-cell clones [213]. Peptides from Escherichia coli, a common gut commensal, have been shown to provoke MS-like disease in a mouse model expressing a humanized T-cell receptor transgene [214]. However, the biological relevance of these findings to patients with MS is unclear.

Concluding Remarks

Recent studies showing that patients with MS are enriched or depleted of certain bacteria highlight the importance of the gut microbiota in the development of this disease. Gut microbiota may participate in MS pathogenesis by modulating host immunity through the regulation of multiple metabolic pathways (including those for SCFAs, bile acids, phytoestrogens, tryptophan, choline) and mucin degradation. The participation of certain bacteria in more than one metabolic pathway adds a layer of complexity, requiring an understanding of potential cross-talk between bacterial metabolites and host immune responses. For example, the addition of isoflavones to anaerobic bacteria from fecal samples results in the enrichment of SCFAs, as well as equol [215]. Lactobacillus, Prevotella, and Parabacteroides are examples of such bacteria because they can induce production of SCFAs in addition to metabolizing phytoestrogens. Similarly, Lactobacillus can participate in the metabolism of SCFAs, phytoestrogens, and tryptophans. Future studies examining these aspects in a single experiment might help to better understand cross-talk among bacteria and various metabolic pathways in the context of MS. However, the majority of microbiome studies are based on a single time point in patients with MS with established disease and thus it is possible that some of the reported changes in the microbiota are due to inflammation itself. Future studies should be based on longitudinal collection of samples to determine whether disease relapse is associated with presence of certain gut bacteria. Additionally, the colonization of GF mice with gut bacteria that are associated positively or negatively with MS can be tested for the ability to either induce disease or protect against it.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by funding from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (RG 5138A1/1T), the Carver College of Medicine at the University of Iowa (pathology pilot grant), a Carver Trust Medical Research Initiative Grant, and the Mayo Clinic Center for Individualized Medicine. S.N.F. was supported on institutional training grant (T32AI007485 to Gail Bishop).

Required Author Forms Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with the online version of this article.

Supplementary material

13311_2017_588_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (516 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 515 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Dendrou, C.A., Fugger, L. & Friese, M.A. Immunopathology of multiple sclerosis. Nat Rev Immunol 15, 545-558 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stinissen, P., Raus, J. & Zhang, J. Autoimmune pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis: role of autoreactive T lymphocytes and new immunotherapeutic strategies. Crit Rev Immunol 17, 33-75 (1997).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yadav, S.K., Mindur, J.E., Ito, K. & Dhib-Jalbut, S. Advances in the immunopathogenesis of multiple sclerosis. Curr Opin Neurol 28, 206-219 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ebers, G.C., Bulman, D.E., Sadovnick, A.D., et al. A population-based study of multiple sclerosis in twins. N Engl J Med 315, 1638-1642 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hollenbach, J.A. & Oksenberg, J.R. The immunogenetics of multiple sclerosis: A comprehensive review. J Autoimmun 64, 13-25 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rook, G.A. Hygiene hypothesis and autoimmune diseases. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 42, 5-15 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Floreani, A., Leung, P.S. & Gershwin, M.E. Environmental Basis of Autoimmunity. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 50, 287-300 (2016).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rook, G.A. & Brunet, L.R. Microbes, immunoregulation, and the gut. Gut 54, 317-320 (2005).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fleming, J. & Fabry, Z. The hygiene hypothesis and multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol 61, 85-89 (2007).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kinross, J.M., Darzi, A.W. & Nicholson, J.K. Gut microbiome-host interactions in health and disease. Genome Med 3, 14 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rescigno, M. The intestinal epithelial barrier in the control of homeostasis and immunity. Trends Immunol 32, 256-264 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Singh, R.K., Chang, H.W., Yan, D., et al. Influence of diet on the gut microbiome and implications for human health. J Transl Med 15, 73 (2017).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lozupone, C.A., Stombaugh, J.I., Gordon, J.I., Jansson, J.K. & Knight, R. Diversity, stability and resilience of the human gut microbiota. Nature 489, 220-230 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jarchum, I. & Pamer, E.G. Regulation of innate and adaptive immunity by the commensal microbiota. Curr Opin Immunol 23, 353-360 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Blacher, E., Levy, M., Tatirovsky, E. & Elinav, E. Microbiome-Modulated Metabolites at the Interface of Host Immunity. J Immunol 198, 572-580 (2017).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zhang, K., Hornef, M.W. & Dupont, A. The intestinal epithelium as guardian of gut barrier integrity. Cell Microbiol 17, 1561-1569 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forbes, J.D., Van Domselaar, G. & Bernstein, C.N. The Gut Microbiota in Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Diseases. Front Microbiol 7, 1081 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kahrstrom, C.T., Pariente, N. & Weiss, U. Intestinal microbiota in health and disease. Nature 535, 47 (2016).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chen, J., Chia, N., Kalari, K.R., et al. Multiple sclerosis patients have a distinct gut microbiota compared to healthy controls. Sci Rep 6, 28484 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miyake, S., Kim, S., Suda, W., et al. Dysbiosis in the Gut Microbiota of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis, with a Striking Depletion of Species Belonging to Clostridia XIVa and IV Clusters. PLoS One 10, e0137429 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tremlett, H., Fadrosh, D.W., Faruqi, A.A., et al. Associations between the gut microbiota and host immune markers in pediatric multiple sclerosis and controls. BMC Neurol 16, 182 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tremlett, H., Fadrosh, D.W., Faruqi, A.A., et al. Gut microbiota in early pediatric multiple sclerosis: a case-control study. Eur J Neurol 23, 1308-1321 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tremlett, H., Fadrosh, D.W., Faruqi, A.A., et al. Gut microbiota composition and relapse risk in pediatric MS: A pilot study. J Neurol Sci 363, 153-157 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jangi, S., Gandhi, R., Cox, L.M., et al. Alterations of the human gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis. Nat Commun 7, 12015 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cantarel, B.L., Waubant, E., Chehoud, C., et al. Gut microbiota in multiple sclerosis: possible influence of immunomodulators. J Investig Med 63, 729-734 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cekanaviciute, E., Yoo, B.B., Runia, T.F., et al. Gut bacteria from multiple sclerosis patients modulate human T cells and exacerbate symptoms in mouse models. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2017).Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Berer, K., Gerdes, L.A., Cekanaviciute, E., et al. Gut microbiota from multiple sclerosis patients enables spontaneous autoimmune encephalomyelitis in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A (2017).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cosorich, I., Dalla-Costa, G., Sorini, C., et al. High frequency of intestinal TH17 cells correlates with microbiota alterations and disease activity in multiple sclerosis. Sci Adv 3, e1700492 (2017).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Adamczyk-Sowa, M., Medrek, A., Madej, P., Michlicka, W. & Dobrakowski, P. Does the Gut Microbiota Influence Immunity and Inflammation in Multiple Sclerosis Pathophysiology? J Immunol Res 2017, 7904821 (2017).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Knip, M. & Siljander, H. The role of the intestinal microbiota in type 1 diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol 12, 154-167 (2016).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Brown, C.T., Davis-Richardson, A.G., Giongo, A., et al. Gut microbiome metagenomics analysis suggests a functional model for the development of autoimmunity for type 1 diabetes. PLoS One 6, e25792 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morgan, X.C., Tickle, T.L., Sokol, H., et al. Dysfunction of the intestinal microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease and treatment. Genome Biol 13, R79 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kostic, A.D., Xavier, R.J. & Gevers, D. The microbiome in inflammatory bowel disease: current status and the future ahead. Gastroenterology 146, 1489-1499 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sellitto, M., Bai, G., Serena, G., et al. Proof of concept of microbiome-metabolome analysis and delayed gluten exposure on celiac disease autoimmunity in genetically at-risk infants. PLoS One 7, e33387 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wacklin, P., Kaukinen, K., Tuovinen, E., et al. The duodenal microbiota composition of adult celiac disease patients is associated with the clinical manifestation of the disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis 19, 934-941 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vaahtovuo, J., Munukka, E., Korkeamaki, M., Luukkainen, R. & Toivanen, P. Fecal microbiota in early rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 35, 1500-1505 (2008).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Chen, J., Wright, K., Davis, J.M., et al. An expansion of rare lineage intestinal microbes characterizes rheumatoid arthritis. Genome Med 8, 43 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Scher, J.U., Sczesnak, A., Longman, R.S., et al. Expansion of intestinal Prevotella copri correlates with enhanced susceptibility to arthritis. Elife 2, e01202 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Buffie, C.G. & Pamer, E.G. Microbiota-mediated colonization resistance against intestinal pathogens. Nat Rev Immunol 13, 790-801 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Round, J.L. & Mazmanian, S.K. The gut microbiota shapes intestinal immune responses during health and disease. Nat Rev Immunol 9, 313-323 (2009).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Duerkop, B.A., Vaishnava, S. & Hooper, L.V. Immune responses to the microbiota at the intestinal mucosal surface. Immunity 31, 368-376 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hooper, L.V. Epithelial cell contributions to intestinal immunity. Adv Immunol 126, 129-172 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sansonetti, P.J. To be or not to be a pathogen: that is the mucosally relevant question. Mucosal Immunol 4, 8-14 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Mu, Q., Kirby, J., Reilly, C.M. & Luo, X.M. Leaky Gut As a Danger Signal for Autoimmune Diseases. Front Immunol 8, 598 (2017).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Li, X. & Atkinson, M.A. The role for gut permeability in the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes--a solid or leaky concept? Pediatr Diabetes 16, 485-492 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Shahi, S.K., Freedman, S.N. & Mangalam, A.K. Gut microbiome in multiple sclerosis: The players involved and the roles they play. Gut Microbes, 1-9 (2017).Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Goodrich, J.K., Waters, J.L., Poole, A.C., et al. Human genetics shape the gut microbiome. Cell 159, 789-799 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Turnbaugh, P.J., Ridaura, V.K., Faith, J.J., et al. The effect of diet on the human gut microbiome: a metagenomic analysis in humanized gnotobiotic mice. Sci Transl Med 1, 6ra14 (2009).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Nishijima, S., Suda, W., Oshima, K., et al. The gut microbiome of healthy Japanese and its microbial and functional uniqueness. DNA Res 23, 125-133 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Rooks, M.G. & Garrett, W.S. Gut microbiota, metabolites and host immunity. Nat Rev Immunol 16, 341-352 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Rios-Covian, D., Ruas-Madiedo, P., Margolles, A., et al. Intestinal Short Chain Fatty Acids and their Link with Diet and Human Health. Front Microbiol 7, 185 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Correa-Oliveira, R., Fachi, J.L., Vieira, A., Sato, F.T. & Vinolo, M.A. Regulation of immune cell function by short-chain fatty acids. Clin Transl Immunology 5, e73 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Morrison, D.J. & Preston, T. Formation of short chain fatty acids by the gut microbiota and their impact on human metabolism. Gut Microbes 7, 189-200 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Brestoff, J.R. & Artis, D. Commensal bacteria at the interface of host metabolism and the immune system. Nat Immunol 14, 676-684 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Duboc, H., Rajca, S., Rainteau, D., et al. Connecting dysbiosis, bile-acid dysmetabolism and gut inflammation in inflammatory bowel diseases. Gut 62, 531-539 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Iraporda, C., Errea, A., Romanin, D.E., et al. Lactate and short chain fatty acids produced by microbial fermentation downregulate proinflammatory responses in intestinal epithelial cells and myeloid cells. Immunobiology 220, 1161-1169 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Macia, L., Tan, J., Vieira, A.T., et al. Metabolite-sensing receptors GPR43 and GPR109A facilitate dietary fibre-induced gut homeostasis through regulation of the inflammasome. Nat Commun 6, 6734 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Fukuda, S., Toh, H., Taylor, T.D., Ohno, H. & Hattori, M. Acetate-producing bifidobacteria protect the host from enteropathogenic infection via carbohydrate transporters. Gut Microbes 3, 449-454 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Nastasi, C., Candela, M., Bonefeld, C.M., et al. The effect of short-chain fatty acids on human monocyte-derived dendritic cells. Sci Rep 5, 16148 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Wang, B., Morinobu, A., Horiuchi, M., Liu, J. & Kumagai, S. Butyrate inhibits functional differentiation of human monocyte-derived dendritic cells. Cell Immunol 253, 54-58 (2008).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Liu, L., Li, L., Min, J., et al. Butyrate interferes with the differentiation and function of human monocyte-derived dendritic cells. Cell Immunol 277, 66-73 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Arpaia, N., Campbell, C., Fan, X., et al. Metabolites produced by commensal bacteria promote peripheral regulatory T-cell generation. Nature 504, 451-455 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Furusawa, Y., Obata, Y., Fukuda, S., et al. Commensal microbe-derived butyrate induces the differentiation of colonic regulatory T cells. Nature 504, 446-450 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Smith, P.M., Howitt, M.R., Panikov, N., et al. The microbial metabolites, short-chain fatty acids, regulate colonic Treg cell homeostasis. Science 341, 569-573 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Bourassa, M.W., Alim, I., Bultman, S.J. & Ratan, R.R. Butyrate, neuroepigenetics and the gut microbiome: Can a high fiber diet improve brain health? Neurosci Lett 625, 56-63 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Cummings, J.H., Pomare, E.W., Branch, W.J., Naylor, C.P. & Macfarlane, G.T. Short chain fatty acids in human large intestine, portal, hepatic and venous blood. Gut 28, 1221-1227 (1987).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    De Filippo, C., Cavalieri, D., Di Paola, M., et al. Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiota revealed by a comparative study in children from Europe and rural Africa. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107, 14691-14696 (2010).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lopetuso, L.R., Scaldaferri, F., Petito, V. & Gasbarrini, A. Commensal Clostridia: leading players in the maintenance of gut homeostasis. Gut Pathog 5, 23 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Atarashi, K., Tanoue, T., Oshima, K., et al. Treg induction by a rationally selected mixture of Clostridia strains from the human microbiota. Nature 500, 232-236 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gophna, U., Sommerfeld, K., Gophna, S., Doolittle, W.F. & Veldhuyzen van Zanten, S.J. Differences between tissue-associated intestinal microfloras of patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. J Clin Microbiol 44, 4136-4141 (2006).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Collins, M.D., Lawson, P.A., Willems, A., et al. The phylogeny of the genus Clostridium: proposal of five new genera and eleven new species combinations. Int J Syst Bacteriol 44, 812-826 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Nagano, Y., Itoh, K. & Honda, K. The induction of Treg cells by gut-indigenous Clostridium. Curr Opin Immunol 24, 392-397 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kabeerdoss, J., Jayakanthan, P., Pugazhendhi, S. & Ramakrishna, B.S. Alterations of mucosal microbiota in the colon of patients with inflammatory bowel disease revealed by real time polymerase chain reaction amplification of 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid. Indian J Med Res 142, 23-32 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kanauchi, O., Fukuda, M., Matsumoto, Y., et al. Eubacterium limosum ameliorates experimental colitis and metabolite of microbe attenuates colonic inflammatory action with increase of mucosal integrity. World J Gastroenterol 12, 1071-1077 (2006).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Menard, S., Candalh, C., Bambou, J.C., et al. Lactic acid bacteria secrete metabolites retaining anti-inflammatory properties after intestinal transport. Gut 53, 821-828 (2004).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Ze, X., Duncan, S.H., Louis, P. & Flint, H.J. Ruminococcus bromii is a keystone species for the degradation of resistant starch in the human colon. ISME J 6, 1535-1543 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Fujimoto, T., Imaeda, H., Takahashi, K., et al. Decreased abundance of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii in the gut microbiota of Crohn's disease. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 28, 613-619 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Prosberg, M., Bendtsen, F., Vind, I., Petersen, A.M. & Gluud, L.L. The association between the gut microbiota and the inflammatory bowel disease activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol 51, 1407-1415 (2016).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Huang, X.L., Zhang, X., Fei, X.Y., et al. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii supernatant ameliorates dextran sulfate sodium induced colitis by regulating Th17 cell differentiation. World J Gastroenterol 22, 5201-5210 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Zhang, M., Qiu, X., Zhang, H., et al. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii inhibits interleukin-17 to ameliorate colorectal colitis in rats. PLoS One 9, e109146 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Qiu, X., Zhang, M., Yang, X., Hong, N. & Yu, C. Faecalibacterium prausnitzii upregulates regulatory T cells and anti-inflammatory cytokines in treating TNBS-induced colitis. J Crohns Colitis 7, e558-568 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Round, J.L. & Mazmanian, S.K. Inducible Foxp3+ regulatory T-cell development by a commensal bacterium of the intestinal microbiota. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107, 12204-12209 (2010).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Wrzosek, L., Miquel, S., Noordine, M.L., et al. Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron and Faecalibacterium prausnitzii influence the production of mucus glycans and the development of goblet cells in the colonic epithelium of a gnotobiotic model rodent. BMC Biol 11, 61 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Marietta, E.V., Murray, J.A., Luckey, D.H., et al. Human Gut-Derived Prevotella histicola Suppresses Inflammatory Arthritis in Humanized Mice. Arthritis Rheumatol (2016).Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Mangalam, A., Shahi, S.K., Luckey, D., et al. Human Gut-derived Commensal Bacteria Suppress Central Nervous System Inflammatory and Demyelinating Disease. Cell Rep 20, 1269-1277 (2017).Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Larsen, J.M. The immune response to Prevotella bacteria in chronic inflammatory disease. Immunology (2017).Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Haghikia, A., Jorg, S., Duscha, A., et al. Dietary Fatty Acids Directly Impact Central Nervous System Autoimmunity via the Small Intestine. Immunity 43, 817-829 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Chitrala, K.N., Guan, H., Singh, N.P., et al. CD44 deletion leading to attenuation of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis results from alterations in gut microbiome in mice. Eur J Immunol (2017).Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Mizuno, M., Noto, D., Kaga, N., Chiba, A. & Miyake, S. The dual role of short fatty acid chains in the pathogenesis of autoimmune disease models. PLoS One 12, e0173032 (2017).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Marino, E., Richards, J.L., McLeod, K.H., et al. Gut microbial metabolites limit the frequency of autoimmune T cells and protect against type 1 diabetes. Nat Immunol 18, 552-562 (2017).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Maslowski, K.M., Vieira, A.T., Ng, A., et al. Regulation of inflammatory responses by gut microbiota and chemoattractant receptor GPR43. Nature 461, 1282-1286 (2009).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Scheppach, W., Sommer, H., Kirchner, T., et al. Effect of butyrate enemas on the colonic mucosa in distal ulcerative colitis. Gastroenterology 103, 51-56 (1992).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Staley, C., Weingarden, A.R., Khoruts, A. & Sadowsky, M.J. Interaction of gut microbiota with bile acid metabolism and its influence on disease states. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 101, 47-64 (2017).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Wahlstrom, A., Sayin, S.I., Marschall, H.U. & Backhed, F. Intestinal Crosstalk between Bile Acids and Microbiota and Its Impact on Host Metabolism. Cell Metab 24, 41-50 (2016).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Ridlon, J.M., Kang, D.J. & Hylemon, P.B. Bile salt biotransformations by human intestinal bacteria. J Lipid Res 47, 241-259 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Nicholson, J.K., Holmes, E., Kinross, J., et al. Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions. Science 336, 1262-1267 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Inagaki, T., Moschetta, A., Lee, Y.K., et al. Regulation of antibacterial defense in the small intestine by the nuclear bile acid receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103, 3920-3925 (2006).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Ji, C.G., Xie, X.L., Yin, J., et al. Bile acid receptor TGR5 overexpression is associated with decreased intestinal mucosal injury and epithelial cell proliferation in obstructive jaundice. Transl Res 182, 88-102 (2017).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Cipriani, S., Mencarelli, A., Chini, M.G., et al. The bile acid receptor GPBAR-1 (TGR5) modulates integrity of intestinal barrier and immune response to experimental colitis. PLoS One 6, e25637 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Vavassori, P., Mencarelli, A., Renga, B., Distrutti, E. & Fiorucci, S. The bile acid receptor FXR is a modulator of intestinal innate immunity. J Immunol 183, 6251-6261 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Su, J., Zhang, Q., Qi, H., et al. The G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor Gpbar1 (TGR5) protects against renal inflammation and renal cancer cell proliferation and migration through antagonizing NF-kappaB and STAT3 signaling pathways. Oncotarget (2017).Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Guo, C., Qi, H., Yu, Y., et al. The G-Protein-Coupled Bile Acid Receptor Gpbar1 (TGR5) Inhibits Gastric Inflammation Through Antagonizing NF-kappaB Signaling Pathway. Front Pharmacol 6, 287 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Wang, Y.D., Chen, W.D., Yu, D., Forman, B.M. & Huang, W. The G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor, Gpbar1 (TGR5), negatively regulates hepatic inflammatory response through antagonizing nuclear factor kappa light-chain enhancer of activated B cells (NF-kappaB) in mice. Hepatology 54, 1421-1432 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Biagioli, M., Carino, A., Cipriani, S., et al. The Bile Acid Receptor GPBAR1 Regulates the M1/M2 Phenotype of Intestinal Macrophages and Activation of GPBAR1 Rescues Mice from Murine Colitis. J Immunol (2017).Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Hogenauer, K., Arista, L., Schmiedeberg, N., et al. G-protein-coupled bile acid receptor 1 (GPBAR1, TGR5) agonists reduce the production of proinflammatory cytokines and stabilize the alternative macrophage phenotype. J Med Chem 57, 10343-10354 (2014).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Ichikawa, R., Takayama, T., Yoneno, K., et al. Bile acids induce monocyte differentiation toward interleukin-12 hypo-producing dendritic cells via a TGR5-dependent pathway. Immunology 136, 153-162 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Jaensson-Gyllenback, E., Kotarsky, K., Zapata, F., et al. Bile retinoids imprint intestinal CD103+ dendritic cells with the ability to generate gut-tropic T cells. Mucosal Immunol 4, 438-447 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Wilson, K.H. Efficiency of various bile salt preparations for stimulation of Clostridium difficile spore germination. J Clin Microbiol 18, 1017-1019 (1983).PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Theriot, C.M., Koenigsknecht, M.J., Carlson, P.E., Jr., et al. Antibiotic-induced shifts in the mouse gut microbiome and metabolome increase susceptibility to Clostridium difficile infection. Nat Commun 5, 3114 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Devkota, S., Wang, Y., Musch, M.W., et al. Dietary-fat-induced taurocholic acid promotes pathobiont expansion and colitis in Il10-/- mice. Nature 487, 104-108 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Yanguas-Casas, N., Barreda-Manso, M.A., Nieto-Sampedro, M. & Romero-Ramirez, L. TUDCA: An Agonist of the Bile Acid Receptor GPBAR1/TGR5 With Anti-Inflammatory Effects in Microglial Cells. J Cell Physiol 232, 2231-2245 (2017).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Mano, N., Goto, T., Uchida, M., et al. Presence of protein-bound unconjugated bile acids in the cytoplasmic fraction of rat brain. J Lipid Res 45, 295-300 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Macho Fernandez, E., Pot, B. & Grangette, C. Beneficial effect of probiotics in IBD: are peptidogycan and NOD2 the molecular key effectors? Gut Microbes 2, 280-286 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Lee, J., Yang, W., Hostetler, A., et al. Characterization of the anti-inflammatory Lactobacillus reuteri BM36301 and its probiotic benefits on aged mice. BMC Microbiol 16, 69 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Walker, D.K. & Gilliland, S.E. Relationship among bile tolerance, bile salt deconjugation, and assimilation of cholesterol by Lactobacillus acidophilus. J Dairy Sci 76, 956-961 (1993).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Brashears, M.M., Gilliland, S.E. & Buck, L.M. Bile salt deconjugation and cholesterol removal from media by Lactobacillus casei. J Dairy Sci 81, 2103-2110 (1998).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Studer, N., Desharnais, L., Beutler, M., et al. Functional Intestinal Bile Acid 7alpha-Dehydroxylation by Clostridium scindens Associated with Protection from Clostridium difficile Infection in a Gnotobiotic Mouse Model. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 6, 191 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Buffie, C.G., Bucci, V., Stein, R.R., et al. Precision microbiome reconstitution restores bile acid mediated resistance to Clostridium difficile. Nature 517, 205-208 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Labbe, A., Ganopolsky, J.G., Martoni, C.J., Prakash, S. & Jones, M.L. Bacterial bile metabolising gene abundance in Crohn's, ulcerative colitis and type 2 diabetes metagenomes. PLoS One 9, e115175 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Rossi, O., van Berkel, L.A., Chain, F., 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 6, 18507 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Narushima, S., Itoha, K., Miyamoto, Y., et al. Deoxycholic acid formation in gnotobiotic mice associated with human intestinal bacteria. Lipids 41, 835-843 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Kverka, M., Zakostelska, Z., Klimesova, K., et al. Oral administration of Parabacteroides distasonis antigens attenuates experimental murine colitis through modulation of immunity and microbiota composition. Clin Exp Immunol 163, 250-259 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Leppik, R.A. The genetics of bile acid degradation in Pseudomonas spp.: location and cloning of catabolic genes. J Gen Microbiol 135, 1989-1996 (1989).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Reen, F.J., Flynn, S., Woods, D.F., et al. Bile signalling promotes chronic respiratory infections and antibiotic tolerance. Sci Rep 6, 29768 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Yoon, E.J., Chabane, Y.N., Goussard, S., et al. Contribution of resistance-nodulation-cell division efflux systems to antibiotic resistance and biofilm formation in Acinetobacter baumannii. MBio 6(2015).Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Grigorescu, M., Serban, D. & Dumitrascu, D. Metabolism of bile acids by strains of Acinetobacter anitratum and Acinetobacter lwoffii. Am J Gastroenterol 69, 450-452 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Nie, Y.F., Hu, J. & Yan, X.H. Cross-talk between bile acids and intestinal microbiota in host metabolism and health. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 16, 436-446 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Ho, P.P. & Steinman, L. Obeticholic acid, a synthetic bile acid agonist of the farnesoid X receptor, attenuates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113, 1600-1605 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Lewis, N.D., Patnaude, L.A., Pelletier, J., et al. A GPBAR1 (TGR5) small molecule agonist shows specific inhibitory effects on myeloid cell activation in vitro and reduces experimental autoimmune encephalitis (EAE) in vivo. PLoS One 9, e100883 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Sakai, T. & Kogiso, M. Soy isoflavones and immunity. J Med Invest 55, 167-173 (2008).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Rietjens, I., Louisse, J. & Beekmann, K. The potential health effects of dietary phytoestrogens. Br J Pharmacol 174, 1263-1280 (2017).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Sirotkin, A.V. & Harrath, A.H. Phytoestrogens and their effects. Eur J Pharmacol 741, 230-236 (2014).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Mueller, S.O., Simon, S., Chae, K., Metzler, M. & Korach, K.S. Phytoestrogens and their human metabolites show distinct agonistic and antagonistic properties on estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha) and ERbeta in human cells. Toxicol Sci 80, 14-25 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Cooke, P.S., Selvaraj, V. & Yellayi, S. Genistein, estrogen receptors, and the acquired immune response. J Nutr 136, 704-708 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. 135.
    Clavel, T., Borrmann, D., Braune, A., Dore, J. & Blaut, M. Occurrence and activity of human intestinal bacteria involved in the conversion of dietary lignans. Anaerobe 12, 140-147 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Rafii, F. The role of colonic bacteria in the metabolism of the natural isoflavone daidzin to equol. Metabolites 5, 56-73 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  137. 137.
    Konstantinopoulos, P.A., Kominea, A., Vandoros, G., et al. Oestrogen receptor beta (ERbeta) is abundantly expressed in normal colonic mucosa, but declines in colon adenocarcinoma paralleling the tumour's dedifferentiation. Eur J Cancer 39, 1251-1258 (2003).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 138.
    Suzuki, T. & Hara, H. Role of flavonoids in intestinal tight junction regulation. J Nutr Biochem 22, 401-408 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. 139.
    Masilamani, M., Wei, J. & Sampson, H.A. Regulation of the immune response by soybean isoflavones. Immunol Res 54, 95-110 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  140. 140.
    Calvello, R., Aresta, A., Trapani, A., et al. Bovine and soybean milk bioactive compounds: Effects on inflammatory response of human intestinal Caco-2 cells. Food Chem 210, 276-285 (2016).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  141. 141.
    Piegholdt, S., Pallauf, K., Esatbeyoglu, T., et al. Biochanin A and prunetin improve epithelial barrier function in intestinal CaCo-2 cells via downregulation of ERK, NF-kappaB, and tyrosine phosphorylation. Free Radic Biol Med 70, 255-264 (2014).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. 142.
    Franciskovic, M., Gonzalez-Perez, R., Orcic, D., et al. Chemical Composition and Immuno-Modulatory Effects of Urtica dioica L. (Stinging Nettle) Extracts. Phytother Res (2017).Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    Gou, Z., Jiang, S., Zheng, C., Tian, Z. & Lin, X. Equol Inhibits LPS-Induced Oxidative Stress and Enhances the Immune Response in Chicken HD11 Macrophages. Cell Physiol Biochem 36, 611-621 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 144.
    Byun, E.B., Sung, N.Y., Yang, M.S., et al. Anti-inflammatory effect of gamma-irradiated genistein through inhibition of NF-kappaB and MAPK signaling pathway in lipopolysaccharide-induced macrophages. Food Chem Toxicol 74, 255-264 (2014).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 145.
    Junior, C.O., Castro, S.B., Pereira, A.A., et al. Synthesis of genistein coupled with sugar derivatives and their inhibitory effect on nitric oxide production in macrophages. Eur J Med Chem 85, 615-620 (2014).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 146.
    Wu, X.L., Liou, C.J., Li, Z.Y., et al. Sesamol suppresses the inflammatory response by inhibiting NF-kappaB/MAPK activation and upregulating AMP kinase signaling in RAW 264.7 macrophages. Inflamm Res 64, 577-588 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 147.
    Laffont, S., Seillet, C. & Guery, J.C. Estrogen Receptor-Dependent Regulation of Dendritic Cell Development and Function. Front Immunol 8, 108 (2017).PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  148. 148.
    Weng, B.B., Lin, W.S., Chang, J.C. & Chiou, R.Y. The phytogestrogenic stilbenes, arachidin-1 and resveratrol, modulate regulatory T cell functions responsible for successful aging in aged ICR mice. Int J Mol Med 38, 1895-1904 (2016).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. 149.
    Zhao, L., Mao, Z., Schneider, L.S. & Brinton, R.D. Estrogen receptor beta-selective phytoestrogenic formulation prevents physical and neurological changes in a preclinical model of human menopause. Menopause 18, 1131-1142 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  150. 150.
    Zhao, L., Mao, Z. & Brinton, R.D. A select combination of clinically relevant phytoestrogens enhances estrogen receptor beta-binding selectivity and neuroprotective activities in vitro and in vivo. Endocrinology 150, 770-783 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  151. 151.
    Almey, A., Milner, T.A. & Brake, W.G. Estrogen receptors in the central nervous system and their implication for dopamine-dependent cognition in females. Horm Behav 74, 125-138 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 152.
    Schogor, A.L., Huws, S.A., Santos, G.T., et al. Ruminal Prevotella spp. may play an important role in the conversion of plant lignans into human health beneficial antioxidants. PLoS One 9, e87949 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  153. 153.
    Barton, S., E. Marietta, M. Jacobson, S. Rashtak, J. Murray. Prevotella species from the small bowel of untreated celiac patients suppress production of systemic inflammatory cytokines in DQ8 transgenic murine model. . in Digestive Disease Week (DDW) (Elsevier, San Diego, CA, 2008).Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    De Cruz, P., Kang, S., Wagner, J., et al. Association between specific mucosa-associated microbiota in Crohn's disease at the time of resection and subsequent disease recurrence: a pilot study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 30, 268-278 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  155. 155.
    Toh, H., Oshima, K., Suzuki, T., Hattori, M. & Morita, H. Complete Genome Sequence of the Equol-Producing Bacterium Adlercreutzia equolifaciens DSM 19450T. Genome Announc 1(2013).Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    Schroder, C., Matthies, A., Engst, W., Blaut, M. & Braune, A. Identification and expression of genes involved in the conversion of daidzein and genistein by the equol-forming bacterium Slackia isoflavoniconvertens. Appl Environ Microbiol 79, 3494-3502 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  157. 157.
    Eslami, S., Hadjati, J., Motevaseli, E., et al. Lactobacillus crispatus strain SJ-3C-US induces human dendritic cells (DCs) maturation and confers an anti-inflammatory phenotype to DCs. APMIS 124, 697-710 (2016).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  158. 158.
    Rekha, C.R. & Vijayalakshmi, G. Bioconversion of isoflavone glycosides to aglycones, mineral bioavailability and vitamin B complex in fermented soymilk by probiotic bacteria and yeast. J Appl Microbiol 109, 1198-1208 (2010).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  159. 159.
    De Paula, M.L., Rodrigues, D.H., Teixeira, H.C., et al. Genistein down-modulates pro-inflammatory cytokines and reverses clinical signs of experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Int Immunopharmacol 8, 1291-1297 (2008).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  160. 160.
    Muthian, G. & Bright, J.J. Quercetin, a flavonoid phytoestrogen, ameliorates experimental allergic encephalomyelitis by blocking IL-12 signaling through JAK-STAT pathway in T lymphocyte. J Clin Immunol 24, 542-552 (2004).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 161.
    Shen, R., Deng, W., Li, C. & Zeng, G. A natural flavonoid glucoside icariin inhibits Th1 and Th17 cell differentiation and ameliorates experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis. Int Immunopharmacol 24, 224-231 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 162.
    Razeghi Jahromi, S., Arrefhosseini, S.R., Ghaemi, A., et al. Alleviation of experimental allergic encephalomyelitis in C57BL/6 mice by soy daidzein. Iran J Allergy Asthma Immunol 13, 256-264 (2014).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  163. 163.
    Wei, Z., Deng, X., Hong, M., et al. Icariin has synergistic effects with methylprednisolone to ameliorate EAE via modulating HPA function, promoting anti-inflammatory and anti-apoptotic effects. Int J Clin Exp Med 8, 20188-20197 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  164. 164.
    Wei, Z., Wang, M., Hong, M., et al. Icariin exerts estrogen-like activity in ameliorating EAE via mediating estrogen receptor beta, modulating HPA function and glucocorticoid receptor expression. Am J Transl Res 8, 1910-1918 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  165. 165.
    Guo, T.L., Germolec, D.R., Zheng, J.F., et al. Genistein protects female nonobese diabetic mice from developing type 1 diabetes when fed a soy- and alfalfa-free diet. Toxicol Pathol 43, 435-448 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  166. 166.
    Huang, G., Xu, J., Lefever, D.E., et al. Genistein prevention of hyperglycemia and improvement of glucose tolerance in adult non-obese diabetic mice are associated with alterations of gut microbiome and immune homeostasis. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol (2017).Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Talaei, M. & Pan, A. Role of phytoestrogens in prevention and management of type 2 diabetes. World J Diabetes 6, 271-283 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  168. 168.
    Takagi, A., Kano, M. & Kaga, C. Possibility of breast cancer prevention: use of soy isoflavones and fermented soy beverage produced using probiotics. Int J Mol Sci 16, 10907-10920 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  169. 169.
    Adolphe, J.L., Whiting, S.J., Juurlink, B.H., Thorpe, L.U. & Alcorn, J. Health effects with consumption of the flax lignan secoisolariciresinol diglucoside. Br J Nutr 103, 929-938 (2010).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  170. 170.
    Hooper, L., Madhavan, G., Tice, J.A., Leinster, S.J. & Cassidy, A. Effects of isoflavones on breast density in pre- and post-menopausal women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hum Reprod Update 16, 745-760 (2010).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  171. 171.
    Wu, A.H., Spicer, D., Garcia, A., et al. Double-Blind Randomized 12-Month Soy Intervention Had No Effects on Breast MRI Fibroglandular Tissue Density or Mammographic Density. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 8, 942-951 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 172.
    Zhang, L.S. & Davies, S.S. Microbial metabolism of dietary components to bioactive metabolites: opportunities for new therapeutic interventions. Genome Med 8, 46 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  173. 173.
    Korecka, A., Dona, A., Lahiri, S., et al. Bidirectional communication between the Aryl hydrocarbon Receptor (AhR) and the microbiome tunes host metabolism. NPJ Biofilms and Microbiomes 2, 16014 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. 174.
    Bansal, T., Alaniz, R.C., Wood, T.K. & Jayaraman, A. The bacterial signal indole increases epithelial-cell tight-junction resistance and attenuates indicators of inflammation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107, 228-233 (2010).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  175. 175.
    Shimada, Y., Kinoshita, M., Harada, K., et al. Commensal bacteria-dependent indole production enhances epithelial barrier function in the colon. PLoS One 8, e80604 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  176. 176.
    Lanis, J.M., Alexeev, E.E., Curtis, V.F., et al. Tryptophan metabolite activation of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor regulates IL-10 receptor expression on intestinal epithelia. Mucosal Immunol (2017).Google Scholar
  177. 177.
    Qiu, J., Heller, J.J., Guo, X., et al. The aryl hydrocarbon receptor regulates gut immunity through modulation of innate lymphoid cells. Immunity 36, 92-104 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  178. 178.
    Garg, A., Zhao, A., Erickson, S.L., et al. Pregnane X Receptor Activation Attenuates Inflammation-Associated Intestinal Epithelial Barrier Dysfunction by Inhibiting Cytokine-Induced Myosin Light-Chain Kinase Expression and c-Jun N-Terminal Kinase 1/2 Activation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 359, 91-101 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. 179.
    Venkatesh, M., Mukherjee, S., Wang, H., et al. Symbiotic bacterial metabolites regulate gastrointestinal barrier function via the xenobiotic sensor PXR and Toll-like receptor 4. Immunity 41, 296-310 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. 180.
    Chng, S.H., Kundu, P., Dominguez-Brauer, C., et al. Ablating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) in CD11c+ cells perturbs intestinal epithelium development and intestinal immunity. Sci Rep 6, 23820 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  181. 181.
    Nguyen, N.T., Kimura, A., Nakahama, T., et al. Aryl hydrocarbon receptor negatively regulates dendritic cell immunogenicity via a kynurenine-dependent mechanism. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107, 19961-19966 (2010).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  182. 182.
    Harden, J.L. & Egilmez, N.K. Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase and dendritic cell tolerogenicity. Immunol Invest 41, 738-764 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  183. 183.
    Zelante, T., Iannitti, R.G., Cunha, C., et al. Tryptophan catabolites from microbiota engage aryl hydrocarbon receptor and balance mucosal reactivity via interleukin-22. Immunity 39, 372-385 (2013).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. 184.
    Moroni, F. Tryptophan metabolism and brain function: focus on kynurenine and other indole metabolites. Eur J Pharmacol 375, 87-100 (1999).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  185. 185.
    Lamas, B., Richard, M.L., Leducq, V., et al. CARD9 impacts colitis by altering gut microbiota metabolism of tryptophan into aryl hydrocarbon receptor ligands. Nat Med 22, 598-605 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 186.
    Stanisavljevic, S., Lukic, J., Sokovic, S., et al. Correlation of Gut Microbiota Composition with Resistance to Experimental Autoimmune Encephalomyelitis in Rats. Front Microbiol 7, 2005 (2016).Google Scholar
  187. 187.
    Lavasani, S., Dzhambazov, B., Nouri, M., et al. A novel probiotic mixture exerts a therapeutic effect on experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis mediated by IL-10 producing regulatory T cells. PloS one 5, e9009 (2010).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  188. 188.
    Kadowaki, A., Miyake, S., Saga, R., et al. Gut environment-induced intraepithelial autoreactive CD4(+) T cells suppress central nervous system autoimmunity via LAG-3. Nat Commun 7, 11639 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  189. 189.
    Rothhammer, V., Mascanfroni, I.D., Bunse, L., et al. Type I interferons and microbial metabolites of tryptophan modulate astrocyte activity and central nervous system inflammation via the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Nat Med 22, 586-597 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  190. 190.
    Zeisel, S.H. & da Costa, K.A. Choline: an essential nutrient for public health. Nutr Rev 67, 615-623 (2009).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. 191.
    Tremaroli, V. & Backhed, F. Functional interactions between the gut microbiota and host metabolism. Nature 489, 242-249 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 192.
    Mokry, L.E., Ross, S., Timpson, N.J., et al. Obesity and Multiple Sclerosis: A Mendelian Randomization Study. PLoS Med 13, e1002053 (2016).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  193. 193.
    Ley, R.E., Turnbaugh, P.J., Klein, S. & Gordon, J.I. Microbial ecology: human gut microbes associated with obesity. Nature 444, 1022-1023 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  194. 194.
    de Heredia, F.P., Gomez-Martinez, S. & Marcos, A. Obesity, inflammation and the immune system. Proc Nutr Soc 71, 332-338 (2012).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  195. 195.
    Wang, Z., Tang, W.H., Buffa, J.A., et al. Prognostic value of choline and betaine depends on intestinal microbiota-generated metabolite trimethylamine-N-oxide. Eur Heart J 35, 904-910 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  196. 196.
    Zhang, C., Yin, A., Li, H., et al. Dietary Modulation of Gut Microbiota Contributes to Alleviation of Both Genetic and Simple Obesity in Children. EBioMedicine 2, 968-984 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  197. 197.
    Wang, Z., Klipfell, E., Bennett, B.J., et al. Gut flora metabolism of phosphatidylcholine promotes cardiovascular disease. Nature 472, 57-63 (2011).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  198. 198.
    Gregory, J.C., Buffa, J.A., Org, E., et al. Transmission of atherosclerosis susceptibility with gut microbial transplantation. J Biol Chem 290, 5647-5660 (2015).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  199. 199.
    Zhu, Y., Jameson, E., Crosatti, M., et al. Carnitine metabolism to trimethylamine by an unusual Rieske-type oxygenase from human microbiota. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 111, 4268-4273 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  200. 200.
    Derrien, M., van Passel, M.W., van de Bovenkamp, J.H., et al. Mucin-bacterial interactions in the human oral cavity and digestive tract. Gut Microbes 1, 254-268 (2010).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. 201.
    Dharmani, P., Srivastava, V., Kissoon-Singh, V. & Chadee, K. Role of intestinal mucins in innate host defense mechanisms against pathogens. J Innate Immun 1, 123-135 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. 202.
    McGuckin, M.A., Linden, S.K., Sutton, P. & Florin, T.H. Mucin dynamics and enteric pathogens. Nat Rev Microbiol 9, 265-278 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. 203.
    Pelaseyed, T., Bergstrom, J.H., Gustafsson, J.K., et al. The mucus and mucins of the goblet cells and enterocytes provide the first defense line of the gastrointestinal tract and interact with the immune system. Immunol Rev 260, 8-20 (2014).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. 204.
    McDole, J.R., Wheeler, L.W., McDonald, K.G., et al. Goblet cells deliver luminal antigen to CD103+ dendritic cells in the small intestine. Nature 483, 345-349 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. 205.
    Ganesh, B.P., Klopfleisch, R., Loh, G. & Blaut, M. Commensal Akkermansia muciniphila exacerbates gut inflammation in Salmonella Typhimurium-infected gnotobiotic mice. PLoS One 8, e74963 (2013).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. 206.
    Png, C.W., Linden, S.K., Gilshenan, K.S., et al. Mucolytic bacteria with increased prevalence in IBD mucosa augment in vitro utilization of mucin by other bacteria. Am J Gastroenterol 105, 2420-2428 (2010).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  207. 207.
    Tailford, L.E., Crost, E.H., Kavanaugh, D. & Juge, N. Mucin glycan foraging in the human gut microbiome. Front Genet 6, 81 (2015).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  208. 208.
    He, F., Morita, H., Hashimoto, H., et al. Intestinal Bifidobacterium species induce varying cytokine production. J Allergy Clin Immunol 109, 1035-1036 (2002).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  209. 209.
    Rajilic-Stojanovic, M., Biagi, E., Heilig, H.G., et al. Global and deep molecular analysis of microbiota signatures in fecal samples from patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 141, 1792-1801 (2011).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  210. 210.
    Schirmer, M., Smeekens, S.P., Vlamakis, H., et al. Linking the Human Gut Microbiome to Inflammatory Cytokine Production Capacity. Cell 167, 1897 (2016).Google Scholar
  211. 211.
    Cusick, M.F., Libbey, J.E. & Fujinami, R.S. Molecular mimicry as a mechanism of autoimmune disease. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol 42, 102-111 (2012).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  212. 212.
    Westall, F.C. Molecular mimicry revisited: gut bacteria and multiple sclerosis. J Clin Microbiol 44, 2099-2104 (2006).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  213. 213.
    Wucherpfennig, K.W. & Strominger, J.L. Molecular mimicry in T cell-mediated autoimmunity: viral peptides activate human T cell clones specific for myelin basic protein. Cell 80, 695-705 (1995).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  214. 214.
    Harkiolaki, M., Holmes, S.L., Svendsen, P., et al. T cell-mediated autoimmune disease due to low-affinity crossreactivity to common microbial peptides. Immunity 30, 348-357 (2009).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  215. 215.
    Guadamuro, L., Dohrmann, A.B., Tebbe, C.C., Mayo, B. & Delgado, S. Bacterial communities and metabolic activity of faecal cultures from equol producer and non-producer menopausal women under treatment with soy isoflavones. BMC Microbiol 17, 93 (2017).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in ImmunologyUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.Department of PathologyCarver College of Medicine, University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations