| Literature DB >> 23574632 |
Abstract
While practised for over thousand years, there is presently a renaissance in the interest of using of faecal transplantations to modify the intestinal microbiota of patients. This clinical practice consists of delivering large amounts of bowel microbes in various forms into the intestinal tract of the recipient that usually has been cleared previously. The major reason for the popularity of faecal transplantations is their effectiveness in treating a variety of diseases. Hence, there is a need to develop this procedure to the next level. While there are various developments to select, standardize and store the donor microbiota, it is more challenging to understand the intestinal microbial communities and develop ways to deliver these via robust biotechnological processes. The various approaches that have been followed to do so are discussed in this contribution that is also addressing the concept of the minimal microbiome as well as the production of the synthetic communities that can be instrumental in new therapeutic avenues to modify the intestinal microbiota.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23574632 PMCID: PMC3917466 DOI: 10.1111/1751-7915.12047
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Biotechnol ISSN: 1751-7915 Impact factor: 5.813
Figure 1Faecal composition. The distribution of dry weight constituents (left; solubles represent the soluble material) (Stephen and Cummins, 1980) and the differentiation of the microbiota into viable, dead and damaged cells (Ben-Amor et al., 2005).
Diseases treated by faecal transplantation
| Disease | N | Delivery | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 70 | C | Mattila | |
| 16 | D | van Nood | |
| Insulin resistance (MetS) | 9 | D | Vrieze |
| Ulcerative colitis | 6 | C | Borody |
| Irritable bowel syndrome | 30 | C | Andrews |
| Chronic fatigue syndrome | 60 | C | Borody |
| Multiple sclerosis | 4 | C | Borody |
| Metabolic acidosis | 1 | O | Schoorel |
| Recolonization after AD | 6 | O | van der Waaij |
The number (N) of described cases is indicated as are the different modes of delivery (D, duodenal; C, colonic or caecal; O, Oral). Studies with the largest number of patients reported are listed. AD, antibiotic decontamination.
Lessons learned from transplantations
| Patient | Number | Major change | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| CDI | 1 | Increased diversity | Khoruts |
| Increase in | |||
| CDI | 6 | Increased diversity – not all successful | Shahinas |
| Increase in | |||
| Decrease in | |||
| CDI | 3 | Increased diversity – like donor in 2/3 | Hamilton |
| Increase in | |||
| Decrease in | |||
| CDI | 9 | Increased diversity – like donors in 9/9 | van Nood |
| Increase in | |||
| Decrease in | |||
| MetS | 8 | Slightly increased diversity | Vrieze |
| Increase in some butyrate producers |
Undefined cultures and defined consortia used in microbiota transplantations
| Host | Number | Composition | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Germ-free children | 2 | Two | Dietrich and Fliedner ( |
| C-section babies | 6 | Human donor microbiota maintained in germ-free mice | Raibaud |
| AD patients | 5 | Human donor microbiota maintained in germ-free mice | van der Waaij |
| CDI patients | 32 | Human donor microbiota subcultured for 10 years | Jorup-Rönström |
| CDI mice | 20 | Lawley | |
| CDI patients | 6 | Tvede and Rask-Madsen ( | |
| CDI patients | 2 | Petrof |
AD, antibiotic decontamination. E., Enterococcus; C., Clostridium; B., Bacteroides; E., Escherichia; P., Propionibacterium; A., Anaerostipes; Bif., Bifidobacterium; Col., Colinsella; Eub., Eubacterium; F. Faecalibacterium; Lach., Lachnospira; Par., Parabacteroides; R., Roseburia; Rum., Ruminococcus; S., Streptococcus; L., Lactobacillus. The species indicated in bold are the main constituents of the mixtures.