| Literature DB >> 27854317 |
Luis Vitetta1,2, Emma Tali Saltzman3,4, Tessa Nikov5, Isabelle Ibrahim6, Sean Hall7.
Abstract
The interactions of micro-organisms cohabitating with Homo sapiens spans millennia, with microbial communities living in a symbiotic relationship with the host. Interacting to regulate and maintain physiological functions and immunological tolerance, the microbial community is able to exert an influence on host health. An example of micro-organisms contributing to an intestinal disease state is exhibited by a biodiverse range of protozoan and bacterial species that damage the intestinal epithelia and are therefore implicated in the symptoms of diarrhea. As a contentious exemplar, Blastocystis hominis is a ubiquitous enteric protist that can adversely affect the intestines. The symptoms experienced are a consequence of the responses of the innate immune system triggered by the disruption of the intestinal barrier. The infiltration of the intestinal epithelial barrier involves a host of immune receptors, including toll like receptors and IgM/IgG/IgA antibodies as well as CD8+ T cells, macrophages, and neutrophils. Whilst the mechanisms of interactions between the intestinal microbiome and protozoan parasites remain incompletely understood, it is acknowledged that the intestinal microbiota is a key factor in the pathophysiology of parasitic infections. Modulating the intestinal environment through the administration of probiotics has been postulated as a possible therapeutic agent to control the proliferation of intestinal microbes through their capacity to induce competition for occupation of a common biotype. The ultimate goal of this mechanism is to prevent infections of the like of giardiasis and eliminate its symptoms. The differing types of probiotics (i.e., bacteria and yeast) modulate immunity by stimulating the host immune system. Early animal studies support the potential benefits of probiotic administration to prevent intestinal infections, with human clinical studies showing probiotics can reduce the number of parasites and the severity of symptoms. The early clinical indications endorse probiotics as adjuncts in the pharmaceutical treatment of protozoan infections. Currently, the bar is set low for the conduct of well-designed clinical studies that will translate the use of probiotics to ameliorate protozoan infections, therefore the requisite is for further clinical research.Entities:
Keywords: blastocystosis; giardiasis; intestinal dysbiosis; probiotics; protozoans
Year: 2016 PMID: 27854317 PMCID: PMC5126799 DOI: 10.3390/jcm5110102
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.241
Laboratory animal studies on the administration of probiotics to eradicate protist infections.
| Reference | Year | Study | Methods | Results | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 2008 | Effect of | Group I = single dose of TYI- IIIa: IIIb: isolated strain A (containing lactobacilli) qid. for 30 days IV a: single dose of IV b: single dose of Va: single dose of Vb: single dose of isolated strain A qid. for seven days then a single infective dose of | Probiotic-fed mice had less atrophied villi and infiltrating cells in the small intestine Ultrastructural studies with scanning electron microscopy confirmed protection of mice receiving | Probiotics, particularly |
| [ | 1997 | Effect of | C57BL/6 immunosuppressed female mice with LP-BM5 leukemia virus Four months after inoculation, mice developed susceptibility to Daily prefeeding with Both groups fed | Supplemented mice cleared parasite loads from the gut epithelium. Control mice developed persistent cryptosporidiosis,shed high levels of oocysts in faeces and increased colonization of the intestinal tract | |
| [ | 1999 | Supplementation with | C57BL/6 immunosuppressed female mice with LP-BM5 leukemia virus and randomly assigned to one of five groups Group A: historical control Group B: LP-BM5 control Group C: Group D: Group E: | Mice supplemented with Mice supplemented with Lactobacillus supplementation reduced |
Clinical studies on the administration of probiotics or pharmaceuticals to eradicate protist infections.
| Reference | Year | Study | Symptoms | Treatment | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [ | 2006 | Enrolled participants showed presence of | 10 days Group 1: Metronidazole 750 mg tid. 250 mg Group 2: Metronidazole 750mg tid. Placebo bid. | End of week 2, 100% of Group 1 had clearance of microscopic findings 82.8% of Group 2 had clearance of microscopic findings | |
| [ | 2011 | Efficacy of | Gastrointestinal symptoms: abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea-vomiting, flatulence Positive stool examination for | Group A Group B: metronidazole 30 mg/kg bid. Group C: no treatment | On day 15 clinical cure observed at: 77.7% in Group A 66.66% in Group B 40% in Group C 80% in Group B 72.2% in Group A 26.6% in Group C |
| [ | 2009 | Efficacy of | Acute bloody diarrhea Presence of | Metronidazole given to both groups Intervention group: 250 mg of | Duration of bloody diarrhea was significantly longer in control group |
| [ | 2004 | Resolution of | Four-month episode of abdominal pain, flatulence, nausea and lethargy. Stool sample revealed Asymptomatic on a gluten-free diet. | Patient received | Within 10 days, nausea and diarrhea completely resolved and abdominal pain was substantially reduced. Repeat stool sample four weeks following the start of probiotic treatment was clear of |
| [ | 2003 | Efficacy | Patients with acute intestinal amoebiasis with clinical manifestations of acute mucus bloody diarrhea, and amebic trophoxoites engulfing RBCs found in stool specimens | Group 1: Metronidazole 750 mg tid + Iodoquinol 630 mg tid for 10 days | At Week 4, amebic cysts were detected in five cases of Group 1, but none in Group 2. Duration of symptoms was significantly less in Group 2 compared to Group 1. |
Figure 1Schematic presentation of commensal, pathobiont, probiotic bacteria, and yeast interactions in the intestines with the production of antimicrobial compounds. Adapted from [47,48,49].