| Literature DB >> 27982124 |
Alain P Gobert1,2,3, Giulia Sagrestani1, Eve Delmas1, Keith T Wilson2,3,4,5,6, Thomas G Verriere2, Michel Dapoigny7, Christophe Del'homme1, Annick Bernalier-Donadille1.
Abstract
The intestinal microbiota of <span class="Species">patients with <span class="Disease">constipated-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (C-IBS) displays chronic dysbiosis. Our aim was to determine whether this microbial imbalance instigates perturbation of the host intestinal mucosal immune response, using a model of human microbiota-associated rats (HMAR) and dextran sulfate sodium (DSS)-induced experimental colitis. The analysis of the microbiota composition revealed a decrease of the relative abundance of Bacteroides, Roseburia-Eubacterium rectale and Bifidobacterium and an increase of Enterobacteriaceae, Desulfovibrio sp., and mainly Akkermansia muciniphila in C-IBS patients compared to healthy individuals. The bacterial diversity of the gut microbiota of healthy individuals or C-IBS patients was maintained in corresponding HMAR. Animals harboring a C-IBS microbiota had reduced DSS colitis with a decreased expression of pro-inflammatory cytokines from innate, Th1, and Th17 responses. The pre-treatment of conventional C57BL/6 mice or HMAR with A. muciniphila, but not with Escherichia coli, prior exposure to DSS also resulted in a reduction of colitis severity, highlighting that the anti-inflammatory effect of the gut microbiota of C-IBS patients is mediated, in part, by A. muciniphila. This work highlights a novel aspect of the crosstalk between the gut microbiota of C-IBS patients and host intestinal homeostasis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27982124 PMCID: PMC5159846 DOI: 10.1038/srep39399
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Comparison of bacterial composition and diversity in fecal samples from human and HMAR.
Relative 16S rDNA gene abundances of the major phyla (A) and genera (B) detected in human and HMAR fecal samples. These figures represent the data obtained with the fecal microbiota of one healthy individual and one C-IBS patient, and of the corresponding H-MAR and C-IBS HMAR; similar data have been obtained with the two others healthy individuals and C-IBS patients. In (A), there was no significant differences between the composition of the microbiota of the human subjects and HMAR: Healthy microbiota, p = 0.54; C-IBS microbiota, p = 0.35. (C) Quantification of the major gut bacterial populations or species in healthy (open bars) or C-IBS microbiota (plain bars). The figure depicts the quantitative PCR data obtained with the fecal samples of HMAR derived from one healthy individual and one C-IBS patient; n = 5 rats for healthy microbiota and n = 5 rats for C-IBS microbiota. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001, denote significant difference vs. N-HMAR.
Figure 2Effect of healthy and C-IBS microbiota on colonic inflammation.
N-HMAR and C-IBS-HMAR were given water or 4% DSS in their drinking water for 7 days. (A) Body weights of the rats were measured before DSS treatment and at the end of the experiment, and are presented as percentage of initial body weight. (B) Colon weights and lengths were measured and the ratio is presented for each animal. (C and D) Colons were fixed and stained with hematoxylin-eosin-saffron; representative photomicrographs of N-HMA and C-IBS-HMA rat colons treated or not with DSS are shown (C); these tissues were scored for total histological injury (D). For A, B, and D, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs. N-HMA or C-IBS-HMA without DSS; §§§P < 0.001 vs. N-HMAR treated with DSS. The data depict experiments performed with the gut microbiota of three different control or C-IBS patients inoculated to 3–5 rats; each symbol represents one animal and each color depicts the microbiota of one individual. (E and F) Representative staining of colons for mastocytes (dark violet; E); the mean of the number of mastocytes observed in three fields (X400) for each tissue is presented in F. The data obtained with the microbiota of one healthy individual and one C-IBS subject is shown.
Figure 3Effect of normal and C-IBS fecal microbiota on cytokine levels.
Expression level of the genes encoding IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-17, IL-1β, IL-22, and IL-6 in the colons of N-HMAR or C-IBS-HMAR, treated or not with DSS. **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs. untreated rats; §P < 0.05, §§P < 0.01, §§§P < 0.001 compared to N-HMAR receiving DSS. These data represent experiments performed with the gut microbiota of three different control or C-IBS patients inoculated to 3–5 rats. Each symbol represents one animal and each color depicts the microbiota of one individual.
Figure 4Colitis in mice pre-treated with A. muciniphila or E.coli.
(A) C57BL/6 mice were given daily PBS, A. muciniphila (Am), or E.coli EcG2 (5 × 108/mice in 100 μl for both bacteria) for 15 days. The number of total bacteria, A. muciniphila and E. coli in the feces was determined by qPCR before (open bars) or after the treatment (plain bars). **P < 0.01 compared to the same group before treatment with bacteria; n = 3 mice per group. (B) Mice pre-treated with A. muciniphila (open squares), E.coli EcG2 (open triangles), or with vehicle (plain circles) were given 4% DSS and were monitored daily. **P < 0.01 vs mice + A. muciniphila; n = 5 mice not treated with DSS and 10 mice per group for the DSS-treated mice. The DAI of animals pre-treated or not with A. muciniphila or E. coli but not receiving DSS was 0–1. (C–E) After 7 days of DSS, mice were euthanatized and colon weight-to-length ratios (C) and histological parameters (D and E) were analyzed. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs. Ctrl; §P < 0.05, §§P < 0.01 vs. animals receiving DSS only or pre-treated with EcG2; n = 5 mice not treated with DSS and 10 mice per group for the DSS-treated mice.
Figure 5Expression of the genes encoding pro-inflammatory effectors in mice.
Animals were given A. muciniphila (Am), E. coli EcG2, or the vehicle (PBS) for 15 days, and then they were treated (plain bars) or not (open bars) with DSS. The expression of the genes encoding IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-17, IL-1β, and NOS2 in the colons were analyzed by RT-qPCR. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001 vs. not treated with DSS; §P < 0.05, §§P < 0.01, §§§P < 0.001 compared to animals pre-treated with A. muciniphila and receiving DSS; n = 10 mice per group.
Figure 6Effect of A. muciniphila on colitis in HMAR (A) N-HMAR were treated daily for 15 days with 5 × 109 A. muciniphila (Am) or with PBS; quantification of total bacteria and A. muciniphila was performed by qPCR before (open bars) or after the treatment (plain bars). **P < 0.01 compared to the same group before treatment with A. muciniphila; n = 5 N-HMAR in each group. (B) N-HMAR inoculated or not with A. muciniphila were then exposed to water or to 4% DSS for 7 days and euthanatized. Colons were harvested and stained; representative photomicrographs of each group of animals are shown. (C) Colons were scored for total histological injury. **P < 0.01 vs. N-HMAR without DSS; §P < 0.05 vs. animals treated with DSS; n = 5 N-HMAR in each group.