Judith Aron-Wisnewsky1,2,3, Karine Clément4,5, Max Nieuwdorp6. 1. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Nutrition and Obesities: Systemic Approaches (NutriOMics) Research Unit, Paris, France. judith.aron-wisnewsky@psl.aphp.fr. 2. Assistante Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Nutrition Department, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, 75013, Paris, France. judith.aron-wisnewsky@psl.aphp.fr. 3. Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC and VUMC, Department of Internal and Vascular Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. judith.aron-wisnewsky@psl.aphp.fr. 4. Sorbonne Université, INSERM, Nutrition and Obesities: Systemic Approaches (NutriOMics) Research Unit, Paris, France. 5. Assistante Publique Hôpitaux de Paris, Nutrition Department, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, 75013, Paris, France. 6. Amsterdam UMC, Location AMC and VUMC, Department of Internal and Vascular Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to summarize the current data available on the metabolic effects of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) including obesity and glucose metabolism in humans. RECENT FINDINGS: Gut microbiota dysbiosis is a frequent characteristic observed in obesity and related metabolic diseases. Pieces of evidence mostly generated in mouse models suggest that rescuing this dysbiosis associates with improved metabolism. In humans, dietary or bariatric surgery interventions are often accompanied by complete or partial restoration of this dysbiosis together with weight reduction and metabolic amelioration. FMT is an interesting option to modify gut microbiota and has been associated with improved clinical outcomes, albeit only used in routine care for Clostridium difficile infection. However, there are only limited data on using FMT in the metabolic context. FMT from lean donors significantly improves insulin sensitivity in obese subjects with metabolic syndrome. However, there is a wide range of clinical responses. Interestingly in subjects with high microbial gene richness at baseline and when FMT donors that are metabolically compromised are used, no metabolic improvement is seen. Moreover, more studies evaluating the effect of FMT in patients with overt type 2 diabetes are warranted. Furthermore, interventions (in the receiver prior to FMT) aiming to enhance FMT response also need evaluation.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to summarize the current data available on the metabolic effects of fecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) including obesity and glucose metabolism in humans. RECENT FINDINGS: Gut microbiota dysbiosis is a frequent characteristic observed in obesity and related metabolic diseases. Pieces of evidence mostly generated in mouse models suggest that rescuing this dysbiosis associates with improved metabolism. In humans, dietary or bariatric surgery interventions are often accompanied by complete or partial restoration of this dysbiosis together with weight reduction and metabolic amelioration. FMT is an interesting option to modify gut microbiota and has been associated with improved clinical outcomes, albeit only used in routine care for Clostridium difficileinfection. However, there are only limited data on using FMT in the metabolic context. FMT from lean donors significantly improves insulin sensitivity in obese subjects with metabolic syndrome. However, there is a wide range of clinical responses. Interestingly in subjects with high microbial gene richness at baseline and when FMT donors that are metabolically compromised are used, no metabolic improvement is seen. Moreover, more studies evaluating the effect of FMT in patients with overt type 2 diabetes are warranted. Furthermore, interventions (in the receiver prior to FMT) aiming to enhance FMT response also need evaluation.
Authors: Matthew J Hamilton; Alexa R Weingarden; Michael J Sadowsky; Alexander Khoruts Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-01-31 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Eero Mattila; Raija Uusitalo-Seppälä; Maarit Wuorela; Laura Lehtola; Heimo Nurmi; Matti Ristikankare; Veikko Moilanen; Kimmo Salminen; Maaria Seppälä; Petri S Mattila; Veli-Jukka Anttila; Perttu Arkkila Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Fredrik Bäckhed; Hao Ding; Ting Wang; Lora V Hooper; Gou Young Koh; Andras Nagy; Clay F Semenkovich; Jeffrey I Gordon Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-10-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Gary D Wu; Jun Chen; Christian Hoffmann; Kyle Bittinger; Ying-Yu Chen; Sue A Keilbaugh; Meenakshi Bewtra; Dan Knights; William A Walters; Rob Knight; Rohini Sinha; Erin Gilroy; Kernika Gupta; Robert Baldassano; Lisa Nessel; Hongzhe Li; Frederic D Bushman; James D Lewis Journal: Science Date: 2011-09-01 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: P D Cani; S Possemiers; T Van de Wiele; Y Guiot; A Everard; O Rottier; L Geurts; D Naslain; A Neyrinck; D M Lambert; G G Muccioli; N M Delzenne Journal: Gut Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Mèlanie V Bénard; Clara M A de Bruijn; Aline C Fenneman; Koen Wortelboer; Judith Zeevenhoven; Bente Rethans; Hilde J Herrema; Tom van Gool; Max Nieuwdorp; Marc A Benninga; Cyriel Y Ponsioen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Valentin Mocanu; Zhengxiao Zhang; Edward C Deehan; Dina H Kao; Naomi Hotte; Shahzeer Karmali; Daniel W Birch; Kalutota K Samarasinghe; Jens Walter; Karen L Madsen Journal: Nat Med Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 53.440