David N O'Dwyer1, Stavros Garantziotis2. 1. University of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor, Michigan and. 2. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Bethesda, Maryland.
The microbiome regulates human health and immunity, contributing
robustly to physiological homeostasis. The healthy lung is not sterile and consists of
bacterial communities that exist in a relatively low biomass state and correlate with
local immunity (1, 2). In the diseased lung, there is a growing recognition of the
potential mechanistic role of alterations or “dysbiosis” of lung
microbiota (3). In particular, the lung
microbiome has been implicated in the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis
(IPF).Studies in patients with IPF demonstrate that an increased burden of lung microbiota, as
well as specific taxa such as Streptococcus and
Staphylococcus, is associated with an elevated risk of disease
progression and/or mortality (4–6). Lung microbiota are associated with innate
immune activation signatures in peripheral blood (7), and increased α diversity of lung microbiota correlates with lower
alveolar inflammation (4). In animal models,
lung dysbiosis precedes fibrosis and eradication of the microbiome significantly
ameliorates fibrosis, suggesting a causal role for the lung microbiome, possibly through
the activation of immune pathways (4, 8). Recently, Invernizzi and colleagues reported
an absence of correlations between key radiological markers and physiological features
of IPF and lung bacterial burden, demonstrating that the increased bacterial burden
reported in IPF is not simply the direct result of architectural distortion and
parenchymal destruction (9). This addressed a
key question in the field. However, it remains unknown whether these observations in IPF
are universal to all interstitial lung disease (ILD).Chronic hypersensitivity pneumonitis (CHP) is an enigmatic clinical syndrome and common
form of ILD that frequently proves fatal. Both CHP and IPF share fibrotic remodeling of
the lung parenchyma, may be indistinguishable by radiographic studies/histopathology,
and respond to therapy directed at progressive fibrosis, supporting shared mechanistic
pathways (10). Yet, patients with IPF
fundamentally differ in prognosis (poorer in IPF, better in CHP), the presence of
environmental antigen exposures (generally absent in IPF), and response to
immunosuppression (detrimental in IPF, often beneficial in CHP), suggesting important
differences between these diseases that are poorly understood.In this issue of the Journal, Invernizzi and colleagues (pp. 339–347) report their findings on CHP and the lung microbiome in
an elegant study (11). The authors compared key
features of the healthy lung microbiome, the CHP microbiome, and the IPF lung
microbiome. Patients with CHP exhibited a significantly lower lung bacterial burden
compared with patients with IPF, although they still had greater lung bacterial burden
compared with healthy subjects. However, bacterial burden was not associated with
mortality in patients with CHP, unlike IPF, which is a fundamental new clinical
observation. Furthermore, there were distinct differences in lung microbial composition
between CHP and IPF. The lung microbiota of patients with IPF showed a greater abundance
of Firmicutes and lower abundance of Proteobacteria
compared with CHP. Interestingly, Staphylococcus, at the genus level,
was more abundant in patients with CHP compared with IPF. However, the abundance of
Staphylococcus was not associated with clinical outcomes in the CHP
cohort, again unlike IPF. Overall, this paper supports the hypothesis that IPF
pathogenesis is uniquely impacted by the microbiome and that the increased bacterial
burden reported in IPF does not simply reflect the extent of underlying tissue
fibrosis.The paper by Invernizzi and colleagues has some noteworthy limitations. The study was
performed as a single-center observational study and is limited in patient numbers.
There are considerable differences in patient cohorts, with significant differences in
age, sex, and disease severity at baseline. Although fibrosis is a commonality in CHP
and IPF, the usual interstitial pneumonia pattern on radiographic studies predominated
in IPF. There may be notable differences in community composition based on topography of
the respiratory tract because previous studies have noted changes in bacterial
communities based on the presence or absence of honeycombing in IPF (12). Furthermore, we lack an accurate
understanding of the temporal changes that may occur in respiratory tract dysbiosis or
the impact of immunosuppressive or antifibrotic therapy on the lung microbiome. The
current study design with a single-time-point BAL cannot cater for this and important
differences may be missed as a result. Because cellular and humoral immunological
responses vary considerably between IPF and CHP, a more detailed analysis of
immunological phenotype in the studied cohorts would have been revealing.Nevertheless, this work exposes exciting new horizons. Recent reviews have highlighted
the probable bidirectionality of host–microbiome interactions: an initial injury
leads to dysbiosis, which in turn perpetuates injury (13). Perhaps patients with IPF may be uniquely susceptible to injury
mediated by dysbiosis. In turn, lung bacterial communities in IPF may also be uniquely
vulnerable to the impact of local physiological disturbances. It is remarkable that many
IPF genetic risk factors involve innate immunity or host defense genes (14). In Invernizzi and colleagues’ report,
CHP mortality was <25% over 4 years as opposed to approximately 50% for IPF (11). Perhaps microbiome perturbations are not
sufficient to impact CHP outcomes, but in IPF they suffice to perturb a fragile
homeostasis enough to lead to morbidity and mortality. In this case, respiratory tract
dysbiosis in IPF serves as a second hit/insult, which leads to decompensation.Although these diseases share some common features, we must recognize that neither CHP
nor IPF are monolithic disease entities but are likely to consist of several sub- or
endotypes. For example, genetic risk factors that are associated with IPF have also been
identified in CHP (15), and certain patients
with CHP exhibit the radiological features and adverse outcomes of IPF (16). This suggests that subgroups of CHP may
share pathomechanisms, prognosis, and perhaps lung dysbiosis characteristics with
subgroups of IPF, and as such, future work may require more detailed clinical,
immunological, and microbiological endotyping.In conclusion, this paper reports a fundamental observation for the field of lung
microbiome science and ILD. An increased bacterial burden in the respiratory tract of
patients with CHP is not associated with mortality, whereas in patients with IPF, the
increased bacterial burden elevates the risk of death. For patients with IPF, this
increased bacterial load is indeed a heavy burden to bear. An improved understanding of
this key observation will require further mechanistic work and carefully designed
longitudinally observational studies. This future research will further advance us
toward better treatments and, hopefully, a cure for these devastating diseases.
Authors: MeiLan K Han; Yueren Zhou; Susan Murray; Nabihah Tayob; Imre Noth; Vibha N Lama; Bethany B Moore; Eric S White; Kevin R Flaherty; Gary B Huffnagle; Fernando J Martinez Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2014-04-21 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Robert P Dickson; Gary B Huffnagle; Kevin R Flaherty; Eric S White; Fernando J Martinez; John R Erb-Downward; Bethany B Moore; David N O'Dwyer Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-12-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Sharon M Carney; Jose C Clemente; Michael J Cox; Robert P Dickson; Yvonne J Huang; Georgios D Kitsios; Kirsten M Kloepfer; Janice M Leung; Tricia D LeVan; Philip L Molyneaux; Bethany B Moore; David N O'Dwyer; Leopoldo N Segal; Stavros Garantziotis Journal: Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 6.914
Authors: Robert P Dickson; John R Erb-Downward; Nicole R Falkowski; Ellen M Hunter; Shanna L Ashley; Gary B Huffnagle Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-08-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: David N O'Dwyer; Shanna L Ashley; Stephen J Gurczynski; Meng Xia; Carol Wilke; Nicole R Falkowski; Katy C Norman; Kelly B Arnold; Gary B Huffnagle; Margaret L Salisbury; MeiLan K Han; Kevin R Flaherty; Eric S White; Fernando J Martinez; John R Erb-Downward; Susan Murray; Bethany B Moore; Robert P Dickson Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Margaret L Salisbury; Tian Gu; Susan Murray; Barry H Gross; Aamer Chughtai; Mohamed Sayyouh; Ella A Kazerooni; Jeffrey L Myers; Amir Lagstein; Kristine E Konopka; Elizabeth A Belloli; Jamie S Sheth; Eric S White; Colin Holtze; Fernando J Martinez; Kevin R Flaherty Journal: Chest Date: 2018-09-19 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Philip L Molyneaux; Saffron A G Willis-Owen; Michael J Cox; Phillip James; Steven Cowman; Michael Loebinger; Andrew Blanchard; Lindsay M Edwards; Carmel Stock; Cécile Daccord; Elisabetta A Renzoni; Athol U Wells; Miriam F Moffatt; William O C Cookson; Toby M Maher Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2017-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Rachele Invernizzi; Benjamin G Wu; Joseph Barnett; Poonam Ghai; Shaun Kingston; Richard J Hewitt; Johanna Feary; Yonghua Li; Felix Chua; Zhe Wu; Athol U Wells; Peter M George; Elisabetta A Renzoni; Andrew G Nicholson; Alexandra Rice; Anand Devaraj; Leopoldo N Segal; Adam J Byrne; Toby M Maher; Clare M Lloyd; Philip L Molyneaux Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2021-02-01 Impact factor: 21.405